Romney “motivated by bitterness and jealousy.” states Rick Gorka former press secretary, Trump “accomplished what he [Romney] has failed to do”
“Why would anybody listen to @MittRomney? He lost an election that should have easily been won against Obama. By the way,so did John McCain!”...Donald Trump July 18, 2015
“top Mitt Romney adviser Joseph Cofer Black, who publicly goes by “Cofer Black,” joined Burisma’s board of directors while Hunter Biden was also serving on the board.”...The Federalist September 26, 2019
“I believe Mitt Romney is motivated by bitterness and jealously that @realDonaldTrump accomplished what he has failed to do multiple times. His desire to pander to the chattering class has gotten the best of him…again.”…Rick Gorka former Romney press secretary
From The Hill February 5, 2020.
“Former Romney campaign spokesman says conviction decision is ‘motivated by bitterness and jealousy’
The former press secretary of Sen. Mitt Romney’s (R-Utah) 2012 presidential campaign called his decision to convict President Trump on the impeachment charge of abuse of power “motivated by bitterness and jealousy.”
Rick Gorka, who is now a communications director for the Republican National Committee (RNC), tweeted Wednesday that Trump “accomplished what he [Romney] has failed to do multiple times.”
“These are the same people that hated Mitt in 2012 and they will hate him again when they are done with him,” he added. “It is sad to see that Mitt has not learned the lessons from 2012. Now he has betrayed his Party and millions of voters.”
Gorka’s comments come amid a wave of pushback from the GOP.
The president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., also claimed that Romney was bitter toward the president, and called for him to be expelled from the Senate GOP conference.”
IG Horowitz Senate Judiciary hearing watch live December 11, 2019, Examining the Inspector General’s Report on Alleged Abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. “…Attorney General Barr
“While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process.”…Attorney General Barr
“Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”…John Durham
From the Senate Judiciary Committee:
Examining the Inspector General’s Report on Alleged Abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Full Committee
DATE:
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
TIME:
10:00 AM
LOCATION:
Hart Senate Office Building 216
PRESIDING:
Chairman Graham
WITNESSES
The HonorableMichael Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department Of Justice
Washington, DC
David Schippers obituary, Part 3: Schippers interviews, Exposes Clintons felonies female abuse Filegate Chinagate congressional corruption, Fake News lies
“As a result of our research and review of the Referral and supporting documentation, we respectfully submit that there exists substantial and credible evidence of fifteen separate events directly involving President William Jefferson Clinton that could constitute felonies which, in turn, may constitute grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.”…David Schippers House Judiciary Committee October 5, 1998
“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers
“Based upon my knowledge of her character and integrity, I can say without qualification that Dolly Kyle’s word is as solid as gold.”
“There is no doubt in my mind that every statement in this book is absolutely true and correct.”…David Schippers
Citizen journalism and activism. Crucial!
Without the internet and citizen involvement in retrieving, saving and disseminating the truth, we would be kept in the dark about chicanery and corruption such as the Clintons were immersed in.
The Clintons rose to power in the bad old days of pre or minimal internet.
David Schippers was a life long Democrat, voted for Clinton twice but he was an honest, principled man.
He headed up the investigation of President Clinton to determine if impeachment proceedings were justified.
The answer was a resounding yes.
He also wrote a book, “Sellout” to tell the rest of the story about the Clintons and the proceedings for the House Judiciary Committee.
The Fake News Media has done their Orwellian best to create a narrative that the impeachment was only about a daliance with Monica Lewinsky.
David Schippers informed us that it was much more than that.
Do an internet search on “David Schippers interviews.”
You will find next to nothing about his book “Sellout” or his investigation.
One of the interviews, from Insight Magazine, was saved by Citizen Wells and was found on Free Republic, saved by a conscientious citizen.
It has been put back up in searchable form. The interview follows:
“Insight: Did you seek the job to head the impeachment investigation?
DS: No. In January 1998 Chairman Hyde called me out of the clear blue sky. Initially, he asked me for help on oversight of a Justice Department matter. Then the Lewinsky issue broke. Hyde asked me if potentially, God forbid, it led to impeachment, would I be willing.
Insight: The White House wanted to make it look like your investigation was a prurient intrusion into Clinton’s private life. Is that so, or were there serious breaches of national security?
DS: After we saw the material assembled in the secure committee room, and after the House voted for the inquiry on Oct. 8, 1998, I went to Henry Hyde and said: “We are going to start a heavy investigation. We’re not going to touch Lewinsky; we’re going to look at Chinagate, Filegate and all the other -gates. I estimated that we wouldn’t be ready to file our findings until July or August 1999.
Insight: What did you think you were getting into with Chinagate?
DS: Prior to the inquiry, I had read the book Year of the Rat by Edward Timperlake and William Triplett, and I realized that there was something there that had to be looked into. So the very first call I made after the House voted for the inquiry was to Timperlake and Triplett. And I asked if they’d cooperate and do the advance investigation because they had so much knowledge from the Senate investigation under Senator Fred Thompson [R-Tenn.]. They said, “We’ll not only help, we’ll work 24 hours a day.” China, to me, was the most dangerous part of the whole thing.
Insight: Why did the Thompson committee drop the ball on Chinagate?
DS: Timperlake and Triplett both had the same question. Nobody seemed to know. We were reaching out for more information, and we were told, “Stop, it’s over.” Little did I realize the frustration we would be facing within a month.
Insight: What kind of job did the House commission led by Rep. Christopher Cox of California do in investigating the Chinagate issues?
DS: Oh, Cox and his colleagues did a good job, but it’s all still classified and nobody can get at it. Cox made clear that he was aware U.S. security had been seriously compromised but he couldn’t go into the specifics because of the security issue.
Insight: How did the House Democratic leadership treat you?
DS: The Democrats always were friendly; they always were affable.
Insight: And the Republicans?
DS: Majority Leader Dick Armey was on our side 100 percent. But others in the Republican leadership, House Speaker Newt Gingrich in particular, were a problem for us. We would have meetings with Gingrich and reach an agreement, “We’re going to do it this way,” but by the time we’d get back to our offices he would be with Minority Leader Richard Gephardt doing exactly the opposite.
Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt acting together?
DS: Our original plan was not to make anything public, to keep it under the tightest security, until we made our reports. But it was Gephardt and Gingrich who decided they were going to let out all the crap. Unfortunately most of it was that sex stuff the media immediately fastened on to send up the battle cry that “It’s only about sex.”
Insight: What kind of damage did their leaks do?
DS: Had it not gone to the media, and had I been able to list 15 felonies, you’d have seen almost no sex in it. It was the felonies on which we focused.
Insight: What about the impeachment committee? Did they release information improperly?
DS: Not Henry Hyde, not the members of the committee. And they fought like tigers. Hyde constantly was pressing the leadership, trying to get them to do things the right way. We originally arranged it so only the members of the committee could get into the room and view the evidence; Gingrich could not get in there until much later. We had an ultrasecure room with ultrasecure evidence, no leaks coming out. Then, in that two weeks [after the House leadership authorized the release of the sex-scandal material], everybody was having a feeding frenzy on all that garbage.
Insight: Gingrich and Gephardt discredited the impeachment investigation?
DS: Oh, yes. They were the ones who against our wishes put out [President Clinton’s] grand-jury testimony. Never mind that the deposition [to Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch] was more useful. First, it was shorter; second, it contained many more lies, more provable lies.
Insight: But the sex issue obscured the damage to U.S. national security.
DS: The whole national-security dimension was lost. The entire matter of the fact that he [Clinton] was committing perjury, obstructions and all that — that was lost. The Filegate thing was lost, everything we intended to get into.
We were going into the committee vote on the impeachment articles. I had thought the strongest article was abuse of the Office of the President. Another of the abuses was that Citizenship USA matter, where the administration had politicized everything and used everything at its disposal. An amendment passed that completely emasculated that article, which meant that we would lose it, and we did lose it.
Insight: Did you have any idea the Senate would respond the way it did to the impeachment articles?
DS: No way. When we finished in the House — the managers, the staff and myself — we honestly believed that once the actual evidence was presented in a trial atmosphere where the American people could see and hear what happened without the use of the word “sex” they would see the witnesses, the victims, the documents, the films.
We had four to five weeks’ worth of evidence. We thought that once this was presented and the American people saw the truth the Democrats would be required to vote their conscience. We thought we would convict and remove him.
That’s why we were so shocked when [Senate Majority Leader] Trent Lott told Henry Hyde, “You’re not going to dump that garbage on us.” Suddenly we realized that our own people were going to sell us down the river in the Senate. We were terribly upset.
Insight: Why did you get that response?
DS: I was shocked because I thought things were on the square. I thought that when a senator took the oath to give equal and impartial justice that he would do that. But it was completely partisan. The Democrats were adamant that the evidence not be produced, and the Republicans did not have the courage to fight them.
The ultimate failure of Republican courage in the Senate was absolutely sickening. They just let the Democrats run roughshod.
Insight: Why didn’t a single Democrat break?
DS: They had a stand-up crew. The discipline in the Democratic Party was absolutely remarkable. I don’t know if it was because of Filegate or what. On the committee in the House, once members saw all the evidence, we expected to pick up four or five of the committee Democrats and vote to impeach. But even in the Senate the only one who broke was Senator [Russell] Feingold [of Wisconsin] who voted against the motion to dismiss. He broke with the party and voted his conscience on that.
Insight: Why did the senators ignore the facts?
DS: I think they wanted to be in the position to say, like Senator [Tom] Harkin [of Iowa] said, “Oh, gee, if I’d known that, I would have changed my vote.” They didn’t want to know anything.
Insight: What do you mean when you say that it may have been Filegate that kept the senators from convicting Clinton?
DS: I don’t think that anybody in the White House or the president’s entourage picked up the phone and called senators and said, “Look, we’ve got something on you and if you do this we’re going to out you,” but after the [Bob] Livingston matter broke and he resigned [even though he was scheduled to be speaker of the House], everybody got the message. And a lot of people may have had something in their background that they didn’t want made public. Who knows?
But everybody knew that if the president had it he would use it. There was always that sword of Damocles over their heads. Maybe that affected the way the senators voted.
Insight: Have we heard the end of Filegate?
DS: Filegate never was resolved. Never. And it probably never will be unless Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch breaks it. He had a lot of information that he was willing to furnish to us in connection with the impeachment had we been able to get into Filegate, and he was extremely unhappy when we were not allowed to get to it. I think Larry eventually may be the one to get to the bottom of it.
Insight: How else has the administration’s impunity undermined our national-security system? What about the 1997 case of Lt. Cmdr. Jack Daly, the Navy intelligence officer whose eyes were burned when a Russian spy ship fired a laser at him, and the Clinton administration covered it up?
DS: They’ll say his injuries are not
service-connected.
Insight: That’s exactly what the Navy has been saying.
DS: The dirty bastards, and they know better! They don’t dare admit it, because then they’ll be admitting that the Russians committed a crime against humanity and an act of war.
Insight: Is there anything not in your book that you think should have been?
DS: Oh, yeah, some of the things I learned in the [Charles] Labella report [on campaign finance from the FBI], some of the things in the room that now are in the archives. I can’t go into specifics, but there’s a lot of material there that corroborated the theory that there was a massive obstruction of justice. There are an awful lot of leads that, had I had more concrete evidence of the kind we intended to get, would have led a hell of a lot more into Chinagate.
Also, I would have gone more into Filegate. And I would have gone into the matter of [late commerce secretary] Ron Brown and [Clinton/Gore fund-raiser and suspected Chinese spy] John Huang and those trips that were being sold on Commerce planes. There’s a lot more I would have gone into had we had more direct proof, but we were given no chance to get it.
