Sen. Feinstein Claims She Received Info On Kavanaugh And Sent It To FBI

[Jimmy Higgins]

forget the damn door for a moment!...........All Dr Ford's witnesses failed to provide collaborating evidence. Her best friend couldn't remember a thing about any event.
It would be an extremely incompetent judge or jury that would find the accused guilty with the evidence presented.

And then the FBI didn't follow up on the evidence that WAS available: the July 1 calendar entry, an FBI questioning of principle witnesses, and examination of Tobin's 1982 home for matches to the testimony and selection from lineup.

If the home matches, and especially if she IDENTIFIED it, we have strong evidence she was at Tobin's house, where BK, MJ were, on July 1. That's the scene described by Ford and verifies her story.

But her witnesses and best friend do not verify her accusations.

Well, they weren't in the room when it happened, so is this really shocking?

Surely that fact alone dismissed her case.

No, what led to her accusations being dismissed was that the Republicans controlled the Senate and a Republican President nominated him (and maybe some really dirty stuff in the background).

 

[ZiprHead]

Did Brett Kavanaugh perjure himself? The debate, explained.

He lies so easily.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't find any of these possible inconsistencies to be compelling. None seem to be about the traumatic events best remembered, the criminal actions. It's as silly as bringing up fear of flying on an airplane. For example, regarding the door, married couples tend to often hold things inside to talk about later after blowing up about them. So, if a door was put up unilaterally, then the husband might be pissed off after the fact. Front door to the house could be a big deal because it's long lasting and you may have to deal with it everyday. Also, the credibility on whether it was put up before 2011 is a little thin, like an Internet conspiracy theory etc.

I don't think this is the sort of thing that one is likely at all to forget about. She claimed the following:

I told my husband before we were married that I had experienced a sexual assault. I had never told the details to anyone until May 2012, during a couples counseling session. The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed an extensive remodel of our home, and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. In explaining why I wanted to have a second front door, I described the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court and spoke a bit about his background. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.

That is a very detailed description of what happened. But the door, according to the investigation, had been there since 2008, and apparently for a very different purpose: very probably, to rent the place to other people. And the use was inconsistent with the idea of having another exit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?noredirect=on
https://www.realclearinvestigations...uments_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html

While it would make sense that the argument came later during counseling as you suggest, one does not forget that one has been renting a place for years, and that one built a front door for that purpose, not to have a second exit.
As for the credibility of the people who investigated the matter, this is not an internet conspiracy theory. After it was published in the Washington Post, the whole thing surely came under scrutiny by Democrats and other people intent of keeping Kavanaugh off the SC. They would have very probably debunked it by now. It is not conclusive evidence, but it seems she probably lied about that, and that undermines her whole case a lot.

That said, there is plenty of other credibility problems, even if we left this aside and said it has nothing to do with her credibility. In fact, Rachel Mitchell's analysis of Ford's allegations, and her assessment that the case is actually weaker than the usual "he said, she said" and does not even satisfy the "preponderance of evidence" standard was made before the investigation about the front door was known, and also before the sworn statement about her coaching McLean to take the polygraph - that is why I brought up these two pieces of evidence in addition to Mitchell's report.

Regarding coaching someone on how to take a polygraph, this is what we have:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...7/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?noredirect=on

MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

FORD: Never.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html
Here is part of Ford's former boyfriend (identified as Brian Merrick, according to the NYT) as said, in a sworn statement:

I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam,” the man said in the statement. “Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam".

And here is McLean's denial:

Ms. McLean, a former F.B.I. agent, denied the assertion on Wednesday. “I have never had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at any time,” she said in a statement.

It seems pretty clear that either the former boyfriend (probably Brian Merrick) or Ford committed a felony. This is not sort of thing one just forgets about. But who is lying?
It's hard to say, but for example:

Why would Ford's former boyfriend lie?
I don't know, but perhaps, out of revenge for cheating on him?
That would be a plausible motivation if he were not doing so in a sworn statement, where it would be a felony.
Why would McLean lie?
I don't know, but perhaps to protect Ford, a close friend of Ford's. Or to protect herself and her own reputation - was she supposed to be coached? -, or both.
Why would Ford lie?
I don't know, but perhaps for political reasons.

Now, Ford probably is lying about the door, so that makes her claim less probable, whereas it would be just weird for Merrick to take such a risk. But the evidence on this is not decisive either way. But this not being decisive either way seriously undermines her credibility, even if the front door did not.

As I mentioned, though, all of this had nothing to do with Mitchell's analysis, where she explains many of the problems with Ford's testimony. So, we can leave aside for the sake of the argument both the door and the coaching and stipulate that that does not undermine her credibility and do not raise the credence that she's making things up - though for the reasons I mentioned, I think they do considerably -, and still there is no significant case. Moreover, there is still the risk that if she keeps talking, she will incur further contradictions - regardless of whether her memories about a real attack are really bad and keep shifting, or she made things up, the contradictions are real, and undermine her case a lot.

 

[Elixir]

I don't think this is the sort of thing that one is likely at all to forget about. She claimed the following:


That is a very detailed description of what happened. But the door, according to the investigation, had been there since 2008, and apparently for a very different purpose: very probably, to rent the place to other people. And the use was inconsistent with the idea of having another exit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?noredirect=on
https://www.realclearinvestigations...uments_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html

While it would make sense that the argument came later during counseling as you suggest, one does not forget that one has been renting a place for years, and that one built a front door for that purpose, not to have a second exit.
As for the credibility of the people who investigated the matter, this is not an internet conspiracy theory. After it was published in the Washington Post, the whole thing surely came under scrutiny by Democrats and other people intent of keeping Kavanaugh off the SC. They would have very probably debunked it by now. It is not conclusive evidence, but it seems she probably lied about that, and that undermines her whole case a lot.

That said, there is plenty of other credibility problems, even if we left this aside and said it has nothing to do with her credibility. In fact, Rachel Mitchell's analysis of Ford's allegations, and her assessment that the case is actually weaker than the usual "he said, she said" and does not even satisfy the "preponderance of evidence" standard was made before the investigation about the front door was known, and also before the sworn statement about her coaching McLean to take the polygraph - that is why I brought up these two pieces of evidence in addition to Mitchell's report.

Regarding coaching someone on how to take a polygraph, this is what we have:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...7/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?noredirect=on

MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

FORD: Never.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html
Here is part of Ford's former boyfriend (identified as Brian Merrick, according to the NYT) as said, in a sworn statement:

I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam,” the man said in the statement. “Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam".

And here is McLean's denial:

Ms. McLean, a former F.B.I. agent, denied the assertion on Wednesday. “I have never had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at any time,” she said in a statement.

It seems pretty clear that either the former boyfriend (probably Brian Merrick) or Ford committed a felony. This is not sort of thing one just forgets about. But who is lying?
It's hard to say, but for example:

Why would Ford's former boyfriend lie?
I don't know, but perhaps, out of revenge for cheating on him?
That would be a plausible motivation if he were not doing so in a sworn statement, where it would be a felony.
Why would McLean lie?
I don't know, but perhaps to protect Ford, a close friend of Ford's. Or to protect herself and her own reputation - was she supposed to be coached? -, or both.
Why would Ford lie?
I don't know, but perhaps for political reasons.

Now, Ford probably is lying about the door, so that makes her claim less probable, whereas it would be just weird for Merrick to take such a risk. But the evidence on this is not decisive either way. But this not being decisive either way seriously undermines her credibility, even if the front door did not.

As I mentioned, though, all of this had nothing to do with Mitchell's analysis, where she explains many of the problems with Ford's testimony. So, we can leave aside for the sake of the argument both the door and the coaching and stipulate that that does not undermine her credibility and do not raise the credence that she's making things up - though for the reasons I mentioned, I think they do considerably -, and still there is no significant case. Moreover, there is still the risk that if she keeps talking, she will incur further contradictions - regardless of whether her memories about a real attack are really bad and keep shifting, or she made things up, the contradictions are real, and undermine her case a lot.

I love seeing all these defenders of "beyond reasonable doubt" struggle to maintain some kind of doubt that they consider reasonable, that Ms Ford was telling the truth to the best of her recollection. And similarly, to try to repeat that conviction ad nauseum, lest they be confronted with the obvious fact that their alt-white champion "justice" is a lying scumbag - whether or not Ms Ford's testimony is 100% correct. Now he can lie all he wants, having earned the alt-white stamp of approval.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think this is the sort of thing that one is likely at all to forget about. She claimed the following:


That is a very detailed description of what happened. But the door, according to the investigation, had been there since 2008, and apparently for a very different purpose: very probably, to rent the place to other people. And the use was inconsistent with the idea of having another exit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?noredirect=on
https://www.realclearinvestigations...uments_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html

While it would make sense that the argument came later during counseling as you suggest, one does not forget that one has been renting a place for years, and that one built a front door for that purpose, not to have a second exit.
As for the credibility of the people who investigated the matter, this is not an internet conspiracy theory. After it was published in the Washington Post, the whole thing surely came under scrutiny by Democrats and other people intent of keeping Kavanaugh off the SC. They would have very probably debunked it by now. It is not conclusive evidence, but it seems she probably lied about that, and that undermines her whole case a lot.

That said, there is plenty of other credibility problems, even if we left this aside and said it has nothing to do with her credibility. In fact, Rachel Mitchell's analysis of Ford's allegations, and her assessment that the case is actually weaker than the usual "he said, she said" and does not even satisfy the "preponderance of evidence" standard was made before the investigation about the front door was known, and also before the sworn statement about her coaching McLean to take the polygraph - that is why I brought up these two pieces of evidence in addition to Mitchell's report.

Regarding coaching someone on how to take a polygraph, this is what we have:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...7/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?noredirect=on

MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

FORD: Never.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html
Here is part of Ford's former boyfriend (identified as Brian Merrick, according to the NYT) as said, in a sworn statement:

I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam,” the man said in the statement. “Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam".

And here is McLean's denial:

Ms. McLean, a former F.B.I. agent, denied the assertion on Wednesday. “I have never had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at any time,” she said in a statement.

It seems pretty clear that either the former boyfriend (probably Brian Merrick) or Ford committed a felony. This is not sort of thing one just forgets about. But who is lying?
It's hard to say, but for example:

Why would Ford's former boyfriend lie?
I don't know, but perhaps, out of revenge for cheating on him?
That would be a plausible motivation if he were not doing so in a sworn statement, where it would be a felony.
Why would McLean lie?
I don't know, but perhaps to protect Ford, a close friend of Ford's. Or to protect herself and her own reputation - was she supposed to be coached? -, or both.
Why would Ford lie?
I don't know, but perhaps for political reasons.

Now, Ford probably is lying about the door, so that makes her claim less probable, whereas it would be just weird for Merrick to take such a risk. But the evidence on this is not decisive either way. But this not being decisive either way seriously undermines her credibility, even if the front door did not.

As I mentioned, though, all of this had nothing to do with Mitchell's analysis, where she explains many of the problems with Ford's testimony. So, we can leave aside for the sake of the argument both the door and the coaching and stipulate that that does not undermine her credibility and do not raise the credence that she's making things up - though for the reasons I mentioned, I think they do considerably -, and still there is no significant case. Moreover, there is still the risk that if she keeps talking, she will incur further contradictions - regardless of whether her memories about a real attack are really bad and keep shifting, or she made things up, the contradictions are real, and undermine her case a lot.

One link says she gave the impression that therapy coincided with the installation of the door. I don't think so. I am not seeing it. People argue over things a long time. Years even. Have you ever been married? My wife and I argue over the dogs she got years ago. It's a bigger issue now than it was before when she got them.

Also, I have taken a polygraph before. A psychologist "prepares" you by making you less nervous so that you don't fail because you are a nervous person but that doesn't mean the psychologist prepares you to beat it. So one instance of someone saying they are prepared versus them saying they are not prepared means different things in different contexts. Both may not mean "coaching," your word. Quotemining out of context to make it look like she is lying or the other guy is lying is pretty serious and not against Ford but whoever her detractor is here.

ETA: I will also add. If you call up a psychologist and ask them if they ever talked to Person X, they will say NO. That means that if someone publishes in a paper that Person X got polygraph advice (not coaching) to make them less anxious from psychologist Y, and that someone follows up to ask psychologist Y if they ever gave polygraph advice to someone, it is suddenly identifying information because someone is either playing games (like Republican politicians do) or trying to reverse engineer Person X. It became identifying information of Person X because someone tried to make it public. So, psychologist Y has to now not tell the truth to keep anyone from knowing Person X was a client or received advice.

While I have no idea this is what happened here, that type of question should not be asked of a psychologist or a medical professional or other person who has to follow HIPAA.

Overall, these things still aren't serious to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Did Brett Kavanaugh perjure himself? The debate, explained.

He lies so easily.

All you have to do is pretend you're angry and drink lots of water.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Correction: Mitchell did not know about the door, but knew about the polygraph.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't think this is the sort of thing that one is likely at all to forget about. She claimed the following:


That is a very detailed description of what happened. But the door, according to the investigation, had been there since 2008, and apparently for a very different purpose: very probably, to rent the place to other people. And the use was inconsistent with the idea of having another exit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?noredirect=on
https://www.realclearinvestigations...uments_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html

While it would make sense that the argument came later during counseling as you suggest, one does not forget that one has been renting a place for years, and that one built a front door for that purpose, not to have a second exit.
As for the credibility of the people who investigated the matter, this is not an internet conspiracy theory. After it was published in the Washington Post, the whole thing surely came under scrutiny by Democrats and other people intent of keeping Kavanaugh off the SC. They would have very probably debunked it by now. It is not conclusive evidence, but it seems she probably lied about that, and that undermines her whole case a lot.

That said, there is plenty of other credibility problems, even if we left this aside and said it has nothing to do with her credibility. In fact, Rachel Mitchell's analysis of Ford's allegations, and her assessment that the case is actually weaker than the usual "he said, she said" and does not even satisfy the "preponderance of evidence" standard was made before the investigation about the front door was known, and also before the sworn statement about her coaching McLean to take the polygraph - that is why I brought up these two pieces of evidence in addition to Mitchell's report.

Regarding coaching someone on how to take a polygraph, this is what we have:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...7/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?noredirect=on

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html
Here is part of Ford's former boyfriend (identified as Brian Merrick, according to the NYT) as said, in a sworn statement:



And here is McLean's denial:

Ms. McLean, a former F.B.I. agent, denied the assertion on Wednesday. “I have never had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at any time,” she said in a statement.

It seems pretty clear that either the former boyfriend (probably Brian Merrick) or Ford committed a felony. This is not sort of thing one just forgets about. But who is lying?
It's hard to say, but for example:

Why would Ford's former boyfriend lie?
I don't know, but perhaps, out of revenge for cheating on him?
That would be a plausible motivation if he were not doing so in a sworn statement, where it would be a felony.
Why would McLean lie?
I don't know, but perhaps to protect Ford, a close friend of Ford's. Or to protect herself and her own reputation - was she supposed to be coached? -, or both.
Why would Ford lie?
I don't know, but perhaps for political reasons.

Now, Ford probably is lying about the door, so that makes her claim less probable, whereas it would be just weird for Merrick to take such a risk. But the evidence on this is not decisive either way. But this not being decisive either way seriously undermines her credibility, even if the front door did not.

As I mentioned, though, all of this had nothing to do with Mitchell's analysis, where she explains many of the problems with Ford's testimony. So, we can leave aside for the sake of the argument both the door and the coaching and stipulate that that does not undermine her credibility and do not raise the credence that she's making things up - though for the reasons I mentioned, I think they do considerably -, and still there is no significant case. Moreover, there is still the risk that if she keeps talking, she will incur further contradictions - regardless of whether her memories about a real attack are really bad and keep shifting, or she made things up, the contradictions are real, and undermine her case a lot.

I love seeing all these defenders of "beyond reasonable doubt" struggle to maintain some kind of doubt that they consider reasonable, that Ms Ford was telling the truth to the best of her recollection. And similarly, to try to repeat that conviction ad nauseum, lest they be confronted with the obvious fact that their alt-white champion "justice" is a lying scumbag - whether or not Ms Ford's testimony is 100% correct. Now he can lie all he wants, having earned the alt-white stamp of approval.

Actually, there is much more than a reasonable doubt. As for the "alt-white", your accusation of racism against me is morally unacceptable.

 

[Trausti]

I don't think this is the sort of thing that one is likely at all to forget about. She claimed the following:


That is a very detailed description of what happened. But the door, according to the investigation, had been there since 2008, and apparently for a very different purpose: very probably, to rent the place to other people. And the use was inconsistent with the idea of having another exit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?noredirect=on
https://www.realclearinvestigations...uments_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html

While it would make sense that the argument came later during counseling as you suggest, one does not forget that one has been renting a place for years, and that one built a front door for that purpose, not to have a second exit.
As for the credibility of the people who investigated the matter, this is not an internet conspiracy theory. After it was published in the Washington Post, the whole thing surely came under scrutiny by Democrats and other people intent of keeping Kavanaugh off the SC. They would have very probably debunked it by now. It is not conclusive evidence, but it seems she probably lied about that, and that undermines her whole case a lot.

That said, there is plenty of other credibility problems, even if we left this aside and said it has nothing to do with her credibility. In fact, Rachel Mitchell's analysis of Ford's allegations, and her assessment that the case is actually weaker than the usual "he said, she said" and does not even satisfy the "preponderance of evidence" standard was made before the investigation about the front door was known, and also before the sworn statement about her coaching McLean to take the polygraph - that is why I brought up these two pieces of evidence in addition to Mitchell's report.

Regarding coaching someone on how to take a polygraph, this is what we have:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...7/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?noredirect=on

MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

FORD: Never.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html
Here is part of Ford's former boyfriend (identified as Brian Merrick, according to the NYT) as said, in a sworn statement:

I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam,” the man said in the statement. “Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam".

And here is McLean's denial:

Ms. McLean, a former F.B.I. agent, denied the assertion on Wednesday. “I have never had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at any time,” she said in a statement.

It seems pretty clear that either the former boyfriend (probably Brian Merrick) or Ford committed a felony. This is not sort of thing one just forgets about. But who is lying?
It's hard to say, but for example:

Why would Ford's former boyfriend lie?
I don't know, but perhaps, out of revenge for cheating on him?
That would be a plausible motivation if he were not doing so in a sworn statement, where it would be a felony.
Why would McLean lie?
I don't know, but perhaps to protect Ford, a close friend of Ford's. Or to protect herself and her own reputation - was she supposed to be coached? -, or both.
Why would Ford lie?
I don't know, but perhaps for political reasons.

Now, Ford probably is lying about the door, so that makes her claim less probable, whereas it would be just weird for Merrick to take such a risk. But the evidence on this is not decisive either way. But this not being decisive either way seriously undermines her credibility, even if the front door did not.

As I mentioned, though, all of this had nothing to do with Mitchell's analysis, where she explains many of the problems with Ford's testimony. So, we can leave aside for the sake of the argument both the door and the coaching and stipulate that that does not undermine her credibility and do not raise the credence that she's making things up - though for the reasons I mentioned, I think they do considerably -, and still there is no significant case. Moreover, there is still the risk that if she keeps talking, she will incur further contradictions - regardless of whether her memories about a real attack are really bad and keep shifting, or she made things up, the contradictions are real, and undermine her case a lot.

If only the media had made this a big story so more people would know about it; then witnesses certainly would come forward corroborating Ford's story. Instead it was barely mentioned. Damn media.

 

[Elixir]

If only the media had made this a big story so more people would know about it; then witnesses certainly would come forward corroborating Ford's story.

They did. But the orange shitgibbon forbade the FBI from talking to them.
You surely knew this, so why be so disingenuous?

 

[Trausti]

If only the media had made this a big story so more people would know about it; then witnesses certainly would come forward corroborating Ford's story.

They did. But the orange shitgibbon forbade the FBI from talking to them.
You surely knew this, so why be so disingenuous?

No. They spoke with all the witnesses identified by Ford; none corroborated her story. None.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think this is the sort of thing that one is likely at all to forget about. She claimed the following:


That is a very detailed description of what happened. But the door, according to the investigation, had been there since 2008, and apparently for a very different purpose: very probably, to rent the place to other people. And the use was inconsistent with the idea of having another exit:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html?noredirect=on
https://www.realclearinvestigations...uments_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html

While it would make sense that the argument came later during counseling as you suggest, one does not forget that one has been renting a place for years, and that one built a front door for that purpose, not to have a second exit.
As for the credibility of the people who investigated the matter, this is not an internet conspiracy theory. After it was published in the Washington Post, the whole thing surely came under scrutiny by Democrats and other people intent of keeping Kavanaugh off the SC. They would have very probably debunked it by now. It is not conclusive evidence, but it seems she probably lied about that, and that undermines her whole case a lot.

That said, there is plenty of other credibility problems, even if we left this aside and said it has nothing to do with her credibility. In fact, Rachel Mitchell's analysis of Ford's allegations, and her assessment that the case is actually weaker than the usual "he said, she said" and does not even satisfy the "preponderance of evidence" standard was made before the investigation about the front door was known, and also before the sworn statement about her coaching McLean to take the polygraph - that is why I brought up these two pieces of evidence in addition to Mitchell's report.

Regarding coaching someone on how to take a polygraph, this is what we have:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...7/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?noredirect=on

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/us/politics/blasey-ford-republicans-kavanaugh.html
Here is part of Ford's former boyfriend (identified as Brian Merrick, according to the NYT) as said, in a sworn statement:



And here is McLean's denial:

Ms. McLean, a former F.B.I. agent, denied the assertion on Wednesday. “I have never had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at any time,” she said in a statement.

It seems pretty clear that either the former boyfriend (probably Brian Merrick) or Ford committed a felony. This is not sort of thing one just forgets about. But who is lying?
It's hard to say, but for example:

Why would Ford's former boyfriend lie?
I don't know, but perhaps, out of revenge for cheating on him?
That would be a plausible motivation if he were not doing so in a sworn statement, where it would be a felony.
Why would McLean lie?
I don't know, but perhaps to protect Ford, a close friend of Ford's. Or to protect herself and her own reputation - was she supposed to be coached? -, or both.
Why would Ford lie?
I don't know, but perhaps for political reasons.

Now, Ford probably is lying about the door, so that makes her claim less probable, whereas it would be just weird for Merrick to take such a risk. But the evidence on this is not decisive either way. But this not being decisive either way seriously undermines her credibility, even if the front door did not.

As I mentioned, though, all of this had nothing to do with Mitchell's analysis, where she explains many of the problems with Ford's testimony. So, we can leave aside for the sake of the argument both the door and the coaching and stipulate that that does not undermine her credibility and do not raise the credence that she's making things up - though for the reasons I mentioned, I think they do considerably -, and still there is no significant case. Moreover, there is still the risk that if she keeps talking, she will incur further contradictions - regardless of whether her memories about a real attack are really bad and keep shifting, or she made things up, the contradictions are real, and undermine her case a lot.

If only the media had made this a big story so more people would know about it; then witnesses certainly would come forward corroborating Ford's story. Instead it was barely mentioned. Damn media.

Yes, if only someone came forward to talk about Kavanaugh whipping it out, Kavanaugh being part of a culture of taking advantage of young ladies; and lying about boofing, Devil's Triangle, sexcapades, drinking til aggressive, and drinking til blacking out.

Darn "media."

 

[Angra Mainyu]

One link says she gave the impression that therapy coincided with the installation of the door. I don't think so. I am not seeing it. People argue over things a long time. Years even. Have you ever been married? My wife and I argue over the dogs she got years ago. It's a bigger issue now than it was before when she got them.

Okay, I already said that that may have happened (i.e., the dispute lingered for years), if the date were the only or main issue. But the problem is that the usage she gave to the door does not support her claim that she did so in order to have another exit. Rather, the door was part of an extra room that they built (i.e., it wasn't just the door) that they rented, and gave the tenants their own private entrance. Ford said:

The reason this came up in counseling is that my husband and I had completed an extensive remodel of our home, and I insisted on a second front door, an idea that he and others disagreed with and could not understand. In explaining why I wanted to have a second front door, I described the assault in detail.

However, it is easy to understand that the tenants would need an extra door. Maybe her husband did not want tenants, but yielded? Regardless, the extra door would make perfect sense. And if she also wanted the door as an escape route (which she probably did not have, given that she was renting out the room to the tenants), and did not want to tell that to her husband, then no problem: she could still tell him that it was to allow the tenants to have a private entrance, which makes sense and would be understood.

Now, I don't think this is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she lied. But it is significant evidence against her credibility. Still, as I said, we can leave all of this aside, and there is still not a serious case.

Also, I have taken a polygraph before. A psychologist "prepares" you by making you less nervous so that you don't fail because you are a nervous person but that doesn't mean the psychologist prepares you to beat it. So one instance of someone saying they are prepared versus them saying they are not prepared means different things in different contexts. Both may not mean "coaching," your word. Quotemining out of context to make it look like she is lying or the other guy is lying is pretty serious and not against Ford but whoever her detractor is here.

The word "coaching" is not the issue. Let's say "tips and advice" as Mitchell did, or "polygraph advice" (your words), or whatever you like. The issue is that one of them is clearly lying. Take a look at what they said, which I quoted (links already provided):

I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam,” the man said in the statement. “Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam".

MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?

FORD: Never.

I should be apparent that the description of Ford's behavior given by Merrick constitutes "tips or advice" in any reasonable way of construing those words. Moreover, as I also pointed out (quoting the statement released by Ford's attorneys), Ford and McLean claim (through Ford's attorneys) that what Merrick described never happened.

So, someone is lying here.

ETA: I will also add. If you call up a psychologist and ask them if they ever talked to Person X, they will say NO. That means that if someone publishes in a paper that Person X got polygraph advice (not coaching) to make them less anxious from psychologist Y, and that someone follows up to ask psychologist Y if they ever gave polygraph advice to someone, it is suddenly identifying information because someone is either playing games (like Republican politicians do) or trying to reverse engineer Person X. It became identifying information of Person X because someone tried to make it public. So, psychologist Y has to now not tell the truth to keep anyone from knowing Person X was a client or received advice.

That would not allow a psychologist to lie under oath and say she never provided polygraph advice, when asked whether she ever did. At most, she could say she won't talk about things that are under privilege of confidentiality. I don't think this was confidential, though, because there was no identifiable information, actually, and also (probably) because the other person was not a patient. But even if it was, lying was not a legal answer. Now, maybe she did not lie and Merrick did. But the confidentiality objection won't work.

While I have no idea this is what happened here, that type of question should not be asked of a psychologist or a medical professional or other person who has to follow HIPAA.

I think that that's probably not the rule, for the aforementioned reasons. But still, let us say that that is the rule and the question should not have been asked. It was asked, and she said she did not do that. Moreover, the person has already been identified now, and yet Ford (through her attorneys) insists that that never happened. In any event, somebody is lying. Now, as I said, maybe Merrick is lying. Maybe not. There is insufficient evidence to tell who is lying, but there is sufficient evidence to tell that someone is lying.

Overall, these things still aren't serious to me.

I disagree for the reasons already given, but as I said, they are not decisive. We may stipulate that both the door and the polygraph advice are out, and her case is still not beyond a reasonable doubt, and not even preponderance of evidence (as I mentioned, you can take a look at Mitchell's report for more details).

 

[Trausti]

If only the media had made this a big story so more people would know about it; then witnesses certainly would come forward corroborating Ford's story. Instead it was barely mentioned. Damn media.

Yes, if only someone came forward to talk about Kavanaugh whipping it out, Kavanaugh being part of a culture of taking advantage of young ladies; and lying about boofing, Devil's Triangle, sexcapades, drinking til aggressive, and drinking til blacking out.

Darn "media."

My, my. This really is the Duke lacrosse redux. It's not that there's evidence he did anything specifically; it's who he is and where he comes from that makes him guilty. He's one of those people. He should be pushed just for that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If only the media had made this a big story so more people would know about it; then witnesses certainly would come forward corroborating Ford's story. Instead it was barely mentioned. Damn media.

Yes, if only someone came forward to talk about Kavanaugh whipping it out, Kavanaugh being part of a culture of taking advantage of young ladies; and lying about boofing, Devil's Triangle, sexcapades, drinking til aggressive, and drinking til blacking out.

Darn "media."

My, my. This really is the Duke lacrosse redux. It's not that there's evidence he did anything specifically; it's who he is and where he comes from that makes him guilty. He's one of those people. He should be pushed just for that.

One of those people who whip it out, jump up and down on the ladies without consent, and try to rape them.

 

[Trausti]

My, my. This really is the Duke lacrosse redux. It's not that there's evidence he did anything specifically; it's who he is and where he comes from that makes him guilty. He's one of those people. He should be pushed just for that.

One of those people who whip it out, jump up and down on the ladies without consent, and try to rape them.

To figure that out, you need to wait 30+ years not knowing the identity of your very own Haven Monahan and then spend a week having your attorney guide you to the politically correct answer. Totally credible.

 

[Elixir]

To figure that out, you need to wait 30+ years not knowing the identity ....

You're assuming someone who is as drunk as your buddy Brett was when he attempted to rape Ms Ford. Someone not quite so shitfaced would probably remember.

 

[Trausti]

To figure that out, you need to wait 30+ years not knowing the identity ....

You're assuming someone who is as drunk as your buddy Brett was when he attempted to rape Ms Ford. Someone not quite so shitfaced would probably remember.

Eh, the whip the dick allegation was the contrivance of Ramierz, not Ford. Due try to keep up with all uncorroborated slander.

 

[Jarhyn]

To figure that out, you need to wait 30+ years not knowing the identity ....

You're assuming someone who is as drunk as your buddy Brett was when he attempted to rape Ms Ford. Someone not quite so shitfaced would probably remember.

Eh, the whip the dick allegation was the contrivance of Ramierz, not Ford. Due try to keep up with all uncorroborated slander.

You keep forgetting that whole "bald faced liars lose the benefit of the doubt" part that most reasonable people operate under. He cried "truth" too many times about boofing, etc., it's no wonder people don't believe his cries of "truth" with respect to rape.

And since we aren't a jail sentence, and because he isn't facing a criminal court or a real FBI investigation, we can ethically believe these charges until such a thing happens to conclude our belief in one way or the other. Of course, we could have seen the FBI confirm or invalidate the position that Tobin's house matches Ford's testimony, but you don't seem to want that to happen. So yeah, Gangbang Bart and the Boofers can go play that tune down on rapist lane for all I care.

 

[Trausti]

Eh, the whip the dick allegation was the contrivance of Ramierz, not Ford. Due try to keep up with all uncorroborated slander.

You keep forgetting that whole "bald faced liars lose the benefit of the doubt" part that most reasonable people operate under. He cried "truth" too many times about boofing, etc., it's no wonder people don't believe his cries of "truth" with respect to rape.

And since we aren't a jail sentence, and because he isn't facing a criminal court or a real FBI investigation, we can ethically believe these charges until such a thing happens to conclude our belief in one way or the other. Of course, we could have seen the FBI confirm or invalidate the position that Tobin's house matches Ford's testimony, but you don't seem to want that to happen. So yeah, Gangbang Bart and the Boofers can go play that tune down on rapist lane for all I care.

Don't forget the boat incident, the one about him abusing his girlfriend in the 90's, and the rape in the backseat of the car. All we need are accusations, right? Burn the witch.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Eh, the whip the dick allegation was the contrivance of Ramierz, not Ford. Due try to keep up with all uncorroborated slander.

You keep forgetting that whole "bald faced liars lose the benefit of the doubt" part that most reasonable people operate under. He cried "truth" too many times about boofing, etc., it's no wonder people don't believe his cries of "truth" with respect to rape.

And since we aren't a jail sentence, and because he isn't facing a criminal court or a real FBI investigation, we can ethically believe these charges until such a thing happens to conclude our belief in one way or the other. Of course, we could have seen the FBI confirm or invalidate the position that Tobin's house matches Ford's testimony, but you don't seem to want that to happen. So yeah, Gangbang Bart and the Boofers can go play that tune down on rapist lane for all I care.

Don't forget the boat incident, the one about him abusing his girlfriend in the 90's, and the rape in the backseat of the car. All we need are accusations, right? Burn the witch.

Republican operatives don't count.