Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM Sunday, September 30,2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
Editorial comment---
We are witnessing one of the biggest con jobs in my lifetime. Our sympathies are with both Doctor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. They are both pawns in a huge ponzi scheme. The oomgalagala has been laid out in multiple layers (watch where you step).
The biggest red flag was flown when Ford acknowledged the committee was prepared to send investigators to her home to take her statement and interview her. She had no need to fly across the country to have her say heard.
We are watching Ford having to publically deal with an event from her teen years that obviously had a deep and traumatic impact. Could father time have distorted Mrs. Ford’s recollection of the events of 35 years ago? She is obviously a troubled woman who is actually now being re-traumatized by political charlatans. The “anything goes” treatment she has received by what she thinks are her supporters is a dreadful scam.
Perpetuating this farce means we may never learn the truth in the matter. The clowns misusing Mrs. Ford are only keeping the truth from us and likely destroying the lives of both people.
This is a “Russian Tragedy” of enormous proportions. Both parties are victims however this all turns out.
This is a “Russian Tragedy” of enormous proportions. Both parties are victims however this all turns out.
Destroying people for political reasons is never good.
Helen and Moe Lauzier
The following is from a good friend of ours from the frozen North. Liz makes great sense:
Hiya Helen and Moe!
I have watched the confirmation hearings from the onset and been disgusted and sickened by antics and actions of people who are so-called "professional people". I have seen better behavior in a grammar school playground. The lack of maturity, civility and decorum is beyond disgusting. It is contemptible! And these people claim to be Professionals! And they are entrusted with law and the people's business which they have been elected to. I have seen endless "tall tantrums".
Judge Kavanaugh is guilty of one crime only: he was selected by President Trump to the Supreme Court. Before the announcement, the tantrum throwers said from the onset that they would obstruct and destroy ANY person that President Trump selected. This is the only crime he is guilty of.
I am neither Republican nor Democrat. When I first registered to vote, I registered as a Democrat. About four or five years later, I saw the path that the Democrats were going down, and I left that party. I wasn't in love with the other side, so I became an Independent and truly able to vote my conscience. If there were a Literal Constitutional Party, I would join that party.
In this process, I have seen more civilized behavior from packs of wild wolves in a nature documentary. There will only be losers from all of this. The biggest loser will be Rule By Law. The Constitution says that no one is to be denied due process. Yet simply based on gender and the nature of the allegations, Judge Kavanaugh is guilty without trial. And make no mistake about Thursday. This was a "trial" and a kangaroo court.
I truly feel sorry for Dr. Ford. I believe she suffered a trauma. I do NOT believe it was at the hands of Judge Kavanaugh though. Her total inability to recollect any details of date, place, etc. is suspect. She was not unbiased from the onset through her own words. Other statements made on Thursday further make me skeptical.
The Democrats (far left as I will not paint the whole party with the same brush) stated from the onset they would attack and savage anyone President Trump put forward and kept to that. They have destroyed the reputation of man whose years of service to The Law speaks for itself. I have never seen so many ads condemning him on television from the beginning. Fortunately, there have been an equal number countering them. You would think he was a candidate, not an appointee going through a vetting process. As he said so painfully, he cannot coach his daughters in sports, something he has taken joy in. His wife and children are being savaged in this travesty.
If he remains in the fight, which I hope he does for the sake of law, I doubt the rock throwers will stop, but I hope they step back and look at their antics. If he withdraws, any other person that this President selects will go through the same savage dog and pony show.
These are my observations from the moment the President made his decision as is his right as President. He was duly elected as by the rule of law as laid down by the Constitution.
Elizabeth
Conway, NH
RECORDS SHOW DR. FORD IS NOT A LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST, MAY HAVE COMMITTED PERJURY
CHADWICK MOORE // EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Christine Blasey Ford taking the oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee
Testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford identified herself as a ‘psychologist,’ but records indict this is a false statement under California law. Someone at Stanford University also appears to have caught the blunder and edited Ford’s faculty page.
Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie.
After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while 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 issue lies with the word “psychologist,” and Ford potentially misrepresenting herself and her credentials, an infraction that is taken very seriously in the psychology field as well as under California law.
