Posted on 09/29/2018 8:39:16 AM PDT by logi_cal869
Did anyone here capture the content of the blog which posted the content from Blasey's yearbook?
The original blog is removed and I can't find anything but limited content at GP.
Thanks in advance if you can point me to where it was captured.
One of the original posts now linking to the removed blog is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3689120/posts
Corcept Therapeutics (Corcept.com) manufacturers and markets an abortion pill drug called mifepristone, and Christine Blasey Ford is a co-author of at least eight published scientific papers produced by the pharmaceutical giant to promote its pills.
You can see Blasey’s name listed on several publications at this Corcept.com web page detailing their research papers.
- WND
Ford is getting ready to be Sued
FBI a subdivision of Clinton Inc.
^ this +1 Actually CIA, this has Brennan’s fingerprints all over it.
“Actually CIA, this has Brennan’s fingerprints all over it.”
IIRC, Ford’s father has CIA connections. But I understand that he’s a conservative so who knows what’s going on?
Trump need to purge them after the elections make it another shock treatment for the democrats.
Been a lot from her yearbook(s) on the web, but I have yet to see her personal bio - the one which usually details activities, friends, favorite sayings and that sort of thing - they had Kavanaugh’s - apparently not hers - probably reveal too much about what a wild and crazy person she was....
Answer this one question and see who’s at the bottom of this whole thing. Who has the depth and ability to scrub Fords entire social media existence and her high school yearbooks including “wayback machine” archives so completely they have not come to light yet despite a massive search? 3 guesses, the first 2 don’t count.
Right. I think we all “get it”. ;)
Neither her parents nor her two siblings have come out to voice support for Ford, and they did not sign a family letter of support for her and her claims circulated by her husband."Even her parents and siblings know she's a liar.
It depends if they were copying an image, the image itself can be copyrighted.
They should have got the original hard copy and shoot a video of them making the images themselves.
Luckily the school should have a copy that the FIB and Senate can borrow this week
Website still up with partial pics of yearbook.
Is CBF fourth witness Leland an ex wife of the despicable Bob Beckel?
yes she is
No kidding. I just got done outlining how “they” (who?) completely sanitized her past so there was no door to open which didn’t lead directly to her little story.
How convenient.
However, I did some research today: Christine Blasey Ford called herself a “Research Psychologist” to the Committee but there’s just one little problem: She is not licensed as a psychologist in California (or anywhere as far as I can tell).
https://www.psychologydegree411.com/licensure/california/
There’s more to it than mere semantics. Technically she is exempt from the licensing requirement because she works for Palo Alto University, an “educational institution”.
But the label is everything. To-wit, this passage is not without merit:
“You can’t call yourself a psychologist in California unless you hold a license and to ensure that those holding the license are qualified for the position, the state has put in place a strict set of requirements.”
https://careersinpsychology.org/how-to-become-a-psychologist-in-california/
I looked it up: https://www.psychology.ca.gov/laws_regs/2018lawsregs.pdf
§ 2903. Licensure requirement; Practice of psychology; Psychotherapy
(a) No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.
§ 2910. Applicability of chapter to practice of psychology by certain salaried employees of academic institutions, public schools, or governmental agencies (a) This chapter shall not be construed to restrict the practice of psychology on the part of persons who are salaried employees of accredited or approved academic institutions, public schools, or governmental agencies, if those employees are complying with the following:
(1) Performing those psychological activities as part of the duties for
which they were hired.
(2) Performing those activities solely within the jurisdiction or confines of
those organizations.
(3) Do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description of
activities incorporating the words “psychology,” “psychological,” or “psychologist.”
She can teach and perform her other educational/research functions so long as she does not refer to herself as a “psychologist”.
It ought to be a big deal. SOMEONE thought it was and scrubbed her Stanford profile of the reference and inserted “Affiliate”.
Why?
I just looked and realized I had not seen the thread posted prior on the matter, so rather than posting again, I’m just leaving this comment here as-is.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3691793/posts
Thanks to all for the assist. I was buried in a project and my search was inconclusive.
I have what I need now. Much appreciated.
Note to self: Archive all pages which contain previously-scrubbed info.
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.