Insight: What were the biggest obstacles?
DS: Time. And the leadership in the House. Right after the [1998] election, Henry Hyde was told, “You will finish this by the first of December and, if this goes on into the next Congress, you won’t get authorization; you won’t get more money for the investigation. We don’t want you to do any further investigation. You go with what you’ve got.” Which essentially was the Paula Jones case.
It was the leadership, though I don’t know who specifically talked to Hyde. He never told us. It had to be Gingrich, and after Gingrich resigned the shot was going to be called by whoever would succeed him. Then they got Livingston.
Insight: So the Republicans helped cover up for Clinton?
DS: Originally we were told that it wouldn’t come out of committee and that if it did come out of the committee they’d make sure that 40 Republicans came out against impeachment in the House. We asked that all the Republicans come over and look at what we had, hear the witnesses, see the evidence. We had 65 Republicans over, including a number who said they weren’t going to impeach. And, of those 65, all but one voted to impeach.”
David Schippers interviewed by Sandy Rios of American Family Association.
“The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest agent of biblical change in any culture.”
David Schippers obituary, What fake news doesn’t want you to know Part 1, Schippers Democrat man of principle exposed Clintons, Thank God for David Schippers
“The White House wanted any applicant for citizenship to be naturalized in time to register for the November election, so the pressure on the INS was constant.”…David Schippers
“Let me tell you something. They were all over that woman,” Schippers told NewsMax.com. “And it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. … Just to let her know ‘We can do what we want.’ ”…David Schippers
“Thank God for the life of David Schippers. He is a shining example for all Americans.”…Citizen Wells
If you are a Democrat, first get right with God and then follow the example of David Schippers, a man of principle.
The fake news media has covered his passing, but they have not reported how he exposed the Clintons. Citizen Wells will.
From Legacy Obituaries.
“David Phillip Schippers, Jr., age 88, a resident of Grayslake, passed away on Friday, September 28, 2018 at his home. He was born on November 4, 1929. David was an attorney for 59 years, a member of St. Gilbert Catholic Church and a lifelong White Sox fan. David is survived by his devoted wife, Jacquline, of 66 years. He is further survived by his 10 children, Kate Schippers (Michael Batka), David Schippers III ( Pat Connor), Tiyi Schippers (David Bunce), Ann Schippers Winter (Bob Winter), Colleen Schippers Margolis (Lou Margolis), Hon. Thomas Schippers (Carol), Kevin Schippers (Beth), Dr. Mimi Schippers ( Robert Scott Bullock, Marc Pagani), Patrick Schippers (Trisha), Peter Schippers (Dr. Laura Taylor); 26 grandchildren; and 29 great grandchildren.”
“David P. Schippers Jr., the Republican Party’s chief counsel in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, died of pancreatic cancer Friday at 88 at his home in Grayslake.
In 1998, U.S. Rep. Henry J. Hyde, R-Illinois, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, appointed Mr. Schippers to be the committee’s chief investigator as it weighed whether to endorse the impeachment of Clinton.
After independent counsel Ken Starr had recommended 11 grounds for impeachment, including obstruction of justice and lying under oath, Mr. Schippers, a Chicago criminal defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor, said there were at least 15.
“If you don’t impeach, then no House of Representatives will ever be able to impeach again,” he said. “The bar will be so high that only a convicted felon or a traitor will need to be concerned.”
In December 1998, the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice, sending the question to the full House. Days later, for just the second time in history, the Republican-controlled House voted to impeach a president–in this case, for misleading officials about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
After a trial, the Republican-controlled Senate voted on Feb. 12, 1999, to acquit Clinton.
“In the U.S. Senate, politics trumped principles, and polls trumped honor,” Mr. Schippers said in a book he wrote with Alan P. Henry, “Sellout: the Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment.”
He felt “he had a solid case, and he didn’t think all of those people in the Senate were honoring their oath of office,” according to his son David. But his son said he also knew this: “You win some, you lose some.””
“He used to tell his kids, “Never bet against God, Notre Dame and the Democratic Party,” according to his son, who said, “After he got old and the Clinton impeachment, he said, ‘At least, I’m two out of three.’ ”
As a federal prosecutor in Chicago in the 1960s, Mr. Schippers headed an organized-crime division under then-U.S. Attorney Edward V. Hanrahan. He helped prosecute Sam Battaglia, a successor to Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana. And his unit’s work led to a yearlong stay at the Cook County Jail for Giancana, sent there for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury.”
Did Cory Booker assault gay man in restroom?, Self professed anonymous gay liberal account of 2014 incident, Booker “we can only assume that this allegation is serious and credible”
“There is so much at stake here — this has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with who we are as moral leaders”
“in a moral moment, there is no neutral.”…Cory Booker
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”…Matthew 7:20
“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells
Unlike Cory Booker and the Democrats, I would like to know the truth about this allegation. Hence the question mark.
From Zero Hedge.
“Spartacus Falls? Cory Booker Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Man In Restroom”
“Democratic Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker has been accused of sexually assaulting a man, after a self-professed anonymous gay liberal released a shocking account of a 2014 incident.
During a visit to the man’s workplace, Booker’s accuser says the Senator “pulled me into the restroom,” and “put his left hand on my groin, over my jeans and began to rub,” before pushing the man down on his knees for “what was clearly a move to have me perform oral sex on him.” The man says he “pulled away quite violently” and told Booker he had to leave.
Through the transitive properties of unsupported claims, we can only assume that this allegation is “serious” and “credible” – words recently used by Booker to describe similarly unfounded accusations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Booker’s accuser says he has consulted with two attorneys on the matter, and has been playing phone tag with journalist Ronan Farrow.
If the claims against Booker are true, and we have no reason to assume they’re not since all survivors of sexual assault have a right to be believed, it suggests that the Democratic Senator who has never been married may be bisexual. In 1992, Booker wrote an article in which he admitted to sexually assaulting a girl when he was 15 years old, groping her at a New Year’s Eve party in 1984 against her will. ”
President Trump: embrace Julian Assange Wikileaks, Sessions perpetuated Obama Justice Dept. narrative and prosecution, “I love WikiLeaks!”
“Mr. Trump, tear down that wall. That wall between false narrative and truth. Let Julian Assange speak and listen.”…Citizen Wells
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″
“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells
President Trump, in 2016 you stated “I love WikiLeaks!”.
Your supporters, including me, love Wikileaks too and need the real journalism it supports.
From Zero Hedge October 15, 2018.
“Ecuador has partially restored Julian Assange’s communications in their London Embassy after UN officials met with Ecuador’s president, Lenin Moreno on Friday, reports the Belfast Telegraph.”
“Mr Assange had critically reported on the Trump administration’s involvement in Yemen and Spanish police brutality. High level representations were made by the Trump administration and the Spanish government over Mr Assange, who was given political refugee status by Ecuador in 2012 over US attempts to prosecute him.
“The Trump administrations stepped up efforts to prosecute Mr Assange after WikiLeaks published the largest leak in the history of the CIA last year.”
“Arresting Julian Assange is a priority, says US attorney general Jeff Sessions”
“The arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is now a “priority” for the US, the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has said.
Hours later it was reported by CNN that authorities have prepared charges against Assange, who is currently holed up at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Donald Trump lavished praise on the anti-secrecy website during the presidential election campaign – “I love WikiLeaks,” he once told a rally – but his administration has struck a different tone.”
“Republican politicians expressed fury at the time, accusing Assange of treason, and Trump himself told an interviewer: “I think it’s disgraceful, I think there should be like death penalty or something.”
All that changed during the election when WikiLeaks published emails acquired via Russian-backed hackers from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Trump and his associates seized on the revelations, citing them with relish during speeches, prompting accusations of cynical opportunism.
Now in power, their attitude seems to have reverted to Republican orthodoxy. In a speech last week in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, the CIA director, Mike Pompeo, said:“It’s time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is: a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.””
“WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been holed up in Ecuador’s London embassy for six years, is considering an offer to appear before a U.S. Senate committee to discuss alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, his lawyer said on Thursday.
WikiLeaks published a letter from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday which asked Assange to make himself available to testify in person at a closed hearing as part of its investigation into whether Moscow meddled to help Donald Trump win the 2016 presidential election.
Russia rejects the claims and Trump has denied any collusion.
“The U.S. Senate Select Committee request confirms their interest in hearing from Mr Assange,” lawyer Jennifer Robinson said in a statement.”
Murkowski wrestling with Kavanaugh decision, We wrestle against rulers of darkness, against spiritual wickedness , Feinstein Democrats minions of evil
“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!”…Walter Scott
“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32
“Democrat mantra: The end justifies the means.”…Citizen Wells
Good vs evil.
It really is that simple.
Discernment.
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”…Ephesians 6:12
Ms. Murkowski pay attention and do the right thing.
Brett Kavanaugh is a good man.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Bob Herbert of the NY Times wrote on February 26, 2001:
“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”
Miss Emma, the Clinton’s cook at the Arkansas governor’s mansion:
“The devil’s in that woman.”
Bill Clinton raped, abused and used many women and Hillary Clinton was complicit.
And furthermore, the disgusting, evil Democrat Party supported them and allowed one woman after another to be attacked and ridiculed.
Now they have the damned gall to make false accusations against and attack a good man. Simply for their agenda.
Brett Kavanaugh confirmation, Christine Blasey Ford prosecution, Democrats impeachment and attorneys disbarment, Ex boyfriend damning evidence
“O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!”…Walter Scott
“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.”…Jesus, John 8:32
“Democrat mantra: The end justifies the means.”…Citizen Wells
More damning evidence against Christine Blasey Ford, Democrats and attorneys.
From Zero Hedge.
“Blasey Ford’s Kavinaugh Testimony Unravels After Ex-Boyfriend Refutes Key Claims
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) fired off an intriguing letter to Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys on Tuesday, requesting several pieces of evidence related to her testimony – including all materials from the polygraph test she took, after her ex-boyfriend of six years refuted statements she made under oath last week.
Grassley writes: “The full details of Dr. Ford’s polygraph are particularly important because the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford’s, stating that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations. When asked under oath in the hearing whether she’d ever given any tips or advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph, Dr. Ford replied, “Never.” This statement raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results.”
Ford’s ex-boyfriend also claims that she never told him about any type of sexual assault in almost a decade of knowing her (of which they were romantically involved for six years).
“During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct. Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh,” the ex writes, adding “While visiting Ford in Hawaii, we traveled around the Hawaiian islands including one time on a propeller plane. Dr. Ford never indicated a fear of flying.
Ford’s ex goes on to note “Dr. Ford never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit,” further refuting her testimony. “She ended up living in a very small 500 sq. ft. house with one door.” ”
Dishonest Democrats control dishonest Fake News Media to prop up legitimize dishonest Christine Blasey Ford testimony & psycho babble, “exploited units of human capital”
However, when the CHD funds Alinsky-style, church-based community organizations as in the best interest of the poor and supports organizations which advance other agendas, it divests the poor of their right to an authentic voice. This process tends to treat the poor as exploited units of human capital, rather than as human beings created in the dignity of God’s image.”…report to the Catholic Bishops 1997
“the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul.”…Bob Herbert, NY Times February 26, 2001
“Democrat mantra: The end justifies the means.”…Citizen Wells
“There is nothing new under the sun” and you can depend on the Democrats using people as “exploited units of human capital”.
Christine Blasey Ford has some issues that need addressing and may have had a traumatic experience when she was young. She believes that she did and has unjustly accused Brett Kavanaugh without any corroboration of her flawed memory. Her story fell apart.
Ms. Ford, despite many years of psychological education, made the following statements during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
DURBIN: “Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?”
FORD: “One hundred percent.”
Ford tries to impress the audience with pseudo science:
FORD: “The same way that I’m sure that I’m talking to you right now. It’s — just basic memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that, sort of, as you know, encodes — that neurotransmitter encodes memories into the hippocampus. And so, the trauma-related experience, then, is kind of locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.”
FEINSTEIN: “So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken identity?”
Ford lied and tried to bullshit with psycho babble.
What the experts say:
“First up, we have Elizabeth Loftus from the University of California, Irvine, who is one of the founders of the area of false memory research, and is considered one of the most ‘eminent psychologists of the 20thcentury.’
Elizabeth Loftus says you need independent evidence to corroborate your memories.
According to Loftus: “The one take home message that I have tried to convey in my writings, and classes, and in my TED talk is this: Just because someone tells you something with a lot of confidence and detail and emotion, it doesn’t mean it actually happened. You need independent corroboration to know whether you’re dealing with an authentic memory, or something that is a product of some other process.”
“Chris French wants you to stop believing common memory myths.
“My top 5 take-home messages on memory:
1. Memory does not work like a video camera, accurately recording all of the details of witnessed events. Instead, memory (like perception) is a constructive process. We typically remember the gist of an event rather than the exact details.
2. When we construct a memory, errors can occur. We will typically fill in gaps in our memories with what we think we must have experienced not necessarily what we actually did experience. We may also include misinformation we encountered after the event. We will not even be consciously aware that this has happened.
3. We not only distort memories for events that we have witnessed, we may have completely false memories for events that never occurred at all. Such false memories are particularly likely to arise in certain contexts, such as (unintentionally) through the use of certain dubious psychotherapeutic techniques or (intentionally) in psychology experiments.
4. There is no convincing evidence to support the existence of the psychoanalytic concept of repression, despite it being a widely accepted concept.
5. There is currently no way to distinguish, in the absence of independent evidence, whether a particular memory is true or false. Even memories which are detailed and vivid and held with 100 percent conviction can be completely false.””
The senators are typically well educated and many have legal educations. From the hearing:
COONS: “Thank you, Chairman Grassley. I’d like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record five articles, including one titled “Why Sexual Assault Memories Stick,””
KLOBUCHAR: OK. You know from my experience with memory, I remember distinctly things that happened to me in high school or happened to me in college.
HIRONO: “The prosecutor should know that sexual assault survivors often do not remember peripheral information such as what happened before or after the traumatic event, and yet, she will persist in asking these questions all to undermine the memory and basically, the credibility of Dr. Ford. But we all know Dr. Ford’s memory of the assault is very clear.”
An internet search today yields every possible excuse in the world for her flawed, psycho babble testimony.
Compare the fake news media explanations to the experts above.
Memory is flawed, unreliable and must have corroborating evidence to be credible!
I found an honest report at the Mlwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Christine Blasey Ford dishonesty zero credibility bombshell not photos, Elizabeth Loftus UC Irvine: “need independent evidence to corroborate your memories”, Bigger story: Democrats & Fake news media used her
“Democrat mantra: The end justifies the means.”…Citizen Wells
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984″
“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper.
Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that
polluted vehicle.”…. Thomas Jefferson
Forget the photos of Christine Blasey Ford. We already have a revealing puzzle picture of her life beginning in high school.
She drank and partied underage and deceived her parents.
Ms. Ford needs professional help and as Mr. Kavanagh’s daughter stated “our prayers.” She is dealing with some kind(s) of emotional stress that exists in her mind.
She also must be held accountable.
If a FBI investigation could be used for example to resurrect her social media and any other scrubbed incriminating evidence to prosecute her, then do it.
When this story first was broadcast, I was hesitant to get involved.
I decided to read the Washington Post account and a series of self evident truths emerged.
From Citizen Wells September 20, 2018.
“An issue of honesty was emerging.
Christine Blasey Ford was a well educated psychological professional.
From my exposure to Psych 101 and other research I knew that human memories were extremely fallible.
Ms. Ford was educated on this matter and not being honest in her portrayal of “facts.”
From Psychology Today Mar 12, 2012.
“Unreliable Memory
“We tend to think that memories are stored in our brains just as they are in computers. Once registered, the data are put away for safe-keeping and eventual recall. The facts don’t change.
But neuroscientists have shown that each time we remember something, we are reconstructing the event, reassembling it from traces throughout the brain. Psychologists have pointed out that we also suppress memories that are painful or damaging to self-esteem. We could say that, as a result, memory is unreliable. We could also say it is adaptive, reshaping itself to accommodate the new situations we find ourselves facing. Either way, we have to face the fact that it is “flexible.”
For most of us that usually means we recall a rosier past than we actually had, though some of us are tormented by memories of a painful past we can’t shake and that seems to get worse every time we revisit them. But for all of us that means an incomplete past.
Nothing brings this home better than the memories of witnesses in trials, one of the cornerstones of our legal system. All too many people have been put behind bars on the testimony of witnesses, who when challenged by more objective data have been later proved to be misremembering.”
Ms. Ford kept changing her story before and during her testimony. She varied her accounts of the number and makeup of attendees at the gathering in her relating to Feinstein, the polygraph exam and during testimony.
She admits that she cannot recall many details.
No one that she claims attended the gathering, including her friend Leland Keyser, corroborates her story.
The show stopper, the response that reveals her dishonesty was from this testimony:
DURBIN: “Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you?”
FORD: “One hundred percent.”
Ford tries to impress the audience with pseudo science:
FORD: “The same way that I’m sure that I’m talking to you right now. It’s — just basic memory functions. And also just the level of norepinephrine and epinephrine in the brain that, sort of, as you know, encodes — that neurotransmitter encodes memories into the hippocampus. And so, the trauma-related experience, then, is kind of locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.”
FEINSTEIN: “So what you are telling us is this could not be a case of mistaken identity?”
FORD: “Absolutely not.”
Ford is well educated. She has no excuse.
She lied!
Even people with superior memories are not immune to errors.
From the University of California, Irvine, CA, October 22, 2013.
“The recent identification of highly superior autobiographical memory (HSAM) raised the possibility that there may be individuals who are immune to memory distortions.”
“HSAM individuals possess a remarkable autobiographical memory. However, these results show that even they are not immune to episodic memory distortions. Whatever the source of their exceptional autobiographical memory ability is, this does not prevent them from having memory distortions. Although it is always possible that some group might be found to be immune to memory distortions, none has as yet been discovered.”
Just because you’re absolutely confident you remember something accurately doesn’t mean it’s true
Every memory you have ever had is chock-full of errors. I would even go as far as saying that memory is largely an illusion.
This is because our perception of the world is deeply imperfect, our brains only bother to remember a tiny piece of what we actually experience, and every time we remember something we have the potential to change the memory we are accessing.
I often write about the ways in which our memory leads us astray, with a particular focus on ‘false memories.’ False memories are recollections that feel real but are not based on actual experience.
For this particular article I invited a few top memory researchers to comment on what they wish everyone knew about their field.
First up, we have Elizabeth Loftus from the University of California, Irvine, who is one of the founders of the area of false memory research, and is considered one of the most ‘eminent psychologists of the 20thcentury.’
Elizabeth Loftus says you need independent evidence to corroborate your memories.
According to Loftus: “The one take home message that I have tried to convey in my writings, and classes, and in my TED talk is this: Just because someone tells you something with a lot of confidence and detail and emotion, it doesn’t mean it actually happened. You need independent corroboration to know whether you’re dealing with an authentic memory, or something that is a product of some other process.””
Citizen WElls 