Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Completely unnecessary since she has no proof, evidence or corroboration to even substantiate a charge.The shit is really going to hit the fan....slow and steady conservatives play this shit out until the very last days of Oct....then drop ALL THE HAMMERS!
Why Dr. Ford Must Provide Her Therapy Notes to the Senate
National Review ^
Last week, Senate Democrats turned upside down centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence when they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge. Compounding the injustice of this nonsensical approach was the Senate Judiciary Committee’s willingness to allow Ford to testify that in 2012 and 2013 she had told her therapist about the now-36-year-old alleged incident, even though her attorneys had refused to provide the senators with a copy of her patient file.
Prior to the start of Thursday’s hearing, committee chairman Charles Grassley had requested the notes; her attorneys had demurred, claiming it would invade Ford’s privacy. But the therapy notes are significant to the Senate’s assessment of Ford’s account, because the details Ford apparently provided to her therapist conflict with the story she told the Judiciary Committee.
In her opening statement, Ford told the senators that in the summer of 1982, when she was 15 years old, an intoxicated Kavanaugh locked her in a bedroom, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothing, while his friend Mark Judge laughed and encouraged him to “go for it.” But the Washington Post’s Emma Brown reviewed portions of the therapy notes (provided by Ford), and wrote in her story breaking the news of Ford’s allegation that they describe “a ‘rape attempt’ in her late teens.”
Fifteen does not translate into “late teens,” even under a generous reading of that phrase. Further, in her initial text to the Washington Post, Ford stated that Kavanaugh had attacked her in the mid 1980s, which would put Ford in her late teens and Kavanaugh in college.
Additionally, the Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes state that four boys were involved in the attack. Ford claims that was a mistake made by her therapist and that while “there were four boys at the party,” only two — Judge and Kavanaugh — were in the room. The Washington Post further stressed that the notes “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name,” but do state that Ford “was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’”
They may reveal significant changes to the accuser’s story. Last week, Senate Democrats turned upside down centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence when they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge. Compounding the injustice of this nonsensical approach was the Senate Judiciary Committee’s willingness to allow Ford to testify that in 2012 and 2013 she had told her therapist about the now-36-year-old alleged incident, even though her attorneys had refused to provide the senators with a copy of her patient file.
Prior to the start of Thursday’s hearing, committee chairman Charles Grassley had requested the notes; her attorneys had demurred, claiming it would invade Ford’s privacy. But the therapy notes are significant to the Senate’s assessment of Ford’s account, because the details Ford apparently provided to her therapist conflict with the story she told the Judiciary Committee.
In her opening statement, Ford told the senators that in the summer of 1982, when she was 15 years old, an intoxicated Kavanaugh locked her in a bedroom, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothing, while his friend Mark Judge laughed and encouraged him to “go for it.” But the Washington Post’s Emma Brown reviewed portions of the therapy notes (provided by Ford), and wrote in her story breaking the news of Ford’s allegation that they describe “a ‘rape attempt’ in her late teens.”
Fifteen does not translate into “late teens,” even under a generous reading of that phrase. Further, in her initial text to the Washington Post, Ford stated that Kavanaugh had attacked her in the mid 1980s, which would put Ford in her late teens and Kavanaugh in college.
Additionally, the Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes state that four boys were involved in the attack. Ford claims that was a mistake made by her therapist and that while “there were four boys at the party,” only two — Judge and Kavanaugh — were in the room. The Washington Post further stressed that the notes “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name,” but do state that Ford “was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’”
The disparity and vagueness raise significant questions that could best be answered by a thorough review of Ford’s therapy-session notes. And Ford’s testimony at Thursday’s hearing unwittingly highlighted this reality.
Early on during questioning by sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell concerning the accuracy of the letter Ford had sent to Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ford incongruously raised the issue of Mark Judge’s employment at Safeway. Ford claimed that about six to eight weeks after the attack, she saw Judge once at the Potomac Village store, adding “it would be helpful with anyone’s resources if — to figure out when he worked there, if people are wanting more details from me about when the attack occurred. If we could find out when he worked there, then I could provide a more detailed timeline as to when the attack occurred.”
Ford would later raise the question of Judge’s job at Safeway an additional four times, and two Democratic senators would follow her lead and suggest that the FBI determine when Judge worked at the Safeway. Ford would also later add in the cross streets for the store location and a strange story about how she refused to enter the store through the same door as her mother — thus when she saw Judge, she was alone.
Why did Ford dwell on Judge’s job at Safeway? And how would knowing when Judge worked there help? It made no sense. Ford had already testified that the attack happened in the summer of 1982, and since she claimed she ran into him six to eight weeks later, at best this information could narrow down the time of the claimed assault only slightly.
What this talking point did achieve was to distract attention away from changes in Ford’s timeline. The media quickly picked up Judge’s book, Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk, in which the former Kavanaugh classmate wrote that for three weeks during the summer before his senior year in high school, he worked at the local supermarket. The press saw this passage as corroborating Ford’s testimony that the attack occurred in the summer of 1982. And with that, the therapist’s notes went to the wayside, and the conflict between Ford’s original claim that the attack occurred in the mid 1980s, in her late teens, was ignored — at least in the press.
Ford’s focus on Safeway, however, did not distract the seasoned specialist, and Sunday night, in a report to the Senate, Mitchell stressed, among other things, the disparate stories concerning the timing of the attack and Ford’s age.
Yet the investigation continues, and some Republican senators and moderate Democrats seem undecided. For those gentlemen and gentlewomen, I have one suggestion: Request a full copy of Ford’s therapy reports, and if her attorneys refuse to provide the information (confidentially of course), refuse to consider any of Ford’s testimony.
"they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge"
FALSE ^
You must be a Soviet.
Lol, so the accused is a witness to by your bad logic.Eye witness testimony is evidence. Especially credible eye witness testimony like Christine Blasey Ford who testified under oath.
Who is the witness that Feinstein or anyone on her team leaked Blasey's letter?
That would be no one. Lindsey made it up, pulled sideways out of his ass.
Her eye witness testimony under oath is evidence. You can tell by the fact that the investigation was initiated only *after* she testified.
Lol, so the accused is a witness to by your bad logic.Eye witness testimony is evidence. Especially credible eye witness testimony like Christine Blasey Ford who testified under oath.
Who is the witness that Feinstein or anyone on her team leaked Blasey's letter?
That would be no one. Lindsey made it up, pulled sideways out of his ass.
And only a complete idiotic moron dipshit would think that some Dimocrat staffer did not leak the details.
roflmao
The investigation underway isn’t criminal.Completely unnecessary since she has no proof, evidence or corroboration to even substantiate a charge.The shit is really going to hit the fan....slow and steady conservatives play this shit out until the very last days of Oct....then drop ALL THE HAMMERS!
Why Dr. Ford Must Provide Her Therapy Notes to the Senate
National Review ^
Last week, Senate Democrats turned upside down centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence when they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge. Compounding the injustice of this nonsensical approach was the Senate Judiciary Committee’s willingness to allow Ford to testify that in 2012 and 2013 she had told her therapist about the now-36-year-old alleged incident, even though her attorneys had refused to provide the senators with a copy of her patient file.
Prior to the start of Thursday’s hearing, committee chairman Charles Grassley had requested the notes; her attorneys had demurred, claiming it would invade Ford’s privacy. But the therapy notes are significant to the Senate’s assessment of Ford’s account, because the details Ford apparently provided to her therapist conflict with the story she told the Judiciary Committee.
In her opening statement, Ford told the senators that in the summer of 1982, when she was 15 years old, an intoxicated Kavanaugh locked her in a bedroom, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothing, while his friend Mark Judge laughed and encouraged him to “go for it.” But the Washington Post’s Emma Brown reviewed portions of the therapy notes (provided by Ford), and wrote in her story breaking the news of Ford’s allegation that they describe “a ‘rape attempt’ in her late teens.”
Fifteen does not translate into “late teens,” even under a generous reading of that phrase. Further, in her initial text to the Washington Post, Ford stated that Kavanaugh had attacked her in the mid 1980s, which would put Ford in her late teens and Kavanaugh in college.
