Auto news on Youtube Oct 1 2018

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!

For more infomation >> These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway - Duration: 5:08.

-------------------------------------------

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?

For more infomation >> Hatch Sends Letter To The FBI Referencing 'Deeply Troubling' Behavior From Ford's Attorneys - Duration: 2:38.

-------------------------------------------

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!

For more infomation >> These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway - Duration: 5:59.

-------------------------------------------

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

For more infomation >> WATCH Under Fire Senator Feinstein Blames FORD For Leak To The Media(VIDEO)!!! - Duration: 11:15.

-------------------------------------------

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

For more infomation >> Who's Cashing In Ford's Massive GoFundMe Earnings And Dark Money To Smear Kavanaugh(VIDEO)!!! - Duration: 10:09.

-------------------------------------------

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.

For more infomation >> America Ferrera - Standing with Christine Blasey Ford & "American Like Me" | The Daily Show - Duration: 7:24.

-------------------------------------------

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