Seems ford lied or just does not know what the truth is "Testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford identified herself as a ‘psychologist,’ but records indict this is a false statement under California law. Someone at Stanford University also appears to have caught the blunder and edited Ford’s faculty page. Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie. After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while under oath, Ford opened her testimony saying, “My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.” According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California. A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any variation of spelling on Ford’s name. If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed to call herself a “psychologist” but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until it was renewed. However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they were inactive. Records Show Dr. Ford Is Not A Licensed Psychologist, May Have Committed Perjury
Fantasizing can be fun. I just prefer to keep my thoughts on things that actually have a snowball's chance of happening.
I don't believe Ford can be held responsible for her actions, words ….. having suffered over three decades of mental anguish from a sexual assault that may or may not have ever taken place.
"Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge: 'I will cooperate' with FBI probe of sex assault claims A lawyer for Mark Judge, the high school buddy of embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, told CNBC that Judge "will answer any and all questions posed to him" by the FBI about serious sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh. The cooperation offer came on the heels of several senators asking for Kavanaugh's final confirmation vote to be delayed until after the FBI has a chance to investigate claims that he tried to rape a 15-year-old high school girl in the early 1980s. " If the FBI or any law enforcement agency requests Mr. Judge's cooperation, he will answer any and all questions posed to him," Judge's lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder, told CNBC in an email. Kavanaugh friend Mark Judge: 'I will cooperate' with FBI probe of sex assault claims
Even better than testifying to Congress. It still won't be enough. The Crats will find another excuse, something else to cry about. Like clockwork.
Mitchell released a memo Sunday night that she could not bring charges against Kavanaugh that there were inconsistencies in her testimony "Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford last week, wrote in a memo released late Sunday that there were inconsistencies in Ford's testimony and that -- given the information at hand -- she would not bring criminal charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. She identified Ford's case as an example of “he said, she said,” and said her case is “even weaker than that.” Mitchell, who worked as a sex-crimes prosecutor for nearly 25 years in Arizona, pointed out what she identified as timing inconsistencies. She wrote that Ford appeared to jump around on the timing of the alleged sexual assault, ranging from the “mid 1980s” to “early 1980s,” and then the “summer of 1982.” “While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year,” she wrote. Mitchell says she would not bring criminal charges against Kavanaugh in memo
this is a better write up by Mitchell as Mitchell's memo notes nine significant problems with Ford's testimony and underscores that her case is "even weaker" than a "he said, she said" case. Here are the nine problems outlined in Mitchell's memo: 1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened: In a July 6 text to The Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.” In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.” Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain. A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.” Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review. While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year Prosecutor That Questioned Ford Shreds Her Case In 5 Page Memo
You were saying she wasn't as credible whole he testified. Then you said she was lying by the next day. Sounds like you are telling a bit of a story to make it sound like you were more reasonable than just not believing her as soon as you possibly could.
Before commenting on this, I would suggest that you read the thread or at least looking into the issue. A research psychologist is allowed to use that term without getting a license, as she is not a psychologist that sees patients but has a PhD in psychology. We already covered that she clearly fits under an explicit exemption in the rule of labeling yourself a psychologist.
You were declaring her less credible while he testified and declared her lying (with some colorful language) by the next day. So not much time. Were you lying about your impressions then or lying about taking time now?
I am about as "never Trumper" as you get, and I completely agree with Mitchell that no prosecutor would press charges on Kavanaugh based on what we know to date. I also don't think this should be at all about Trump. It's about whether this is a good nominee to hand a lifetime seat on the USSC.... as Gorsuch clearly was and as I am sure there are many others available. IMO, Kavanaugh's behavior in the hearings, including the numerous repeated lies, the inappropriate interrupting and yelling at interviewers, and the wildly paranoid partisan rant all indicate that he has no business sitting on the highest court in the land. That doesn't even get into whether he is guilty of sexual assault(s), which may be the case.
