Starting to look like the details around Christine Ford’s accusations are a little muddy …
You’d think since Democrats sat on this story for two months they’d have their gameplan a tad bit more organized but then again, nobody ever accused them of thinking ahead.
For example, Erick Erickson noticed this interesting tidbit:
The Washington Post Story Contradicts Christine Ford's Lawyer https://t.co/XenXGNW6mS
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) September 17, 2018
Huh.
From the Maven.net:
It is worth noting that Christine Ford’s first mention of Brett Kavanaugh came after the New York Times ran a story suggesting he could be on the Supreme Court if Mitt Romney were elected.
They continued …
But beyond that, the story no longer adds up in real ways. Christine Ford’s lawyer claims Ms. Ford wanted anonymity and reached out to Dianne Feinstein privately. The Washington Post, however, reports that Ford first reached out to them via a tip line to tell her story.
Then, while still claiming to not want to come forward, Ford both lawyered up and got a polygraph.
She now claims she knew she would have to come forward because the media was working on stories and would expose her, but that comes full circle to her calling a tip line and outing herself.
Spin spin.
Recommended
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member