A Sworn Affidavit
Christine Ford long ago (August 7th or 8th, Ford's not sure) took a polygraph test, most likely in an attempt support her totally unsupported allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. The individual giving her the test (Jeremiah Hanafin) was recommended to her by "somebody". This "polygraph test" has received much coverage first by the democrats and their allies in the media who oppose the confirmation of Kavanaugh and also by those interested in just how and when that test was given. As for the test itself, only two questions were asked on the entire summation of her issues. To this day Ford's liberal lawyers have not turned over the notes and/or documentation involving this test, which Chairman Grassley has repeatedly requested.
Ford has testified before congress that she never received coaching nor coached any one else on how to take (and pass) a polygraph test:
(approx 3:20 of tape)
Now there is a problem. A former boyfriend of hers (who's name has been redacted) has disputed her assertion and he did it via a sworn affidavit. He said that "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."
"I witnessed Dr. Ford help Monica L. McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam" and that Ford had "explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped her become familiar and less nervous about the exam," using her background in psychology."
Obviously, either Ford or her former boyfriend has committed perjury.
The former boyfriend went on to say that Ford had no visible fear of flying, never seemed claustrophobic and never ever mentioned that she had been sexually assaulted in the entire time he knew her.
The other two women who also came forward with unsupported claims have been totally discredited and have all but fled the scene. It was only Ford that allowed herself to be manipulated into a public Senate hearing. BTW when somebody is accused of the most heinous crimes imaginable it is not a job interview. It is a public show court. It is now when we have to ask ourselves if these three women came forward to deliberately & willfully give false testimony for whatever reason, though we can only imagine it was to keep Judge Kavanaugh off of the Supreme Court. If that was their purpose, they must be prosecuted.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
63 visitors
"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," ......Chairman Grassley
I submit the testimony of a former boyfriend
The now retired FBI agent he claims was "coached" debunks his claims:
.
How did Rachel Mitchell come to ask that rather odd question about whether Ford have ever coached anyone in how to take a polygraph? Apparently the GOP already had that letter from the "boyfriend" even before Ford's public testimony and wanted to trip up and discredit Ford, despite it being completely irrelevant to the substance of her allegations against Kavanaugh.
Sounds like the GOP was just punked by Brian Merrick (or someone claiming to be him) and didn't do their due diligence by confirming the substance of that letter. And the fact that the GOP leaked it to Faux News shows just how unethical they really are.
What has he got to do with Ford coaching Monica McLean on how to pass such a test? BTW that is something that has long been known. If you can get your mind to concentrate on something other than the questions themselves, you can pass the test.
How did Rachel Mitchell come to ask that rather odd question about whether Ford have ever coached anyone in how to take a polygraph?
I wondered the same thing. Did they already have the letter then? Funny how you can be so curious when it comes to Republican Senators but have no questions when it involves the words & deeds of the likes of Peter Strzok.
Apparently the GOP already had that letter from the "boyfriend" even before Ford's public testimony and wanted to trip up and discredit Ford
Apparently the Chairman actually carried out the Senate investigation he promised to do when democrats demanded an FBI probe. I guess it's too bad that democrats didn't participate, maybe they could have leaked the info to those activist lawyers who manipulated Ford.
Frankly it doesn't matter to me. I was indifferent before, but after watching Kavanaugh blubber like a bitch on national television he is waaaay too emotional to be on the SCOTUS. The GOP can just pick another rubber stamp without the rape accusations and be done with it.
You were?
Yep, didn't give much of a shit because no ruling they make will really effect me at all. Unless they make a ruling against wealth or white people. My opposition to Kavanaugh only really started when he acted like a total pussy on TV.
The Court should never make rulings for or against groups. The Court must adhere to the Constitution
As I said, I am indifferent because they will never rule against me.
You mean interpret.
Interpret as it was written as opposed to interpret for what seems to be morally right
No... interpret as the world changes. Interpret to keep it relevant. Interpret it in situations the founders could have never imagined.
You are talking about changing law. That is what Congress is for. If we can't follow the laws we now have (like them or not), we have nothing.
but after watching Kavanaugh blubber like a bitch on national television he is waaaay too emotional to be on the SCOTUS.
I'm not a clinician. My opinion is based on life experiences and observations.
Look at his appearance, body language and verbal outbursts. It's obvious.
I've always liked the Charles Barkley book title "I may be wrong but I doubt it"
I do too, as have many in my family.
I disagree about looking at a person. There are many "tells".
As far as physical appearance, his skin color is pallid, his eyes are red, and his complexion is blotchy. Should I move on to his body language ?
How many times did he talk about beer and his love of it?
No I mean at his hearing.
So, based on your experience with alcoholism tells you that Judge Kavanaugh is an alcoholic?
Or he could be a guy that spends the vast majority of his time in Law Library's reading the law, studying and staying up late at night-causing all those things, but it doesn't fit your narrative. Seldom in error, NEVER in doubt, huh?
So what? I like beer too. Many of my friends do also, and millions of people around the world. Does that make me a bad person? Um, No.
I used to like tobacco but gave that up 10 years ago this month-does that make me bad, good or what?
This search for anything is like throwing shit against the wall, hoping something, anything, will stick.