n the eve of pivotal testimony scheduled to take place Thursday before the Senate Judiciary
Committee that could determine whether Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh rises to the
high court, committee Republicans released word of a development that throws a new twist
on the already tortured proceedings.
And Democrats are screaming that their own trick has been pulled against them.
According to Fox News, Judiciary Committee Republicans released a statement late Wednesday
revealing that they had spoken with two men who have said it was possible that they were
actually responsible for an alleged sexual assault in the early 1980s that Palo Alto
University Professor Christine Blasey Ford is blaming on Kavanaugh.
According to Fox, the statement revealed that the GOP had been in contact with one of the
men since Monday.
The Republicans, led by committee Chairman Charles Grassley, obviously opted not to share
the information with Democratic colleagues.
In a statement to NBC News, an unnamed Democratic congressional aide was outraged.
"Twelve hours before the hearing they suggest two anonymous men claimed to have assaulted
her," the aide stated.
"Democrats were never informed of these assertions or interviews, in violation of
Senate rules."
Seriously?
This is the same party that kept quiet about a letter received by California Sen. Dianne
Feinstein in July but did not see fit to reveal its existence to the country until after Kavanaugh's
confirmation hearing had ended.
Sen Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, pointed out the hypocrisy in a Twitter post.
"Some might find it exceedingly difficult to imagine Judiciary Committee Democrats expressing
this complaint with straight faces," he wrote.
Some might find it exceedingly difficult to imagine Judiciary Committee Democrats expressing
this complaint with straight faces.
The bombshell news from Wednesday night was the latest development in a tumultuous week
that started when The New Yorker published an account of a second accuser against Kavanaugh
in a barely believable piece that was essentially built on a hazy memory, rumor — and Democratic
probes.
Then, publicity-hungry attorney Michael Avenatti went public on Wednesday with a tale of a
client with a bizarre story that Kavanaugh was part of a "gang rape" ring in the
early 1980s (Avenatti has publicly mused about mounting a 2020 presidential campaign, so
Democrat politics are clearly a factor).
Both accusations — like Ford's — were sprung out of the blue.
Now, Judiciary Committee Republicans have officially released word that there are yet
more stories out there that could put the whole thing to rest.
On Monday, the timeline recounts GOP staff members interviewing 'a man who believes
he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982.'
"The 'encounter' refers to an episode in which Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually
assaulted her in a bedroom at a Maryland house party.
"They had a follow-up interview with that man, and he provided more detail about the
assault.
"Then on Wednesday, the committee staff said they spoke with a second man who said
he assaulted Ford in 1982."
No credible conservative has denied it was possible that Ford actually went through some
kind of ordeal in the early 1980s.
Kavanaugh himself said as much during an interview with Fox News on Monday.
I am not questioning and have not questioned that perhaps Dr. Ford at some point in her
life was sexually assaulted by someone in some place," he said, according to a transcript
from USA Today.
"But what I know is I have never sexually assaulted anyone in high school or at any
time in my life."
Obviously, it's too soon to tell where Wednesday's developments will lead, but it's possible
that they could eventually show Ford's story was correct to the extent that she actually
did go through an ordeal at the hands of a male.
It's also possible they will show, even to Democrats and rabid liberals, that Kavanaugh
is innocent of Ford's accusations.
But considering how they came out, and the Democrats' hypocritical reaction to them,
they prove one thing for sure:
For more infomation >> Grassley Borrows Trick from Dems, Unveils Game-Changer Hours Before Ford Appears - Duration: 4:09.-------------------------------------------
These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway - Duration: 5:08.
These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway
So it seems like Judge Kavanaugh's accuser has committed perjury when she testified under
oath at a Senate hearing on Thursday.
When Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified under oath last week she identified herself as a
"psychologist."
And when she said this she may have perjured herself under California state law.
After she thanked members of the committee on Thursday after she was placed 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."
The problem here is the word "psychologist."
Ford may have misrepresented herself and her credentials.
And if this is indeed the case, those are infractions which are taken very seriously
in the psychological field and under California Law.
Here is more on this via Dangerous:
"Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify
publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process
that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous
exams.
To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent
of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.
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.
Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California.
Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern
California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside
the state.
She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master's degree in California
in 2009.
She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii's Board of
Psychology licensing database also did not turn up any results for Ford.
What makes Ford's claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University
appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word "psychologist"
and rushed to cover for Ford.
DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Ford's page on the school's
faculty directory.
On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford's faculty page was saved
to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a "research psychologist" along with
her email address and office phone number.
The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an "Affiliate" in
the department, with the words "research psychologist" removed along with Ford's
email address and phone number.
This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford's contact information
and title after she entered the national spotlight."
And the questions continue:
"Aside from potentially misleading the committee, Ford also appears to have violated California
law.