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 Christine’s Blasey’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.
An archived version of Ford’s faculty listing, identifying her as a “research psychologist.”
The most recent, edited version of Ford’s faculty listing.
It is common for academics and researchers in psychology to not hold a license. California law does not prohibit anyone from engaging in research, teaching, or other activities associated with psychology if they are not licensed, so long as those individuals do not use the word “psychologist” when referring to themselves publicly.
Several searches on California’s licensing database revealed many of Ford’s colleagues in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Studies at Stanford are not licensed psychologists in California, including the department chairman Laura Roberts, who identifies herself only as a professor. Of the unlicensed members of the faculty — which includes researchers, clinicians, professors, and fellows — none refer to themselves as a “psychologist” or “psychiatrist,” unless they also had a license issued in California.
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 appears to include titles like “research psychologist.” There is one specific exemption to the law regarding the title “school psychologist,” which refers to school counselors who do not need to be licensed. School psychologists are legally forbidden from referring to themselves as simply “psychologists.”
Whereas the term “research psychologist” may be common in academic parlance, the issue seems to be publicly presenting oneself under any title containing the word “psychologist” if a person is not licensed. Ford is a professor and a researcher, but not a psychologist. Section 2910 of the law states, “This chapter shall not be construed to restrict the practice of psychology on the part of persons who are salaried employees of accredited or approved academic institutions, public schools, or governmental agencies, if those employees are complying with the following (1) Performing those psychological activities as part of the duties for which they were hired. (2) Performing those activities solely within the jurisdiction or confines of those organizations. (3) Do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description of activities incorporating the words “psychology,” “psychological,” or “psychologist.”
It is unknown why Ford, 51, a seasoned academic in the field of psychology would have made such an obvious mistake unless she was unaware of the law or trying to intentionally mislead the public and members of the committee about her credentials in the field of psychology. Her bizarre testimony often veered off into psychological jargon about brain chemistry, memory storage, and how trauma affects the brain, analysis one would expect from a clinical psychologist, rather than an academic involved in research. When asked by committee members of her most vivid memory from the attack that allegedly occurred nearly 40 years ago, Ford responded, “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two [men], and their having fun at my expense,” referring to the part of the brain mainly associated with memory. When discussing her trauma, Ford replied, “The etiology of anxiety and PTSD is multifactorial. [The incident] was certainly a critical risk factor. That would be a predictor of the [conditions] that I now have … I can’t rule out that I would have some biological predisposition to be an anxious-type person.”
Yet, Ford’s academic focus for years has been statistics, not memory or trauma. To look at her as some sort of expert in this area would be like asking a podiatrist about heart disease simply because he’s in the medical field. Still, the media ate it up. Hours after her testimony ended, various mainstream media outlets falsely identified Ford as a “psychologist” and praised her approach to science during the hearing, calling the statistician an “expert” on issues more closely related to clinical psychology.
The Washington Post ran a headline that simply read, “Christine Blasey Ford, psychologist,” The Atlantic’s headline read, “Christine Blasey Ford, A Psychologist, Testifies to Congress,” Slate‘s headline read, “Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony combined her own expert analysis of the situation,” The New Yorker‘s headline read “Christine Blasey Ford is Serving As Both A Witness And An Expert,” and the Wall Street Journal ran with “Ford’s Testimony Reminds Us That She’s A Psychologist.” As of Friday morning, Ford’s Wikipedia entry also identified her occupation as “Psychologist.” According to California law, all of these are false. Ford is not a psychologist.
The Senate judiciary committee is set to decide Friday on a date for Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote. If Ford committed perjury, she could face up to five years in federal prison.
Chadwick Moore is a journalist, political commentator, and editor-in-chief of DANGEROUS, currently working on his first book. He tweets at @Chadwick_Moore.
False Accuser Christine Blasey Ford Raises Over $750,000 Through GoFundMe Campaigns
Judge Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford has raised over $750,000 through multiple GoFundMe campaigns to cover “expenses” related to her testimony.
As of the early morning of September 28th, the “Help Christine Blasey Ford” campaign total stood at $473,622 of a $150,000 goal.
The Conservative Alternative to the Drudge Report
Former Hillary Clinton Operative Reveals Plan To Scuttle Kavanaugh, Keep Supreme Court Out Of Trump's Hands Until 2020
Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesFormer Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon gave a revealing interview to The New York Times Wednesday, outlining activists' plan to scuttle Brett Kavanaugh's nomination and keep the Supreme Court seat vacant — and "out of Trump's hands" — until 2020.
Fallon now headlines a group called "Demand Justice," which, among other legislative priorities, is seeking revenge for the Senate's treatment of former President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Their plan, Fallon says, is to make sure President Donald Trump is similarly deprived of a SCOTUS pick, and they'll do what they have to in order to keep Kavanaugh off the bench.
I guess it's all out in the open now.
"If Kavanaugh drops out, we're halfway there," Fallon explains.
The second part of Fallon's genius plan comes in November: "If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we'd have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the arch conservatives on his shortlist."
So, step one, boot Kavanaugh. Step two, win the Senate. The plan only finishes if, in step three, the Democrats retake the White House, but that's the most speculative step.
President Trump Press Conference: Democrats Running ‘A Big Fat Con Job’ Against Brett Kavanaugh, Correctly Notes Schumer Democrats Would Vote Against George Washington, Smear Him Too
\
Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford releases results of polygraph test, but key detail appears to contradict past statements
Lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her at a party more than three decades ago, on Wednesday released the results of a polygraph examination she took Aug. 7 -- but a key detail in the report appears to contradict Ford's past claims.
The examination, which was administered by former FBI agent Jeremiah Hanafin, took place in a Hilton hotel in Maryland, according to a "Polygraph Examination Report" compiled by Hanafin.
Hanafin first allowed Ford and attorney Lisa Banks to meet alone to formulate a handwritten statement that Ford signed and provided Hanafin when he returned to the room. Then, without Banks present, Hanafin interviewed Ford about the day of the alleged assault, according to the report.
In the handwritten statement, Ford writes that "there were 4 boys and a couple of girls" at the party.
But in Ford's letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in July, Ford gave a different tally, writing that the gathering "included me and 4 others."
The total number of people at the purported party, and their genders, has been a key area of focus for Senate Republicans investigating Ford's claims. Ford told The Washington Post last week that there were a total of "four boys at the party" where the alleged episode occured, and that two -- Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge -- had been in the room during her attack. (According to The Post, Ford told her therapist in 2012 that four boys were in the room with her during the alleged attack -- a disparity she has blamed on her therapist's recording of her statements).
All of the witnesses Ford has identified at the party, including Kavanaugh, Judge, and another classmate, Patrick Smyth, have denied knowledge of the alleged assault under penalty of felony in statements to the Judiciary Committee.
However, a woman, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford's at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, has since been identified by Ford as the fourth witness at the party. In a dramatic twist, Keyser emerged Saturday night to say she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.
The polygraph exam consisted of only two "relevant" questions: "Is any part of your statement false?" and "Did you make up any part of your statement?" (Ordinarily examiners ask a series of irrelevant questions to establish a baseline physiological response, which helps detect deception when relevant questions are asked, experts tell Fox News. According to Hanafin, Ford was also asked some questions to establish this baseline.)
The test measured "thoracic and abdominal respiration, galvanic skin response, and cardiac activity," Hanafin wrote in the report.
The former FBI agent then ran the results of Ford's two "no" responses through three separate scoring algorithms, including one developed by Johns Hopkins University. All three algorithms concluded that Ford's responses did not indicate apparent deception, with one putting the probability that she was lying at .002 and another putting it at less than .02.
Experts contacted by Fox News warned against reading too much into the results of polygraph examinations.
"It's not the result of the polygraph; it is what polygraph subjects say during the polygraph interview that is most valuable," said Thomas Mauriello, a lecturer in criminology at the University of Maryland who worked as a senior polygraph examiner at the Defense Department.
"The result of a polygraph simply is whether you did or did not respond to a particular question. A response is not a lie, because the polygraph is not a lie detector as most think," Mauriello added. "A response is the activation of your sympathetic nervous system when answering a question asked during the examination."
In their letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Ford's lawyers indicated that they would not release Ford's medical records as he requested, citing privacy. Ford had provided The Washington Post the results of apparently the same polygraph examination earlier this month, as well as notes from her therapist sessions in 2012.
The public release of the documents comes just one day before a scheduled hearing Thursday, at which Ford is expected to testify along with Kavanaugh about her allegations. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a Friday vote on whether to recommend Kavanaugh's confirmation to the full Senate, even as additional uncorroborated allegations against Kavanaugh surfaced Wednesday.
"The polygraph is not a lie detector as most think."
- Former DoD polygraph examiner Thomas Mauriello
It was not immediately clear who paid for the polygraph examination, which can cost more than $1,000 -- an issue flagged by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Fox News' "Hannity" last week.
"If Ms. Ford really did not want to come forward, never intended to come forward ... why did she pay for a polygraph in August, and why did she hire a lawyer in August? And who paid for it?" Graham asked.
Even well-intentioned individuals who have come to believe that their false stories are, in fact, true -- whether because of therapist-induced memories or other causes -- can sometimes pass polygraph tests, former FBI officials and psychology experts told Fox News.
James Gagliano, a former FBI agent who led a SWAT team in New York for several years and now teaches at St. John's University, told Fox News that while polygraphs are valuable, they "can be beaten."
"In this case, if they want to put this out as irrefutable evidence that this woman is telling the truth because she passed a polygraph -- that's not the way polygraphs work," Gagliano added. "If that were the case, I would've taken every drug dealer, gangbanger, and pedophile I investigated, and I would've thrown them on the polygraph."
Gagliano, who said he was subjected to several polygraphs at the FBI but never administered one himself, said people can sometimes pass polygraphs if they've convinced themselves they are telling the truth: "It's not a lie if you believe it," he said.
"Everyone knows polygraph exams can be beaten," Gagliano added. "If someone is a psychopath or a sociopath, if you don't have a conscience, if you don't know right from wrong -- you can beat it."
The polygraph report raised additional questions that may surface during Thursday's hearing, including how Ford -- a California resident who a friend has said has a significant fear of flying -- was able to make it to Maryland to take the test.
Ford's legal team has dismissed the idea that she has a fear of flying, or that she would use that as an excuse to delay attending a Senate hearing.
Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News.
George Soros’ connection to the Deep State will make you sick
The Deep State plot against Donald Trump keeps getting worse.
Now George Soros’ role has been uncovered.
And what he did to try and take out Trump will make you sick.
Soros’ spokesman confirmed that Soros indirectly funded Fusion GPS, the research firm that put together the fake news Christopher Steele dossier.
The Daily Caller reports:
George Soros has indirectly funded Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm behind the infamous Steele dossier, a spokesman for the billionaire financier has acknowledged.
Michael Vachon, the Soros aide, told Washington Post columnist David Ignatius that Soros provided a grant to a nonprofit group called the Democracy Integrity Project.
That organization, which was formed in 2017 by Daniel Jones, a former Senate Intelligence Committee staffer for Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, paid Fusion GPS as a contractor to continue an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
The Post column confirms what a Washington, D.C., lawyer named Adam Waldman told The Daily Caller News Foundation about a conversation he had with Jones in March 2017.
Soros helped fund Fusion GPS’s investigation into Trump and Russia after the election.
Critics also note that the project Soros funded was run by a former Dianne Feinstein staffer.
Feinstein is in the middle of the chaos over Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination.
She gave Christine Ford’s letter detailing flimsy allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her to the FBI.
Ford claimed she wanted to remain anonymous until Feinstein helped make the letter public.
Critics believe this was an orchestrated plot.
Conservatives wonder why Feinstein and her former staffers keep popping up in the middle of resistance plots to destroy Trump.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2018/09/www_29.html
Related Posts :
Kuu Kuu Harajuku | Yummy Bear | Let's Draw it Kawaii!
Marc Summers Is Coming To A Town Near You! | On Your Marc
Dirty Rotten Space Monsters (never before seen) CARTOON | Butch Hartman
Chuckie the Chicken | Chicken Pops | Rugrats | NickSplat
The Dude Perfect Show | Premiere Week Trailer | Nickelodeon USA
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment