Do you Believe Kavanaugh's Rape Accuser?

[Aba Incieni]

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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.

They wasted most of their time trying to prove Kav was a drunk 36 years ago. But of course their task was a difficult one, having no alibi to probe and literally no details whatsoever!

The wife beater, the pretend Vietnam war hero, and the Chinese spy lover look down on K with indignation.

 

[Tilly]

As I stated, I couldn’t view Kavs testimony over the Devils Triangle as suspicious or conflicting as - being a girl as pure as the driven snow - I’d never even heard that phrase, and drinking game sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation to me, and it still could be what they named a drinking game - for all any of us know!

Quick, get the FBI on what he named his drinking game!!???

Yes, I brought up Frauds flying deception, and that isnt the only inconsistency in her sorry story, nor the most alarming.

Have you read Rachel Mitchell’s report yet?

If not, you should.

Ok Snow White, I’ll check it out

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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?

Nope......she was there to question Ford, not Kavanaugh...the accuser, not the accused........and all 3 of the accusers and their fake stories are falling apart......even the democrats in the media can't keep lying about them....

Naw, y’all are just getting more time and traction with your discrediting talking points, and it’s doaking into the partisan puppets spongy brains. If you say something enough people will believe it. Let’s just stick to the facts, there is an investigation by the FBI so let’s see what it turn up.

Whut???
No more speculatin’?

 

[Tilly]

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.

They wasted most of their time trying to prove Kav was a drunk 36 years ago. But of course their task was a difficult one, having no alibi to probe and literally no details whatsoever!

The wife beater, the pretend Vietnam war hero, and the Chinese spy lover look down on K with indignation.

Yep. That was quite something.
Some people know no shame!

 

[Slade3200]

Ok Snow White, I’ll check it out

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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?

 

[Tilly]

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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?

She was hired in order to deny the left the optics of old white men abusing poor female victim.
So instead of republican senators asking questions, Mitchell asked the questions.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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?

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.

 

[Slade3200]

Ok Snow White, I’ll check it out

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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.

 

[Slade3200]

Ok Snow White, I’ll check it out

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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?

Nope......she was there to question Ford, not Kavanaugh...the accuser, not the accused........and all 3 of the accusers and their fake stories are falling apart......even the democrats in the media can't keep lying about them....

Naw, y’all are just getting more time and traction with your discrediting talking points, and it’s doaking into the partisan puppets spongy brains. If you say something enough people will believe it. Let’s just stick to the facts, there is an investigation by the FBI so let’s see what it turn up.

Seems like that might be wrapped up soon and DiFi wants the report sealed
Oh the irony!




✔

.@SenFeinstein indicates that the FBI report on Kavanaugh should NOT be made public: “It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified this ought to be held very close and not."

"I think the investigation ought to be closely held," she reiterated.

6:09 PM - Oct 2, 2018

Well that’s BS. The report very damn well be made public. Redact names if you have to be the guts need to be known to the public

 

[Slade3200]

Ok Snow White, I’ll check it out

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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?

Nope......she was there to question Ford, not Kavanaugh...the accuser, not the accused........and all 3 of the accusers and their fake stories are falling apart......even the democrats in the media can't keep lying about them....

Naw, y’all are just getting more time and traction with your discrediting talking points, and it’s doaking into the partisan puppets spongy brains. If you say something enough people will believe it. Let’s just stick to the facts, there is an investigation by the FBI so let’s see what it turn up.

Whut???
No more speculatin’?

Happy to speculate for discussion. Not to draw conclusions

 

[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?

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?

 

[Aba Incieni]

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?

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?

We agree on the rest of it.

 

[Tilly]

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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.

 

[Tilly]

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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.

 

[Tilly]

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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?

No. Not to make their case for them.

 

[Two Thumbs]

For Christ's sake, why would she wait for 40+ years to do anything about it?

This kind of nonsense is unbelievable, IMO.

sorta

something not cool did happen, when they were both teens.


since her testimony there was a body language translator that observed her and let us in on what she was doing.

that whole 'crying' testimony was fake. she never wiped a tear nor cleared her throat, which is 2 things anyone would have had to do.

 

[Tilly]

Rachel Mitchell S Analysis

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?

Nope......she was there to question Ford, not Kavanaugh...the accuser, not the accused........and all 3 of the accusers and their fake stories are falling apart......even the democrats in the media can't keep lying about them....

Naw, y’all are just getting more time and traction with your discrediting talking points, and it’s doaking into the partisan puppets spongy brains. If you say something enough people will believe it. Let’s just stick to the facts, there is an investigation by the FBI so let’s see what it turn up.

Seems like that might be wrapped up soon and DiFi wants the report sealed
Oh the irony!




✔

.@SenFeinstein indicates that the FBI report on Kavanaugh should NOT be made public: “It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified this ought to be held very close and not."

"I think the investigation ought to be closely held," she reiterated.

6:09 PM - Oct 2, 2018

Well that’s BS. The report very damn well be made public. Redact names if you have to be the guts need to be known to the public

I agree. And I’m sure DiFi is aware of the fact that redactions can be employed to safeguard people’s identities.
Maybe she’s worried about other info coming out?

 

[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?

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.

 

[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

 

[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....

 

[Ame®icano]

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?