• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph

Casper said:
I will do you a favor and simply ignore your triggered personality for now on, please return the favor.
Have a nice life.
Click to expand...

You know you were wrong attempting to pry into my personal life after I clearly told you, NO.
 
UnwashedPleb said:
Saying you lived in a crime-ridden neighborhood when statistics show that there was a high amount of wealth and low amount of crime is an exaggeration. A gross exaggeration, but defensible in that the person making the claim can claim "I was mistaken, I'd heard there was a lot of crime."

Saying you can't fly out to a hearing because you're afraid of flying, but then having people find out you fly all the time is a outright lie.

One is defensible, the other is not.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Fair enough, but you are using different scenarios. When you are saying "Christine Blasey Ford is a lying opportunist," that could be a mischaracterization of her, if she is not, or it could also be a lie.
 
Fenton said:
Heitkamp's down by 10 points with 60% of North Dakotans supporting Kavanugh's confirmation and a new Harris poll shows 60% of Americans support Kavanugh's confirmation if the FBI cannot corroberate the allegations of his accusers

I don't care if you attack the messenger because all it is is a emotional response to new information that challenges your bias. You can't be objective ? It's no sweat of my nose and it won't magically change polling numbers in favor of the Democrats.

Heitkamp and Manchin can either vote to confirm or hand the GOP Senate a super majority in November, and they can confirm whoever the hell they want.
They need to decide what's more important. Sticking with the Democrats on this disgusting smear campaign, or listening to their constituents
Click to expand...

Since the hearing the Democrats have fallen from 9 points down to 7... tick tock, tick tock...
 
Superfly said:
Fair enough, but you are using different scenarios. When you are saying "Christine Blasey Ford is a lying opportunist," that could be a mischaracterization of her, if she is not, or it could also be a lie.
Click to expand...
That she is lying, there's no disputing that. She's verifiably lied about flying and her home. There are many other things that "might be lies," but require further scrutiny and evidence for certainty.

I don't believe she's an opportunist at all. I think she's an ideologue willing to go to great lengths to try and stop Kavanaugh's appointment.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
UnwashedPleb said:
She was asked many questions for establishing a baseline but only 2 questions that were relevant to the truth of her testimony.
Click to expand...
Looking online at what people who have taken these tests say, the baseline questions are along the lines of ""Is your name Christine Blasely Ford?" "Where you born in Maryland" "Is your birthday XX/XX/XXXX?" "Did you attend high school?" -- her saying "I feel like I told my whole life story" is probably a bit of an exaggeration, but I guess that was what she was referring to.
 
Taylor said:
There is every indication that they plan to hang this cloud over his head for the next 25 years. There's even talk of impeaching him or opening more investigations the next time they're in power.

I'd do whatever I could to put the whole thing to rest.
Click to expand...

The only way to put this at rest is to stop buying into it. Hold the vote. Confirm him, and then concentrate on whipping the D's in November.

Flake is a lost cause and I'd give long odds he has no intention of voting to confirm. The rest of the fence sitters? Make it very clear that you are either with us are against us. And if you are against us, we will be against you.
 
Superfly said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ittee-her-lawyer-says/?utm_term=.a3fde27bf506

~ snip ~ Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated in it. ~ snip ~

There are other articles online that you can find for yourself that say that Kavanaugh and Judge were both involved.

You could have easily found this yourself. I just googled "rasor judge" and it was the 2nd article.
Click to expand...

I don't back up your claims.
 
tosca1 said:
You sound like my husband. :)
Click to expand...
He sounds like an unusually wise and really, really, ridiculously good-looking sort of fellow :D

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
jimbo said:
The only way to put this at rest is to stop buying into it. Hold the vote. Confirm him, and then concentrate on whipping the D's in November.

Flake is a lost cause and I'd give long odds he has no intention of voting to confirm. The rest of the fence sitters? Make it very clear that you are either with us are against us. And if you are against us, we will be against you.
Click to expand...
I think there's enough in the FBI report to get a lot of people on board. If there weren't, Feinstein wouldn't be trying to hide it from the public.
 
ludin said:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ch...for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

Looks like Ford's lies are catching up to her now.

He said he saw Ford helping a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office

He also claimed Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a small, 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote.

But in his declaration, the ex-boyfriend wrote that, "I witnessed Dr. Ford help [Monica L.] McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam" and that Ford had "explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped [her] become familiar and less nervous about the exam," using her background in psychology.

time to write up the perjury charges.

What was it the hack blumenthal said?
if the first is false the rest of it is too?

i bet he is wishing he had never said that right about now looks like it is coming back to bite him in the rear end.
Click to expand...

There is this item
Christine Blasey Ford's Friend Says Ford Didn't Coach Her On Polygraph Exam
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...d-coach-polygraph_us_5bb4dd9be4b01470d04d963e
 
Taylor said:
There is every indication that they plan to hang this cloud over his head for the next 25 years. There's even talk of impeaching him or opening more investigations the next time they're in power.

I'd do whatever I could to put the whole thing to rest.
Click to expand...
If they try to impeach, it ends with a similar attempt every time Congress changes hands.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
If they try to impeach, it ends with a similar attempt every time Congress changes hands.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

False self serving equivalence.
 
Taylor said:
I don't get this. On one hand, we have the test administrator saying there were only two questions, but in her testimony, Ford says:
  • "OK, so I remember...being asked a lot of questions, and crying a lot."
  • It took "much longer than I anticipated. I told my whole life story, I felt like, but I endured it. It was fine"
  • "I didn’t expect it to be as long as it was going to be, so it was a little bit stressful"
I know there are questions to establish a baseline, but do those typically require the recipient to tell "their whole life story" - is it "a lot of questions?". If there were only two questions asked regarding the incident ("Is any part of your statement false?" and "Did you make up any part of your statement?"), approximately how long would this have taken?
Click to expand...

Yeah, someone isn’t right there. I don’t know if it is a lie or if the number of questions was misreported.
 
UnwashedPleb said:
She was asked many questions for establishing a baseline but only 2 questions that were relevant to the truth of her testimony. As I understand, this is not out of the ordinary.

What we don't know is what her mental state was during the polygraph (conducted after a funeral?).

Additionally, people who have paid for polygraphs will attest that you typically "get what you pay for." You pay someone to give you a polygraph, they're gonna give you the result you want. After all, you're the one paying.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
100% The polygraph technician wants repeat business. The head of the national polygraph organization said the polygraph she had was defective. He said the polygraph should have had only a couple of question and one of those should have been: Did Bret Kavanaugh try to rape you? For me to trust a polygraph it needs to be re administer by FBI a "hopefully" neutral source.
 
OscarLevant said:
There is this item
Christine Blasey Ford's Friend Says Ford Didn't Coach Her On Polygraph Exam
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...d-coach-polygraph_us_5bb4dd9be4b01470d04d963e
Click to expand...

That's not a sworn statement, which is what Ford's ex-boyfriend submitted to the Senate Judiciary Commitee. McCleans name had not been released publicly in anyway prior to Ford's ex submitting this statement

So how did he know McCleans name let alone that she needed to pass a polygraph as part of a FBI background check ??
 
SLC said:
100% The polygraph technician wants repeat business. The head of the national polygraph organization said the polygraph she had was defective. He said the polygraph should have had only a couple of question and one of those should have been: Did Bret Kavanaugh try to rape you? For me to trust a polygraph it needs to be re administer by FBI a "hopefully" neutral source.
Click to expand...

There should be nothing that causes you to trust a polygraph, it’s 100% fraud, no ifs, no ands, no buts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Fenton said:
That's not a sworn statement, which is what Ford's ex-boyfriend submitted to the Senate Judiciary Commitee. McCleans name had not been released publicly in anyway prior to Ford's ex submitting this statement

So how did he know McCleans name let alone that she needed to pass a polygraph as part of a FBI background check ??
Click to expand...

I’m waiting for the Dems to start claiming the deep state is working against them....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Dr. Ford uses her therapist's notes to say in 2012 she described the party but did not identify Bret Kavanaugh. She will release the therapist's note.

1. Is she on some psych drug that could alter her mental state?
2. Does she have a diagnosis of a disorder that can cause delusions?
3. Did the therapist use hypnosis to regress Dr. Ford to discover this repressed memory. If so the court system does not recognize testimony arrived by hypnosis because it can implant false memories.
4. Is this a syndrome known as "false memory"?

If she wants to use the notes to add credence to her testimony its only fair she release them to the committee. What is she trying to hide? Is it exculpatory?
 
Last edited:
Superfly said:
And they are trying to do that, but no one wants to listen.

If you were accused of a heinous crime (or crimes, as the case may be), why would you not want this investigated to the deepest possible level, to clear your name? This will follow him for the rest of his life, and all he had to do was say, "Yes, I welcome a deeper investigation from the FBI, to clear my name."

If this all cleared him, imagine the vindication he would feel? But he just doesn't want the investigation. There's a reason.
Click to expand...

It's not up to him if anyone investigates anything. Not his decision. At all.

Allegations were made. He denies them. If someone can prove he's lying, do it. More allegations won't do it. He'll just deny more allegations.

If someone wants to investigate, they can do it. They don't have to ask him. If nobody wants to investigate, then move on.

Your notion that he, somehow, would be better off by asking someone to investigate something is utter nonsense. Nobody cares if he asks for an investigation.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No, Kavanaugh didn’t lie under oath, at most you have subjective disagreements over vague terms. This is an out and out lie. The second front door was an out and out lie, the story about Mark
Judge at Safeway, well she said she entered through a second door but that store only had one door. Lie.

Her story is built on lies


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? A letter from an unnamed boyfriend that isn't substantiated by even the only other person named in it? If we are playing with conjecture, I would say someone paid him to lie and make false claims.
 
CriticalThought said:
Why do you say that? A letter from an unnamed boyfriend that isn't substantiated by even the only other person named in it? If we are playing with conjecture, I would say someone paid him to lie and make false claims.
Click to expand...

It’s not a letter from unnamed boyfriend, one he’s already been identified so keep up, and second the name was redacted. The boyfriend had signed the letter under his name in an affidavit given under penalty of perjury. His account is credible because unlike Dr. Ford who’s a liar pretending to have a memory problem the ex boyfriend provides dates, the name of the roommate who got an FBI gig for which she needed a polygraph, he provides information corroborated by documentary evidence (the front door scam) etc.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom