>>3228642

In simply terms, Marten was able to peg the situation just from Fords opening statement.

Fords story was intentionally vague.

So vague that she feels that no one would be able to pin her statements to anything.

Surprise, not one but two individuals come forward, supposedly to state they committed the assault.

Marten had to gain the trust of Ford & her lawyers, allowing them to drop their guard, which enable Ford to give contradictory statements.

Some examples:

6.2 mile Radius To Party

No One Saw Her Escape House

Does Not Know How She Got To The House Or How She Left

20 Minute Drive Parents To Country Club

Contradictory Statements re: Music/Talking

Was unable to describe the bathroom, the room, in fact no aspect of the house save for the stairs.

First she stated that she could hear them talking going down the stairs, then it changed to she heard voices from downstairs but could not understand what was said.

6 Weeks After Incident She Spoke To Mark Judge.

Cannot Recall If She Gave Therapy Notes (Less than 2 Months Ago)

How did the reporters have this info ?

4 boys (typed letter to Feinstein)

4 boys in the room" (therapist)

3 boys & a girl" (WaPo)

4 boys & a couple of girls" (letter)

5 boys, one I didn't know" (today)

She did not need to ask a lot of questions only the ones that count.

Everyone must recall Graham's questions to Kavanaugh.

They are critical.

Graham: So when somebody says, post-9/11, that we’d been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?

Kavanaugh: I do, senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect. That was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later.

Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?

Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government?

Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes.

Graham: Isn’t there also a long settled law that goes back to the Eisentrager case (I can’t remember the name of it)….

Graham: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants?

Kavanaugh: Yes, Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld].