Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Grassley: Judiciary Comm has evidence of Christine Blasey Ford “coaching a friend on polygraph examinations”

Grassley: Judiciary Comm has evidence of Christine Blasey Ford “coaching a friend on polygraph examinations”

This contradicts her Senate testimony

Chuck Grassley, Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has sent a letter to Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer requesting better cooperation.

Grassley again requests access to Fort’s therapy records already partially shared with The Washington Post, as well as all written, audiovisual or electronic evidence to support her claims.

But in what can fairly be described as a bombshell, Grassley suggests that Ford may have lied about her experience with polygraph testing.

The results of the polygraph Ford took have been used by the media, Democrats and Ford to bolster her account of the alleged assault by Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.

Here’s the relevant part of the letter (emphasis added):

Second, I renew my request for copies of all audio or video recordings produced during the course of Mr. Hanafin’s polygraph examination of Dr. Ford, as well as all polygraph charts and other data that Mr. Hanafin relied upon in preparing his report. I made these requests both before and during the hearing, but I have yet to receive them. Dr. Ford cited the results of this polygraph examination to support her allegations. It’s unfair to rely on the results of a polygraph examination while withholding the materials necessary to assess the accuracy of the results.

The full details of Dr. Ford’s polygraph are particularly important because the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford’s, stating that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations. When asked under oath in the hearing whether she’d ever given any tips or advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph, Dr. Ford replied, “Never.” This statement raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results. The Senate therefore needs this information.

Grassley’s letter does not attach the statement received regarding Ford’s coaching a friend on polygraph examinations. John Roberts’ of Fox News has obtained a statement, which does not appear to be sworn, which reads in part;

I first met Christine Blasey (now Dr. Christine Blasey Ford) in 1989 or 1990 in California. From 1990-91, I was just friends with Ford. From approximately 1992 10 1998. I was in a relationship with Dr. Ford. I found her truthful and maintain no animus towards her.

During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct. Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh.

During some of the time we were dating. Dr. Ford lived with Monica L. McLean, who I understood to be her life-long best friend. During that time, it was my understanding that McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and lhc US Attorney’s Office. I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean 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. Dr. Ford was able to help because of her background in psychology.

It’s not clear if this was the statement to which Grassley was referring, or if there is an additional “sworn statement.” Given how the Committee has conducted its investigation with other witnesses, it’s possible that there was an interview under oath, to which Grassley is referring. If we receive more information, we will update.

Here’s Ford’s testimony referenced by Grassley (emphasis added):

MITCHELL: Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?

FORD: Never.

MITCHELL: And I don’t just mean countermeasures, but I mean just any sort of tips, or anything like that.

FORD: No. I was scared of the test itself, but was comfortable that I could tell the information, and the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal. I didn’t expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little bit stressful.

MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

FORD: Never.

Here’s Grassley’s letter:

UPDATE: The woman mentioned as having interacted with Ford as to polygraphs has denied the accusation by Ford’s former boyfriend:

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford denied Wednesday that the Kavanaugh accuser ever helped her prepare for a lie detector test, firing back at claims purportedly from a Ford ex-boyfriend that raised new questions about her Senate testimony….

“I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime,” McLean said.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


johnnytremain | October 2, 2018 at 9:24 pm

Holy Cow! Let her perjury proceedings begin!

DouglasJBender | October 2, 2018 at 9:26 pm

She is willing to take another polygraph test to prove she can lie through her teeth while passing with lying colors.

And I can certainly understand, in light of Democrats’ betrayal of Dr. Ford’s desire for confidentiality…

THAT is going to leave a mark.

    alaskabob in reply to stevewhitemd. | October 3, 2018 at 1:30 am

    FBI… “Dr. Ford, in light of potential conflict of interest between you and your present counsel, it may be appropriate and prudent to seek independent neutral legal representation at this time. “

      Elzorro in reply to alaskabob. | October 3, 2018 at 8:26 am

      Her Beach Friends in her testimony are not who you think. It is not a California beach. It is Rehobeth beach. Her friends are criminals in on the scheme from the start. FBI agent McCean and other perps. This is a vast left wing criminal conspiracy.

Could her medications have helped her?

    puhiawa in reply to c bomb. | October 2, 2018 at 9:48 pm

    Most who train in the field do not need medication. A firm understanding what the test measures allows such simply methods as yoga, meditation and self-hypnosis to assist. And know this…knowing the questions ahead of time allow anyone to lie with out a read. That is why so many of us found this test suspect. She prepared the statement. And usually a third of the questions are preparatory. None here.

      RodFC in reply to puhiawa. | October 2, 2018 at 10:25 pm

      Funny she coauthored a paper on using yoga and mediation in therapy.

        Arminius in reply to RodFC. | October 3, 2018 at 12:00 am

        I don’t know if it’s the same paper or a different one, but in 2008 she coauthored a paper on using self-hypnosis to recover lost memories and to create “artificial situation.”

        What Ford meant by “artificial situations” I’ll never know, but it certainly could cover lying your way through a polygraph exam.

        How did they know that Ford was lying about her experience with polygraphs? Did other psychologists and psychiatrists tip them off? Because Ford was feigning ignorance about them, and some psychologists and psychiatrists who comment on sites that I visit were extremely puzzled. How could a Dr. of psychology, a professor no less, know as little about polygraphs as Ford was pretending to know. They had to know well in advance of Mitchell questioning Ford; how else would they know to ask these damning questions? Ex boyfriend’s letter is dated 2 Oct, that couldn’t be it.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to RodFC. | October 3, 2018 at 11:04 am

        Yoga, transcendental meditation and brainwave biofeedback all produce the same state of mind, and can be used to mute physiological responses while taking a polygraph.

      DaveGinOly in reply to puhiawa. | October 2, 2018 at 10:49 pm

      You can also just put a tack in your shoe. Press a toe down at it with every question so the stress to your body is consistent from question to question. A polygraph exam relies on the detection of stress reaction to certain questions, anything that evens out your stress will defeat the test.

        Voyager in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 2, 2018 at 11:11 pm

        She stated she took the polygraph test either the day of or the day after her grandmother’s funeral.

        Arminius in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 3, 2018 at 12:06 am

        Actually, the old trick is to step on it during the control questions. That way if you have any doubts about passing the test your stress levels will be within range when answering the relevant questions.

        Unfortunately, your examiner is onto you.

So far the only people who have been proven guilty of anything are the accusers.

It doesn’t ‘raise questions’ about her polygraph exam results.

Polygraphs are JUNK SCIENCE. And the one she took is so bad it deserves to be openly laughed at.

A poorly handwritten note with multiple corrections and the polygraph ‘results’ are asking 2 generic questions.

Somebody actually telling the truth and taking a polygraph would have demanded to answer specific questions.

Anybody that believes it demonstrates anything other than Ford was lying through her teeth is just a partisan hack.

    A polygraph given so poorly cannot properly be called a test. Perhaps a pop quiz.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to georgfelis. | October 2, 2018 at 10:37 pm

      She didn’t have a polygraph examination, she was asked 2 related questions which is not even a “valid” sample size to gain any conclusion. All she did was get hooked up to a polygraph and get her blood pressure taken.

      Even pop quizzes have 5 questions.

    I kept hearing “That’s the way they’re all done for assault survivors now.” Of course, I don’t know otherwise, I’m not in that profession.

      Milhouse in reply to JBourque. | October 3, 2018 at 9:35 am

      If that’s the way they’re done for all alleged “assault survivors” now, then they’re all contemptible. This isn’t helping her case, it’s just dragging all the rest down. Good to know.

        Tom Servo in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2018 at 10:54 am

        The phrase “I don’t know, I’m not in that profession” is the key to what ails us in so many areas today. The people who are in that profession all have a vested interest in keeping the process under wraps, or else they’ll be out of a job. But polygraphs are junk science of the worst kind – at best, they do no more than any well trained investigator can learn from a tough interview, using his experience and insight. When that is done in conjunction of some supposed “truth telling” machine, it puts a faux-scientific gloss on the process which give some people comfort, especially on juries. That’s why many in law enforcement still like it, not because it actually does anything but because the idea of it makes their jobs easier, whether it works or not.

        I’m glad I’m in Texas, where polygraph results are banned from being used by either side in any criminal proceedings. Primarily because a smart (or even worse, a sociopathic) subject can easily “pass” such a test, and an unscrupulous operator with an unintelligent subject can easily come up with “guilty” results for someone who was actually innocent. And when both are good, well then the results are nothing more than the outcome of a hard fought but meaningless game between them, and tell no one anything.

    Milhouse in reply to Olinser. | October 3, 2018 at 9:33 am

    Polygraphs are junk science, just like horoscopes, but there’s still a huge difference between a horoscope carefully cast by a professional astrologer and the stupid newspaper horoscopes based entirely on sun signs. They’re both junk, but they’re vastly different qualities of junk. The same applies to polygraphs. A professional polygraph isn’t actually more useful than this pathetic pretense at one, but at least it looks impressive. This doesn’t.

      Yah, I think I read somewhere that polygraphs are really only useful as a tool to point investigators to look closer at whatever the subject tweaked on.

      cucho in reply to Milhouse. | October 3, 2018 at 11:11 pm

      At least horoscopes point to things that actually exist, such as constellations and specific months.

      The Valley girl didn’t even provide a year.

    Close The Fed in reply to Olinser. | October 3, 2018 at 10:09 am

    Well, we all remember Hillary Clinton laughing that the man she represented in a criminal case passed a polygraph test so that after that she didn’t believe in them.

regulus arcturus | October 2, 2018 at 9:39 pm

Well that warrants prosecution for lying to Congress.

Feinstein knew as well.

So. she LIED? Wasn’t it Blumental who said “once a liar always a liar.” Sounds like DOCTOR Ford is a lying sack o’ sh*te.

Off the topic a little is that going to various websites there are all kinds of articles about various holes in this woman’s story and the Democrats behind it. This woman was a fool that she could help be the laser weapon in the Democrat Death Star and the rest of the Conservative blogosphere would just move on without vetting every detail to unravel the monstrosity she just tried to pull off making a SCOTUS nominee disappear on her word alone.

This is going to be a hobby that will make the Obama Birth Certificate look like it was ignored. She may live a good life within Democrat circles but the Democrats really are going to get caught revealing their methods on this one I predict and it won’t work so slick when the real target for doing this Trump is up in 2020.

    Olinser in reply to Conan. | October 2, 2018 at 9:57 pm

    She’s a smart idiot – a professor that very clearly thought that this was going to play out like one of the Title IX bullshit courts that the liberals are so fond of. Where the accused is never allowed to know the actual charges, who accuses them, and is only questioned by a friendly investigator that assumes she’s telling the truth.

    She ASSUMED that she’d be able to make this anonymous accusation and the Democrats would be able to scream CREDIBLE ACCUSER PASSED A POLYGRAPH, and that Kavanaugh would have to withdraw.

    Unfortunately for her Feinstein acted in the most stupidly and transparently partisan way possible, and the Democrats took it up to 11 with the smear campaign which FORCED Kavanaugh to stay in or look guilty.

    She never expected to be actually questioned. 100% certainty the delay was so she could practice her lies.

      She was doing so well with her interview prep. She avoided getting into any specifics about when or where the party was, or exactly who was there, just like she had been practicing for days on end with her Democrat handlers. BUT then she goes and gets specific on something that she should have known was checkable, and worse, lies about it to make her look better.

      The interviewer the Republicans hired certainly seems to be worth her salt now.

      That’s an excellent point – she’s accustomed to the campus kangaroo courts.

And on a different note, the Democrats are done.

The story is one we already know:

BREAKING: New York Times Admits Journalistic Misconduct in Its Handling of Kavanaugh Ice Story

The reactions are something else.

5 hours ago
So kavanaugh did not savagely crush an opponent to death with a glacier in a cage fight in the 80s? This game of telephone has gotten out of hand.

I feel cheated.

Damn, I was really liking him when I thought this was true. He doesnt seem as cool anymore ????

Did you read this? The story is still true.

Cool as ice!

Not as “cool”. See what you did there

This would enhance his merit, in my view.

