Do you Believe Kavanaugh's Rape Accuser?

[2aguy]

Oooops


Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm



In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.


He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "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." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process of taking her own polygraph in August was stressful and uncomfortable, although she testified she could not remember if she took the test on the same day as her grandmother's funeral, or the next day....

Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

It is interesting that her lawyers are pushing the public line that they want the FBI to talk to her again......considering that will put her story and her life in legal peril, it would be a stupid idea....

Why would FBI need to talk to her? They have all they need from her testimony.

By the way, if there would be an interview, is she going to fly to them, and does interview must be on a specific day of the week?

It would be really stupid for her to talk to the FBI...... just ask Martha Stewart.....

 

[Slade3200]

I think all of that is a fair analysis and I fully understand why people have questions and doubt. Do you know if she is writing a similar analysis of Kavanaughs testimony?

I have no idea. She was there to ascertain the veracity of the allegation, she found none.
So I’m not sure what she’s supposed to conclude from questioning someone who is even prevented from providing an alibi because the accuser can’t provide any details of when and where, other than - I have never sexually assaulted or attempted to sexually assault any woman, ever.
There’s no evidence that he did anything so not much she can evaluate, imho.
What would you expect in a report on Kav?

Well his testimony could be taken with the same scrutiny to determine if it is factual and credible. Why shouldn’t that be done?

Can you provide some examples from his testimony you think she should evaluate for ‘facts’ and ‘credibility’?
And you do know why Mitchell was there, right?

Sure when he was questioned about his drinking and his yearbook he seemed to give answers that don’t pass the smell test. At best this only dampens the credibility of his word. At worst it reveals deeper seeded lies and a cover up of the very activity he is accused of when he was in school.

Kav said he loved beer then, and that he loves beer now.
Even when the Dems were trying their hardest to paint him as an alcoholic he still admitted he sometimes drank too much and would need to sleep it off.

None of what he said about drinking seems suspicious to me, so you’ll have to tell me what conclusions you think she could/should fairly draw and publish about it and how it can reasonably and fairly be tied to an accusation he hasn’t even been proven to be physically connected to.

And none of his testimony points to him sexually assaulting anyone, let alone Blasey Fraud with whom he still hasn’t even been placed in the same room, building or street, which is what Mitchell was their to find out.

Drinking too much and even referencing sex (if that’s what he did) does not in any way make him a sexual assaulter - it doesn’t help Frauds case at all, in any way.

There is a HUGE difference between noting Fraud said she could fly but there is evidence she flies frequently; that she not only has memory lapses from 36 years ago, but also apparently has them regarding events that happened a few weeks ago, and that none of the witnesses she named corroborate her story, to deciding I just don’t believe the name of Kavs drinking game!

Blasey Frauds online stuff showed her to be a hard drinking party girl. All that stuff was scrubbed. If you want trial by drinking, partying behaviour and yearbooks, perhaps hers need to be subpoenaed and examined too - in the name of fairness.

But still, you tell me how a much admired experienced prosecutor such as Mitchell would word that and work again.

Well the line of questioning and areas of concern are somewhat obvious. He was asked about his drinking because there have been several witness accounts that he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk. He was asked about his year book because it referenced excessive drinking, sexual activities and even two on one sexual escapades, which match his accusers accusation. His interview with fox and testimony under oath didn’t exactly match these accounts as he painted himself as a hard working virgin who liked the occasional beer.

So it appears there are one of three scenarios happening with him. 1. He was embarrassed ashamed of his behavior as a kid and was lying about it under oath. 2. He committed the acts that he was accused of and either blacked out or is covering it up. Or 3. He was a choir boy who coincidentally had some inside jokes with his friends that unfairly paint him as a sloppy womanizing party boy. And a conspiracy between democratic activists have led to these several fabricated accusations designed to block his nomination and ruin his life.

I must say if it is number 3 then the fabricators must be some of the dumbest people in the world because I don’t see how anybody could make up such flawed stories. Hell, I’d just say he caught her one on one and assaulted her or I’d pit two of the accusers together to validate each others story. It’s been tough for me to make sense out of the fabrication narrative from a realistic standpoint when I explore SPECULATE about the details and motives of the accusation.

 

[Slade3200]

hedI think all of that is a fair analysis and I fully understand why people have questions and doubt. Do you know if she is writing a similar analysis of Kavanaughs testimony?

I have no idea. She was there to ascertain the veracity of the allegation, she found none.
So I’m not sure what she’s supposed to conclude from questioning someone who is even prevented from providing an alibi because the accuser can’t provide any details of when and where, other than - I have never sexually assaulted or attempted to sexually assault any woman, ever.
There’s no evidence that he did anything so not much she can evaluate, imho.
What would you expect in a report on Kav?

Well his testimony could be taken with the same scrutiny to determine if it is factual and credible. Why shouldn’t that be done?

Because Dums didn't hire anyone to do that. Instead they pranced and preached their time away.

So she was hired by the republicans so her job was to make their case for them is that what your saying? So why then should we be taking her analysis seriously?

The other side agreed to her. She is extremely well respected in her field.

I think she did a fine job and gave a fair analysis

 

[Slade3200]

Well his testimony could be taken with the same scrutiny to determine if it is factual and credible. Why shouldn’t that be done?

Because Dums didn't hire anyone to do that. Instead they pranced and preached their time away.

So she was hired by the republicans so her job was to make their case for them is that what your saying? So why then should we be taking her analysis seriously?

Dums played the white male racist/sexist card so Reps had her ask the questions.

We can readily agree Dums have misplayed this from the start. It will cost them the midterms.

What happens if you’re wrong and the Dems win the midterms and take over the house? Will you change your tune or make excuses?

Then they can probably expect the same disgusting treatment.

That tit for tat attitude has been going on for years. The Dems feel justified in their obstruction because of what the republicans did to Garland. How does it ever stop?

 

[Slade3200]

Oooops


Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm



In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.


He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "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." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process of taking her own polygraph in August was stressful and uncomfortable, although she testified she could not remember if she took the test on the same day as her grandmother's funeral, or the next day....

Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

I hope the FBI questions him and her about these conflicts. Note however that conservatives auto response to Kavs college roommate and other college friends who have come out and called his testimony a lie are dismissing them as disgruntled ex friends. I’m sure some Dems will dismiss this one as a disgruntled ex boyfriend. But if we are being fair we should take all these accounts seriously, right?

 

[Slade3200]

Oooops


Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm



In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.


He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "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." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process of taking her own polygraph in August was stressful and uncomfortable, although she testified she could not remember if she took the test on the same day as her grandmother's funeral, or the next day....

Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

It is interesting that her lawyers are pushing the public line that they want the FBI to talk to her again......considering that will put her story and her life in legal peril, it would be a stupid idea....

Why would FBI need to talk to her? They have all they need from her testimony.

By the way, if there would be an interview, is she going to fly to them, and does interview must be on a specific day of the week?

Why wouldn’t the FBI interview her? Wouldn’t you think it strange if they didn’t?

 

[Silhouette]

It's actually a grand display of how dirty the Democrats operate.
They are more or less something like blackmailers, smear merchants, character assassinaters.

Imagine what they would do to Ms. Ford if her stale 40+ year old tale was being used to block a liberal Justice nomination? The word "brutal" wouldn't do justice to their character assassinations of her under those conditions.

 

[Tilly]

Oooops


Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm



In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.


He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "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." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process of taking her own polygraph in August was stressful and uncomfortable, although she testified she could not remember if she took the test on the same day as her grandmother's funeral, or the next day....

Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

It is interesting that her lawyers are pushing the public line that they want the FBI to talk to her again......considering that will put her story and her life in legal peril, it would be a stupid idea....

Why would FBI need to talk to her? They have all they need from her testimony.

By the way, if there would be an interview, is she going to fly to them, and does interview must be on a specific day of the week?

Why wouldn’t the FBI interview her? Wouldn’t you think it strange if they didn’t?

The FBI aren’t obliged to interview people who’ve already testified under oath, apparently.

 

[Slade3200]

Oooops


Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm



In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.


He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "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." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process of taking her own polygraph in August was stressful and uncomfortable, although she testified she could not remember if she took the test on the same day as her grandmother's funeral, or the next day....

Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

It is interesting that her lawyers are pushing the public line that they want the FBI to talk to her again......considering that will put her story and her life in legal peril, it would be a stupid idea....

Why would FBI need to talk to her? They have all they need from her testimony.

By the way, if there would be an interview, is she going to fly to them, and does interview must be on a specific day of the week?

Why wouldn’t the FBI interview her? Wouldn’t you think it strange if they didn’t?

The FBI aren’t obliged to interview people who’ve already testified under oath, apparently.

Any decent investigator would dive right into Ford. As you’ve been pointing out there are several contradictions in her testimony so why wouldn’t they question her? Remember we are looking for clarity during this inquiry. That could go either way. I’d think you’d champion an inquiry into Fords testimony. It sounds like you are saying it isn’t necessary... whys that?

 

[deanrd]

Republicans feel that a woman should never ever be believed over a man.

 

[Tilly]

I have no idea. She was there to ascertain the veracity of the allegation, she found none.
So I’m not sure what she’s supposed to conclude from questioning someone who is even prevented from providing an alibi because the accuser can’t provide any details of when and where, other than - I have never sexually assaulted or attempted to sexually assault any woman, ever.
There’s no evidence that he did anything so not much she can evaluate, imho.
What would you expect in a report on Kav?

Well his testimony could be taken with the same scrutiny to determine if it is factual and credible. Why shouldn’t that be done?

Can you provide some examples from his testimony you think she should evaluate for ‘facts’ and ‘credibility’?
And you do know why Mitchell was there, right?

Sure when he was questioned about his drinking and his yearbook he seemed to give answers that don’t pass the smell test. At best this only dampens the credibility of his word. At worst it reveals deeper seeded lies and a cover up of the very activity he is accused of when he was in school.

Kav said he loved beer then, and that he loves beer now.
Even when the Dems were trying their hardest to paint him as an alcoholic he still admitted he sometimes drank too much and would need to sleep it off.

None of what he said about drinking seems suspicious to me, so you’ll have to tell me what conclusions you think she could/should fairly draw and publish about it and how it can reasonably and fairly be tied to an accusation he hasn’t even been proven to be physically connected to.

And none of his testimony points to him sexually assaulting anyone, let alone Blasey Fraud with whom he still hasn’t even been placed in the same room, building or street, which is what Mitchell was their to find out.

Drinking too much and even referencing sex (if that’s what he did) does not in any way make him a sexual assaulter - it doesn’t help Frauds case at all, in any way.

There is a HUGE difference between noting Fraud said she could fly but there is evidence she flies frequently; that she not only has memory lapses from 36 years ago, but also apparently has them regarding events that happened a few weeks ago, and that none of the witnesses she named corroborate her story, to deciding I just don’t believe the name of Kavs drinking game!

Blasey Frauds online stuff showed her to be a hard drinking party girl. All that stuff was scrubbed. If you want trial by drinking, partying behaviour and yearbooks, perhaps hers need to be subpoenaed and examined too - in the name of fairness.

But still, you tell me how a much admired experienced prosecutor such as Mitchell would word that and work again.

Well the line of questioning and areas of concern are somewhat obvious. He was asked about his drinking because there have been several witness accounts that he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk. He was asked about his year book because it referenced excessive drinking, sexual activities and even two on one sexual escapades, which match his accusers accusation. His interview with fox and testimony under oath didn’t exactly match these accounts as he painted himself as a hard working virgin who liked the occasional beer.

So it appears there are one of three scenarios happening with him. 1. He was embarrassed ashamed of his behavior as a kid and was lying about it under oath. 2. He committed the acts that he was accused of and either blacked out or is covering it up. Or 3. He was a choir boy who coincidentally had some inside jokes with his friends that unfairly paint him as a sloppy womanizing party boy. And a conspiracy between democratic activists have led to these several fabricated accusations designed to block his nomination and ruin his life.

I must say if it is number 3 then the fabricators must be some of the dumbest people in the world because I don’t see how anybody could make up such flawed stories. Hell, I’d just say he caught her one on one and assaulted her or I’d pit two of the accusers together to validate each others story. It’s been tough for me to make sense out of the fabrication narrative from a realistic standpoint when I explore SPECULATE about the details and motives of the accusation.