Additionally, the Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes state that four boys were involved in the attack. Ford claims that was a mistake made by her therapist and that while “there were four boys at the party,” only two — Judge and Kavanaugh — were in the room. The Washington Post further stressed that the notes “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name,” but do state that Ford “was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’”
They may reveal significant changes to the accuser’s story. Last week, Senate Democrats turned upside down centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence when they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge. Compounding the injustice of this nonsensical approach was the Senate Judiciary Committee’s willingness to allow Ford to testify that in 2012 and 2013 she had told her therapist about the now-36-year-old alleged incident, even though her attorneys had refused to provide the senators with a copy of her patient file.
Prior to the start of Thursday’s hearing, committee chairman Charles Grassley had requested the notes; her attorneys had demurred, claiming it would invade Ford’s privacy. But the therapy notes are significant to the Senate’s assessment of Ford’s account, because the details Ford apparently provided to her therapist conflict with the story she told the Judiciary Committee.
In her opening statement, Ford told the senators that in the summer of 1982, when she was 15 years old, an intoxicated Kavanaugh locked her in a bedroom, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothing, while his friend Mark Judge laughed and encouraged him to “go for it.” But the Washington Post’s Emma Brown reviewed portions of the therapy notes (provided by Ford), and wrote in her story breaking the news of Ford’s allegation that they describe “a ‘rape attempt’ in her late teens.”
Fifteen does not translate into “late teens,” even under a generous reading of that phrase. Further, in her initial text to the Washington Post, Ford stated that Kavanaugh had attacked her in the mid 1980s, which would put Ford in her late teens and Kavanaugh in college.
Additionally, the Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes state that four boys were involved in the attack. Ford claims that was a mistake made by her therapist and that while “there were four boys at the party,” only two — Judge and Kavanaugh — were in the room. The Washington Post further stressed that the notes “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name,” but do state that Ford “was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’”
The disparity and vagueness raise significant questions that could best be answered by a thorough review of Ford’s therapy-session notes. And Ford’s testimony at Thursday’s hearing unwittingly highlighted this reality.
Early on during questioning by sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell concerning the accuracy of the letter Ford had sent to Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ford incongruously raised the issue of Mark Judge’s employment at Safeway. Ford claimed that about six to eight weeks after the attack, she saw Judge once at the Potomac Village store, adding “it would be helpful with anyone’s resources if — to figure out when he worked there, if people are wanting more details from me about when the attack occurred. If we could find out when he worked there, then I could provide a more detailed timeline as to when the attack occurred.”
Ford would later raise the question of Judge’s job at Safeway an additional four times, and two Democratic senators would follow her lead and suggest that the FBI determine when Judge worked at the Safeway. Ford would also later add in the cross streets for the store location and a strange story about how she refused to enter the store through the same door as her mother — thus when she saw Judge, she was alone.
Why did Ford dwell on Judge’s job at Safeway? And how would knowing when Judge worked there help? It made no sense. Ford had already testified that the attack happened in the summer of 1982, and since she claimed she ran into him six to eight weeks later, at best this information could narrow down the time of the claimed assault only slightly.
What this talking point did achieve was to distract attention away from changes in Ford’s timeline. The media quickly picked up Judge’s book, Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk, in which the former Kavanaugh classmate wrote that for three weeks during the summer before his senior year in high school, he worked at the local supermarket. The press saw this passage as corroborating Ford’s testimony that the attack occurred in the summer of 1982. And with that, the therapist’s notes went to the wayside, and the conflict between Ford’s original claim that the attack occurred in the mid 1980s, in her late teens, was ignored — at least in the press.
Ford’s focus on Safeway, however, did not distract the seasoned specialist, and Sunday night, in a report to the Senate, Mitchell stressed, among other things, the disparate stories concerning the timing of the attack and Ford’s age.
Yet the investigation continues, and some Republican senators and moderate Democrats seem undecided. For those gentlemen and gentlewomen, I have one suggestion: Request a full copy of Ford’s therapy reports, and if her attorneys refuse to provide the information (confidentially of course), refuse to consider any of Ford’s testimony.
"they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge"
FALSE ^
You must be a Soviet.
Her eye witness testimony under oath is evidence. You can tell by the fact that the investigation was initiated only *after* she testified.
This might help:Polls show WRT hearing believability, it’s a wash. And, for Democrats, that is an absolute nightmare.
They connived like thieves.....had it all planned.
They’d lacerate Kav and Repubs ......and collect the votes at midterm.
Too fucking bad ...that aint happening.
Democrats set themselves up by screaming for an investigation. It just blew up in their faces as Sen. Graham says he’ll make sure there is a full-scale probe into Dems smear campaign efforts.
Senator Lindsey Graham has the Democrats in a virtual panic. Graham shredded Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings saying they used to be his friends and that all they care about now is hurting Trump, stalling Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the 2020 election. But if they thought that was a one-off for Lindsey, they were sadly mistaken.
Graham is now calling for an investigation into the Senate Judiciary Committee’s management of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, accusing Democrats of handling her accusations so as to inflict maximum damage on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. He’s right of course. This was politically choreographed to the hilt.
(Excerpt) Read more at redrightvideos.com ...l)11110
Her eye witness testimony under oath is evidence. You can tell by the fact that the investigation was initiated only *after* she testified.
No Corroboration, of 4 names witnesses FBI check they either don't know her or were not there, She co authored a book on SELF HYPNOSIS, and we all know false memories can be implanted in ones memory.This is why the FBI is CURRENTLY investigating Difi!. Personally, Ford is a fuckingvliar a useful tool to mind manipulation by some DNC psychologists.You mean like all the UNFOUNDED EVIDENCE against the judge?.....only one place that letter could have been leaked from. Is that like far out going to a gang rape party at least 10 times, as the 2nd whore stated?....Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your stupidity!Polls show WRT hearing believability, it’s a wash. And, for Democrats, that is an absolute nightmare.
They connived like thieves.....had it all planned.
They’d lacerate Kav and Repubs ......and collect the votes at midterm.
Too fucking bad ...that aint happening.
Democrats set themselves up by screaming for an investigation. It just blew up in their faces as Sen. Graham says he’ll make sure there is a full-scale probe into Dems smear campaign efforts.
Senator Lindsey Graham has the Democrats in a virtual panic. Graham shredded Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings saying they used to be his friends and that all they care about now is hurting Trump, stalling Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the 2020 election. But if they thought that was a one-off for Lindsey, they were sadly mistaken.
Graham is now calling for an investigation into the Senate Judiciary Committee’s management of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, accusing Democrats of handling her accusations so as to inflict maximum damage on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. He’s right of course. This was politically choreographed to the hilt.
(Excerpt) Read more at redrightvideos.com ...l)11110
And by 'ready to explode', you mean Lindsey Graham made an unfounded accusation against Feinstein, citing no evidence.
Alas, Purge......you have a rather obvious tell. The more far fetched your claim, the most over the top hyperbole and dramatic language you use to describe it.
Eye witness testimony is evidence. Especially credible eye witness testimony like Christine Blasey Ford who testified under oath.
Who is the witness that Feinstein or anyone on her team leaked Blasey's letter?
That would be no one. Lindsey made it up, pulled sideways out of his ass.
This might help:Polls show WRT hearing believability, it’s a wash. And, for Democrats, that is an absolute nightmare.
They connived like thieves.....had it all planned.
They’d lacerate Kav and Repubs ......and collect the votes at midterm.
Too fucking bad ...that aint happening.
Democrats set themselves up by screaming for an investigation. It just blew up in their faces as Sen. Graham says he’ll make sure there is a full-scale probe into Dems smear campaign efforts.
Senator Lindsey Graham has the Democrats in a virtual panic. Graham shredded Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings saying they used to be his friends and that all they care about now is hurting Trump, stalling Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the 2020 election. But if they thought that was a one-off for Lindsey, they were sadly mistaken.
Graham is now calling for an investigation into the Senate Judiciary Committee’s management of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, accusing Democrats of handling her accusations so as to inflict maximum damage on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. He’s right of course. This was politically choreographed to the hilt.
(Excerpt) Read more at redrightvideos.com ...l)11110
All The Lies Brett Kavanaugh Told
Unless you like liars.
Is that it? You like liars?
The Three Lies of Christine Blasey Ford - americanthinker.comThis might help:Polls show WRT hearing believability, it’s a wash. And, for Democrats, that is an absolute nightmare.
They connived like thieves.....had it all planned.
They’d lacerate Kav and Repubs ......and collect the votes at midterm.
Too fucking bad ...that aint happening.
Democrats set themselves up by screaming for an investigation. It just blew up in their faces as Sen. Graham says he’ll make sure there is a full-scale probe into Dems smear campaign efforts.
Senator Lindsey Graham has the Democrats in a virtual panic. Graham shredded Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings saying they used to be his friends and that all they care about now is hurting Trump, stalling Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the 2020 election. But if they thought that was a one-off for Lindsey, they were sadly mistaken.
Graham is now calling for an investigation into the Senate Judiciary Committee’s management of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, accusing Democrats of handling her accusations so as to inflict maximum damage on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. He’s right of course. This was politically choreographed to the hilt.
(Excerpt) Read more at redrightvideos.com ...l)11110
All The Lies Brett Kavanaugh Told
Unless you like liars.
Is that it? You like liars?
No Corroboration, of 4 names witnesses FBI check they either don't know her or were not there, She co authored a book on SELF HYPNOSIS, and we all know false memories can be implanted in ones memory.This is why the FBI is CURRENTLY investigating Difi!. Personally, Ford is a fuckingvliar a useful tool to mind manipulation by some DNC psychologists.You mean like all the UNFOUNDED EVIDENCE against the judge?.....only one place that letter could have been leaked from. Is that like far out going to a gang rape party at least 10 times, as the 2nd whore stated?....Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your stupidity!Polls show WRT hearing believability, it’s a wash. And, for Democrats, that is an absolute nightmare.
They connived like thieves.....had it all planned.
They’d lacerate Kav and Repubs ......and collect the votes at midterm.
Too fucking bad ...that aint happening.
Democrats set themselves up by screaming for an investigation. It just blew up in their faces as Sen. Graham says he’ll make sure there is a full-scale probe into Dems smear campaign efforts.
Senator Lindsey Graham has the Democrats in a virtual panic. Graham shredded Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings saying they used to be his friends and that all they care about now is hurting Trump, stalling Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the 2020 election. But if they thought that was a one-off for Lindsey, they were sadly mistaken.
Graham is now calling for an investigation into the Senate Judiciary Committee’s management of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, accusing Democrats of handling her accusations so as to inflict maximum damage on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. He’s right of course. This was politically choreographed to the hilt.
(Excerpt) Read more at redrightvideos.com ...l)11110
And by 'ready to explode', you mean Lindsey Graham made an unfounded accusation against Feinstein, citing no evidence.
Alas, Purge......you have a rather obvious tell. The more far fetched your claim, the most over the top hyperbole and dramatic language you use to describe it.
Eye witness testimony is evidence. Especially credible eye witness testimony like Christine Blasey Ford who testified under oath.
Who is the witness that Feinstein or anyone on her team leaked Blasey's letter?
That would be no one. Lindsey made it up, pulled sideways out of his ass.
The investigation underway isn’t criminal.Completely unnecessary since she has no proof, evidence or corroboration to even substantiate a charge.The shit is really going to hit the fan....slow and steady conservatives play this shit out until the very last days of Oct....then drop ALL THE HAMMERS!
Why Dr. Ford Must Provide Her Therapy Notes to the Senate
National Review ^
Last week, Senate Democrats turned upside down centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence when they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge. Compounding the injustice of this nonsensical approach was the Senate Judiciary Committee’s willingness to allow Ford to testify that in 2012 and 2013 she had told her therapist about the now-36-year-old alleged incident, even though her attorneys had refused to provide the senators with a copy of her patient file.
Prior to the start of Thursday’s hearing, committee chairman Charles Grassley had requested the notes; her attorneys had demurred, claiming it would invade Ford’s privacy. But the therapy notes are significant to the Senate’s assessment of Ford’s account, because the details Ford apparently provided to her therapist conflict with the story she told the Judiciary Committee.
In her opening statement, Ford told the senators that in the summer of 1982, when she was 15 years old, an intoxicated Kavanaugh locked her in a bedroom, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothing, while his friend Mark Judge laughed and encouraged him to “go for it.” But the Washington Post’s Emma Brown reviewed portions of the therapy notes (provided by Ford), and wrote in her story breaking the news of Ford’s allegation that they describe “a ‘rape attempt’ in her late teens.”
Fifteen does not translate into “late teens,” even under a generous reading of that phrase. Further, in her initial text to the Washington Post, Ford stated that Kavanaugh had attacked her in the mid 1980s, which would put Ford in her late teens and Kavanaugh in college.
Additionally, the Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes state that four boys were involved in the attack. Ford claims that was a mistake made by her therapist and that while “there were four boys at the party,” only two — Judge and Kavanaugh — were in the room. The Washington Post further stressed that the notes “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name,” but do state that Ford “was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’”
They may reveal significant changes to the accuser’s story. Last week, Senate Democrats turned upside down centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence when they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge. Compounding the injustice of this nonsensical approach was the Senate Judiciary Committee’s willingness to allow Ford to testify that in 2012 and 2013 she had told her therapist about the now-36-year-old alleged incident, even though her attorneys had refused to provide the senators with a copy of her patient file.
Prior to the start of Thursday’s hearing, committee chairman Charles Grassley had requested the notes; her attorneys had demurred, claiming it would invade Ford’s privacy. But the therapy notes are significant to the Senate’s assessment of Ford’s account, because the details Ford apparently provided to her therapist conflict with the story she told the Judiciary Committee.
In her opening statement, Ford told the senators that in the summer of 1982, when she was 15 years old, an intoxicated Kavanaugh locked her in a bedroom, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothing, while his friend Mark Judge laughed and encouraged him to “go for it.” But the Washington Post’s Emma Brown reviewed portions of the therapy notes (provided by Ford), and wrote in her story breaking the news of Ford’s allegation that they describe “a ‘rape attempt’ in her late teens.”
Fifteen does not translate into “late teens,” even under a generous reading of that phrase. Further, in her initial text to the Washington Post, Ford stated that Kavanaugh had attacked her in the mid 1980s, which would put Ford in her late teens and Kavanaugh in college.
Additionally, the Washington Post reported that the therapist’s notes state that four boys were involved in the attack. Ford claims that was a mistake made by her therapist and that while “there were four boys at the party,” only two — Judge and Kavanaugh — were in the room. The Washington Post further stressed that the notes “do not mention Kavanaugh’s name,” but do state that Ford “was attacked by students ‘from an elitist boys’ school’ who went on to become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’”
The disparity and vagueness raise significant questions that could best be answered by a thorough review of Ford’s therapy-session notes. And Ford’s testimony at Thursday’s hearing unwittingly highlighted this reality.
Early on during questioning by sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell concerning the accuracy of the letter Ford had sent to Senator Dianne Feinstein, Ford incongruously raised the issue of Mark Judge’s employment at Safeway. Ford claimed that about six to eight weeks after the attack, she saw Judge once at the Potomac Village store, adding “it would be helpful with anyone’s resources if — to figure out when he worked there, if people are wanting more details from me about when the attack occurred. If we could find out when he worked there, then I could provide a more detailed timeline as to when the attack occurred.”
Ford would later raise the question of Judge’s job at Safeway an additional four times, and two Democratic senators would follow her lead and suggest that the FBI determine when Judge worked at the Safeway. Ford would also later add in the cross streets for the store location and a strange story about how she refused to enter the store through the same door as her mother — thus when she saw Judge, she was alone.
Why did Ford dwell on Judge’s job at Safeway? And how would knowing when Judge worked there help? It made no sense. Ford had already testified that the attack happened in the summer of 1982, and since she claimed she ran into him six to eight weeks later, at best this information could narrow down the time of the claimed assault only slightly.
What this talking point did achieve was to distract attention away from changes in Ford’s timeline. The media quickly picked up Judge’s book, Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk, in which the former Kavanaugh classmate wrote that for three weeks during the summer before his senior year in high school, he worked at the local supermarket. The press saw this passage as corroborating Ford’s testimony that the attack occurred in the summer of 1982. And with that, the therapist’s notes went to the wayside, and the conflict between Ford’s original claim that the attack occurred in the mid 1980s, in her late teens, was ignored — at least in the press.
Ford’s focus on Safeway, however, did not distract the seasoned specialist, and Sunday night, in a report to the Senate, Mitchell stressed, among other things, the disparate stories concerning the timing of the attack and Ford’s age.
Yet the investigation continues, and some Republican senators and moderate Democrats seem undecided. For those gentlemen and gentlewomen, I have one suggestion: Request a full copy of Ford’s therapy reports, and if her attorneys refuse to provide the information (confidentially of course), refuse to consider any of Ford’s testimony.
"they put the onus on Brett Kavanaugh to disprove Christine Blasey Ford’s sexual-assault charge"
FALSE ^
You must be a Soviet.
Her eye witness testimony under oath is evidence. You can tell by the fact that the investigation was initiated only *after* she testified.
Her testimony is unsubstantiated rendering it virtual hearsay.
There is no case.
Thatt was what her book was about!!No Corroboration, of 4 names witnesses FBI check they either don't know her or were not there, She co authored a book on SELF HYPNOSIS, and we all know false memories can be implanted in ones memory.This is why the FBI is CURRENTLY investigating Difi!. Personally, Ford is a fuckingvliar a useful tool to mind manipulation by some DNC psychologists.You mean like all the UNFOUNDED EVIDENCE against the judge?.....only one place that letter could have been leaked from. Is that like far out going to a gang rape party at least 10 times, as the 2nd whore stated?....Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your stupidity!Polls show WRT hearing believability, it’s a wash. And, for Democrats, that is an absolute nightmare.
They connived like thieves.....had it all planned.
They’d lacerate Kav and Repubs ......and collect the votes at midterm.
Too fucking bad ...that aint happening.
Democrats set themselves up by screaming for an investigation. It just blew up in their faces as Sen. Graham says he’ll make sure there is a full-scale probe into Dems smear campaign efforts.
Senator Lindsey Graham has the Democrats in a virtual panic. Graham shredded Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings saying they used to be his friends and that all they care about now is hurting Trump, stalling Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the 2020 election. But if they thought that was a one-off for Lindsey, they were sadly mistaken.
Graham is now calling for an investigation into the Senate Judiciary Committee’s management of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, accusing Democrats of handling her accusations so as to inflict maximum damage on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. He’s right of course. This was politically choreographed to the hilt.
(Excerpt) Read more at redrightvideos.com ...l)11110
And by 'ready to explode', you mean Lindsey Graham made an unfounded accusation against Feinstein, citing no evidence.
Alas, Purge......you have a rather obvious tell. The more far fetched your claim, the most over the top hyperbole and dramatic language you use to describe it.
Eye witness testimony is evidence. Especially credible eye witness testimony like Christine Blasey Ford who testified under oath.
Who is the witness that Feinstein or anyone on her team leaked Blasey's letter?
That would be no one. Lindsey made it up, pulled sideways out of his ass.
So your working theory is that Ford self hypnotized herself and implanted false memories?
Laughing........really?
Thatt was what her book was about!!No Corroboration, of 4 names witnesses FBI check they either don't know her or were not there, She co authored a book on SELF HYPNOSIS, and we all know false memories can be implanted in ones memory.This is why the FBI is CURRENTLY investigating Difi!. Personally, Ford is a fuckingvliar a useful tool to mind manipulation by some DNC psychologists.You mean like all the UNFOUNDED EVIDENCE against the judge?.....only one place that letter could have been leaked from. Is that like far out going to a gang rape party at least 10 times, as the 2nd whore stated?....Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your stupidity!And by 'ready to explode', you mean Lindsey Graham made an unfounded accusation against Feinstein, citing no evidence.
Alas, Purge......you have a rather obvious tell. The more far fetched your claim, the most over the top hyperbole and dramatic language you use to describe it.
Eye witness testimony is evidence. Especially credible eye witness testimony like Christine Blasey Ford who testified under oath.
Who is the witness that Feinstein or anyone on her team leaked Blasey's letter?
That would be no one. Lindsey made it up, pulled sideways out of his ass.
So your working theory is that Ford self hypnotized herself and implanted false memories?
Laughing........really?
Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and 'Create ...
https://gellerreport.com › 2018/10 › ford...
9 hours ago · Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to ... editor-in-chief of Geller Report and Amazon best selling author of the here .
`<snipped for brevity>Graham is now calling for an investigation into the Senate Judiciary Committee’s management of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, accusing Democrats of handling her accusations so as to inflict maximum damage on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. He’s right of course. This was politically choreographed to the hilt.(Excerpt) Read more at redrightvideos.com ...l)11110
Witness: Kavanaugh Accuser Likes Having Sex with More Than one Guy at a Time
Gateway Pundit ^ | October 2, 2018 | Jim Hoft
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today received a signed statement from Mr. Dennis Ketterer, the former Democratic candidate for Congress and weatherman for WJLA Channel 7 in Washington, regarding the recent allegations made by Julie Swetnick against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Mr. Ketterer had a relationship with Ms. Swetnick in the 1990s. Below are excerpts of the signed statement, which was provided to the committee under penalty of felony. “During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.
“I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to-time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.” …
“Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will. She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity.” …
“Because I had lost Julie’s number I called her father to get it. When I talked to him about possibly bringing her on to help with my campaign, he told me that she had psychological and other problems at the time.” …
“I know what it’s like to be sexually assaulted and not be believed. I was 9 years old when it happened at the hands of my grandfather’s best friend.” …
“My heart still feels heavy, for me as well as Julie and the Kavanaughs. That said, based on my direct experience with Julie, I do not believe her allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh
Kinky bitch!
Polls show WRT hearing believability, it’s a wash. And, for Democrats, that is an absolute nightmare.
They connived like thieves.....had it all planned.
They’d lacerate Kav and Repubs ......and collect the votes at midterm.
Too fucking bad ...that aint happening.
Democrats set themselves up by screaming for an investigation. It just blew up in their faces as Sen. Graham says he’ll make sure there is a full-scale probe into Dems smear campaign efforts.
Senator Lindsey Graham has the Democrats in a virtual panic. Graham shredded Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings saying they used to be his friends and that all they care about now is hurting Trump, stalling Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the 2020 election. But if they thought that was a one-off for Lindsey, they were sadly mistaken.
Graham is now calling for an investigation into the Senate Judiciary Committee’s management of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations, accusing Democrats of handling her accusations so as to inflict maximum damage on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. He’s right of course. This was politically choreographed to the hilt.
(Excerpt) Read more at redrightvideos.com ...l)11110
Witness: Kavanaugh Accuser Likes Having Sex with More Than one Guy at a Time
Gateway Pundit ^ | October 2, 2018 | Jim Hoft
WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee today received a signed statement from Mr. Dennis Ketterer, the former Democratic candidate for Congress and weatherman for WJLA Channel 7 in Washington, regarding the recent allegations made by Julie Swetnick against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Mr. Ketterer had a relationship with Ms. Swetnick in the 1990s. Below are excerpts of the signed statement, which was provided to the committee under penalty of felony. “During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.
“I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to-time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.” …
“Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will. She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity.” …
“Because I had lost Julie’s number I called her father to get it. When I talked to him about possibly bringing her on to help with my campaign, he told me that she had psychological and other problems at the time.” …
“I know what it’s like to be sexually assaulted and not be believed. I was 9 years old when it happened at the hands of my grandfather’s best friend.” …
“My heart still feels heavy, for me as well as Julie and the Kavanaughs. That said, based on my direct experience with Julie, I do not believe her allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh
Kinky bitch!
Which has relevance how?
I'm still waiting for you to back the batshit 'Christine Ford was in a hypnotic trance during her testimony' conspiracy.
Can I take it from your refusal that you don't put much credence in what Pam Geller puts in her blog either?
It's all about the midterms and for Dems it's a disaster. They should've just opposed K and let it go.
