Will Christine B Ford Be held accountable? perjury obstruction making false claims FBI results?

a reply to: Halfswede

I went 5 pages deep in the search links for that story you provided, and there wasn't a single credible news outlet listed, aside from a single story by The Hill which had nothing to do with the claim you're providing.

a reply to: Aazadan

DIdn't you already read her sworn statement and watch her interview?
If not, then you need to.
She completely recanted. In her interview she said she never saw him do anything.
She had named 4 witnesses. NBC tried to contact them. 2 did not respond, 1 is dead, and the other said they never heard of her.

Put that together with other things in her past, including lawsuits etc., and there is no reason to even take her seriously.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Aazadan

DIdn't you already read her sworn statement and watch her interview?
If not, then you need to.
She completely recanted. In her interview she said she never saw him do anything.
She had named 4 witnesses. NBC tried to contact them. 2 did not respond, 1 is dead, and the other said they never heard of her.

Put that together with other things in her past, including lawsuits etc., and there is no reason to even take her seriously.

It's been too long, she has no idea what she saw, just like Ford. You cannot take any individual accusation and prove guilt. What you can do is look at the culture where he spent his time, what he himself has said, what those around him have said, and what the accusers have said then put together a long list of questionable circumstances. Does that hold up in a court of law? No. And I'm not saying it should either. I am however saying that it's enough to question his integrity for a position in which he needs to be confirmed, particularly when there are many candidates (I guess it's 25 on the shortlist, I thought it was 18 before) that are considered by the administration to be pretty much interchangeable.

Hiring processes for important positions are generally supposed to be set up so that they filter out false negatives. Anyone considered good is good enough. One simply wants to avoid incorrectly hiring a bad candidate. For important positions like this, particularly those that are lifetime appointments, that's the standard that I feel we should use, the biggest companies use the same standard so it's simply government copying industry. Eliminate the false negatives and pick from whoever is left over.

a reply to: TheJesuit

the entire farce = a conspiracy - of which dr ford was only one element - EVERYONE involved should face appropriate sanction

but in the real world - dont hold your breath

a reply to: TheJesuit

Have you ever heard of anyone being quite this accurate in making an exacting hypothetical prediction five years in advance ??

This is from an article at Slate.com (slate.com...) In making reference to a therapy session of Dr. Ford in 2013 by her husband. Though not stated by Ford during testimony, I think it is telling within the context of the accusations.

" Further notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 describe how Ford spoke of a “rape attempt” in her late teens. Russell Ford told the Post that his wife “recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming.” He remembered that his wife “used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh—then a federal judge—might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.” In early August, Ford took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent. According to the Post, the results found “that Ford was being truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate.”

I would like to view these notes myself to learn if the truly do date from 2013. If they do not, the whole thing would seem to be a shame, cooked up just in thine to delay, or at least dealy, Kavanaugh's appointment to the bench.

Also, could the results of a polygraph be influenced by her experience with work regarding the recall of "false memory" by inducing hypnosis or meditation. This is shown in a paper she wrote for a psychologist magazine.

originally posted by: TheJesuit
Prove that she told the truth. What happened to the FBI investigation? what was their results? Evidence? No just he said she said It was a sham you know it & i know it 36 years and a few weeks before THE vote this gets dropped? come on wake up please see it for what it is

a reply to: SaturnFX

Someone says something but there is no hard evidence
does that mean its a lie, or that its just no evidence?
You dont arrest ppl because of lack of evidence....what country do you live in?

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: SaturnFX
You're claiming she lied...do you have proof of this?

She was at the very least acting. Her performance before the committee was the least "credible and compelling" testimony I ever saw in my life.

soulwaxer

You psychic?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: SaturnFX
You're claiming she lied...do you have proof of this?

Only a sworn statement from her boyfriend of 6 years.
If he is believed then she lied.
So is he lying? Prove it.
See where that goes?

There is certainly reasonable cause to indict her based on the sworn testimony and I think that has to happen to close out the awful spectacle the Democrats created. I don't think the legal system can take just letting this slide. The Democrats and their media almost pulled off a 'guilty until proven innocent' scam.

Start criminal proceedings against Dr Ford and give her due process, whereby it needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that she perjured herself.

That would be the fairest thing to do for all involved.

Yes. Criminal proceedings...we must determine if she is not remembering correctly...or if she claimed something without evidence, then she should be jailed...because that sort of coutry wouldn't be some dystopian hellhole where you get arrested for saying anything that you can't back up 100%.

Lotta dictator wannabe's around here...spooks

I believe I read another site that highlighted the specific portion of the testimony where she said she had never trained or coached herself or anyone on how to pass a lie detector test. There was a person who was prepared to give a sworn affidavit that she has in fact done this exact thing before. They also highlighted two other sections of specific testimony that had the potential to be proven false.

originally posted by: SaturnFX
You're claiming she lied...do you have proof of this?

Yes. All of her witnesses shared the same story that they have no memory of such an event every happening. Ford said she's got a fear of flying but flies everywhere. Has a fear of small spaces and single doors but lived in a 500 sq ft apartment with 1 door for 8 years. Can't remember anything about the party except Kav and drinking one beer and the three witnesses that already said they don't recall. So many holes in her story, how could anyone think she's telling the truth?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: TheJesuit

Just because the week long FBI investigation that didn't interview key witnesses didn't substantiate her claims doesn't mean she's guilty of perjury. There's no evidence she maliciously lied under oath.

It seems like you're claiming Ford is guilty without any evidence. I seem to recall a hearing recently that involved a lot of people repeating the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." I wonder why those same people no longer believe those words when it comes to Ford.

Her story was full of lies. She had her chance for innocence and blew it harder than her trashy high school parties.

Yeah I hear people calling to lock her up on TV.
Typical low intelligence response. I am still sickened by this reaction but I am no longer surprised by it.

originally posted by: Aazadan


Polygraphs are not legally admissible in court (because they're pseudoscience nonsense), so they cannot show perjury.

The perjury part is she said she never talked to anyone on how to pass one, never talking to anyone about changing their stories etc...

A good friend of mine is a top polygrapher that spent many years in the AF OSI doing them and continues to work for the Government as a GS 14 in that field.

He told me to never take a test... period whether you are innocent or guilty. Much of what he did was a psychological event to get people to confess that had little to do with passing or failing the test.

He said that there are so many variables that you really do not know in the end if someone is lying or not. In Government work requiring yearly test they keep baselines of many tests on a person so that when they retake the test with the same questions they can compare results over years and that will give a better understanding if a person is lying.

Of course Dr. Ford will not be charged with perjury. Why? Because she is credible. And, of course, Kavanaugh will not be charged with perjury. Why? Because he is a privileged white male who is held to a different standard than the average citizen.

you are chasing the wrong person... Dr Ford sent that letter of accusations on condition she remain anomyous…

the real culprit of record is Senator D Feintein, who used Dr Ford as human cannon-fodder in an attempt of Political Assassination-of-Character to Kavanaugh...


if anyone needs punished it is the twisted Senator who acted as the gate-keeper to unleash the 'until then' hallowed protocols of a Committee Hearing to determine the fitness of a SCOTUS nominee...


I would suggest both the censure and expulsion (of Feinstein) from that Senate Committee with Sen Grassley chairing

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Halfswede

I went 5 pages deep in the search links for that story you provided, and there wasn't a single credible news outlet listed, aside from a single story by The Hill which had nothing to do with the claim you're providing.

Instead of going 5 pages deep and making a big dramatic statement about credible new sources, you could have simply watched the actual video of her talking... and recanting with her mouth as the source. That is why they didn't investigate further. You can lead a horse to water...

originally posted by: tabularosa
Of course Dr. Ford will not be charged with perjury. Why? Because she is credible. And, of course, Kavanaugh will not be charged with perjury. Why? Because he is a privileged white male who is held to a different standard than the average citizen.

Credible? No witnesses from a 35 year old claim. She doesn't know when or where, how she got there, how she got home and who was with her. She said she called on a cell phone. Look up cell phones from that era. Check out her yearbook from high school; she was an upper class party girl. Why did she wipe all of her social media content in July? Second front door because of "fear?" Building permits from 2007 have her addition with 2nd door so she could RENT out an apartment. Her acting was so bad it was laughable. I can't imagine anyone who saw it would believe her. She has set the #metoo movement back because of her fabrications that are the result of hypnotic regression. She did write a paper on inserting false memories under hypnosis. Then, she never released her prime evidence; notes from her therapist.

ETA: She is mentally disturbed, so maybe she could get off on an insanity plea. Feinstein is guilty of abuse of power for political revenge.

originally posted by: tabularosa
Of course Dr. Ford will not be charged with perjury. Why? Because she is credible. And, of course, Kavanaugh will not be charged with perjury. Why? Because he is a privileged white male who is held to a different standard than the average citizen.

Actually, I hate to break this kind of news to people ...

But, the middle aged white male IS the "average citizen" in the United States.

I guess you are really telling us that the "average citizen" is more "privileged" than we knew.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
I believe I read another site that highlighted the specific portion of the testimony where she said she had never trained or coached herself or anyone on how to pass a lie detector test. There was a person who was prepared to give a sworn affidavit that she has in fact done this exact thing before. They also highlighted two other sections of specific testimony that had the potential to be proven false.

Would this even matter? If you can be trained to fool a lie detector, then it's failing in it's basic purpose which is to detect lies. If you can't fool one, then attempting to out lie the machine would be pointless.

Lie detectors are as reliable as those magic bomb detecting dowsing rods Iraq was buying for years.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The perjury part is she said she never talked to anyone on how to pass one, never talking to anyone about changing their stories etc...

A good friend of mine is a top polygrapher that spent many years in the AF OSI doing them and continues to work for the Government as a GS 14 in that field.

He told me to never take a test... period whether you are innocent or guilty. Much of what he did was a psychological event to get people to confess that had little to do with passing or failing the test.

He said that there are so many variables that you really do not know in the end if someone is lying or not. In Government work requiring yearly test they keep baselines of many tests on a person so that when they retake the test with the same questions they can compare results over years and that will give a better understanding if a person is lying.

Lie detectors do not work, period. They are nothing more than a prop to try and trip you up in an interview/interrogation. If they are administered over a period of years, they are again a prop. The real test is to see if your story changes.

Coaching someone to beat a lie detector can be interpreted as beating the machine, not beating the interview.