A while back, when I read that her grandfather, her father and her brother were CIA, the whole Kavanaugh plot suddenly made sense.
Well, her whole family is CIA, this makes here indirectly CIA..... and I figured that any member of the CIA family would have been trained how to cheat on a polygraph test.
Sure enough..... here it is.....
she coached a friend on how to cheat on a polygraph test
This is legitimately concerning regarding her credibility, which now may be in trouble and not just on a partisan basis. I don’t want to react too quickly and would prefer to read more and see how far the major news outlets take this as opposed to just the biased conservative news sources. As a reminder, I was in favor of the FBI investigation partially because if Kav were really innocent, it would hopefully clear him and help him recover his image from those swayed by Ford. There being an FBI investigation, which many conservatives were against, is not necessarily to Ford’s advantage by any means. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to have opposed it in the first place.
there were only 2 questions asked....
I am wondering if one was ...."what is your name" ?
you wrote: "...I don’t want to react too quickly and would prefer to read more and see how far the major news outlets take this...."
You don't really think that the MSM will say anything negative about Dr. Ford?
you wrote:"...There being an FBI investigation,[ snip].., is not necessarily to Ford’s advantage by any means.'..."
Do you remember HIllary's FBI investigation(under the leadership of Mr. Comey)?
Lets see if this has legs. It may. I don’t rely on obviously biased news sources, either liberal or conservative unlike several on both sides here and many millions throughout the country. And unlike many in this country, my mind is not seemingly made up in advance. I use my brain to judge rather than a political party.
but here it is
just takes a second to find the truth but that does not fit the Agenda
While Snopes is known not known to be all that reliable when it comes to politics, I have to think this doesn't make sense either. She is too dumb to have relatives that work for the CIA. She is a well rehearsed victim.
She says that the episode traumatized her. She was 100% sure it was Brett Kavanaugh. She was a fifteen year old girl, and she didn't tell anyone - does that make sense at all? She doesn't remember where the party was at, and her recollection of who was there has been shown to be faulty. She doesn't remember even when the party took place. She doesn't remember who drove her home.
She must be considered a pretty stupid person to think this would be something to testify before the Senate committee about.
Also, a letter from a former boyfriend says that she helped her life-long friend, Monica L. McLain, prepare for a polygraph - most likely connected to her having a career with the Department of Justice and the FBI. (Remember, Ford testified under oath that she never did anything like this.) McLain reportedly worked side by side with SDNY Attorney General Preet Bharara - that should ring alarm bells.
Now, where was Ford when she wrote the letter to Dianne Feinstein? The same place as this life-long friend. Should we really think it was just Ford's idea to write this letter to Feinstein?? Or, was she recruited in the fight against Donald Trump?
There are so many special prosecutors and grand juries needed, we'd better tell the rest of the world to carry on for a decade or so without us, as we'll be much too busy.
Unless the corrupt Democrats win this election and shut down all the investigations.
That's the saddest thing of all CFDR. Her story is unbelievable. It does not deserve one 100th of the attention it's gotten. It's vague and loaded with contradictions. To call it laughable gives it too much credence. In spite of that, in todays world, it's enough to place a legitimate appointment in jeopardy while ruining the reputation of a good man and terrorizing his family.
Yes, and this is why I refer to the Democrats as having become evil. There is no other word that comes close to describing them. I've always considered Amy Klobuchar (senator MN) to be a decent person, but she has been corrupted and runs with the pack - and that even makes her one of the evil members of the mob.
What I worry about is where do we go if something happens to The Donald.
The ties to the CIA are silly.
I originally thought the accusations might be true(not sure but was willing to wait to see if corroborating evidence came to light.) but also was certain that Ford lied several times during her testimony.
Her lies and the dem lies about the circumstances of how this evolved for the 2 months prior to it suddenly coming to light are one of the most despicable things I have ever witnessed in politics..........actually, I can't remember anything worse.
It's become more obvious now that she lied several times and no evidence from any source has come forward to indicate that this is anything but a made up story.
If somebody is busted lying, why would you believe a crazy, outlying story from them, when all the evidence contradicts them?
The Swetnick stories are absurd but were getting traction in some circles.....but most importantly, any body with a shred of objectivity can see the clear political objective of destroying Judge K, using the media and horribly unethical tactics.
It's one thing to have been a dem like JFK. I may have voted for him. Quite another to be a dem like Pelosi, Schumer et. al.
Had I been voting in the early 60's, JFK would have gotten serious consideration.
But the "evolution" is nearly complete.
Frey, as expected, your Snopes post falls upon deaf ears.
The posts that followed are full of innuendos and suppositions, as they refuse to let the truth set them free.
suppositions? fact Ford lied several times in her testimony. There is NO corroborating evidence. In fact by the day more evidence has come out to hurt her so called "truth"...now she should be prosecueted...is that not only fair?
" fact Ford lied several times in her testimony "
Since I seldom watch Fox News, would you care to educate me ?
Christine Blasey-Ford's life-long friend not has been shown to have been at the Senate hearings with her. This is the friend grew up with Ms. Ford, went to high school together, moved to California together, and went to college together. they were roommates in California. After college, Ms. McLain joined the DOJ as a lawyer for the FBI. They vacationed together. Both were in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware when Ms. Ford wrote the letter to Senator Feinstein.
Now she shows up sitting close to Ford at the hearings.
When asked about how Ms. Ford went about getting legal representation, Ms. Ford essentially responded she didn’t know what to do and had never been in a situation where complex political legal issues were part of her thinking. However, her life-long BFF was not only a lawyer – she was a career lawyer within the Department of Justice and as legal counsel for the FBI had specific insight into exactly these issues.
Does this qualify as a lie?
Also, a letter from a former boyfriend of six years is interesting. It is printed here:
He states that he witnessed Ford helping McLain to deal with an upcoming polygraph test - something Ford testified under oath never to have done.
So, who actually wrote the letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein?? Ford? Or, a never-Trumper named McLain?
" When asked about how Ms. Ford went about getting legal representation, Ms. Ford essentially responded she didn’t know what to do and had never been in a situation where complex political legal issues were part of her thinking. "
So where is the lie? She didn't hire a lawyer, but consulted with her best friend, who was not hiding but showed up at the hearing. Did she lie about knowing what to do and had been in a situation where complex political legal issues were part of her thinking. So where is the lie?
As for the ex boyfriend's letter, if you believe him, she lied. if you believe her, he lied. He said, she said.
And suddenly, just like that, "He said, She Said" is a valid consideration... :-)
And suddenly, just like that, "He said, She Said" is a valid consideration... :-)
I just thought this was so good that I wanted to repeat it. (g)
He said, she said certainly is a valid consideration when she is called a liar … or am I a liar ?
Now that the FBI investigation has been done and no corroborating evidence has been found to support Dr. Ford, I'm more than happy that Kavanaugh will be confirmed. The dirty Dems don't know when to give up. Give them an inch and they ask for a mile.
" fact Ford lied several times in her testimony "
"Since I seldom watch Fox News, would you care to educate me ?"
I actually watch more CNN than Fox(but for entertainment).
The huge verifiable lie which woke me up to the rest of them was during her testimony, when I found out that she flies all over the place to go surfing and with her job...........after she had used her fear of flying as the reason she was not able to testify right away when it was first requested.
Mitchell: "May I ask, Dr. Ford, how did you get to Washington?
Ford: "In an airplane."
Mitchell: "I ask that because its been reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the committee because of your fear of flying. Is that true?"
Ford: "I was hoping that they would come to me (in California) but I realized that was an unrealistic request."
Mitchell: "it would have been a quicker trip for me."
Ford: "That was certainly what I was hoping to avoid getting on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane."
Mitchell: "You fly fairly frequently for your hobbies and you've had to fly for your work. Is that true?"
Ford: "Correct. Unfortunately."
Mitchell read from Ford's curriculum vitae, pointing to hobbies she pursues including "surf travel." Ford then confirmed she has flown to Hawaii, Coast Rica, South Pacific Islands and French Polynesia to surf.
"It's easier for me to travel going that direction when it's a vacation," Ford said.
The committee, in fact had offered to come out there to get her testimony, so in just that particular exchange, we have 2 very easy to verify lies.
