It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good indication the Committee investigators knew about the "lessons" before the "Dr Ford" hearing.
Click Click
😎
Absolutely.
I thought the question about coaching someone how to take a polygraph was odd....they totally already knew.
Hey, you're right! That was an odd question for the Prosecutor to ask Ford.
Can you recall any other "trap" questions like that?
This might explain why the FBI (as of this afternoon) is not returning Ford's attorneys phone calls...requesting that they interview her. (Unless the attorneys are lying about that.)
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: proximo
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Good indication the Committee investigators knew about the "lessons" before the "Dr Ford" hearing.
Click Click
😎
Absolutely.
I thought the question about coaching someone how to take a polygraph was odd....they totally already knew.
Why?
That seems like a standard question you would ask someone that has taken a polygraph to me.
I think you guys are reading way way to much into this Mcclean stuff. The only reason he mentioned that is she claimed she was scared of the polygraph in her testimony, and he is calling BS.
To me this letter is all about reducing her credibility - which it does. No mention of the attack, no fear of confined spaces, no fear of flying.
You think a standard question would be to ask if someone has ever coached another person on how to pass one?
That would be odd. I could see asking if she herself had been coached but not if she had coached someone...both questions were asked.
She had no credibility in the first place....nobody she named backed her story and she couldn't remember anything that could actually make it credible.
originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: burntheships
This is so strange. Grassley sounds angry in that letter. But it also implies that he just found out now that she had helped someone pass a polygraph. That shoots the theory that they knew in advance, unless he is bluffing.
originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Grambler
Grassley calls the boyfriend letter a "sworn statement", so it seems it would have been sent directly to the committee.
originally posted by: Muninn
When this is all over with we will witness the scum from both sides.
Trump and Co. are playing this game perfectly.
originally posted by: madmac5150
I wonder what she looks like in orange?
originally posted by: Carcharadon
originally posted by: Muninn
When this is all over with we will witness the scum from both sides.
Trump and Co. are playing this game perfectly.
Ever since he came down the elevator. The more things unfold the more convinced I am that what we see has been planned for a long time. Trump has some brilliant strategists working with him and they know exactly how these bottom feeders operate.
originally posted by: Carcharadon
originally posted by: madmac5150
I wonder what she looks like in orange?
I wonder how the bottom feeders and treason rats look with hemp neckties.