Posted on 09/29/2018 8:38:57 PM PDT by CaliforniaCraftBeer
Ford is a GD liar. She dated K’s friend that summer and didn’t tell him K assaulted her? Am I reading this correctly? Forget what house it was, that’s totally unbelievable.
Then there’s this:
Ford testified that the “trauma” from her alleged assault was the reason why she argued with her husband to install two front doors during their extensive remodel. Ford and her husband purchased their home in Palo Alto in June 2007. In November, 2007, they obtained a permit from the City of Palo Alto (permit #07000-00000-02866) for “735 S.F. ADDITION TO INCLUDE NEW BEDROOM & BATH. REMODEL LIVING ROOM & KITCHEN”. This permit was finished/finalized in February 2010. During the hearing she said she was either renting out a part of the home as an AirBnb and/or was renting out a part of the home to Google employees. Ford’s property is zoned R1-7000S, which does allow for either detached or attached accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units that can be rented out for periods no less than 30 days at a time. It also allows for space within an existing single family home to be treated as an accessory dwelling unit . In order to do that, the City of Palo Alto Municipal Zoning Code 18.42.040 Section 5 specifically states, ” an Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be permitted if the unit is contained within the existing space of a single-family residence or an existing accessory structure, HAS INDEPENDENT EXTERIOR ACCESS FROM THE EXISTING RESIDENCE…” etc.
IOW, two separate exterior doors were LEGALLY REQUIRED by the City of Palo Alto in order for her to rent out a portion of her home. This blows out her testimony that she was so traumatized by her alleged assault that she was compelled to put in two doors.
And this:
According to the city Inspection Records the remodel work was inspected on the following dates.
First approval 2/5/2008
Investigation B17 Structural Framing 05/14/2008
Final remodel inspection 2/23/2010
The structural framing is when you put in the frames for doorways, windows, walls etc. This was investigated 5/14/08. This framing is critical to the structural integrity of the building. It was completed about 2 and ½ months after the remodel started in 2008.
It would be rare and expensive to start moving outside doorways after the project was completed.
At any rate the final inspection on the remodel was 2 years before Mrs. Ford says she talked about the doorway in marriage counseling.
There are public photos of the finished doorway before the reported 2012 counseling session.
What was that Senator Blunemthal said? If caught in a lie about one thing, how does it apply to the veracity of other things? 2008 – 2012? Seems like a big difference to me.
And this:
I always had the feeling that Ford and the Democrats used Mark Judge’s book to pin down that the events occurred in 1982. The reality for her is that she said to her therapist in the mid 80s and her late teenage years. This woman will be the next one referred for criminal charges!
Baba97
@Baba9773
· 44m
@LindseyGrahamSC @ChuckGrassley @senatemajldr @senorrinhatch @IngrahamAngle @TuckerCarlson @seanhannity @SebGorka @DonaldJTrumpJr @SaraCarterDC @PressSec @LouDobbs @realDonaldTrump @parscale @JudgeJeanine @cvpayne It is imperative that you read this thread because the truth about https://twitter.com/baba9773/status/1046239986813743107 …
Baba97
@Baba9773
the timeline is revealed. Dr. Ford used Mark Judge’s book to pin down a timeline in 1982. Brett Kavanaugh is 100% innocent.
12:10 AM - Sep 30, 2018
7
See Baba97’s other Tweets
And finally:
TheLastRefuge
@TheLastRefuge2
This is called a preparatory script. When the specific words flag as potential ID’s for falsehood, you cross them out and write more disingenuous replacement words (descriptives) which provide more wiggle room. [ie. false assertion maneuvering.]
Margot Cleveland
@ProfMJCleveland
Replying to @ProfMJCleveland
3/ everyone into ignoring the differences in dates (82 is not MID-80s) and age (15 is not LATE-teens) and to assume that Ford was telling her therapist about the supposed Kavanaugh attempt. BUT in her handwritten note before the polygraph she crossed out “early” before 80s. WHY?
View image on Twitter
Ford already said who was at the party, and it didn't include Chris Garrett's name. End of that.
Well, I’m not ‘claustrophobic’. But I’ve never flown. I’ve been afraid of it, especially since 9/11, and I just don’t go there - vacation or not.
This woman, in the way that she has presented herself during her involvement with Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation, has been an absolute FAKE.
I’m not buying the kindly considerations that some of the Republicans have given her for political purposes.
And I don’t believe that she had ‘some experience, at some time, somewhere’, that she has mistakenly confused and attributed to the involvement of Judge K.
I personally believe that she’s just a liar and a fake.
God knows what would cause a woman to be party to this kind of falsity; but it seems to happen.
Usually with a permit, in order to drive, you needed a licensed driver with you in the car. And you weren't allowed to drive after dark. That's the way it was in NY State.
Actually, Saint Jeffy looks panicked because he knows he only has five more paychecks coming, then he’s officially unemployed. The reality of his humiliating failure as a senator is starting to sink in.
I’d missed that detail. So she lied not just about the time but the reason for a second door. If anything, I’d think that if she really is permanently traumatized she would not want to live in a duplex, which would put people in her space.
Imho Garrett is the most likely person to have driven ford to and from the party if there was a party at all. Either garrett or ford was dating two driving age guys at once, which might be a bit of a stretch for those times.
And I don’t think you’re supposed to drive at night with a learner’s permit.
She still wasn’t old enough.
My mind can only imagine one hypothesis that fits this: Senator Flake was terrified when those creatures got in his face screaming sexual assault. His background should be investigated to determine why.
Right. Didn't she say the party was in the evening? She never offered a specific time.
After watching her testimony, and seeing just how bad a memory she has, I'm wondering how she can find her way home each day.
You're right. He can forget about parole.
She said she went to a “pre-party”. Which is apparently a small party before the big party or something like that. That’s one more thing that made no sense at all. But then there were at least two hours of Ford making no sense at all. Nothing she said made any sense. I guess that’s why democrats believed her. They believe a lot of nonsense.
Yeah, you can keep your plan and your doctor and save $2000 a year.
Given that it was summer (probably August), she could have driven over to the party, but probably not back.
Find the pickup truck he drove at the time, and check the condition of its trailer hitch.
OMW!!!!! I went to the thread reader version and read this entire theory. This is it!!!! This needs to be in breaking ASAP! This makes total sense and shows just how this story was concocted. Please create a post with the link to this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.