Hilarity glasses.
Heads-up display teleprompter.
| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Five Red Flags Concerning Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility |
| 2018-10-01 |
| [PJ] In the short time since Christine Blasey Ford testified, many have gone out of their way to equate her emotional testimony with credibility. But, there are several red flags that should inform reasonable people that she can’t be trusted. 5. Her Bogus Fear of Flying Story By her own testimony, she revealed she flew to Washington to give her testimony, contradicting earlier claims that her fear of flying prevented her from testifying. Rachel Mitchell then uncovered that Ford flies frequently for business and pleasure. Still, Ford claimed she was hoping the committee would come to her. Well, it turns out they repeatedly offered, but she claimed she’d been unaware of this fact. How could she have not known about the offer, which was made repeatedly and reported on widely in the media? Was she sequestered by her lawyers and completely disconnected from news coverage? That may be the case, but that seems unlikely. If she was, they were still obligated to inform her of the offer. In short, there are only two conclusions we can reach: She was lying about the fear of flying in order to delay the hearing, or she legitimately didn’t know because her lawyers never told her, which proves she’s been manipulated by them and the Democrats entirely for politics. Either option is devastating for her credibility. 4. All The Bizarre Demands Further proof that Ford is being manipulated by Democrats and her lawyers came immediately after the new supplemental FBI investigation was announced. Ford’s lawyer Debra Katz released the following statement. "A thorough FBI investigation is critical to developing all the relevant facts. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford welcomes this step in the process, and appreciates the efforts of Sens. Flake, Murkowski, Manchin, and Collins ‐ and all other senators who have supported an FBI investigation ‐ to ensure it is completed before the Senate votes on Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. No artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation." Christine Blasey Ford is in no position to make any sort of demands about how the FBI investigation should be handled. This comes in the wake of prior demands, which were beyond absurd, asking, amongst other things, that Ford be allowed to testify after Kavanaugh and that GOP senators ask her questions. Despite extensive efforts to accommodate Ford, they were bashing the process as unfair. Ford and her lawyers seem more concerned about politics, optics, and delaying the process than the truth. 3. Her Incomplete Polygraph Results John Hawkins previously noted weird issues with Professor’s Ford’s answers regarding the polygraph test she took, including her inability to say for sure when it happened and who paid for it. But, by her testimony, she sounded strangely ignorant of polygraphs, how they work, and was unable to say whether she was recorded, be it by video or audio. But, she said she was "asked a lot of questions" and described it as taking "much longer than I anticipated." She also said she"told my whole life story." But, the committee was only provided with the results for two specific questions. Those two questions were based on a handwritten statement, and not multiple, specific questions about the incident. The statement also included revisions like cross-outs and added words. Did we only get the results for two questions that referenced her sloppy handwritten statement, because answers to questions regarding specific details were exculpatory? 2. Her Immediate Family Is Silent Does it seem convenient that the only people close to Ford who have come out in support of her are friends and non-blood relatives? The Washington Post noted the following a few days ago: The letters appeared within days of Christine Blasey Ford’s name becoming public. One was from her high school classmates. One was from her colleagues at Stanford University. Her Palo Alto neighbors wrote another letter. Groups of attorneys, statisticians and teenagers wrote too. Then came a letter that began, "As members of Christine Blasey Ford’s family ..." Why is this significant? Her immediate family would be able to corroborate her story. Ford has said she never told anyone but has testified to the impact the alleged assault had on her, resulting in various symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. She blames the alleged assault for, amongst other things, academic troubles and a fear of flying. Anyone in her immediate family could corroborate this happened during the summer she was fifteen but nobody has. Why not? 1. Her Claiming Privilege on the Therapist’s Notes Was it not suspicious that the therapist's notes from the 2012 couples therapy sessions were repeatedly cited as corroborating evidence but then suddenly declared privileged? Why would Ford want to hold back corroborating evidence? Lawyer Margot Cleveland, who is a contributor to The Federalist, National Review, and Townhall, explained in a long thread on Twitter that the therapist’s notes are more than likely exculpatory. I’m posting the original tweet below but will summarize the key points. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #9 Dana Carvey wore them better. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2018-10-01 16:00 |
| #8 Fresnel prism lens - Rumors said she hit her head during a drunken blackout and had double vision. Luckily Huma was underneath her to soften the blow Prove me wrong ;-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2018-10-01 15:12 |
| #7 Read somewhere too that someone actually investigated the light refraction of the overly-large (and atrocious) glasses she wore at the hearing. Disney Eyes? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2018-10-01 12:33 |
| #6 Read somewhere too that someone actually investigated the light refraction of the overly-large (and atrocious) glasses she wore at the hearing. Hilarity glasses. Heads-up display teleprompter. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2018-10-01 12:23 |
| #5 Apparently they gave a similar glare to 'flat glass' with no modifications. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2018-10-01 11:24 |
| #4 Read somewhere too that someone actually investigated the light refraction of the overly-large (and atrocious) glasses she wore at the hearing. Apparently they couldn't detect the normal 'color blooms' or prismatic glare that a normal pair of prescription eye-wear would reflect under studio or other production lighting. Could be that the hearing lighting was perfectly aimed, though. Or just more theater. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2018-10-01 11:14 |
| #3 I was thinking Six Flags. I heard better stories when my kid was four and caught in the candy drawer. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2018-10-01 10:18 |
| #2 I spoke to a relative who works at a high dollar girls' school, and as a consequence deals with lying teen aged girls a loopy socialist academics on a daily basis. She listened to her, then watched her without the sound and said she found what she called 'hiding behind her hair' an absolute tell, that and what she felt were vocal manipulations. In the final insult, she reported that even some of the girls weren't buying it. |
| Posted by: Cesare 2018-10-01 09:05 |
| #1 Only 5? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-10-01 05:05 |