Ford Friend McClean Refutes Polygraph Claim of Ford's Ex-Boyfriend

Politics is a dirty business and as much as we'd all like to think we're above it, our impassioned engagement sometimes makes hypocrites of us all. It's difficult to be objective.

One of the most absurd aspects of this Kavanaugh confirmation soap opera is how much virtue signaling has been going on by the Right in regards to the presumption of innocence. In post after post, thread after thread, Kavanaugh's supporters have shaken their virtual fists in the air proclaiming the demise of due process.

Not that this is a new thing either. We're all given to bouts of self-righteous indignation, myself included. Whenever it's "your guy" that is alleged to have done something, it's always "unfair" and the accusers are always political shills and attention whoring liars. What really strikes me as unusual is just how easily people flit back and forth — in the span of minutes — between ranting about how no allegation by anyone should be taken seriously if it can't be backed up with hard evidence to holding up unprovable allegations and declaring that it's something that needs to be considered.

Case in point — yesterday Fox News published a letter from a man purporting to be the ex-boyfriend of Ford in which he claimed that 20 years ago, he witnessed Ford prepping a friend for a polygraph. If true, the claim contradicts a response given by Ford which could suggest that she'd perjured herself. Though, it should be noted that it's common when people are accused of being misleading, to blame a lack of recollection or comprehension about the specific nature of the question itself.

Had this been an accusation against Kavanaugh, it would have been immediately picked apart by many of the same people giddily treating it as a real mic dropper. Why did they redact his name? WHAT IS THIS PERSON HIDING!? Why would he recall something so trivial from two decades earlier!? Why can't he remember the exact year then?!? Why did he just come forward now? JILTED EX? OMG THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE! TOTAL HIT JOB!

Well... now the person who was named has provided a statement refuting the claim in the letter.

Monica McLean Says Christine Ford Never Coached Her on Polygraph

McLean released the statement to ABC News on Wednesday morning. It said, simply, “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 anytime.” McLean made the statement after an ex-boyfriend of Ford’s told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had seen Ford preparing McLean to take a polygraph.

Now as it turns out, my friend Grambler broke the story of the ex's letter on ATS and being a smart guy and one who is concerned with not being a hypocrite, he was careful to leave open the possibility that the claim wasn't true.

Others... well, not so much.

Under oath?

If not she should submit it under penalty to the committee.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
One of the most absurd aspects of this Kavanaugh confirmation soap opera is how much virtue signaling has been going on by the Right in regards to the presumption of innocence.

One of the most absurd aspects of this Kavanaugh confirmation soap opera is how due process has been disregarded by the left. Especially in the face of zero evidence.

Of course McLean would deny purposefully fooling a lie detector test. Why would she admit to that?

originally posted by: sine.nomine

One of the most absurd aspects of this Kavanaugh confirmation soap opera is how due process has been disregarded by the left.

Not that I have a dog in this stupid both-sides-are-the-same-side-of-the-coin race but how is due process being disregarded? Due process, in the context of giving someone their 'fair chance', applies to trials. The court of public opinion is not a trial.

a reply to: theantediluvian


There is one small difference.

HIS statement was under oath to the Judiciary committee.
HER statement was not under oath to ABC News.

This has become such a beautiful disaster to watch plop out.

Bwaaaaaaa😃😃

Of course she denies it.

What else is new?

👧

a reply to: theantediluvian

I'll just copy paste my thoughts from another thread:

Odd that this was all she said. She didnt deny knowing the guy or that he lived with Ford and most importantly that the timeline fits.

So...how would this guy know she was going to have to take a polygraph for a job that she apparently was starting while he and Ford were together?

He sure knows a lot of facts about someone that just puts out a simple statement that she got now help.

She doesnt deny she took one and I'd guess took it in the timeline he mentions.

So....howd he know?

LOL...methinks she just accidentally admitted to it.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Bwaaaaaaa😃😃

Of course she denies it.

What else is new?

👧

I wonder if McLean would be in trouble for admitting she manipulated her FBI polygraph test.

I cheated on my second wife and my friend covered for me. Does that mean I didn’t do it ?

a reply to: sine.nomine

Not only would she potentially lose her job, but she is also one of the signed supporters of Ford, so it would be foolish to think she would say anything other than complete denial.

On the boyfriends side, there does at least appear corroborating evidence of her taking a poly in that time frame and him being Ford's BF.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
I cheated on my second wife and my friend covered for me. Does that mean I didn’t do it ?

Absolutely! If you're a registered democrat.

What is this "under oath" nonsense...as if that makes their statement anymore credible. . People lie under oath ALL. THE. TIME.

A2D

a reply to: sine.nomine

And here's what I was just speaking to encapsulated in a single post.

One of the most absurd aspects of this Kavanaugh confirmation soap opera is how due process has been disregarded by the left. Especially in the face of zero evidence.

So the Left disregards due process by putting stock in allegations with "zero evidence" but literally in the next sentence, you're talking about this other allegation with zero evidence as though it should be seriously considered:

Of course McLean would deny purposefully fooling a lie detector test. Why would she admit to that?

Also, not to nitpick but you jumped off from what was claimed in the letter and went straight to "purposefully fooling a lie detector."

That's not what was claimed in the letter:

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

Do you see anything about fooling a lie detector?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Had this been an accusation against Kavanaugh...

I love your counterfactual arguments. "Something would be true if it had gone this way".. except it hasn't and is nonsense disguised truth.

Further, to feign indignation against those who don't hold uncorroborated accusations of gang rape to the same equivalence as accusations of lying is absurd, and likely hypocritical.

One of the most absurd aspects of this Kavanaugh confirmation soap opera is how much virtue signaling has been going on by the Right in regards to the presumption of innocence.

So the op doesn't think people deserve it, and those that are calling that SNIP out for what is ?

'Virtue signaling' !!!!!!!

Politics is only a nasty business because BK haters are just plain NASTY people.

The same test she had to pass to get into the FBI?

Yeah, she would fess up to it when her and her BFF is called out on it.

Why doesnt she want to submit this under threat of penalty?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not that I have a dog in this stupid both-sides-are-the-same-side-of-the-coin race but how is due process being disregarded? Due process, in the context of giving someone their 'fair chance', applies to trials. The court of public opinion is not a trial.

For the same reason it shouldn't be disregarded in trials, it is the reasonable, tried and true way to deal with accusations.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: theantediluvian


There is one small difference.

HIS statement was under oath to the Judiciary committee.
HER statement was not under oath to ABC News.

And I'm sure that McLean will give her statement under oath. Why wouldn't she? It's impossible to prove that either is lying.

People lie under oath all the time. It's not Wonder Woman's lasso of truth. Off the top of my head, I can think of a half dozen examples of people lying under oath or at least lying to Congress from just the last year.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

This is purposefully being tried in the court of public opinion to ruin the man's reputation and career. The whole allegation is absurd. Everything about it smells of a distraction.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Then why lie about having coached someone in the first place? Why would they need coaching? I'm only saying McLean has nothing to gain and everything to lose by admitting she was coached.