His accounts in no way match what he is accused of, and no, I don’t accept there are only your 3 scenarios. The fourth scenario is just as he said, he liked beer, he drank beer, sometimes he drank too much beer, and no he didn’t attempt to sexually assault Fraud or anyone else.

Any problems people are having with his testimony seem to be basically subjective regarding how you interpret his performance, or based on hearsay, NOT evidence.

The problems with Frauds testimony are not based upon her performance or subjective interpretation of her performance, but upon either actual provable lies (flying), her frequently changing testimony, and a complete lack of verifiable facts.

Kav did not present himself as a choirboy either, how many times did he have to say he did drink, he likes drink and that sometimes he drank too much???

Back to Mitchell, I don’t know if it’s in her remit to report on Kavs testimony. Whether it is or not was clearly understood and agreed to in advance by both parties.

Maybe the Dems were confident that their constant accusations of alcoholism would seal the deal?

 

[Silhouette]

Any decent investigator would dive right into Ford. As you’ve been pointing out there are several contradictions in her testimony so why wouldn’t they question her? Remember we are looking for clarity during this inquiry. That could go either way. I’d think you’d champion an inquiry into Fords testimony. It sounds like you are saying it isn’t necessary... whys that?

You'd better believe if the LGBT/dem machine was facing a Ms. Ford accusing a liberal Justice with a 40 year old stale tale, they'd champion the hell out of an inquiry into the veracity of her accounts. The HELL out of it...

 

[Tilly]

Because Dums didn't hire anyone to do that. Instead they pranced and preached their time away.

So she was hired by the republicans so her job was to make their case for them is that what your saying? So why then should we be taking her analysis seriously?

Dums played the white male racist/sexist card so Reps had her ask the questions.

We can readily agree Dums have misplayed this from the start. It will cost them the midterms.

What happens if you’re wrong and the Dems win the midterms and take over the house? Will you change your tune or make excuses?

Then they can probably expect the same disgusting treatment.

That tit for tat attitude has been going on for years. The Dems feel justified in their obstruction because of what the republicans did to Garland. How does it ever stop?

Well the Dems just upped the anti, bigly.
Pretty stupid and extremely nasty, imho.

 

[Tilly]

Oooops


Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm



In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.


He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "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." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process of taking her own polygraph in August was stressful and uncomfortable, although she testified she could not remember if she took the test on the same day as her grandmother's funeral, or the next day....

Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

I hope the FBI questions him and her about these conflicts. Note however that conservatives auto response to Kavs college roommate and other college friends who have come out and called his testimony a lie are dismissing them as disgruntled ex friends. I’m sure some Dems will dismiss this one as a disgruntled ex boyfriend. But if we are being fair we should take all these accounts seriously, right?

Unless people have evidence, it’s all just hearsay.
Personally I’ve heard enough unsubstantiated crap that can’t be proved and the line needs to be drawn.
Pity the Dems sat on this allegation for 6+ weeks instead of doing the right thing to begin with.

 

[Tilly]

Oooops


Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm



In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor mentioned she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford going to great lengths to help a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman, Monica McLean, had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.


He further claimed that Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a "very small," 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

However, on Thursday, Ford testified, "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." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

And Ford explicitly told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday that she had a second front door installed in her home because of "anxiety, phobia and PTSD-like symptoms" that she purportedly suffered in the wake of Kavanaugh's alleged attack at a house party in the 1980s -- "more especially, claustrophobia, panic and that type of thing."

In a pointed, no-holds-barred letter Tuesday evening that referenced the ex-boyfriend's declaration, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded that attorneys for Ford turn over her therapist notes and other key materials, and suggested she was intentionally less than truthful about her experience with polygraph examinations during Thursday's dramatic Senate hearing.

"Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote.

Under questioning from experienced sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell last week, Ford said that she had "never" had "any discussions with anyone ... on how to take a polygraph" or "given any tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test." She repeatedly said the process of taking her own polygraph in August was stressful and uncomfortable, although she testified she could not remember if she took the test on the same day as her grandmother's funeral, or the next day....

Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm

It is interesting that her lawyers are pushing the public line that they want the FBI to talk to her again......considering that will put her story and her life in legal peril, it would be a stupid idea....

Why would FBI need to talk to her? They have all they need from her testimony.

By the way, if there would be an interview, is she going to fly to them, and does interview must be on a specific day of the week?

Why wouldn’t the FBI interview her? Wouldn’t you think it strange if they didn’t?

The FBI aren’t obliged to interview people who’ve already testified under oath, apparently.

Any decent investigator would dive right into Ford. As you’ve been pointing out there are several contradictions in her testimony so why wouldn’t they question her? Remember we are looking for clarity during this inquiry. That could go either way. I’d think you’d champion an inquiry into Fords testimony. It sounds like you are saying it isn’t necessary... whys that?

I would prefer they did question her and Kav too, but I read somewhere a former FBI person saying they interview the leads, they don’t interview people who’ve already testified under oath
Theyve already had their chance under oath?

 

[Slade3200]

Well his testimony could be taken with the same scrutiny to determine if it is factual and credible. Why shouldn’t that be done?

Can you provide some examples from his testimony you think she should evaluate for ‘facts’ and ‘credibility’?
And you do know why Mitchell was there, right?

Sure when he was questioned about his drinking and his yearbook he seemed to give answers that don’t pass the smell test. At best this only dampens the credibility of his word. At worst it reveals deeper seeded lies and a cover up of the very activity he is accused of when he was in school.

Kav said he loved beer then, and that he loves beer now.
Even when the Dems were trying their hardest to paint him as an alcoholic he still admitted he sometimes drank too much and would need to sleep it off.

None of what he said about drinking seems suspicious to me, so you’ll have to tell me what conclusions you think she could/should fairly draw and publish about it and how it can reasonably and fairly be tied to an accusation he hasn’t even been proven to be physically connected to.

And none of his testimony points to him sexually assaulting anyone, let alone Blasey Fraud with whom he still hasn’t even been placed in the same room, building or street, which is what Mitchell was their to find out.

Drinking too much and even referencing sex (if that’s what he did) does not in any way make him a sexual assaulter - it doesn’t help Frauds case at all, in any way.

There is a HUGE difference between noting Fraud said she could fly but there is evidence she flies frequently; that she not only has memory lapses from 36 years ago, but also apparently has them regarding events that happened a few weeks ago, and that none of the witnesses she named corroborate her story, to deciding I just don’t believe the name of Kavs drinking game!

Blasey Frauds online stuff showed her to be a hard drinking party girl. All that stuff was scrubbed. If you want trial by drinking, partying behaviour and yearbooks, perhaps hers need to be subpoenaed and examined too - in the name of fairness.

But still, you tell me how a much admired experienced prosecutor such as Mitchell would word that and work again.

Well the line of questioning and areas of concern are somewhat obvious. He was asked about his drinking because there have been several witness accounts that he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk. He was asked about his year book because it referenced excessive drinking, sexual activities and even two on one sexual escapades, which match his accusers accusation. His interview with fox and testimony under oath didn’t exactly match these accounts as he painted himself as a hard working virgin who liked the occasional beer.

So it appears there are one of three scenarios happening with him. 1. He was embarrassed ashamed of his behavior as a kid and was lying about it under oath. 2. He committed the acts that he was accused of and either blacked out or is covering it up. Or 3. He was a choir boy who coincidentally had some inside jokes with his friends that unfairly paint him as a sloppy womanizing party boy. And a conspiracy between democratic activists have led to these several fabricated accusations designed to block his nomination and ruin his life.

I must say if it is number 3 then the fabricators must be some of the dumbest people in the world because I don’t see how anybody could make up such flawed stories. Hell, I’d just say he caught her one on one and assaulted her or I’d pit two of the accusers together to validate each others story. It’s been tough for me to make sense out of the fabrication narrative from a realistic standpoint when I explore SPECULATE about the details and motives of the accusation.

His accounts in no way match what he is accused of, and no, I don’t accept there are only your 3 scenarios. The fourth scenario is just as he said, he liked beer, he drank beer, sometimes he drank too much beer, and no he didn’t attempt to sexually assault Fraud or anyone else.

Any problems people are having with his testimony seem to be basically subjective regarding how you interpret his performance, or based on hearsay, NOT evidence.

The problems with Frauds testimony are not based upon her performance or subjective interpretation of her performance, but upon either actual provable lies (flying), her frequently changing testimony, and a complete lack of verifiable facts.

Kav did not present himself as a choirboy either, how many times did he have to say he did drink, he likes drink and that sometimes he drank too much???

Back to Mitchell, I don’t know if it’s in her remit to report on Kavs testimony. Whether it is or not was clearly understood and agreed to in advance by both parties.

Maybe the Dems were confident that their constant accusations of alcoholism would seal the deal?

Listen Tilly... Jesus made wine out of water and gave it to his deciples to drink. Friar Tuck was the king of beer. Just because Kav said he drinks beer he wasn’t saying anything to tarnish the reputation that he was painting for himself. Which I wouldn’t expect him too. But many people have come forward to say he was a sloppy and aggressive drunk when he was in school. He and his friends chased girls and had lewd sexual ambitions. Many things that fall close to these accusations against him. And he is throwing shade

We saw how Bush handled his past. He admitted that he made adolescent mistakes. Kav is taking a different approach that many are seeing as dishonest. Plus the fact that he was under oath in a congressional hearing makes it even worse.

 

[Slade3200]

Any decent investigator would dive right into Ford. As you’ve been pointing out there are several contradictions in her testimony so why wouldn’t they question her? Remember we are looking for clarity during this inquiry. That could go either way. I’d think you’d champion an inquiry into Fords testimony. It sounds like you are saying it isn’t necessary... whys that?

You'd better believe if the LGBT/dem machine was facing a Ms. Ford accusing a liberal Justice with a 40 year old stale tale, they'd champion the hell out of an inquiry into the veracity of her accounts. The HELL out of it...

Sure, isn’t that what I’ve been saying?

 

[Slade3200]

So she was hired by the republicans so her job was to make their case for them is that what your saying? So why then should we be taking her analysis seriously?

Dums played the white male racist/sexist card so Reps had her ask the questions.

We can readily agree Dums have misplayed this from the start. It will cost them the midterms.

What happens if you’re wrong and the Dems win the midterms and take over the house? Will you change your tune or make excuses?

Then they can probably expect the same disgusting treatment.

That tit for tat attitude has been going on for years. The Dems feel justified in their obstruction because of what the republicans did to Garland. How does it ever stop?

Well the Dems just upped the anti, bigly.
Pretty stupid and extremely nasty, imho.

If the Dems were part of a conspiracy to fabricate stories to block a judge they should all be impeached and along with accusers thrown in jail. If that’s really what you think is happening then you should be pushing the FBI to investigate the shit out of this thing and expose the corruption. Something of this scale shouldn’t be too difficult to track down don’t you think?

 

[Slade3200]

It is interesting that her lawyers are pushing the public line that they want the FBI to talk to her again......considering that will put her story and her life in legal peril, it would be a stupid idea....

Why would FBI need to talk to her? They have all they need from her testimony.

By the way, if there would be an interview, is she going to fly to them, and does interview must be on a specific day of the week?

Why wouldn’t the FBI interview her? Wouldn’t you think it strange if they didn’t?

The FBI aren’t obliged to interview people who’ve already testified under oath, apparently.

Any decent investigator would dive right into Ford. As you’ve been pointing out there are several contradictions in her testimony so why wouldn’t they question her? Remember we are looking for clarity during this inquiry. That could go either way. I’d think you’d champion an inquiry into Fords testimony. It sounds like you are saying it isn’t necessary... whys that?

I would prefer they did question her and Kav too, but I read somewhere a former FBI person saying they interview the leads, they don’t interview people who’ve already testified under oath
Theyve already had their chance under oath?

It’s not about having a chance it’s about finding the truth and they can only do that through inquiry. I’d actually think that they would interview Kav and Ford last after they’ve gathered all other accounts. If they don’t then I’ll be scratching my head

 

[Tilly]

Kav is taking a different approach that many are seeing as dishonest. Plus the fact that he was under oath in a congressional hearing makes it even worse.

In your opinion he’s ‘taking an approach’.
Maybe he’s simply telling the truth.