On Wednesday, Kyle Rittenhouse took the witness stand to testify in his defense during his murder trial. During his testimony, the 18-year-old broke down. He was sobbing uncontrollably, to the point that Judge Bruce Schroeder had to call for a 10-minute break so that Rittenhouse could compose himself.
A little over three years ago during another much-publicized testimony, then 51-year-old Christine Blasey Ford began to cry as she told her story of a sexual assault to the Senate Judiciary Committee, with her alleged attacker being none other than current Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Rittenhouse’s accounts came during a criminal trial, while Blasey Ford’s came during a Senate hearing, but the two testimonies are worth comparing.
"*" indicates required fields
One of the biggest differences has been the reaction from the left and their media to the competing stories. According to America’s left, the water streaming down Kyle Rittenhouse’s face were “crocodile tears.” They were disingenuous. Meanwhile, Christine Blasey Ford’s weeping was authentic. She was believable to the extent that to question her bawling was to commit heresy. Let’s take a closer look at the two testimonies and consider whose crying was more genuine and justified.
Age and maturity:
Kyle Rittenhouse is only 18 years old, which means two weeks ago was the first time he was able to vote; legally that is, and assuming he’s not a Democrat.
Christine Blasey Ford was almost 52 years old at the time of her testimony, certainly old enough to be Rittenhouse’s mother, and old enough perhaps to be his grandmother, if we wanted to push things.
Is being young a justification for breaking down and crying? No, but it’s undeniable that younger folks tend to be less mature and more susceptible to emotional outbreaks. Does being in your 50s prohibit one from crying in public? Of course not, but it should make it less likely to happen. And for those pointing to their gender and the fact that Rittenhouse is a man and Blasey Ford is a woman, that’s sexist… wow, it felt good to finally be able to say that.
Kyle Rittenhouse was crying as he recounted events that happened less than 15 months ago.
Christine Blasey Ford was retelling events that supposedly happened over 35 years earlier.
Again, there are no absolutes here. We can all have strong emotional reactions to things that happened in our distant pasts. But for Rittenhouse, his memories of what happened in late-August 2020 must be much more vivid and emotion-provoking than for Blasey Ford, who was recalling an alleged incident from the early 1980s. If we’re being honest, who is more believable? Someone crying over something that happened last summer, or someone blubbering over something that happened during Ronald Reagan’s first term in office?
Occupation and experience:
We know Kyle Rittenhouse was a student who had a part-time job as a lifeguard at the YMCA. Other than that, we don’t know of any other training, education, or job skills that he has.
And while we commonly refer to Christine Blasey Ford by her full name, or perhaps Ms. or Mrs. Ford, she has a PhD in Psychology from the University of Southern California. This means if she were married to the President of the United States, not only would we call her Dr. Blasey Ford, she would insist on it.
So, who would be more adept at deceit, and at pretending to be feeling something they were not? The part-time, high-school-aged lifeguard? Or the clinically trained psychologist who is not only an expert on human behavior but teaches that subject to college students and conducts research on such matters at one of the top universities in the country, Stanford University? You don’t need a PhD to answer that one correctly.
What was at stake:
Kyle Rittenhouse is potentially facing life in prison.
Christine Blasey Ford was merely testifying against someone, Brett Kavanaugh. The only thing at stake for her was her obvious preference that Kavanaugh not be confirmed as Supreme Court Justice. Other than that objective, Blasey Ford had nothing at stake.
Which circumstance would logically produce more emotion, someone whose life is on the line – quite literally – or someone looking to prevent a court appointment?
There were over a dozen video clips of the events from the night Rittenhouse killed the two rioters. Most of them showed the actions of Rittenhouse himself, and all of them either confirmed Rittenhouse’s testimony or were inconclusive.
Christine Blasey Ford couldn’t produce a single witness to corroborate her story and in fact couldn’t prove that she’d ever even met Kavanaugh. Furthermore, her best friend, someone who Blasey Ford insisted was at the party the night of the alleged attack by Kavanaugh, has stated she doesn’t remember even being at the party in question.
Rittenhouse has so much evidence in his favor, a conviction seems highly unlikely, and there’s still a possibility that Judge Schroeder may simply dismiss the case. Whereas the only person supporting Blasey Ford’s assertions is Blasey Ford herself.
We’ve all seen the vitriol directed at Kyle Rittenhouse over the past four days, and we also remember the pampering and stroking given to Blasey Ford by the same clowns. So, in the interest of time, and so as not to beat a dead horse, let’s just consider three examples of prominent, memorable reactions to both Rittenhouse and Blasey Ford:
- NBA star, professional racist, and leftist buffoon LeBron James stated, “What tears????? I didn’t see one. Man knock it off! That boy ate some lemon heads before walking into court.”
- Amanda Marcotte, who writes for Salon, tweeted, “F**k this brat’s crocodile tears. Self-defense is when you are minding your own business, someone attacks you, and you have to fight back.” Thanks for the clarification there, Amanda.
- And USA Today opinion writer Carli Pierson opined, “Kyle Rittenhouse deserves an award for his melodramatic performance on the witness stand.”
- Molly Roberts wrote an Op-Ed for the Houston Chronicle in 2018 titled, “Why Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony made me cry.”
- Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) could be seen crying during the hearing itself. [So much crying going on…oh, the humanity]
- And Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) called Blasey Ford “heroic,” and praised her for telling “her truth,” whatever the heck that means.
Therefore, let’s consider… based on the facts and based on what we know: Which weeping witness testimony is more believable? In a sane, reasonable, and honest world (alas, if only we lived in one), whose tears were more earnest? We won’t need much time to deliberate that question, will we?
P.F. Whalen is a conservative author at TheBlueStateConservative.com. His work has also appeared in multiple publications, including Human Events, the Western Journal, and American Thinker. Follow him on GETTR.