EmilyD

Will she be investigated by the FBI too? If not, why not?

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

They will never investigate her,because she is one of DemonCraps anti Trump psycho!!!

glibona Loc: Nevada

Agree... obviously very disturbed and mentally confused individual, being used and also victimized by corrupted dems attempt to destroy Judge Kavanugh's character, life and family in order to obstruct and
prevent or delay his nomination to the Supreme Court...

Also believe the dems d********g display of vitriol and disregard for justice, our rule of law and social civil order will backfire on them in the outcome of the midterm e******ns.

Kevyn

Let me get this straight; even tough the i***t Pumpkinfuhrer controls the justice department and FBI, and the committee is controlled by Republicans you somehow believe democrats are preventing an investigation of Dr. Ford. Are you smoking crack and huffing airplane glue?

waltmoreno

Ford has already perjured herself in front of Congress which carries a maximum of 5 years in prison!

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 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, 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 databased 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.

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 effects 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 v**e. If Ford committed perjury, she could face up to five years in federal prison.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

OK, one more time. The FBI investigates FEDERAL CRIMES, and on occasion runs background checks on individuals tapped for important positions in the government, including applicants for CIA employment. The FBI does not investigate misdemeanors that are solely within the jurisdiction of local law enforcement.

In this case, even the Bethesda police or Montgomery county sheriff or Maryland State Police could not possibly launch an investigation into Ford's allegations simply because Ford is unable to provide sufficient information, such as date, day, place and time, Ford cannot even explain how she got home, and there are no corroborating witnesses. Where would the detectives or investigators even begin? How could they get a search warrant if they don't know what house to search? And, even if they knew this, after 36 years, who would be living in the house now? If they got permission from the current occupant, what would they find? Would they find any forensic evidence such as a "blue dress", a soiled cigar, fingerprints, DNA, a pubic hair, a stain, empty beer bottles?

I watched Rachel Mitchell's entire questioning of Ford and all I can say is if that woman were put on the witness stand in a court of law, even a third rate defense attorney would tear her testimony to shreds. I swear I've never seen such pathetic, non-committal and vague responses to direct questions in my life. Ford's story leaks like a screen door in a submarine.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

She will be as much a part of the investigation as anyone else involved, that's how investigations work.

Lonewolf

Brett has also lied to congress

waltmoreno

Besides lying about being a psychologist (see my earlier entry about Cal state law requires one to be licensed, ie, taking a rigorous examination before holding themselves out as a psychologist), it seems that Ford also lied about when the repressed memory surfaced as well as what caused it to surface.

(Gateway Pundit) – Christine Blasey Ford told the US Senate Judiciary Committee that the memories of Brett Kavanaugh “first came up” when she went into counseling in 2012. In May 2012 Ford and her husband argued over her desire to add “a second front door” to their home. Ford told the committee on Thursday the desire for a second door was because Brett Kavanaugh made her “claustrophobic.”

But there may have been something else…
As Paul Sperry reported on Thursday night. The Palo Alto building permits were issued to Ford and her husband in 2008 — NOT 2012.
Palo Alto bldg permit records raise questions about Ford’s testimony she completed an “extensive remodel” of home in 2012 & that this was seminal event that led her down path to coming out against Kavanaugh b/c she needed to add an escape door. Permit was issued in 2008.

Ford claims she's not "political" & that reason Kavanaugh first "came up in counseling" in May 2012 was that she & her husband argued over her desire to add "a second front door" to home b/c Kavanaugh had made her "claustrophobic." But there may have been something else ...

Palo Alto bldg permit records raise questions about Ford's testimony she completed an “extensive remodel” of home in 2012 & that this was seminal event that led her down path to coming out against Kavanaugh b/c she needed to add an escape door. Permit was issued in 2008
More… Ford may have been talking about a addition that they rent out.

Palo Alto bldg permit records raise questions about Ford's testimony she completed an “extensive remodel” of home in 2012 & that this was seminal event that led her down path to coming out against Kavanaugh b/c she needed to add an escape door. Permit was issued in 2008

She built an addition on the house that they rent out !!!!! not for safety I pulled the property tax records she even said they use for google interns been verified even shows renters that receive mail at that address

EmilyD

Thank you for all this insightful information! Very interesting. I was wondering about the renovations to her house - it sounds like she wanted a private entryway for her renters. But maybe she won't have to rent any more, since she's got over half a million in her Go Fund Me page.

Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!

THANK YOU
Now that question is, will Dems let this go after the specified week is over?

bahmer

Amen and Amen

debeda

Interesting. Thanks for the info!

debeda

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

Yes there is a date it may not be the correct one and they do have names some investigations have started with less. The date is when on his calender where the friends were suppose to meet. The names you know. If the state feels strongly enough there is enough to follow through. Whether it's worth it or not that has to be decided. As for search warrant your right it would be pretty useless.