Let’s stop pretending the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh is credible

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The memo by Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who interviewed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, last Thursday on behalf of Senate Republicans is absolutely devastating for Senate Democrats.

In her analysis, Mitchell — who was once named as the Sexual Assault Prosecutor of the Year by Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, President Barack Obama's secretary of homeland security — not only argues that it's hard to tell whether Dr. Ford's allegations are true, she highlights major inconsistencies in her story that raise serious concerns.

RELATED: Does anyone think the Left will be satisfied with this FBI investigation?

Mitchell wrote, "Here is my bottom-line: A 'he-said, she-said' case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that." She added, "I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-evidence standard."

This means that in Mitchell's professional opinion as a 25-year veteran of sex crimes prosecutions, Dr. Ford's allegation that Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her while they were teenagers is so unbelievable that it fails to meet even the lowest thresholds to demonstrate culpability within our legal system because they just don't make sense. Indeed, the gaps and inconsistencies in Dr. Ford's testimony are shady, irreconcilable, and defy logic.

For instance, the most glaring issue is that Dr. Ford provided four different dates for when she was attacked within the span of a couple of weeks:

● According to the Washington Post, notes from Dr. Ford's 2013 therapy session, which she refused to turn over to Senate investigators, list the attacks as having occurred when she was in her "late teens."

● Dr. Ford was born in November 1966. Her "late teens" would be consistent with a July 6, 2018, text message to a Post reporter where she describes the alleged attack as happening in the mid-1980s.

● For reasons that remain unclear, three weeks later, in a July 30th letter to Senator Diane Feinstein, Dr. Ford then changed the date of the attack to the "early 1980s."

● One week later, Ford takes a polygraph test with her lawyers where she was asked before-hand to describe the events. In that statement, she first wrote that the alleged attack occurred in the early 1980s. But then something strange happens. As you can see, she scratched out "early 1980s" and left it as "1980s."

● Finally, by mid-September, in her first on-the-record interview, Ford narrowed the date of the attack to the "summer of 1982."

To recap: Presumably for decades, and certainly as of 2013 and early July, Ford claimed that her alleged attack happened in the mid-1980s when she was in her late teens. Then, after consulting with friends and lawyers, the date of the attack changed to 1982 until she homed in on the summer of that year.

Why is this important? If the attack happened when Ford was in her late teens (1984-1986), as her therapist's notes and correspondence with the Washington Post state, Brett Kavanaugh would have been 300 miles away from her as a full-time student at Yale University. Furthermore, as Ford herself noted in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she began college at age 17 in Chapel Hill, meaning she spent much of her "late teens" in North Carolina—far away from the Maryland suburbs where she claims Kavanaugh attacked her.

Unless the FBI finds groundbreaking evidence this week that supports her allegation, Dr. Ford's testimony should be considered as simply not credible.

There are additional contradictions in Ford's account that undermine her case, including several changes to the number of boys who attacked her and odd memory gaps. But her timeline discrepancies may be the most damaging since the first dates she provided could exonerate Brett Kavanaugh as her assailant by severely narrowing, or even eliminating, his window of opportunity to have committed the crime.

Brett Kavanaugh appears to have been the rare breed of student who could party and play sports without missing a beat in the classroom, but he certainly did not defy the laws of physics. Unless the FBI finds groundbreaking evidence this week that supports her allegation, Dr. Ford's testimony should be considered as simply not credible — and the Senate should proceed to ascend Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

We've heard a lot about critical race theory lately, and for good reason: It's a racist ideology designed to corrupt our children and undermine our American values. But most of what we see are the results of a process that has been underway for decades. And that's not something the mainstream media, the Democrat Party, and even teachers unions want you to know. They're doing everything in their power to try and convince you that it's no big deal. They want to sweep everything under the rug and keep you in the dark. To fight it, we need to understand what fuels it.

On his Wednesday night special this week, Glenn Beck exposes the deep-seated Marxist origins of CRT and debunks the claims that it's just a harmless term for a school of legal scholarship. Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer joins to argue why we must ban critical race theory from our schools if we want to save a very divided nation.

Watch the full "Glenn TV" episode below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.