Move over Chuck, there’s a new Iceman in town

The Democrats STILL haven’t learned that picking a fight with a green, cartoon frog is a bad idea.

    And now we learn that their “scoop” about Trump’s tax records was about FRED Trump, Donald’s father. We must be winning for them to be destroying their credibility so thoroughly. The “New York Times Up” (NYTU).

Uh oh liar liar pants on fire!

The “polygraph” examination bolsters her sincere belief that something (i.e. juvenile groping) happened, somewhere, at sometime, with someone, which changes with each successive testimony.

    Joe-dallas in reply to n.n. | October 3, 2018 at 8:45 am

    Reading the letter objectively – with out the partisan slant – the juvenile grooping is the most likely what actually happened.

    The level of trauma she is exhibiting is greatly disproportionate to the the level of trauma that would be expected from a teenage groping incident. Which indicates there underlying mental issues unrelated to this incident.

      Close The Fed in reply to Joe-dallas. | October 3, 2018 at 10:13 am

      Either that, or she’s just a damn actress who wants the drug company she works for not to suffer due to Kavanaugh’s votes/decisions….

Seems Mitchell did a better job than was originally thought.
I say if they don’t turn over the records subpoena them.

It is actually much worse the actual letter from the boyfriend,


Humm. Maybe time for sweet Christine to start dusting off her slinking back into the night shoes.

Afraid to fly? Lie
Stupid doors in house in Palo Alto? Lie
Tips on polygraph (Never)? Lie

This is gonna be fun to watch. She’ll learn ever one of those 1 mio. GoFundMe dollars. Heh.

OMG, this is off topic, but Drudge has this:

The Telegraph is claiming that Kavanaugh was interfering with the Vince Foster investigation and witness tampering. Geez, this just proves that he was protecting Hilary for being behind the death of Vince Foster.

I tell ya, this really might blow up on Clinton’s even more.

    txvet2 in reply to MarkSmith. | October 3, 2018 at 12:15 am

    And in other related news, an unidentified eyewitness now confirms that Kavanaugh was spotted in the vicinity mere minutes before the Oklahoma City bombing. An anonymous source also identifies him as the driver of the tank that destroyed the Branch Davidian compound, supposedly while drunk. Also, intelligence sources allege that he personally was responsible preparing the Trump dossier. A NY Times investigative report quotes numerous anonymous sources who claim that he is an actual clone of Adolph Hitler. Judiciary Committee Democrats are demanding a full investigation before they vote against him.

    Wow, I thought you were joking. They ARE implying that Vince Foster was murdered in an effort to go after Kavanaugh.

    And that makes twice in one day I have read that the DEMS are attempting to sink Kavanaugh by tying Bill and Hill to him like a pair of cement shoes.

    I also read TODAY, that the ACLU is spending $1 million dollars to run adds comparing Brett Kavanaugh to Bill Clinto!!

    “In a new anti-Kavanaugh ad, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) spliced video clips of former President Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby denying their sexual transgressions with comments the judge made at a hearing last Thursday. Photos of Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, and Charlie Rose accompany the videos.

    “We cannot have any doubt,” is the message of the ad.

    So the Clintons are dead to the DEMS now?

    Wow. Just. Wow.

From every indication that we can use, Dr. Ford was lying her ass off for her entire testimony.

    Arminius in reply to Gremlin1974. | October 3, 2018 at 12:18 am

    Oh, she didn’t lie about everything. She didn’t lie about Mark Judge working at Safeway that summer. He wrote about working there to ear money for football camp. She or her attorneys (or congressional Dem staffers) not doubt came up with that as they were doing oppo research on Kavanaugh. She clung to that like a drowning girl to a life ring. Which was a surefire way to know she was lying about almost everything else.

    Perhaps the GOP investigators were looking into Ford’s body of work as well. That’s the only way I can see that they may have uncovered her knowledge of polygraphs. It couldn’t have come from ex boyfriend’s letter. It’s dated five days after the hearing. How could anyone on this planed outside of the GOP committee members and their staffs have know polygraphs were going to be turned into an issue during questioning?

      Close The Fed in reply to Arminius. | October 3, 2018 at 10:16 am

      From what I have read, the Safeway wasn’t a safeway until years later. So it’s my understanding she DID lie about that.

        Arminius in reply to Close The Fed. | October 3, 2018 at 4:33 pm

        You need to read closer. It was a Safeway since 1969. It changed ownership in 1986. Are you implying that Mark Judge didn’t know where he was working when he wrote that he worked at that Safeway in 1982 to earn money to pay for football camp?

For Dr. Ford, the democrats, the mainstream media, and their sheeple, what is happening today (Grassley letter, ex-boyfriend letter) is kind of a drag. Ironically, this is the music video that Prof. Jacobson features in the right-hand column (at the current time).

Hey dems:
Kind of a drag
When you know she’s been untrue

amatuerwrangler | October 2, 2018 at 11:01 pm

Still nothing about that guy on the grassy knoll that overlooked the pool at the country club….

What was it that Blumenthal said?

Lie about one thing, lie about everything.

The Democratic operatives in this case, politicians and lawyers, appear to have, as usual, really screwed things up for us all. We have to live with the ruin they impose on our system and institutions.

Psychologists make the best liars.
They have the training.

So many of us saw right through her. She was putting on an act, yet I am sure she will never be punished for what she has done.

I do not trust her, and believe Feinstein knew she was lying for the benefit of the party.

The FBI investigation is doing exactly as it was meant to do, delay the vote and possibly peal off a vote or two. Of course Flake made that easy.

How do these useless idiots on the Republican side never see the intent and see how they are being used?

Flake, well, there is zero hope for him doing the right thing, he is too invested in the NeverTrump movement and being a phony Republican. Murkowski and Collins, even with being barely Republicans, should see this for what it is, yet they don’t.

I’m not for no one thinking, but man, just a few times, it would be nice to have a party that had everyone standing together for what is righteous.

Ford lied, the left doesn’t care. They probably knew it when it was first presented. They didn’t care. It is producing the results they calculated would come. Wing nut leftists being willing to commit perjury, knowing nothing would be done to them for their lies.

So much for the rule of law meaning anything in this country.

This will all be Kavanaugh’s fault. Somehow.

Today Alan Dershowitz called for an investigation os Swetnicks claims. Not that they are true but if she should be tried for making false testimony to the Judiciary committee.

“”FORD: No. I was scared of the test itself, but was comfortable that I could tell the information, and the test would reveal whatever it was going to reveal. I didn’t expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little bit stressful.””

If I understand what I’ve read, they only asked two questions. If they’d asked her three questions, she’d have passed out from stress.

    Fen in reply to txvet2. | October 3, 2018 at 9:34 am

    Dont forget how she said the wires were all over her body. As if she was a vulnerable child being raped all over again.

    I bet that line was written by a Sorkin and focus group tested.

theduchessofkitty | October 3, 2018 at 12:41 am

Doing my best 15-year-old girl voice imitation: “I dunno, but I think she just got caught lying here.”

(Chewing some bubble gum.)

You mean ol’ Doc Ford is not the simpering, fearful little Valley girl her lawyers coached her to portray?

What a shame you can’t scrub old boyfriends the way you can scrub the internet.

My reading of this is that she is another scheming, lying Democrat Socialist operative. In addition to the Dems on the committee itself, of course.

    Arminius in reply to Dimsdale. | October 3, 2018 at 5:05 am

    That reminds me. I grew up in NorCal and we didn’t even have valley girls back in the early to mid-80s. Was the valley girl accent common in the mid-Atlantic region back during the same era. How come she has one now?

Ford was always going to be the nuclear hand grenade. The problem with nuclear hand grenades is that, though they are devastatingly powerful, you can’t throw one far enough to escape the blast.

You have to understand the position that the liberal progressives, including the Dems, were in. Kavanaugh is incredibly qualified to be on the SCOTUS. After all, the Dems had no problem putting Kagan, who had no judicial experience at all, on the bench. Kavanaugh was going to be confirmed. And, that would have been devastating to the liberal progressives. With Kavanaugh on the court, it would have had a more or less conservative majority. This would have made it difficult, if not impossible for the libs to continue pushing their progressive agenda through, judicially. And, to make matters worse, in the next two years, it is quite likely that another vacancy would open up, probably Ginsberg, but maybe Breyer; or both. And, it is probable that in the next 6 years, both would be gone. If the Dems can not regain control of the Senate, the could see a court with a 7-2 conservative majority. So, Kavanaugh had to be stopped. When all else failed, the Dems used the Ford nuclear hand grenade. And, that is not working out for them. In fact, it is beginning to look as though some of the accusers may be facing perjury charges before the end of the year.

So, now that the #MeToo accusations are going down the drain, the new tact is to paint Kavanaugh as a liar and/or drunk with a temperament not suited to the court. And, the libs have added the threat of violence against the Senators to attempt to push Republicans to vote against the confirmation.

    alaskabob in reply to Mac45. | October 3, 2018 at 12:53 am

    Unfortunately , confirmation of Kavanaugh might trigger the Pelican Brief scenerio against the Court majority. Congress MUST not fall into Dem hands if those perjury and malfeasance issues should go forward. As Chuckie said…. They must prevail at all costs. A busted flush for them is dangerous for US.

    Dr P in reply to Mac45. | October 3, 2018 at 6:06 am

    More like the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch

    Fen in reply to Mac45. | October 3, 2018 at 6:29 am

    Yup. Remember that woman who said she would give Clinton a blowjob for defending Roe v Wade?

    How many Democrat Women do you think would falsely accuse a conservative nominee to SCOTUS to protect abortion, even if it risked a perjury conviction?

    Thousands. Maybe tens of thousands.

I understand her social media was scrubbed. Considering her close (renters or hosting) association with Google interns, I wonder if Google assisted in the scrubbing. Considering where Ford is now, might be interesting to know if such scrubbing might constitute evidence tampering.

If all this pans out, the ACLU and those 400+ academic legal profs attacking Kavanaugh may look rather (more) STUPID. Would like to ask them what innocent accused should act like. I guess impassioned defense of the innocent is not allowed.

Dreyfus should have been submissive I guess. As for Da Nang Dick (yes President Trump we can make the switch)….he qualifies for Mel Brooks Biggus D….. Moniker

Two statements are prepared. One with all true statements, the other claiming a sexual assault. debra katz: “dr. ford, we are going to hand the polygraph examiner the paper with all true statements.” Answer accordingly.” Just one technique they could have used. There are other techniques, I’m guessing ford knows more about it than I do, since I’ve never even thought about “preparing” for a polygraph. I sit down, get hooked up, and tell the truth. If the examiner calls me out on a flier, I laugh and say “nice try.” Regardless of any techniques, the TWO questions asked were a joke. The fact it was only two questions is a joke. Was a baseline done? If so, let’s see the question/answers on that. This entire situation is a joke, except there’s nothing funny about it.

I’m starting to appreciate the virtues of that old photo which invariably accompanied any news about Ford—the one with her sheltering behind the strange wraparound shades. Now that we’ve seen her clearly, I have to admit that I find those close-set, piggy little eyes rather disquieting.

Superficial? Perhaps, but only if ugly is merely skin deep. In too many cases, the ugly runs all the way through.

    Superficial? Nah, I saw the same thing. I think the media did too, as they kept hiding her eyes. And the media has an eye for that kind of thing.

    I get the same vibe from the way Beto’s mouth is shaped – poor character, untrustworthy.

Senate Republicans can NOT let these women get away with falsely accusing nominees of sexual assault.

Its beginning to look like all 3 women have deliberately lied and maybe even perjured themselves.

They should be investigated and, if guilty, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

People will ask “but what could the GOP done about the nominee for Ginsburgs/Sotomayors seat?” …this is it right here.

Make them an object lesson so the Left will know there is a consequence for falsely accusing men of rape.

Or what happened to Kavanaugh will happen again and again.

The scary part, for democrats, is that a good trial lawyer never asks a question without knowing the answers. Or so I’m told.

So I’m thinking they had their investigation done, possibly before the democrats went public with the allegations.

    Close The Fed in reply to Petrushka. | October 3, 2018 at 10:21 am

    Well, they clearly had some investigation done before Thursday’s questioning, since they knew she had assisted someone in preparing for a polygraph before.

And #BelieveAllWomen ??

Way to go Democrats. You claim to care about women but you just ensured that every victim of sexual assault will now have a much harder time getting people to believe her.

But women are just a prop for you to use to achieve a political end, else you would never have discredited the #MeToo movement the way you did.

    RedEchos in reply to Fen. | October 3, 2018 at 1:42 pm

    No, just women who throw out accusations 35 years after the fact without actual evidence during a political hearing against a conservative

This is going to go much, much deeper.

McLean was in on the writing of Ford’s letter.

Lindsey Graham is telling Trump that it’s no biggie if Kavanaugh is voted down, just renominate him after midterms…

Please don’t fall for that. Lindsey is a cuck who will stab us in the back like his mentor McCain.

    Petrushka in reply to Fen. | October 3, 2018 at 6:29 am

    This morning’s news suggests that McLean and Ford hatched this thing together, and that they are part of a much broader scheme, possibly tied of Spygate.

    Looks like McLean has been a swamp creature all along, a black hat.

    Fen in reply to Fen. | October 3, 2018 at 7:06 am

    Ah geez. Allapundit over at Hot Air is actually falling for this. I’m watching Lindsey-Lucy promise Allahpundit that she won’t pull the ball away if Kavanaugh is re-nominated.

    Allahpundit is either incredibly naive or he’s being paid to push this nonsense on the rest of us.

    I wonder if Paul over at Powerline is pushing the same talking points.

    SDN in reply to Fen. | October 3, 2018 at 7:21 am

    Lindsey knows as well as anyone that Flake and Corker, since their retiring, and Red State Dems may vote No. He also expects them to be gone. What he’s saying (and he’s right) is that once we have more seats ram Kavanaugh down their throats.

    I disagree. The strategy for the Dems and NeverTrumpers has been to delay this past the elections to avoid the “Dirty Five” having to cast a damning vote pre-election.

    These swamp creatures are not inclined to “take one for team”. So force the issue right now with a vote.This would force them to go on record before the election.

    Take one for the team hoping it could save their skins at the polls and Kav may lose but so will they. GOP stands to gain at least 2 seats and maybe as many as five.

    Voting to confirm might help at the polls but Kav is in and the GOP may still gain 2 or more seats anyway.

    I think this is exactly the way to go. Force the issue. These swamp creatures have no honor and as we can see with Trump campaigning, this is a very, very big deal to voters in the red states.

    Fen in reply to Fen. | October 3, 2018 at 7:41 am

    Guys, I know that makes sense, but look who you are dealing with.

    Lindsey Graham.

    Do you think it’s a coincidence that he made that great speech in support of Kavanaugh, lending him the credibility to make this proposal.

    I guarantee you, if the Senate wavers on Kavanaugh, Lindsey and the other McCain’s will find a way to lose gracefully on Kavanaugh again after the midterms.

      Graham is in line to be Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee next year. Believe me, he wants Kav confirmed if for no other reason. Besides, despite it being reported that Kav is a diehard conservative, his record doesn’t show that. He is a strict constitutionalist from all I’ve read.

      Kav is the tipping point turning the SCOTUS away from anti-constitutionalism for many years to come. The next appointment in line is a true conservative WOMAN: Amy Coney Barrett. What do you think will happen with Graham as chair in a Senate that has a 56-44 Republican majority? That’s the biggest prize of all and Graham stands to be the guy to deliver it.

        Hey, I hope you are right, I would love to be proven wrong on this one.

        But experience tells me that those 2 extra seats just mean 2 more RINOs now have the luxury of pulling off into the “undecided” camp.

        Then comes the Lindsey memo post-midterms, after we followed his plan to stand down today: WaPo – Graham Signal’s White House Kavanaugh Tainted, Warns Confirmation Unlikely.

          Tom Servo in reply to Fen. | October 3, 2018 at 10:45 am

          Trump has changed everything. Even more than we, his supporters could have imagined he would. Trump is not nominating RINO’s, and unlike Bush, he actually fights for his own people. Amazing.

        Also, isnt it wonderful how we can disagree so strongly without making it personal? 😉

        Hat tip.

        Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | October 3, 2018 at 10:15 am

        despite it being reported that Kav is a diehard conservative, his record doesn’t show that. He is a strict constitutionalist from all I’ve read.

        And one who believes the court’s precedents are part of the constitution. I expect him to be a vote against overturning Casey (and therefore Roe), and I certainly expect him to be a fierce champion of Wickard.

What’s the legal assumption, that if you lie in one part of your testimony the entirety can be viewed as a lie?

I guess I was wrong about Mitchell’s approach of taking a deposition rather than asking aggressive questions being a waste of time. It now sure looks like her questions were based on evidence we didn’t have. Ford perjured herself over and over again.

The delay may have been a desperate attempt to run out the clock past the elections so vulnerable red state democrat senators could avoid hanging themselves before the election, but so far, it has only served to incriminate the accusers.

Let’s vote right now!

    Petrushka in reply to Pasadena Phil. | October 3, 2018 at 8:00 am

    I would bet a small amount of money that the current FBI investigation is focused almost entirely on McLean.

    I would bet a somewhat smaller amount that this scenario was plotted by Trump or his people.

DouglasJBender | October 3, 2018 at 9:47 am

In what way does sworn testimony count as “evidence”?

FBI agent Monica Mcclean is Ford’s childhood friend from Holton Arms who was coached by Ford. It appears that Ford was staying in Delaware with McClean when she wrote her second letter to Feinstein. Excellent sleuthing here by Conservative Treehouse:

    amwick in reply to Mercyneal. | October 3, 2018 at 3:52 pm

    So we have CTH speculating that this new character, McLean may have recruited CBF and helped her to write the letter. Interesting.. Maybe investigators already suspected that, and as a result we see Rachel Mitchell asking about CBF getting any help with the letter. hmmm

This fiasco just keeps getting better and better. So, the name of the “friend”, whom Ford is accused of “coaching” about polygraphs turns out to be a long-time employee of the FBI, who just happens to live in Delaware. And, it is intriguing that her name was NOT redacted in the letter released by Grassley. This has all the earmarks of another “insurance policy” from the Deep State. And, it would explain a lot about why Feinstein was so reluctant to use it early on in the Kavanaugh proceedings. While it will probably stimulate the dem base, for the midterms, it now looks as though it will significantly stimulate the anti_Establishment, Trump support base, as well.

Gotta love it, when a plan comes together.

Well I have been screaming that there are connections everywhere and it all goes back to Clinton.

Kavanaugh knew what he was saying when he said it at a Clinton/Trump hit job.

Mclean is connect with FBI Preet Bharara out of the Southern NY District of the FBI. Same office linked to hiding Weiners laptop and part of the Russian Dossier.

See here: Document with her name on it.

The dems that vote against Kavanaugh will be voting with a joke.

What a slime job.

The Dems know they lost, that is why the NYT is being on the Tax Story.

    Tom Servo in reply to MarkSmith. | October 3, 2018 at 12:08 pm

    And the tax story turns out to be all about Trump’s father, who has been dead how long now?

    Funny how they would have viciously condemned anyone who pointed out that Al Gore Sr. was widely known to have been on Stalin’s payroll.

This is beyond scary…. super Deep State targeting control of all branches of government. It is coming into focus. Did this start with Communist infiltration in the distant past that took on a life of its own after fall of USSR? All dogs are connected.

Rush in last wondered if CIA intentionally mislead Bush about WMD….to foment the war.

Exactly who does really fun this country?

I have an absurd idea that has NEVER been tried before and it might help clear this up. How about we have an FBI investigation into Ford’s background! We could look into her drinking habits. Ask her chums if she ever blacked out. Find out how many beers or other stimulates she may have consumed during the course of a party. Ask her if she was a virgin before or after the party. Maybe we could even find out how the six of them ended up in a home that no one who was at the party owned. Did they break in? Did they have a key? Do any of you know of a case of attempted rape where the accuser does not get cross-examined and a background search is performed for the accuser? She has now been caught in enough falsehoods that her credibility is now under attack.