California's Business and Professional Code Sections 2900-2919 govern the state's laws
for practicing psychology.
Section 2903 reads, "No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent
himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except
as otherwise provided in this chapter."
Section 2902(c) states: (c) "A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when
the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of
services incorporating the words 'psychology,' 'psychological,' 'psychologist,' 'psychology
consultation,' 'psychology consultant,' 'psychometry,' 'psychometrics' or
'psychometrist,' 'psychotherapy,' 'psychotherapist,' 'psychoanalysis,'
or 'psychoanalyst,' or when the person holds himself or herself out to be trained,
experienced, or an expert in the field of psychology."
This foolish woman.
In her attempt to take out Judge Kavanaugh may have inadvertently taken herself out.
And if California law proves to be fair, which it usually is in cases like this, then she
should be fined and banned from working at all in the psychology field in California.
But since the state is now a banana republic who knows what will happen.
Today the field of psychology is pretty much a "made up" field in many ways.
Not because of the science behind it, but because they are now an extension of the liberal
left.
They make the science fit the left wing narrative.
But one thing none of the hacks who currently run the field haven't been able to do is
to change "credentials."
But I'm sure that now because of Ford's lies they will change them so she is a considered
full blown Psychologist.
It's the way psychology works!
-------------------------------------------
Chris Wallace roasts Sarah Sanders: How can you call Dr. Ford 'compelling', still support Kavanaugh? - Duration: 4:04.
For more infomation >> Chris Wallace roasts Sarah Sanders: How can you call Dr. Ford 'compelling', still support Kavanaugh? - Duration: 4:04. -------------------------------------------
Dr. Ford's friend who Kavanaugh cited in his hearing just shot down his alibi in letter - Duration: 3:17.
For more infomation >> Dr. Ford's friend who Kavanaugh cited in his hearing just shot down his alibi in letter - Duration: 3:17. -------------------------------------------
панель приборов Ford C-Max - Duration: 1:55.
For more infomation >> панель приборов Ford C-Max - Duration: 1:55. -------------------------------------------
Hatch Sends Letter To The FBI Referencing 'Deeply Troubling' Behavior From Ford's Attorneys - Duration: 2:38.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, who has also publicly accused Democrats of doing everything possible to
slow down Judge Brett Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court, has sent the FBI a letter
demanding to know if they are faced with more stall tactics during its upcoming probe of
the allegations against Kavanaugh.
Hatch also spoke of the "deeply troubling" behavior of Debra Katz, an attorney for Kavanaugh
accuser Christine Blasey Ford.
After identifying that Ford and various alleged witnesses have agreed to cooperate, Hatch
said he was concerned that the investigation could be once again impeded.
"I am writing to request, however, that you notify the White House Counsel's Office
immediately if any witness(es) or their representatives seek to delay or are uncooperative in this
process," he said.
Hatch Stated that Katz's apparent conduct triggered his concerns.
"One key reason for my concern regarding possible delay comes from testimony during
the hearing this past Thursday.
According to Dr. Ford, she would have preferred to have been interviewed in California, away
from the spectacle of a public hearing.
But her lawyers apparently refused to convey to their client numerous offers by Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to conduct a public or private interview in
a location of her choosing," Hatch wrote.
"The lawyers' refusal led directly to a public hearing, against Dr. Ford's express
wishes.
This is deeply troubling," he added.
See the full letter here.
though the probe is limited in duration, the FBI has been given full latitude to take the
investigation where it leads, Trump said Saturday.
"NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation
of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people.
Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion.
Please correct your reporting!" Trump tweeted.
First reports suggested the FBI would investigate Ford's Claims only.
What are your thoughts?
Will there be more attempted delay tactics.
Let us know below?
-------------------------------------------
These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway - Duration: 5:59.
So it seems like Judge Kavanaugh's accuser has committed perjury when she testified under
oath at a Senate hearing on Thursday.
When Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified under oath last week she identified herself as a
"psychologist."
And when she said this she may have perjured herself under California state law.
After she thanked members of the committee on Thursday after she was placed 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."
The problem here is the word "psychologist."
Ford may have misrepresented herself and her credentials.
And if this is indeed the case, those are infractions which are taken very seriously
in the psychological field and under California Law.
Here is more on this via Dangerous:
"Under California law, as with almost every other state, in order for a person to identify
publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process
that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous
exams.
To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent
of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.
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.
Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California.
Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern
California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside
the state.
She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master's degree in California
in 2009.
She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii's Board of
Psychology licensing database also did not turn up any results for Ford.
What makes Ford's claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University
appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word "psychologist"
and rushed to cover for Ford.
DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Ford's page on the school's
faculty directory.
On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford's faculty page was saved
to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a "research psychologist" along with
her email address and office phone number.
The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an "Affiliate" in
the department, with the words "research psychologist" removed along with Ford's
email address and phone number.
This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford's contact information
and title after she entered the national spotlight."
And the questions continue:
"Aside from potentially misleading the committee, Ford also appears to have violated California
law.
California's Business and Professional Code Sections 2900-2919 govern the state's laws
for practicing psychology.
Section 2903 reads, "No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent
himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except
as otherwise provided in this chapter."
Section 2902(c) states: (c) "A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when
the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of
services incorporating the words 'psychology,' 'psychological,' 'psychologist,' 'psychology
consultation,' 'psychology consultant,' 'psychometry,' 'psychometrics' or
'psychometrist,' 'psychotherapy,' 'psychotherapist,' 'psychoanalysis,'
or 'psychoanalyst,' or when the person holds himself or herself out to be trained,
experienced, or an expert in the field of psychology."
This foolish woman.
In her attempt to take out Judge Kavanaugh may have inadvertently taken herself out.
And if California law proves to be fair, which it usually is in cases like this, then she
should be fined and banned from working at all in the psychology field in California.
But since the state is now a banana republic who knows what will happen.
Today the field of psychology is pretty much a "made up" field in many ways.
Not because of the science behind it, but because they are now an extension of the liberal
left.
They make the science fit the left wing narrative.
But one thing none of the hacks who currently run the field haven't been able to do is
to change "credentials."
But I'm sure that now because of Ford's lies they will change them so she is a considered
full blown Psychologist.
It's the way psychology works!
-------------------------------------------
The FBI has not contacted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for Brett Kavanaugh investigation — is this why? - Duration: 1:44.
For more infomation >> The FBI has not contacted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford for Brett Kavanaugh investigation — is this why? - Duration: 1:44. -------------------------------------------
Tom Cotton Drops a Legal BOMB on Ford's Lawyers - Duration: 1:08.
For more infomation >> Tom Cotton Drops a Legal BOMB on Ford's Lawyers - Duration: 1:08. -------------------------------------------
These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway - Duration: 5:38.
For more infomation >> These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway - Duration: 5:38. -------------------------------------------
WATCH Under Fire Senator Feinstein Blames FORD For Leak To The Media(VIDEO)!!! - Duration: 11:15.
WATCH Under Fire Senator Feinstein Blames FORD For Leak To The Media
third acrux Thank You mr. chairman judge Cavanaugh you and your family have
been treated incredibly poorly by Senate Democrats and by the media and let me
say also I think dr. Ford and her family had been treated incredibly poorly by
Senate Democrats in the media you have both seen your good names dragged
through the mud and this has been sadly one of the most shameful chapters in the
history of the United States Senate let me say to you and your family thank you
for a lifetime of public service I will say watching your mother's pained face
has been heart-wrenching as she's seen her son's character dragged through the
mud after not only your lifetime of public service but her lifetime of
public service as well and I know as a father there's been
nothing more painful to you than talking to your daughters and explaining these
attacks that the media is airing I also believe though that the American people
are fair-minded people that the American people can set aside the partisan
warfare of Washington and look to substance and facts and that is the
charge of this committee now there have been three different sets of allegations
that have dominated the media I think it's important to note that two of those
sets of allegations had so little corroboration that even the New York
Times which is no conservative outlet refused to report on them because they
could find no basis for them and it was striking in his entire hearing that not
a single Democrat in this committee asked about two sets of those
allegations mr. Ramirez's allegations and the allegations of the client of mr.
abinanti not a single Democrat I don't know if they were just to embarrass mr.
Evan Eddie's allegations were so scandalous that the ranking member of
MIT 'add his clients most scandalous accusations
of you as a criminal mastermind essentially omitted those scandalous
accusations from her statement this hearing has focused rightly so on the
allegations dr. Ford presented and let me say I think the committee did the
right thing in giving dr. Ford a full and fair opportunity to tell her story
that's what we needed to do when these allegations became public and the
committee treated her with respect as we should i do not believe senate democrats
have treated you with respect what do we know we know that her testimony and your
testimony are in conflict a fair-minded Assessor of facts would then look to
what else do we know when you have conflicting testimony well we know that
dr. Ford identified three fact witnesses who she said observed what occurred all
three of those fact witnesses have stated on the record under penalty of
perjury that they do not recall what she is alleging happening they have not only
not not corroborated her charges they have explicitly refuted her charges
that's significant to a fair-minded fact-finder in addition you walked
through before this committee your calendars from the time now I will say
you were a much more organized teenager than I was and that many of us were but
it was a compelling recitation of night by night by night where you were in the
summer of 1982 that is yet another contemporaneous piece of fact to assess
what happened and we also know that the Democrats on this committee engaged in a
profoundly unfair process the ranking member had these allegations on July
30th and for 60 days that was 60 days ago
the ranking member did not refer it to the FBI for an investigation the ranking
member did not refer it to the full committee for an investigation the
ranking member this committee could have investigated those claims in a
confidential way that respected dr. Ford's privacy and some of the most
significant testimony we heard this morning as dr. Ford told this committee
if the only people to whom she gave her letter were her attorneys the ranking
member and her member of Congress and she stated that she and her attorneys
did not release the letter which means the only people that could have released
that that letter were either the ranking member and her staff or the Democratic
member of Congress because dr. Ford told this committee those are the only people
who had it that is not a fair process and we should look to the facts not
anonymous innuendo and slander Sherman I asked for a point of personal privilege
to respond mercy mr. chairman let me be clear I did not hide
dr. Ford's allegations I did not leak her story she asked me to hold it
confidential and I kept it confidential as she asked she apparently was stalked
by the press felt that what happened she was forced to come forward and her
greatest fear were realized was realized she's been harassed she's had death
threats and she's had to flee her home in addition the investigation that the
Republican majority is heralding is really nothing that I know about other
than a partisan practice normally all the witnesses would be interviewed
however that's not happened while the majority has reached out to several
people they did not notify me or my staff that they were doing this and so
ought to argue that we would not participate but not tell us what they
were up to is somewhat disingenuous I was given some information by a woman
who was very much afraid who asked that it be
held confidential and I held it confidential until she decided that she
would come forward mr. chairman would would the ranking member
answer a question please if I can I I have great respect for senator Feinstein
we've worked together on many topics and I believe what you just said can you
tell us that your staff did not leak it oh I don't believe my staff would leak
it I have not asked that question directly but you do not owe you know
that I mean how in the world did that get in the hands of the of the press the
answer is no the staff have you ever asked you know have you asked your staff
or other staff - with the Judiciary Committee pardon me
well a Jennifers reminds me I've asked her before about it well so that's true
well somebody leaked it if it wasn't you well it was I'm telling you it was not I
did not I mean I was asked to keep it confidential and and I'm criticized for
that too mr. chairman could I ask the Chairman a question which is does the
committee have a process if there is an allegation against any nominee to assess
that allegation in a confidential forum rather than in the public dread since
dr. Ford requested that it be kept confidential is there a process for the
committee for considering confidential allegations and the answer is yes and I
said senator Tillis pointed out the document that I put out to show of all
the things that we've done along the lines of your question and mr. chairman
what would you have done if on July 30th the ranking member had had raised this
allegation with you has the chairman of this committee how would you would have
done like we have done with every background or let's say FBI report that
comes from the White House with the nominee and then subsequent to that
because maybe the FBI got done with the three months ago we go through the FBI
or information comes to us then we have our investigators in a bipartisan
both Republicans and Democrats follow up on though whatever those questions are
or those problems would have to be worked out
so bipartisan investigators could have investigated this two months ago and it
could have been heard in a confidential setting without dr. Ford's name or judge
Cavanaugh's name being dragged through the mud wrecked and except for one or
two conversations that we had with the judge to our investigators Democrats
didn't participate except in those two but in those two or one or two they
didn't ask any questions Thank You mr. chairman I want to would mr. chairman we
ought Matt man respond it's my understanding that her story was leaked
before the letter became public and she testified that she had spoken to her
friends about it and it's most likely that that's how the story leaked and
that she had been asked by press but it did not leak from us I assure you of
that almost mr. chairman I I'm a little
confused I thought only the member of the House and senator Feinstein and her
lawyers had the letter so her friends she might have talked to about it
couldn't leak the letter if they just had a book verbal conversation unless
she gave that my copy of the letter senator I don't think the letter was
ever late well how did the press know to contact her about her complaint she
apparently she testified here this morning that she had talked to friends
about it and the press had talked to her
senator our judge a sense there was reference to the problems the legitimate
problems and the and the change of lifestyle that dr. Ford had if you want
some time to say the impact on your family I'll be glad to hear you if you
don't want to talk about that's okay I've talked about that it's okay then
senator Harris thank you bless you and God bless america
-------------------------------------------
Who's Cashing In Ford's Massive GoFundMe Earnings And Dark Money To Smear Kavanaugh(VIDEO)!!! - Duration: 10:09.
Who's Cashing In Ford's Massive GoFundMe Earnings And Dark Money To Smear Kavanaugh
Miss Boise Ford has now raised this is pretty amazing five hundred and thirty
thousand dollars on a GoFundMe page which does raise some important
questions who set the page up the site just indicates that it was quote
sponsored by her neighbors and colleagues and isn't it fair to ask with
another long week in front of us has this GoFundMe created a new incentive
for accusers and are we witnessing a new precedent involving major financial
rewards for people who make such claims to answer these questions let's bring in
constitutional law expert Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley Jonathan
what's your reaction we the GoFundMe page first is there an incentive issue
here that should be concerning also with the swarmers and the in the senate they
apparently got chip flake to you know put on a pair of depends and like Rhonda
Kunz of twenty minutes later so are we creating
bad incentives here well you know I wrote about this for the first time in
the hill newspaper when lanny davis announced sort of rolled out a GoFundMe
type page but for michael cohen and suddenly a huge amounts of money were
put into that account and as an attorney it really struck me is quite odd because
you could have people effectively in a market for witnesses you can buy a
witness effectively by funding them as long as they're saying the type of thing
that you want them to say so michael cohen goes out and says i'm now you know
out to get the president I'm going to implicate him in crimes and money pours
into this account as his attorney flogs the internet site for donations and
we're seeing that now more and more where people essentially invest in key
witnesses so that they become part of this legal process by making it more
likely that folks are going to not only take a certain approach to testimony but
they essentially are competing against each other in this market you're going
to get more nation's threat you are and so this
whole aspect of GoFundMe is relatively new and really the our ethical rules
haven't really caught up to that you know we we have all types of rules about
the classic situation where someone gives you money for testimony but this
is a new creature for us this idea that millions of people can effectively pay
you to take a particular position yeah well Jonathan there's two hundred
thousand dollars that has been raised in an account for her security she's very
concerned about her security apparently so
two hundred thousand dollars in that and then the five hundred and thirty
thousand in this general page and just for people who missed this there was a
moment where her lawyers were they were asked a question about is someone paying
for your attorneys fees let's watch this I believe you said it hasn't been paid
for yet is that correct
let me put an end to this mystery her lawyers have paid for her polygraph
doctor for do you expect the price of that polygraph to be passed on to you
I'm not sure yet I haven't taken a look at all of the costs involved in this I'm
aware that there's been several GoFundMe sites that I haven't had a chance to
figure out how to manage those because I've never had one I'm sort of remember
what go fund me go fund B do with that both occur counsel are doing this pro
bono we are not being paid and we have no expectation of being five hundred
thirty thousand dollars is that to cover the gas from Rehoboth Beach to
Washington I mean what are we the Koch I mean the cokes were free I think got to
here I mean what where does that money go on I mean I think this is a
legitimate question to ask no one wanted to touch of course the character of of
the accuser for a variety of reasons you don't want to victimize a victim or an
alleged victim and I get that but we don't have journalists who were
interested in in and you know what was she like in high school I mean is that
not relevant when you're making an accusation thirty six no one wanted to
touch that but on this it would seem that everybody should be
interested in this if someone is making a lot of money off of this particular
case yeah we're in a very strange place right now ethically you know GoFundMe
sites and then similar sites and I really do help people pay for important
public interest work and projects so I'm not criticizing that but we really do
need to have some type of standard as attorney set these up in terms of where
the money goes to what you can say in order to induce people to get to give
money to these sites those are really raising some new questions and I think
they're pretty darn troubling well there could be fraud involved also correct
with a GoFundMe you know appeal there could be some type of fraudulent intent
I mean fraud in the inducement I mean there could all be all sorts of things
involved here but again it is an it is new territory Jonathan Turley thank you
so much thank you I want to know where that money's going so badly it's pro
bono that means free let's not get the money later I am still a lawyer oh these
delay tactics and eleventh-hour accusations against Kavanaugh seem a
little too convenient at least to me and that's probably because they are they're
well coordinated and extremely well-funded America rising a Republican
research group has been diving into the latest anti Cavanaugh efforts and found
there is one particular bad actor behind many of the smears former Hillary
Clinton and Eric Holder staffer Brian Fallon joining us now to navigate the
web of anti Cavanaugh dark money is the researcher who compiled this report
Alexandra Wilks and on set with me is former Clinton advisor and pollster Mark
Penn Alexandra give us a rundown of how this group it's called demand justice
which is led by Fallon is the tip of the anti Kavanagh spear so in judge
Cavanaugh's great opening statement he was mocked by some liberals by claiming
or for claiming that there's this calculated effort to smear him and he's
not wrong the Liberals have been leaving all kinds of breadcrumbs for us to trace
so as you mentioned Brian Fallon he found a demand justice he was the face
of Hilary Clinton campaign you saw him all
over the 2016 effort after that campaign wrapped up in the spring of 2018 he
founded demand justice and his goal was to defeat whoever president Trump
decided to choose as his nominee for the Supreme Court so again we're dealing
with an organization that didn't even look to see what qualifications this
person would have they didn't care they were gonna defeat anyone he goes to
George Soros for first and seed money he gets it and I'll let you I'll let you
jump in before I tell the next part of the story no so Soros Soros then comes
in and we don't know how much he gave him or do we do we have those facts well
so here's the thing um you know for as much as Democrats like to lament dark
money and by dark money we're talking about money that comes from 501 C 4
organizations these are contributions that are unlimited to these
organizations and undisclosed these groups were popularized by the great
decision and citizens united you know so we're talking about Democrats who
apparently deplore dark money but they have set up not one level not two levels
but three levels of secrecy in setting up this project five demand justice is a
project of the 16:30 foundation those are both C fours and it's partnered with
Hillary Clinton's onward C 4 as well that means that all of their filings are
obscured within each other's tax returns and we can't see them ah so that's the
rub mark you've thought and spoken about how some of this could and I say could
backfire on the Democrats I know you're gonna do some new polling over the
weekend look I don't think it's a surprise that there are groups on the
Democratic side they genuinely opposed this domini and the entire list of
Federalist Society dominates and there are groups on the Republican side we are
here because a professor wrote a letter and senator Feinstein wrongly held that
letter but that's really why we're here and I think the public wants some
certainty here questions have been raised even
President Trump says the professor's testimony was credible and I think
probably Senator fake did the right thing maybe this is you know this is
supposed to just take a week maybe it'll just confirm maybe it'll turn up
something new but I think people wanted more certainty before this vote and I
think they're gonna get that this Brian Fallon knows particularly well obviously
is partisan but to say things like this as he did in
a tweet yesterday if the Senate ignores Ford and tries to muscle an attempted
rapist onto the court not even allege an attempted rapist onto the court they
will pay dearly this November focusing on Collins and Gardiner Cavanaugh will
not serve for life do you think that's good language look I think that we are
searching for some national unity here quotes like that are not going to get us
there I agree with that I hope that after this investigation and the vote we
can come together and stop this kind of rhetoric all right guys thanks so much
thank you god bless you and God bless america
-------------------------------------------
America Ferrera - Standing with Christine Blasey Ford & "American Like Me" | The Daily Show - Duration: 7:24.
-Welcome back to the show. -Thank you.
So good to have you here.
Um, there are so many things that you're working on,
and today's one of those crazy days
where I'm sure you're torn
between what's happening in the news,
what's happening in life.
Um, let's start with the news today.
-Mm. -I'm sure you were also watching what was happening,
um, in-in the Supreme Court nomination hearing.
You're somebody who's been involved avidly in politics.
-Mm. -Just from your point of view,
when you were watching what happened today,
what would you say was your visceral feeling?
Outrage. (laughs)
Um... I... first and foremost, uh...
love Dr. Ford for her heroic actions that she took.
Um, I believe Dr. Ford.
Um, and I watched,
as a survivor of sexual assault myself,
a very public display of what happens
-to survivors when they dare speak up. -Right.
And I can't imagine a more credible,
uh, composed woman,
uh, sitting in her position
and doing the amazing job that she did
to-to tell her truth and speak her voice.
And then to watch, um, a man-child sort of...
(laughter)
...blubber through his own testimony is enraging.
I'm so sick of seeing competent, intelligent,
credible women come up against men-children
and-and be suppressed.
It's-it's enraging, and it's...
And what happens tomorrow or tonight--
um, it's not just a vote.
It's a... it's a referendum on what we are as a country.
-Right. -What are we willing to accept?
Where are we really?
And how much longer are women's lives
and women's dignity going to come secondary
to the needs of powerful men?
(applause and cheering)
Wow.
The...
The story of America is...
so beautifully contained in this book.
And off what you were just saying now,
in many ways, for many people, it feels like America's
in a space of multiple referendums now.
You know, the midterms are coming up.
People are saying that's going to be a referendum on Trump.
Every single election feels like the people speaking out.
This book is really something different.
American Like Me: Reflections on Life Between Cultures.
You've collected a group of really amazing people--
everyone from Uzo Aduba to Lin-Manuel Miranda, Roxane Gay--
and you got people to write really personal accounts
of just who they are, what makes them who they are,
and how... being different
has helped them find who they are,
but also how it's excluded them from the world.
How did you even begin this journey,
and how did you get these people to write in the book?
Yeah. Um, well, you know, I... the more and more I think
about... our country,
the more I believe that this American experiment,
it's a storytelling experiment.
It's sort of whose story gets told.
You know, and who has control over which stories get told
and which stories get believed.
And... and, you know, for me,
I-I... I grew up feeling...
100% American.
-Right. -I mean, I could have bled red, white and blue
as a nine-year-old child.
I believed everything I had been taught,
that this is America, and in America
all you have to do is work hard and believe that you're equal
to everyone else, and that everyone else is equal to you,
-and nothing is impossible. -Right.
And I believed that.
And-and it wasn't until other people let me know
that I wasn't American like them
that... that my eyes were open to that.
-Right. -And-and...
and the space that I have inhabited for a lot of my life,
the place between feeling 100% American
but being told that others saw me not as that,
and then also feeling Latina
and-and deeply rooted to my family's culture and history,
um, but also being told that I really wasn't that either.
-Right. -So I sort of lived in a no-man's land.
And I felt so alone and isolated in that experience,
and when I realized that so many other people
felt that way, too, I-I...
I realized that it was because our stories never get told.
-Right. -We never see our experience
woven into the narrative of what this...
who is an American and what is an American.
And I have to say, I am so upset
that patriotism has been hijacked.
Because I am a patriot.
-I am an American. I love this country. -Right.
I have always loved this country.
-(applause) -And... and...
my story is American.
It's not "immigrant American."
-No, I am an American. -Right.
And-and, so I-- for me,
it was not just about telling my story,
but it was about inviting all these other
incredible activists and writers and athletes,
and people who have contributed
to the American culture in phenomenal ways,
who, um, who don't get to tell that part of their story.
And so I reached out to them and so many of them said yes,
which I was so honored by.
And now we have this gorgeous book
that a young person can hold in their hands and see
what it means to be reflected by Americans like them.
It really is a wonderful paradox to try and absorb,
because as you're reading through the stories,
on the one hand, you're absorbing a world
that has maybe told people repeatedly that they cannot be,
but you're also speaking to people
-who've managed to overcome that. -Mm-hmm.
And I guess the moral of the story that I took from the book,
is really that no one should have to face
that obstacle in the first place.
But it really is inspiring to see all of these stories,
to see all these people coming forward.
You are somebody who's done it in your life in multiple ways.
You know, you've gone from being America Ferrera,
people go like, "Oh, you're this type of actress,"
or "you're this type of person," or "this is what you mean."
And we've seen you just grow
and blow up in multiple different roles.
I mean, like, on Superstore now, you're directing.
You know, you're getting to direct episodes.
A new season is coming up.
Are we seeing more of you in these roles?
Are you gonna be exploring more of that?
Yeah. I mean, yes, absolutely.
I have started directing.
I'm directing this season as well.
I directed in the past two seasons.
You know, I think that so much of what this book
and these stories are about, and so much about where I am,
and where I think women and people of color,
and all kinds of marginalized people
in this country are feeling is we should be able
to walk into spaces as our whole selves.
We shouldn't have to strip away the pieces of us
that aren't accepted by the mainstream culture to exist
and be accepted in spaces.
And so, for me, that means I'm an actress,
that means I'm a director, that means I'm a producer,
that means I'm an engaged citizen.
And I get to be all of those things,
no matter what room I walk in to.
You're dream...
(cheers and applause)
...is carried through in the book.
We love watching you grow.
Congratulations on the new little one in your life.
-I appreciate you so much -Oh, thank you.
for being on the show again.
American Like Me is available now.
And the fourth season of Superstore
will premiere October 4 on NBC.
America Ferrera, everybody.
-------------------------------------------
Kavanaugh Just Got Last Laugh On Ford's Massive GoFundMe 'Earnings' – Look Who's Cashing In! - Duration: 7:03.
For more infomation >> Kavanaugh Just Got Last Laugh On Ford's Massive GoFundMe 'Earnings' – Look Who's Cashing In! - Duration: 7:03. -------------------------------------------
Democrat Scandal Explodes On Ford Testimony Feinstein & Her Attorneys Played Her Violating ABA Rules - Duration: 11:49.
Democrat Scandal Explodes On Ford Testimony Feinstein & Her Attorneys Played Her Violating ABA Rules
in reading The Washington Post article it mentions that this incident that
we're here about contributed to anxiety and PTSD problems with which you have
struggled the word contributed does that mean that there are other things that
have happened that have also contributed to anxiety and PTSD I think that's a
great question I think the etiology of anxiety and PTSD is multifactorial so
that was certainly a critical risk risk that we would call it a risk factor in
science so that would be a predictor of the assumptions that I now have it
doesn't mean that other things that have happened in my life would have would
make it worse or better there are other risk factors as well so have there been
other things then that have contributed to the anxiety and PTSD that you
suffered well I think there's sort of biological predispositions that everyone
in here has four particular disorders so I can't rule out that I would have some
biological predisposition to be what about anxious type person what about
environmental environmentally not that I can think of
certainly note nothing as striking as that event okay may I ask dr. Ford how
did you get to Washington in a airplane okay it's I asked that because it's been
reported by the press that you would not submit to an interview with the
committee because of your fear of flying is that true well I was willing I was
hoping that they would come to me but then I realized that was an unrealistic
request it would have been a quicker trip for me yes so that was certainly
what I was hoping was to avoid having to get on an airplane but I eventually was
able to I get up the gumption with the help of
some friends and get on the plane when you were here in the mid-atlantic area
back in August end of July August how did you get here
also by airplane I come here once a year during this summer to visit my family ok
I'm sorry not here I go to Delaware ok in fact you fly fairly frequently for
your hobbies and your you've had to fly for your work is that true correct
unfortunately you you were a consulting by a statistician in Sydney Australia is
that right I've never been to Australia but the company that I worked for is
based in Australia and they have an office in San Francisco California
ok I don't think I'll make it to Australia it is long
I also saw on your CV that you list the following interest of surfing travel and
you in parentheses put Hawaii Costa Rica South Pacific Islands in French
Polynesia have you been all to those places correct by airplane yes and your
interests also include oceanography Hawaiian and Tahitian culture did you
travel by air as a part of those interests correct thank you for me to
travel going that direction when it's a vacation did you talk about your
allegations with any Republican member of Congress or congressional staff I did
not where I live the congresswoman is a Democrat ok was it communicated to you
by your counsel or someone else that the committee had asked to interview you and
that they offered to come out to California to do so we're gonna object
mr. chairman to any call for privileged conversations between counsel and dr.
Ford
what what could could we could you validate the fact that the offer was
made without her saying a word
is it possible for that question be answered without violating any console
relationships can I say that my teacher do you mind if I say something to you
directly you know um I just appreciate that you did offer that I wasn't clear
on what the offer was if you were gonna come out to see me I would have happily
hosted you and had to had been happy to speak with you out there I just did not
it wasn't clear to me that that was the case okay does that take care of your
question yes thank you mr. chary proceed then before July 30th the date on your
letter to senator Feinstein had you retained counsel with regard to these
allegations no I didn't think I didn't understand why I would need lawyers
actually I just didn't know a lot of people have that feeling okay let's talk
about the letter that you wrote on July 30th you asked senator Feinstein to main
confidentiality quote until she retreats it and just try to look for it okay so
it stopped the clock will you I found it
you asked senator Feinstein to maintain confidentiality until we have had
further opportunity to speak and then said you were available to speak further
vacationing in the mid-atlantic until August seventh is that correct
the last line is love - I'm now just catching up with you sorry I'm a little
slower my mind is getting a little tired I am available to speak further should
you wish to discuss him yes I was in Delaware until August seventh okay and
after that I went to New Hampshire and then back to California did you talk
with anybody about this letter before you sent it I talked with Anna s use
office okay and why did you talk to congresswoman issues office about that
letter because they were willing to hand deliver it to senator Feinstein okay did
anyone help you write the letter no okay after you sent your letter did you or
anyone on your behalf speak to senator Feinstein personally or with any Senate
staffer yes okay I had a phone call with senator Feinstein okay and when was that
that was while I was still in Delaware so before August 7th okay and how many
times did you speak with senator Feinstein once okay what did you talk
about as she asked me some questions about the incident and I answered those
questions okay was that the extent of the gist of the conversation yes it was
a fairly brief calm phone call okay did you ever give senator Feinstein or
anyone else the permission to release that letter not that I know of no
between the letter date July 30th and August the 7th did you speak with any
other person about your allegations could you say the dates again between
the letter date of July 30th and August 7th so while you were still in Delaware
did you speak with any other person about your allegations I'm just trying
to remember what dates that
stop - you're asking her with you I won't have any lawyers I've spoken with
correct correct correct I think correct then I I was interviewing lawyers but I
will not okay speaking personally about it aside from lawyers that you were
seeking to possibly hire to represent you did you speak to anybody else about
it during that period of time no okay I was staying with my parents at the
time did you talk to them about it definitely not okay so would it be fair
to say that you retained counsel during that time period of July 30th to August
7th I can't remember the exact date but it was the I was interviewing lawyers
during that period of time sitting in the car in the driveway and in the
Walgreens parking lot and we're hope it's Delia and trying to figure out how
the whole system works of interviewing lawyers and how to pick one etc so you
testified earlier that you had you didn't see the need for lawyers and now
you're trying to hire them what made you change your mind
it seems like most of the individuals that I had told which didn't that the
total number the total was not very high but those persons advised me to at this
point get a lawyer for advice about whether to push forward or to stay back
did that include congresswoman su and senator Feinstein no in we've heard this
morning several times that you did take a polygraph and that was on August 7th
is that right I believe so it's the day I was flying
from BWI to Manchester New Hampshire okay why did you decide to take a
polygraph I didn't see any reason not to do it were you advised to do that again
you're seeming to call for communications between counsel and
client I don't think you mean to do that if you do she
shouldn't have to answer that what console could you let her answer the
extent to which she doesn't violate the the relationship between you and dr.
Ford
based on the advice of the council it was happy to undergo the polygraph test
although I found it extremely stressful much longer than I anticipated I told my
whole life story I felt like I endured it I was fine I understand they can be
that way have you ever taken any other polygraphs
in your life never okay thank you god bless you and God bless america
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét