Posted on 10/03/2018 5:16:41 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
The “sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford’s” is now online. In it, the ex-boyfriend claims that he...
He also writes that “Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct”; that she “never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh”; that she “never indicated a fear of flying”; that she “never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit”; that she was “unfaithful”; and that she committed “fraud” by using a credit card from which she had been removed long after she had broken up with the cardholder."witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean [Ford’s friend] prepare for a potential polygraph exam. Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked, and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam."
These statements are of varying use, and, at this stage, it is impossible to tell how true they are. Nevertheless, it seems clear that Rachel Mitchell knew some of this during last week’s Senate hearing, because she asked Ford two extremely specific questions on the subject of polygraphs. They were:
MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?And:FORD: Never.
MITCHELL: Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?FORD: Never.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
bkmk
I hadn't been following this part of the story very closely. But she was only given two questions on the poly? Even if she "passed", that is not a valid way to give a poly. You need a series of control questions to obtain the truth/lie pattern before moving on to the required questions. No poly is ever that short.
My 54 year old wife made the same comments. Ford looks 62, not 52. That typically means a lot of hard living and too much time in the sun.
very likely..based on experience.apparently chrissies attys didn’t prepare her for those questions...
what are the chances a person with years and years of education in psychology wasn’t familiar with polygraphs..i imagine checking her college courses might be revealing for topics discussed ..in this day and age lots of info available on the internet also..
how many people who know they will take a polygraph don’t at least search the internet for information?
And how many do it on the day of their Grandmother's funeral at an airport motel, and then don't remember when. Sheesh. The Dr. is an expert liar.
Lots of info here :-)
I’d substitute prolific for expert :-)
Connections:
Clintons
Comey
Bharara
McLean
McCabe
Bromwich
Ford
*Re.: Comey and Bharara, McLean worked under both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_for_the_Southern_District_of_New_York
James B. Comey: January 7, 2002 – December 15, 2003
David N. Kelley (Interim): December 15, 2003 – September 2005
Michael J. Garcia: September 2005 – December 1, 2008
Lev L. Dassin (Acting): December 1, 2008 – August 13, 2009
Preet Bharara: August 13, 2009 – March 11, 2017
*CBF retained McCabe’s attorney, Bromwich, “pro bono”.
(no link)
Politicizing professional responsibility at Justice
Washington Times, The (DC) (Published as The Washington Times) - February 21, 1994
Edition: 2Section: ACOMMENTARYEDITORIALSPage: A20
It looks like the already fuzzy ethical sensibilities of the Clinton administration are about to get even fuzzier, with the nomination of Michael Bromwich as inspector general of the Justice Department.
Mr. Bromwich, a 40-year-old Harvard lawyer, former U.S. attorney in New York, and Clinton campaign volunteer, is best known for his service on Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh’s Iran-Contra staff. In his four years there, from 1987 to 1990, he earned a not very pleasant reputation; the terms that come to the minds of those who dealt with him than are “mean,” “acerbic” and “nasty.” He also earned a charge of prosecutorial misconduct from Oliver North’s attorney, Brendan Sullivan. During the North trial, Mr. Sullivan accused Mr. Bromwich of deliberately withholding from Col. North’s defense team the information that some classified documents had been leaked to the radically pro-Sandinista, anti-Reagan administration Christic Institute, and of “incredibly, insist[ing] that the court and the defense treat these already-public documents as classified.” The charge didn’t stick; Judge Gerhard Gesell bought Mr. Bromwich’s argument that he’d simply forgotten to mention the leakage to the defense. But though he didn’t find Mr. Bromwich guilty of misconduct, the judge did chastise him for letting the matter “slip his mind.”
Now, such convenient absentmindedness aside, a mean, nasty and acerbic guy like Mr. Bromwich might seem the ideal candidate for an inspector generalship. The trouble is, Attorney General Janet Reno intends to give the IG’s office under Mr. Bromwich more power than it’s ever had in its five-year existence. The plan is to consolidate the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). OPR is responsible for investigating department attorneys and criminal investigators, while the IG handles other personnel and audits department programs. Since the IG was instituted in 1988, there have been numerous jurisdictional disputes between the two offices; so some “streamlining.” as Justice officials have describe d it, may well be in order.
The question is, why give the IG control over OPR, rather than the other way around? OPR, after all, has traditionally been run by a career employee; in fact, the current one, Michael E. Shaheen Jr., has been in charge for the past 18 years. Is it wise, is it ethical, to hand over all internal investigative powers to a political appointee - who serves at the pleasure of, and frequently focuses on the interests of, the president?
It certainly seems neither wise nor ethical, given the current state of affairs at Justice. The fact is that the department figures prominently in many of the ethical lapses that have been bedeviling this administration. From Travelgate to Whitewatergate to Fostergate, the actions of Justice Department personnel (most notably Associate Attorney General and Hillary law partner Webster Hubbell) need some serious looking into. Can Michael Bromwich be trusted to do that job?
(snip)
*Kav’s comment, “revenge on behalf of the Clintons”, is beginning to make sense.
“Christine Blasey-Ford is getting connected to the Russia-FBI/DOJ/CIA/DIM-cabal.”
Without regard for how many folks think we got here, you have no idea how close you are, even if it’s not for the obvious reasons (as of today).
Catch this article over at The ConservativeTreehouse:
Christine Blasey-Ford Friend In Delaware Was Career FBI Agent and Likely Together During Accusation Letter Construct…
Posted on October 3, 2018 by sundance
She posted her own polygraph results opening that can of worms.
She did work in that area of psychology.
Prosecutor’s questions were valid to get to the bottom.
She lied.
Stealing 600 bucks and denying it also impeaches her character.
Blasey-Ford’s BFF worked for the FIB (retired) and helped her prep for the hearing including arranging the polygraph to be favorable.
No FIB credibility for me!
Who is the woman with the pink bag on the right?
Yeah, the nose of the one hooked up to a polygraph has a bump in her nose and a hang down neck/chin - Ford’s nose is straight and her chin skin doesn’t sag. No way Ford could have grown out her hair that much unless with a major hair stylist, dye job and extensions.
The retired FBI polygraph tester (gee, more gov types) knew what was up so covered his backside with those ridiculous two questions.
I’ll admit to being angry with Mitchell during the hearing but she was privy to much more than we were.
The nose is clearly very different. The woman who’s taking the actual polygraph looks like she’s had a broken nose and Ford’s is fine.
Not unless she's changed her gender to an ugly man.
I think the Democrats forgot their deep staters are not in place anymore.
Hmm, don't how June wound up there. Thanks for the correction.
Who is the woman with the pink bag on the right?
That is Monica McLean. No wonder the Ford lawyers won’t release the polygraph tapes.
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.