Christine Ford Published 2008 Article on Self-Hypnosis Used to Retrieve and “Create Artificial Situations”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/huge-christine-ford-published-2008-article-on-self-hypnosis-used-to-retrieve-and-create-artificial-situations/

Christine Ford has not turned over her therapist’s notes to the Senateregarding her suppressed memories about Judge Kavanaugh abusing her decades earlier.

This may be because if the memories were revealed through hypnosis they would be “absolutely inadmissible” in the court of law in many states, including New York and Maryland.

Robert Barnes@Barnes_Law

*chuckle* I understand why Annie upsets you so . . .

No More Mr. White Guy

“They know the optics of 11 white men questioning Dr. Ford … will be so harmful and so damaging to the GOP.” — Areva Martin, CNN legal analyst

“They understand that you have all of these white men who would be questioning this woman … the optics of it would look terrible.” — Gloria Borger, CNN chief political analyst

“Women across this nation should be outraged at what these white men senators are doing to this woman.” — Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif.

“There has been some discussion of the GOP senators who happened to all be … white men.” — Jim Sciutto, CNN correspondent

“What troubles me is now there are … they’re all white men.” — Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan, on CNN

“You’re seeing on display a metaphor for what this party is, which is basically ignorant white men.” — “Morning Joe” contributor Donny Deutsch

“All these white men … stumbling all over themselves asking her, you know, aggressive and obnoxious questions.” — Asha Rangappa, CNN analyst

“What are those — that collection of old white men going to do?” — Cynthia Alksne, MSNBC contributor

“If she testifies in front of the Judiciary Committee, where 11 members are white men …” — Susan Del Percio, Republican political strategist, on MSNBC

“Once again, it will be all white men on the Republican side of the Judiciary Committee.” — CNN anchor Poppy Harlow

“The optics for Republicans are going to be really tricky … You’ve got all white men on the Republican side here …” — Julie Pace, Washington bureau chief for The Associated Press, on CNN

“The Republicans, it happens to be 11 white men still on that side.” — CNN host John Berman

“The Republicans, it is 11 white men, talk to me about how you think the tone inside this hearing on Monday will be perceived?” — Berman, a few minutes later

“On the Republican side, all 11 are white men.” — Berman, again, same show, several minutes later

“What hasn’t changed is the number of white men questioning, certainly, on the Republican side.” — Dana Bash, CNN chief political correspondent

“The Republican side on the Senate Judiciary Committee is all white men …” — Irin Carmon, senior correspondent for New York Magazine, on MSNBC

“Only this crowd of clueless old white guys …” — The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin on Twitter

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said...

 

Who exactly has refuted the charges - other than Kavanaugh?

What is the evidence for his innocence?

 

 

No more thing . . . to reiterate, Judge Kavanaugh is not required to prove anything. He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It's a concept that may seem foreign to you, but it has been long acknowledged in our system of justice . . . until now . . .

I'd like to know:  Where is Keith Ellison's evidence of innocence?  While his accuser has police reports, medical reports... then again, he's an important Democrat so the mob and the liberal media (but, I repeat myself) don't care.  

He is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It's a concept that may seem foreign to you, but it has been long acknowledged in our system of justice 

That would be in a court of law! not in a Senate hearing and not in the court of public opinion.!

As to Ms. Coulter, I will listen to her when she gets her nose operated or goes to a speech therapist. I cannot stand her voice, it gives me hives.

No. you're wrong. Of course, in a kangaroo court of public opinion or in what passes for the world's most deliberative body (the Senate) one is free to pass judgement based on nothing more than, say, the color of the accused skin.

There was a time when that was quite common, but I and millions of other Americans sort of hoped we'd moved beyond this . . .

Perhaps not.

If so, it's a sad day for America . . .

The Case against Kavanaugh Is Collapsing

There is entirely insufficient evidence to prove even one of the terrible allegations against President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

A very strange thing happened over the weekend: If you follow Twitter closely, you’ll notice that the debate over Brett Kavanaugh moved significantly from the central question of last Thursday’s hearing — did he commit sexual assault? — to a raging debate over whether he lied about high-school slang, college drinking, and inside jokes, and whether he was just too “angry” to be a Supreme Court judge.

This torrent of commentary (most of it silly, including competing, furious arguments about how people described anal sex in 1982) obscures an important development: The sexual-assault claims against Kavanaugh are in a state of collapse.

Let’s deal with the easiest issue first. The day before the hearing, Michael Avenatti released a “declaration” by a client, a woman named Julie Swetnick, claiming that she saw Kavanaugh “waiting his turn” for gang rapes after facilitating them by spiking or drugging the punch at high-school parties. She claimed that she went to multiple such parties and was gang raped at one of them, though she would only assert that Kavanaugh was present on that occasion.

The claim against Kavanaugh was transparently absurd. The idea that a person would repeatedly attend gang-rape parties and that the existence of these parties (which would presumably generate multiple victims and bystander-witnesses) remained utterly secret for decades is nonsense. But left-wing Twitter took up the claims with a vengeance, dragging anyone who dared express doubt through the mud. After all, didn’t the Catholic Church scandals prove that crimes could be concealed? Didn’t Sixteen Candles have a subplot about a drunk male geek sleeping with a drunk popular girl? (Yes, that was an actual article in Vox.)

Forgive me for doubting you, but I suspect that it is what Annie says that drives you away, not how she says it.

Besides, she mostly writes her opinions.

I thought we were in the era of #BelieveWomen . . .

Believe her - she's one smart cookie.