On three occasions, Grassley and Judiciary Committee staff told Dr. Ford’s lawyers that committee investigators were willing to come to her.
·On September 19, Chairman Grassley sent a letter to Dr. Ford’s attorney Debra Katz informing her that committee staff “would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her.”
·On September 21, committee staff sent an email to Ms. Katz saying that “[t]he Chairman has offered the ability for Dr. Ford to testify in an open session, a closed session, a public staff interview, and a private staff interview. The Chairman is even willing to fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford and you in California, or anywhere else, to obtain Dr. Ford’s testimony.”
·On September 22, committee staff again wrote an email to Dr. Ford’s lawyers, reminding them that “committee investigators are available to meet with Dr. Ford, anywhere and anytime, if she would prefer to provide her testimony outside of a hearing setting.”
"In a September 21 tweet, Grassley invited Dr. Ford to share her story, saying, “[c]ome to us or we to [you].”
However, despite those offers, at the September 27 hearing, Dr. Ford told the committee that she was not aware of the committee’s willingness to meet her anywhere to take her testimony."
There were plenty more lies but these struck me as the most blatant. Why lie about the fear of flying and why not accept the invitation from the committee to come out there right away?
There can be only one reason............to delay the vote.
Call me biased if you like, but this was such an obvious pile of steaming crap, that I can't believe anyone could honestly take it seriously.. If you keep your mind open enough to accept even 1 second, your brain has fallen through the opening.
With Kavanaugh representing the 5th conservative justice on the Supreme Court vs 4 liberal, the dems were extraordinarily desperate to keep him off of it.
Their tactics, using unsubstantiated accusations from 3 women has backfired.
Judge K. passed the 7th background check. This last background check, the one dems insisted had to be done is what burned them the most.
Why is that?
Democrats suggested the republics were covering up Judge K's crime. Not doing the background check would have left him and republicans open for relentless/never ending attacks related to these accusations. Can't do that now without it looking like a big joke.
Can't use that now(corruption by the reps as a reason) in November to fire up dem voters. In fact, the situation played out to reveal massive corruption and lying by the dems............oooops, now the republicans are fired up............and its's from a backfired dem strategy.
The saddest thing is the damage that this has done to the #metoo movement.
Instead of brave women coming forward after attacks/abuse to tell their story and get justice, which should be believed, you have an example of women lying about circumstances to destroy a mans life for political agenda.
This will only make it harder for future women, telling the truth to be believed.
My wife thinks that Judge K should sue for libel/slander. This will not happen as it would only serve to drag the situation on longer. However, just like the democratic/legal election of Trump has been met with attempts to block everything emenating from him, it would not be surprising to see boat loads of Kavanaugh bashing that goes on endlessly and new stories from new people emerge who tell us bad things Judge K did after drinking too much.
Judge Kavanaugh also lied too as I mentioned previously.
Who thinks that Judge Kavanaogh never had lapses in memory or full fledged black outs from drinking?
Unless he is some kind of freak of nature, based on what we know with absolute certainty about his drinking, he must have had numerous incidents like this........at least dozens.
The dems know this and this is why they all grilled him and tried to get him to admit to it. Why is that? Getting drunk, really drunk in high school and college is not a crime. Neither is being a sloppy drunk and doing some dumb things as a youth.
However, admitting to just one black out would have opened him up to being bombarded by this question by every democrat.
Judge Kavanaugh, you have admitted to drinking to the point of having a lapse of memory/black out at least one time. You were reportedly very drunk at the time of this incident. How do we know that this did not occur during another lapse of memory/black out that you experienced?
His ability to remember everything at all times had to be preserved in this she said, he said situation. Remember, from the get go, part of her story was that she remembers specifically that she had exactly 1 beer.
This was clearly intentional, to show that she would have remembered it.........as they tried to trap the known heavy drinker in high school. The dems knew from the get go that this was the plan.
He HAD to lie about the black outs to thwart off this underhanded scheme to use his excessive drinking against him by making it appear as evidence that he can't be trusted as his own witness against uncorroborated sexual assault charges.
Now he is accused of lying about his drinking by one side. What choice was there?
The difference being.. We have to assume he lied. And it's not an unreasonable assumption. But it remains an assumption.
There is no doubt that his accuser lied.