| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Friend of Dr. Ford Felt Pressure to Revisit Statement |
| 2018-10-05 |
| This seems illegal as hell. When will this FBI/DOJ swamp creature, attorney Ford, be investigated? [WSJ] A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured by Dr. Ford's allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, which she later updated to say that she believed but couldn't corroborate Dr. Ford's account, according to people familiar with the matter. Leland Keyser, who Dr. Ford has said was present at the gathering where she was allegedly assaulted in the 1980s, told investigators that Monica McLean, a retired Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and a friend of Dr. Ford's, had urged her to clarify her statement, the people said. On Thursday, a day after sending to the White House the report on its investigation into the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, the FBI sent the White House and Senate an additional package of information that included text messages from Ms. McLean to Ms. Keyser, according to a person familiar with the matter. |
| Posted by:Thaviter Gleash6830 |
| #3 Witness Tampering. Incitement to Perjury. that witness needs to name names to law enforcement. Too bad the FBI isnt in the law enforcement business anymore. |
| Posted by: Injun Bucket8891 2018-10-05 22:34 |
| #2 Ford's original letter indicated that Keyser was a "he", an easy mistake to make if McLean, not Ford, actually wrote the letter. Very sloppy for an ex-FBI agent. This whole episode has been an engineered hit job from the start. I just hope enough trunks have the stones to ignore the screamers. |
| Posted by: PBMcL 2018-10-05 15:17 |
| #1 If you go under oath one time and answer no to a question, then you go under oath another time and answer yes to the same question that means that you committed perjury at least once, right? That would then render any testimony you ever gave inadmissible, would it not? I'm no lawyer but that seems only logical. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus? |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2018-10-05 14:10 |