• Home page of novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • About author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Books by novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Reviews of the writing of author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Blog of author William (Bill) S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Contact author William S. Frankl, M.D.
Title: Blog by Novelist William S. Frankl, MD

Archive for October, 2018

Tolkien/Lord of the Rings

Monday, October 15th, 2018

On July 19th in 1954 that the first part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy came out, The Fellowship of the Ring. It was the sequel to J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit, which was published in 1937 . Tolkien had written The Hobbit for his own amusement and didn’t expect it to sell well. It’s the story of Bilbo — a small, human-like creature with hairy feet — who goes on an adventure through Middle Earth and comes back with a magical ring.

J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote: “I am in fact a hobbit in all but size. I like gardens, trees, and unmechanized farmlands. I smoke a pipe, like good, plain food, detest French cooking […] I am fond of mushrooms, have a very simple sense of humor […] go to bed late and get up late (when possible). I do not travel much.”

The Hobbit sold pretty well, partly because C.S. Lewis gave it a big review when it came out. And so Tolkien’s publisher asked for a sequel. Tolkien decided the new book would be about Bilbo’s nephew Frodo, but for a long time he had no idea what sort of adventure. Finally, he decided it would be about the magical ring, though the ring had not been such an important part of The Hobbit.

Tolkien spent the next 17 years working on The Lord of the Rings. He was a professor at Oxford. He had to write in his spare time, usually at night, sitting by the stove in the study in his house.

He was well into his first draft by the time World War II broke out in 1939. He hadn’t set out to write an allegory, but once the war began, he started to draw parallels between the war and the events in his novel: the land of evil in The Lord of the Rings, Mordor, was set east of Middle Earth, just as the enemies of England were to the east.

The book became more and more complicated as he went along. It was taking much longer to finish than he’d planned. He went through long stretches where he didn’t write anything. He thought about giving up the whole thing. He wanted to make sure all the details were right, the geography, the language, the mythology of Middle Earth. He made elaborate charts to keep track of the events of the story. His son Christopher also drew a detailed map of Middle Earth.

Finally, in the fall of 1949, he finished writing The Lord of the Rings. He typed the final copy himself sitting on a bed in his attic, typewriter on his lap, tapping it out with two fingers. It turned out to be more than a half million words long, and the publisher agreed to bring it out in three volumes. The first came out on this day in 1954. The publisher printed just 3,500 copies, but it turned out to be incredibly popular. It went into a second printing in just six weeks. Today more than 150 million copies have been sold around the world. It is considered one of the best-selling books of all time.

 

The Disgraceful Attempt to Destroy Judge Kavanaugh cont.

Tuesday, October 9th, 2018

One Ford Narrative Too Many

by Victor Davis Hanson                    October 7, 2018

In the end, the Christine Blasey Ford accusations collapsed. With them went the last effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

After thousands of hours of internal Senate and FBI investigations of Kavanaugh, as well as public discussions, open questioning, and media sensationalism, Ford remained unable to identify a single witness who might substantiate any of her narratives of an alleged sexual assault of nearly four decades past.

 To substantiate her claim, the country was asked to jettison the idea of innocent until proven guilty, the need for corroborating testimony, witnesses, and physical evidence, the inadmissibility of hearsay, the need for reasonable statutes of limitations, considerations of motive, and the right of the accused to conduct vigorous cross-examination. That leap proved too much, especially when located in a larger progressive landscape of street theater antics, including Senate disruptions, walkouts, and sandbagging senators in hallways and elevators.

At the end of all things, Ford remained scarcely knowledgeable about the location and time of the assault than she was months earlier in her original anonymous complaint. Nor could she yet describe how she arrived at or left the party that may or may not have taken place in 1982. That Ford retained a crystal-clear account of having consumed just one beer and that Kavanaugh played the Hollywood role of a cruel, smirking, drunken, and privileged preppy groper were sensational accusations but not supportable.

After two weeks of the televised melodrama, the country rejected the therapeutic mindset and preferred what was logic and rational—without dismissing the chance that Ford somewhere at some time had experienced some sort of severe trauma.

 In Ford’s case, that meant that being empathetic or even sincere did not translate into being credible. Logos (word) and ergon (deed) have never been synonymous. The country was finally asked to believe that because Ford told others of the assault 30 years later, that admission was de facto proof that the event really happened—and happened just as Ford described. But since when was sharing a story proof that the story therein was believable?

Serial Fibs and Fables

The Democrats’ strategy to derail Kavanagh encouraged the appearance of serial accusers—on the theory that the quantity of accusations could do what the quality of any individual testimony could not. Activists had little idea that the opposite usually occurs when such serial testimonials lack substantiation: like falling dominos one knocks down the next all the way back to the beginning. And so the wreckage of serial fibs and fables from all sorts also helped to undermine Ford’s credibility.

When the Deborah Ramirez yarn and the Julie Swetnick fantasy collapsed, along with those of accusers four, five, six, etc. (that inter alia had included charges of rape while out to sea off Rhode Island, a tag-team sexual assault with Mark Judge in the backseat of a car, and throwing ice), Ford’s narrative appeared even less credible. Instead it became just one of many fictions; the first accuser became different from the rest only in the sense of being the first rather than the only one credible.

But Ford’s problem was not just that her memory was inexact and often nonexistent about the details necessary to substantiate her quite serious charges aimed at destroying not just a nomination but the totality of an individual and his family, 36 years after an alleged teenaged encounter. Instead, the rub was that Christine Blasey Ford inadvertently became the best witness—against Christine Blasey Ford.

She had claimed that she was afraid of flying, but by her own admissions she was a frequent flyer.

She claimed the event took place in the early 1980s but also the mid-’80s—but also summer of 1982. Thus, her reported age at the time of the incident was equally fluid as a middle teen or late teen.

She swore that she had no idea that Senate investigators were willing to fly to California to interview her to accommodate her aerophobia—an offer splashed over the media for days.

Her halting answers to questions about her legal assistance funding, her past experiences with lie detector tests, the existence of any tapes or videos of her lie detector interview, and the content, accessibility, and nature of her therapist notes were either self-contradictory, illogical, or incomplete.

An ex-boyfriend turned up to question her narratives in a sworn affidavit alleging that she was demonstrably neither aerophobic nor claustrophobic—and perhaps far from being a novice in matters of taking lie-detector tests. Instead, he suggested that she had used her psychotherapy skills to coach her doppelganger friend how to massage such a test—a Zelig-like best friend who unfortunately also turned up at the hearings, and may well have hosted Ford before the Senate circus, and also allegedly may have tried to pressure one of Ford’s friends to massage her earlier condemnatory denials. [RG Comment: This is a reference to the mysterious former FBI agent Monica McLean, about whom much remains to be uncovered.]

Reporters had noted Ford’s two-front-door remedy for anxiety was not necessarily a result of post-Kavanaugh stress syndrome as much a far earlier mercantile gambit to cash in on the Silicon Valley rent boom, where an extra room with a separate roadside entry meant a lucrative attached rental.

That the same ex-boyfriend claimed that an unfaithful Ford had also ripped him off for $600 in credit card bills (presumably a demonstrable accusation given banking records) did not help her case that she was a babe in the financial woods without a clue about her growing and lucrative GoFundMe account, or who in fact had paid her legal and prep bills and how—facts at odds with Ford’s adolescent demeanor of supposedly lost innocence.

So Many Stories

Senate prosecutor Rachel Mitchell might have proven in court more a depositioner than an inquisitor in her seemingly circular questioning, but in retrospect she proved a brilliant interrogator nonetheless in getting Ford to testify to a host of things that simply could not all be true—and would come back to haunt Ford in Mitchell’s damning summary of Ford’s likely untruths.

And why exactly were there so many contradictions as outlined in Mitchell’s written summation?

Christine Ford in July may have had no idea that her original anonymous accusation would ever become sensationalized publicly, much less put her into a position of trying to reconcile a number of irreconcilable narratives.

Instead, Ford had initially thought a single anonymous but poisonous letter would do the trick far better than had previous weeks of grandstanding

Democratic baiting, demonstrations, and walkouts. A last-minute drive-by and anonymous charge of sexual assault would panic Republicans with the mere whiff of #MeTooism, shock and cower a goody-two-shoes, family-man Kavanaugh, and thus force a beleaguered, pre-midterm-anxious President Trump to withdraw the nomination—all without the disclosure of Ford’s name and thus without any further need to substantiate her narratives.

As a side note, in this context, I am confused by the bipartisan outrage solely directed at Senator Dianne Feinstein’s or her staff’s lowdown leaking of Ford’s name. Of course, it was unethical and so typical of the twilight years of the senior senator from California. But, then again, so is authoring an anonymous hit piece without any corroborating evidence but with misleading written assertions (such as how Ford sought “medical treatment” for the assault—without disclosing she meant marriage counseling 36 years after the fact.) It seems far less noble to charge Kavanaugh with sexual assault anonymously than to have come forward at the outset and demonstrate the charge transparently. The cloak of anonymity does even more damage to the idea of jurisprudence than does the unethical removal of it by a would-be enabler.

Yet the radical change of events that followed the disclosure of Ford’s name did lead to discovery of lots of Ford narratives with still more to come.

There was the narrative in Ford’s original letter to U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), which wound up in Feinstein’s hands.

There was the therapist-notes narrative (released in part to the press but strangely not to the committee).

There was the Washington Post interview narrative.

And there was the Senate committee testimony narrative.

By the time of the last narrative, Ford had given one too many.

Sincere, Empathetic . . . But Not Credible

Taken as a whole, Ford’s problem was not just that she couldn’t remember key details, but that she remembered all sorts of different things depending on when and to whom she related the latest narrative. More incriminatingly, her narratives seemed to change key facts about the number and sex of apparent partygoers and the vague date and general area of the assault in ways that might enhance her latest iteration of the story.

What destroys credibility is not just a lack of memory, but more so the presence of too many memories that are selective, self-serving, and mutually contradictory.

Thus far the consensus has been that Ford was sincere and empathetic, but not credible. But more and more, it appears that she was all at once not credible, quite insincere, and perhaps completely unfeeling, at least in saying so many things that were not only unprovable, but demonstrably false and sometimes quite hurtful to her friends—and all apparently for the progressive end of stopping a qualified right-leaning jurist by destroying his character and reputation.

 Ford had insisted on privacy concerning her own health problems, but gratuitously questioned the veracity (and by extension selfishness) of her friend Leland Keyser’s testimony by suggesting to the world that Keyser was suffering certain with “health challenges” (specifically, “Leland has significant health challenges, and I am happy that she is focusing on herself”), that might explain their differing memories. In other words, we were presented with something like “my friend perjures herself when she contradicts me but does so because she has medical problems and focuses on her treatment for them rather than on the ‘truth’ about me.”

Finally, the new progressive Democratic Party was especially dense in all this. Senate Democrats kept clamoring for more testimonials to buttress Ford’s charges, but at each juncture of a new witness offering relevant knowledge, the very opposite effect followed of further eroding her veracity. And in a brave new world without evidence, in which “sincerity” and “empathy” mutate into “believability,” and “her truth” is synonymous with “the truth,” why would the counter-testimonies of a boyfriend or best friend be any less believable than Ford’s, much less required evidence of their own? Why call for a supplemental, one-week FBI investigation (months after Feinstein had prevented just that) when all knew that after a week a once-praised FBI would summarily be damned for not finding Kavanaugh guilty of something?

In the end, Ford was perhaps fortunate that the entire circus ceased when it did. Had investigators probed any more deeply the recent accusations of her once long-term boyfriend, the strange but multifaceted role of her lifelong but apparently conniving friend Monica McClean in the Kavanaugh allegations, the passages of the therapist tapes, the exact circumstances surrounding the lie-detector test, the long odyssey of Ford’s original accusation through Feinstein’s staff to Democratic committee members and the media, and the sources of Ford’s judicial support, there might well have been more incompatibility with the ever growing number of Ford’s narratives.

In the end, we were left only with the Stalinist mantra “to accuse is to be believed”—but, of course, not even the current accusers in the future would

 

The Disgraceful Attempt to Destroy Judge Kavanaugh cont.

Tuesday, October 9th, 2018

Freedom Outpost

Elizabeth VaughnOctober 5, 2018

 

Did Christine Ford’s Friend, Monica McLean, Orchestrate The Case Against Kavanaugh?

Monica McLean was the friend whom, according to CBF’s ex-boyfriend, she had helped prep for an FBI pre-employment polygraph test. (CBF denied, under oath, that she had done so. She also denied having any previous knowledge of how polygraph tests work.)

In this morning’s post, I discussed the possibility, being the political animal that Christine Blasey Ford appears to be, that once her friends heard she had known Brett Kavanaugh in high school, they convinced her to write a letter to her congresswoman and submit a “tip” to the Washington Post alleging that he had once sexually assaulted her at a party.

Then, I came across a very interesting post from The Conservative Tree House’s “Sundance,” who sees CBF’s friend, Monica L. McLean, as playing a major role in setting up this hoax.

Monica McLean was the friend whom, according to CBF’s ex-boyfriend, she had helped prep for an FBI pre-employment polygraph test. (CBF denied, under oath, that she had done so. She also denied having any previous knowledge of how polygraph tests work.)

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Ms. McLean, a lawyer, was hired by the FBI where she remained for 24 years. During that time, according to public records, she worked in both the Los Angeles area and in New York City.

Sometime between 2000 and 2003, Ms. Monica L McLean transferred to the Southern District of New York (SDNY), FBI New York Field Office; where she shows up on various reports, including media reports, as a spokesperson for the FBI.

There was a family death in 2003, and Monica McLean then shows up with an address listed in Washington DC in 2003; so it would appear Ms. McLean spent about 10 years in California, and then returned to the east-coast.

“…according to Monica McLean, spokeswoman for the FBI’s New York office.” [2009 citation]

After 2003, Ms. Monica L McLean is working with the SDNY as a Public Information Officer for the FBI New York Field Office, side-by-side with SDNY Attorney General Preet Bharara:

According to her LinkedIn profile, Ms. McLean retired from the FBI in 2016, after 24 years of work. [*It should be noted that Ms. McLean’s PIO partner in New York, Jim Margolin, is still currently employed there; and coincidentally attached to the case against President Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen.]

McLean, now currently retired, lists Rehoboth Beach, DE as her home address.

During her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, CBF stated that she had prepared her letter to Dianne Feinstein by herself in Rehoboth Beach, DE.

[Transcript]

MITCHELL: The second is the letter that you wrote to Senator Feinstein, dated the — July 30th of this year.

MITCHELL: Did you write the letter yourself?

FORD: I did.

MITCHELL: And I — since it’s dated July 30th, did you write it on that date?

FORD: I believe so. I — it sounds right. I was in Rehoboth, Delaware, at the time. I could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. It seemed…

MITCHELL: Was it written on or about that date?

FORD: Yes, yes. I traveled, I think, the 26th of July to Rehoboth, Delaware. So that makes sense, because I wrote it from there.

MITCHELL: Is the letter accurate?

FORD: I’ll take a minute to read it.

Sure looks like CBF spent four days visiting her life-long friend and former roommate, Monica McLean. The same Monica McLean who, until 2016, had been an FBI special agent, and in that capacity, a former New York field office spokesperson, and DOJ/FBI Public Information Officer under Preet Bharara, who is no fan of President Trump.

Gee, I wonder if Ms. McLean was involved in this process?

That would certainly begin to explain quite a bit about who exactly was handling Ms. Ford; and how there would be an intentional effort, from a subject matter expert, on how to best position the attack against Brett Kavanaugh.

Who better to help scrub the internet history, and know what processes and people to enlist in such preparatory work, than a retired lawyer who worked deeply inside the FBI?

Not only did Ms. McLean possesses a particular set of skills to assist Ms. Ford, but Ms. McLean would also have a network of DOJ and FBI resources to assist in the endeavor. A former friendly FBI agent to do the polygraph; a network of politically motivated allies?

Does the appearance of FBI insider and Deputy FBI Director to Andrew McCabe, Michael Bromwich, begin to make more sense?

Do the loud and overwhelming requests by political allies for FBI intervention, take on a different meaning or make more sense, now?

Standing back and taking a look at the bigger, BIG PICTURE….. could it be that Mrs. McLean and her team of ideological compatriots within the DOJ and FBI, who have massive axes to grind against the current Trump administration, are behind this entire endeavor?

Considering all of the embattled, angry, institutional officials (former and current); and considering the recently fired DOJ and FBI officials; and considering the officials currently under investigation; and considering the declassification requests which will likely lead to the exposure of even more corruption….  Could it be that these elements wanted to do something, anything to get back at the executive branch; and possibly change the tide?

If so, and I think the likelihood is pretty good, doesn’t everything known just easily reconcile if you think of Ms. Blasey-Ford as a tool for those ideologues?

If Ms. Monica Lee McLean and her allies wanted to strike, she couldn’t be the visible face of the confrontation because she was retired FBI. It would be too obvious.  She would need a patsy; a friend who could deploy the hit on her/their behalf.  It would need to be someone she could shape, easily manage and guide etc. Someone who could be trusted, and at the same time would be trusting of them.

It is quite likely Ms. McLean selected/recruited her life-long best friend, Ms. Blasey-Ford.

It’s a very plausible theory and one that actually explains a lot of the peculiarities in the case. It explains why none of the four named witnesses have any recollection of the evening. Because CBF makes no definitive statements about time, place, how she got there and home, the incident is impossible to prove or disprove.

It explains why none of her friends were ever told and why her mother somehow never guessed that something was very wrong with her 15-year-old daughter if CBF was truly as traumatized as she claims. Most mothers would be able to sense that.

Actually, it makes a lot of sense. But the problems with a plan like this are the unanticipated reactions of old boyfriends, friends, documents such as therapy notes, building permits and travel history.

It’s not too much of a stretch to believe that the same folks who framed the fairly elected President of the United States for colluding with the Russian government to win a presidential election, would be capable of a hoax like this.

 

The Disgraceful Attempt to Destroy judge Kavanaugh

Tuesday, October 9th, 2018

The following are three important posts about the disgraceful way which the Democratic party attempted to destroy the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Godfather Politics

Lisa Boothe (@LisaMarieBoothe) October 1, 2018

Friend of Kavanaugh Accuser Told to Change Her Story to Back up Accusations

One of the people who Christine Blasey Ford claimed was a witness to a sexual assault by Judge Brett Kavanaugh — but who could not back up Ford’s false accusations — told the FBI that liberals came to her demanding that she change her story and come to the support of Ford and her lies against Kavanaugh.

According to new details released by the Wall Street Journal, Ford’s childhood friend, Leland Keyser, said she was “pressured” to change her story to support Ford’s attack on Kavanaugh.

Keyser reportedly told FBI investigators that Ford’s associate, former FBI agent Monica McLean, tried to bully her into changing her original statement that she could not remember any party and that she did not know Kavanaugh.

The paper said Keyser’s testimony to the FBI offered “a glimpse into how Dr. Ford’s allies were working behind the scenes to lobby old classmates to bolster their versions of the alleged incident.”

Keyser told the FBI that Ford’s operatives had come to her and told her to change her statement to stop the Republicans from using her lack of support for Ford as a talking point “to rebut the allegation against Judge Kavanaugh.”

But, Monica McLean’s lawyer, David Laufman, insists that they put no pressure on Keyser. “Any notion or claim that Ms. McLean pressured Leland Keyser to alter Ms. Keyser’s account of what she recalled concerning the alleged incident between Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh is absolutely false,” Laufman said.

The Journal story also noted that a several of the other people Ford claimed were witnesses to the crime back in the early 1980s were also approached by liberal operatives and told to change their stories to support the liberal attack against Judge Kavanaugh.

This comes on the heels of a story that said McLean coached Ford on how to beat a polygraph hinting that this whole thing has been a scheme long in the planning stages.

Ford’s ex-boyfriend claimed this week in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Ford had coached McLean on how to pass a polygraph test so she could get into the FBI. This accusation was serious because, if true, Ford perjured herself under oath when she said that she had “never” given anyone any tips on how to take a polygraph test.

This latest revelation comes after Ford’s story was thoroughly discredited by Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor that questioned her during her testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who said that her story was “even weaker” than a “he said, she said” case.

 


William S. Frankl, MD, All Rights Reserved