Poker players will appreciate this analyst’s use of Ford’s ‘tells’ to evaluate her testimony.

It’s one thing to have some random dope on Twitter spouting off like he’s an expert on all things legal and philosophical. (And journalists breathlessly reporting the throwing of ice are not much better.)

It’s quite another when you have a known entity, one who served as a clerk in the 7th Circuit for 25 years, is a Law Professor in Notre Dame, and writes for several national outlets, including the Federalist, National Review and TownHall.

That Professor, writer, and lawyer is Margot Cleveland So we’re not dealing with old Uncle Tony who swears — Swears! — that he was abducted by space aliens.

Trending: Executive Order: Trump Deals Another Blow To Activists Pushing Marxist Race Theories

What is her opinion of what we’ve seen so far?

Aside from having a real problem with the fact that long-term memories are malleable and can be altered over time…

Thread – PLEASE RT.

Scientific quotes from seminal legal case on how long-term memories are malleable and shaped by later input. (h/t @ProfMJCleveland) @seanmdav @guypbenson @charliekirk11 https://t.co/2haCjjHVyZ — Tea Party Barbie (@laurahollis61) October 2, 2018

… and that without all the relevant facts on the table, we simply cannot accept her memories as authentic…

Ford's testimony was not credible as I explained before and as sex-crime prosecutor Mitchell explained. BUT here's nice primer on hypnosis & legal perspective. Absent access to Ford's records, her entire statement and testimony should be disregarded. https://t.co/uJWDbLBkuE — Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) October 1, 2018

After that, she took Ford’s testimony to the woodshed in a big way.

Number seven is a live link so you can open her attachments:

7/ And when discussing the polygraph, Ford again feigns ignorance and begins to lie re whether it was video or audio taped and then realizes she better admit the truth. pic.twitter.com/f1bMB5qKXL — Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2018

Number 10 is also live for the same reason:

10/ Let that sink in: She said "remember specifically 4 boys being there." BUT to Feinstein she said me & four others. But Ford HAD to do this & she waited until hearing to do b/c Kavanaugh was to disprove her story when it was as sent to Feinstein as only 4 & Ford had ID 4. pic.twitter.com/uMu2wvN1ef — Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 30, 2018

So, while TV and print media are overturning every possible rock to see if maybe — just maybe — there is that one damning accusation that can keep a Constitutionalist from bringing stability to the Supreme Court, and curtail the left’s tactic of using the Courts to force changes on culture, we’re seeing evidence on the other side. Evidence to exonerate the accused.

That should be at LEAST as important to our ‘impartial’ and ever-so ‘Free Press’, shouldn’t it?

Let’s recap:

We’ve got all those questions about Feinstein and the leaks — including that last-minute release of Ford’s details, despite Feinstein’s office recommending a Dem activist lawyer long before this came to light.

We’ve got her reaction of surprise when it came up that the Senate was prepared to ‘meet her anywhere’. Why hadn’t she heard of that before? It was everywhere in the news, considering Kavanaugh hearings dominated the news cycle.

We’ve got that excuse of fear of flying delaying her testimony, contrasted against her frequent flights both domestic and international.

We’ve got a Professional Prosecutor of sex crimes who says she doesn’t have enough evidence that she could have opened up a case against anyone. Her report shows contradiction after contradition in the various layers we’ve seen in her story since it first became public — and when compared to what we know of her therapist notes.

There is scant external evidence that could in any connect to her tesimony so far beyond the fact that her 2008 building permits call her recounting of 2012 ‘memory triggers’ into question.