One of Prof. Christine Blasey Ford's academic articles, published in 2008, included a study
on hypnosis in psychology and claimed that the practice of "self-hypnosis" can be
used to retrieve suppressed memories and "create artificial situations."
The research paper, co-authored by Prof. Ford and titled Meditation With Yoga, Group Therapy
With Hypnosis, and Psychoeducation for Depressed Mood: A Pilot Study," raises serious legal
questions about Christine Ford, a Professor of Psychology at California's Palo Alto
University, and the legitimacy of her Senate testimony.
More specifically, it raises the question — did Prof. Ford "retrieve" her hazy
memory of Judge Brett Kavanaugh and the sexual assault she alleges he committed upon her
as a teenager while she was under the type of hypnotic trance she has written about in
her research?
Was Prof. Ford attempting to retrieve her own "suppressed memories?"
If so, Prof. Ford's testimony may be taken seriously in psychological circles, but the
legitimacy of her testimony is shot to pieces in legal terms.
Prof. Christine Blasey Ford refused to turn over her therapist's notes to the Senate
regarding her scattershot and suppressed memories about Judge Kavanaugh allegedly assaulting
her in the early 1980s.
This may be because if Prof. Ford's memories were "discovered" through hypnosis they
would be "absolutely inadmissible" in a court of law in many states, including New
York and Maryland.
christine-ford-academic-essay Front page of the research paper co-authored
by Christine Ford (as Christine M. Blasey) which promotes the use
of hypnosis to retrieve suppressed memories.
christine-blasey-ford-self-hypnosis Excerpt from Prof. Christine Ford's published
article.
With the kind of revelations coming out about Prof. Ford's back story, it is no wonder
her social media and academic history was largely scrubbed by mysterious helpers just
before she made her appearance in the public eye.
For more infomation >> Christine Ford Wrote About Using Hypnosis To 'Retrieve Memories' & 'Create Situations' - Duration: 4:11.-------------------------------------------
Dem Asked If Her Party Leaked Confidential Ford Letter, Her Response Says Everything - Duration: 3:58.
A top Democrat was asked if her party leaked the confidential letter Christine Blasey Ford
sent to Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Democrat Sen. Diane Feinstein, and her response
says everything.
During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, was asked about
the letter Ford sent to Feinstein two months ago, which detailed allegations that Supreme
Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her nearly four decades ago at a
high school party.
Feinstein claims she didn't reveal the letter to anyone, but it was mysteriously leaked
days before a crucial Committee vote to confirm Kavanaugh.
When ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked Hirono if she or anyone from the Democratic Party
leaked the letter, she flat-out refused to answer.
"Are you confident the Democrats didn't leak that letter, and how do you respond to
Senator Graham's charge that it was inappropriate for the Democrats to refer Dr. Blasey Ford
to a lawyer?"
Hirono was asked.
"All of these things do not focus on what we should be focusing, which is the credibility
of Judge Kavanaugh," Hirono said.
After deflecting the real issue of Ford's credibility, when asked again about the leak,
Hirono deflected.
"And, by the way, even as all of these accusations about this being politically motivated are
being tossed around, everyone acknowledges, including Judge Kavanaugh, that Dr. Ford is
not being politically motivated," Hirono said, who has suggested Kavanaugh didn't
deserve due process because of his conservative legal philosophy.
Whomever leaked the letter could be facing serious legal trouble, and could face jail
time.
Leaking confidential information from Congress is a felony, which may explain why Hirono
refused to answer the question.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has called for an investigation into Feinstein's office
to see who leaked Ford's letter and allegations to the media.
Graham has been demanding an investigation for weeks, and said the person who "betrayed
Dr. Ford's trust" should be held responsible.
"We're going to do a wholesale, full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable
process to deter it from happening again.
The FBI will do a supplemental background investigation, then I'm going to call for
an investigation of what happened in this committee.
Who betrayed Dr. Ford's trust?
Who in Feinstein's office recommended Katz as a lawyer?
Why did Ms. Ford not know that the committee was willing to go to California?"
There are obviously a number of questions surrounding Ford's shoddy allegations, why
Feinstein refused to tell anyone for two months about the letter received from Ford, and who
leaked it to the media days prior to Kavanaugh's confirmation vote.
Kavanaugh has strongly denied the allegations, and many of the witnesses Ford claims were
at the party in question have told the Senate they never witnessed Kavanaugh doing anything
that Ford alleges.
Ford also has no memory of who invited her to the party, how she heard about it, how
she got to the alleged party, what house the assault allegedly took place at, where that
house is located, or how she got from the party back to her home.
And Hirono's refusal to answer if Democrats leaked the letter to the media speaks volumes,
and shows many people how dirty the Left is playing to harm Kavanaugh.
-------------------------------------------
Ford Ranger XLS 2019 Hoàn Toàn Mới - Duration: 2:22.
For more infomation >> Ford Ranger XLS 2019 Hoàn Toàn Mới - Duration: 2:22. -------------------------------------------
Prosecutor Who Grilled Ford On Details At Hearing Just Made Stunning Admission – Dems SILENT! - Duration: 4:13.
As I watched the Kavanaugh hearing where the prosecutor Rachel Mitchell grilled Brett Kavanaugh
and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, I was not overly impressed.
I thought that Mitchell went far too easy on Ford.
Perhaps things are not always what they seem and I underestimated the woman.
Mitchell just made a stunning admission and the Democrats are shockingly silent over it…
for now, that is.
Mitchell is the sex-crimes prosecutor Republicans hired to do the questioning during the hearing
last week.
She told senators the case would not hold up in a courtroom and that could prove critical
as wavering lawmakers prepare to vote.
The testimony did not even rise to the level of he said, she said according to Mitchell.
I agree with that assessment.
But I do think Mitchell could have tripped up Ford on many more facts than she did, thus
cementing her lack of credibility here.
Mitchell spoke at an overnight meeting where all 51 Republican senators were present.
"Mitchell spelled it out and was clear with senators that she could not take this anywhere
near a courtroom," one source told Fox News.
She told them she would not charge the Supreme Court nominee and reportedly said she would
not even seek a search warrant.
Mitchell wrote in the memo that she was presenting her "independent assessment" of the allegations.
She said this was based on her independent review of the evidence and her nearly 25 years
of experience.
She alleged in the document that "the activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's
attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford's account."
"She said she was not pressured to write the memorandum and it did not necessarily
reflect the views of any other senator or committee member.
"While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person," she
wrote.
"Mitchell added, "There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate's
confirmation process.
But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world.
Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford's allegations in that legal context."
"Mitchell wrote that a "'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove.
But this case is even weaker than that.
Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted
her allegations or failed to corroborate them….I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor
would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee.
Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence
standard.'"
Mitchell gave her professional reasons for her conclusions: Dr. Ford has not offered
a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
-Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
-Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
-When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to
become less specific.
-Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question – details that could
help corroborate her account.
-Dr. Ford's account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified
as having attended – including her lifelong friend.
-Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged attack.
-Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.
-Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations,
and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
-Dr. Ford's explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.
-Dr. Ford's description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
-The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected
Dr. Ford's account.
Mitchell provided multiple examples to back up her claims here.
She is an award-winning sex crimes prosecutor in Arizona.
The prosecutor's office has employed Rachel Mitchell for more than two decades.
If she says that she would not take this to court and that the case is flimsy in the extreme,
I believe her.
Shame on the Republicans for giving the FBI a week.
It's time to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
-------------------------------------------
Despite Ford Allegations, Montgomery Co. Reveals No Criminal Report Has Ever Been Filed - Duration: 3:29.
For more infomation >> Despite Ford Allegations, Montgomery Co. Reveals No Criminal Report Has Ever Been Filed - Duration: 3:29. -------------------------------------------
Rachel Mitchell's memo on Dr. Ford 'gratuitous': I've never witnessed a victim more compelling' - Duration: 2:10.
For more infomation >> Rachel Mitchell's memo on Dr. Ford 'gratuitous': I've never witnessed a victim more compelling' - Duration: 2:10. -------------------------------------------
Ford Attorneys To Be Investigated for Betraying Client To Help Dems: Report - Duration: 3:28.
Ford attorneys to be investigated for betraying client to help Dems report
few things are sweeter than watching a democratic plot blow up spectacularly in
their faces unless you have been living under a rock you have undoubtedly heard
about the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh the accuser Christine Blasi Ford has been thrust into the public
spotlight as a result look the entire thing as murky there is a startling lack
of evidence especially considering the assault allegedly took place over 30
years ago so it's unfair to paint Cavanaugh in a negative light
not that that stopped far-left Democrats from trying to do so but by that same
token Ford and all sexual assault victims should still be given an
opportunity to be heard sexual assault is never okay and any allegation is
worth looking at so let's pump the brakes on presuming
innocence or guilt and refrain from attacking either forward or Cavanaugh
until due process plays out you know who does deserve to be attacked the
Democrats who have weaponized an alleged sexual assault victims apparent trauma
to attack a Supreme Court nominee whose only sin seems to be that he was
nominated by President Donald Trump it's disgusting reprehensible and
deserves to be looked into that's exactly what's going to happen according
to Arkansas Republican Senator Tom cotton appearing on CBS Face the Nation
on Sunday cotton reamed Democrats for failing to
uphold the confidentiality that Ford had requested when she first made her
allegations against Cavanaugh they have betrayed her cotton said she has been
victimized by Democrats on a search-and-destroy mission for Brett
Kavanaugh regardless of the veracity of Ford's accusations it's in arguable that
Democrats have opted to use her plight in an attempt to take down Cavanaugh one
of the tactics that Democrats have been accused of as supplying Ford with
lawyers who were looking to serve the Democratic Party before their own client
Mitchell were you even told that the Senate Judiciary Committee offered to
fly out to your home to meet you Ford's attorney who also represents Andrew
McCabe she doesn't have to answer that remember how the Cavanaugh hearing was
initially delayed because Ford did not want to fly from California to
Washington Republican Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley apparently made it crystal
clear that the GOP was willing to bring the
hearing to her in California did Ford's lawyers supplied by Democrats
intentionally not tell her that important bit of information to drag the
process into the midterms I am NOT saying they did but if it smells like a
duck and looks like a duck it's not an iguana cotton was not about to let that
type of behavior fly however Democratic leadership pointed her to lawyers who
lied to her and did not tell her that the committee staff was willing to go to
California to interview her cotton said on Face the Nation cotton then dropped
some bad news on those lawyers those lawyers are going to face a DC bar
investigation into their misconduct cotton said ouch they should absolutely
be investigated if they mislead their client in any way shape or form to help
out the Democrats attempts to derail the Cavanaugh investigation that is
antithetical to everything the American justice system stands for everything the
Democrats have done to stop Cavanaugh from being nominated has had zero
repercussions that may be about to change in massive fashion and it could
not have happened to a nicer bunch of people
-------------------------------------------
BREAKING: Christine Ford Wrote 2008 Article Teaching Hypnosis To Create "ARTIFICIAL SITUATIONS" - Duration: 4:00.
The story of the college professor who serves as the foundation for the slime and destroy
attack against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh continues to present more questions
than answers despite what the media would lead the public to believe.
While Christine Blasey Ford disproved many skeptics when she showed up in Washington
last week for her hotly anticipated testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, her
demeanor has been described by some as strange and possibly coached or rehearsed.
Or maybe it was something else, something that could be far more sinister.
According to a bombshell report from Sean Davis of The Federalist, Dr. Ford was the
co-author of a 2008 study that – get this – examined the use of " hypnosis to "assist
in the retrieval of important memories" and to "create artificial situations"
for treatment.
Which begs the question as to the role of such hypnosis in the memories of Ford's
evidence-free accusations of Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge.
Via The Federalist, "Kavanaugh Accuser Co-Authored Study Citing Use Of Hypnosis To Retrieve Memories":
Christine Blasey Ford, a California woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett
Kavanaugh of attempted rape in the 1980's, co-authored an academic study that cited the
use of hypnosis as a tool to retrieve memories in traumatized patients.
The academic paper, entitled "Meditation With Yoga, Group Therapy With Hypnosis, and
Psychoeducation for Long-Term Depressed Mood: A Randomized Pilot Trial," described the
results of a study the tested the efficacy of certain treatments on 46 depressed individuals.
The study was published by the Journal of Clinical Psychology in May 2008.
While the paper by Ford and several other co-authors focused on whether various therapeutic
techniques, including hypnosis, alleviate depression, it also discussed the therapeutic
use of hypnosis to "assist in the retrieval of important memories" and to "create
artificial situations" to assist in treatment.
Ford's paper cited a controversial 1964 paper on the use of hypnosis to treat alcoholics
and claimed that "hypnosis could be used to improve rapport in the therapeutic relationship,
assist in the retrieval of important memories, and create artificial situations that would
permit the client to express ego-dystonic emotions in a safe manner."
The study by Ford and her co-authors also used "self-hypnosis" to help treat their
randomized sample of patients.
Read the entire article HERE.
According to the abstract from the study, "Meditation with yoga, group therapy with
hypnosis, and psychoeducation for long‐term depressed mood: a randomized pilot trial"
the authors are listed as:
Lisa D. Butler Lynn C. Waelde T. Andrew Hastings Xin‐Hua Chen Barbara Symons Jonathan Marshall
Adam Kaufman Thomas F. Nagy Christine M. Blasey Elizabeth O. Seibert David Spiegel.
It's a helluva find considering how so much of Ford's history seems to not be readily
available online.
As of Monday evening and even with the FBI now conducting yet another investigation into
Kavanaugh, Ford and her backers STILL have not provided the all-important therapy notes
that have been taken as gospel by the media, the political left, the media and likely the
triad of Flake-Collins-Murkowski.
To quote "Alice In Wonderland" author Lewis Carroll, things are becoming "curiouser
and curiouser!"
And this study is most curious indeed…
-------------------------------------------
JUST IN: Tom Cotton Drops a Legal BOMB on Ford's Lawyers - Duration: 0:51.
Senator Tom Cotton has just announced that he's turning over Dr. Ford's lawyers to
the D.C.
Bar Association to be investigated.
The reasoning is because Dr. Ford said she was not aware that Senate investigators had
advised they would be happy to travel to California to meet with her.
If true, her lawyers withheld this information from the client.
Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, also said lawyers recommended to Christine Blasley Ford
by Democrats will face a Washington, D.C., Bar investigation for telling her that committee
staffers would not travel to California to interview her about her alleged assault.
"They have betrayed her," Cotton said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"She has been victimized by Democrats … on a search-and-destroy mission for Brett Kavanaugh."
-------------------------------------------
Tom Cotton: Dianne Feinstein Will Be Investigated Over Leak of Christine Ford's Letter - Duration: 3:22.
For more infomation >> Tom Cotton: Dianne Feinstein Will Be Investigated Over Leak of Christine Ford's Letter - Duration: 3:22. -------------------------------------------
5 Major Problems With Dr. Ford's Testimony That Could Ensure Kavanaugh Gets The Vote - Duration: 5:19.
The whole nation sat next to their TV yesterday to listen to the Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's
testimony where she accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of a sexual assault.
There were two types of people watching yesterday.
Those on the right who tend to watch with an open mind and try to be fair and those
on the left are basically ruled by nothing more than emotion and their hate towards conservatives
and the white American male.
The same white American male who is responsible for the creation of our great nation but now
seems to be branded as the evilest thing since the creation of Satan.
Leaving aside all the left wing hate, if you actually listened to Dr. Ford's testimony,
you could not help but find at least five inconsistencies and contradictions.
Here is more via PJ Media:
"1.
She still can not confirm the basics of her account
She can tell everyone definitively that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, but she
does not know when, where, who took her there or picked her up (she was 15), or pretty much
anything of significance.
She has no facts, no corroboration, no medical report, no police report.
There is nothing but a claim from a woman with a bad memory and a story contradicted
by all her own witnesses.
At this point, there is not even any evidence that there was a party at all, much less that
Kavanaugh was there or that anything happened between Kavanaugh and Ford.
2.
There's the polygraph weirdness Rachel Mitchell, a sex crimes prosecutor in
Maricopa County, Arizona, who questioned Ford today, went out on what seems to be a strange
tangent about the polygraph that Ford took in August.
Surprisingly, it still prompted Ford to say a couple of very strange things.
Ford said the polygraph was done in Maryland because of her grandmother's funeral and
she was asked if it was done on the same day as her grandmother's funeral.
Ford did not know the answer to that question.
Mitchell also asked if she paid for the polygraph, which would normally be quite expensive, and
again, Ford said she does not know.
If Ford does not have a clear memory of big events that happened to her LAST MONTH, how
can anyone be sure her memory of what happened 36 years ago is correct?
Was Kavanaugh involved?
You would not think someone could get confused about something like that, but you would also
think someone would know if she spent thousands of dollars paying for a polygraph last month.
3.
She could have testified in California At one point, in response to Mitchell's
comment about how this was not the best forum to explore her allegations, Ford agreed it
would have been better if she could have testified at home without having to do this publicly
in D.C. — except she could have done exactly that.
Not only was the offer made to her legal team, but there were also news articles about it.
It was not a secret.
So either Ford is lying or perhaps worse yet, she really does not know what's going on
and her legal team unnecessarily tossed her into the meat grinder for political purposes.
4.
Ford's fear of flying is fake Ford's own lawyers have been publicly claiming
that she's too frightened to fly and they have gone out of their way to say that she
would not get on a plane because of the Kavanaugh incident.
Because of that, they said she'd have to drive cross-country to get to a hearing.
Of course, she actually flew.
Additionally, under questioning, she admitted she had flown to Maryland, Hawaii, and Tahiti.
In other words, that was a bald-faced lie.
If she is lying about that, what else is she lying about?
5.
Her witnesses do not back up her account In her initial letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
Ford claimed that four people besides her were at the party.
That number seems to change by the day, but let's go with her original claim.
Those four people were Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge, who she says were both
in the room along with PJ Smyth and her friend Leland Ingham Keyser.
All of them have denied her story under the penalty of felony perjury, which begs an obvious
question: whose house was the mystery party at?
Are they all supposed to have been partying at someone else's house while they were
gone?
It makes no sense.
It's even more damning that her friend Leland Ingham Keyser says she has never even met
Brett Kavanaugh.
How do you square that circle?
Keyser has never met Kavanaugh at all, but she was at the party where Kavanaugh did this?
Also, her best friend saw her run out of the party but said nothing?
She did not ask her about it the next day?
This single issue in and of itself completely destroys the credibility of Ford's accusation."
The Democrat Party needs to pay for this farce in November.
And
-------------------------------------------
These Records Show Ford LIED About Being A Licensed Psychologist – HUGE Cover Up Underway - Duration: 4:56.
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."
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,
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét