Ford’s Lying Legal Team In Deep Trouble – Sena
Post# of 65629
(Total Views: 161)
Posted On: 10/06/2018 11:09:23 AM
Ford’s Lying Legal Team In Deep Trouble – Senate Committee Just Made Announcement
Sounds like Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team might have gotten themselves into deep doo-doo.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a statement on Tuesday that points to the possibility that her legal team violated the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. How? Well, apparently it was by withholding key information from their client.
During her hearing on Thursday, Ford made it really obvious that she did not have a clue that the Senate Judiciary Committee supposedly offered more than once to come to her to get her testimony in a more private setting as she had wanted.
“I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request,” Ford said at one point during her testimony.
Trending: Christine Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Drops Massive Bomb Moments Before Kavanaugh Vote
But she was wrong. It wasn’t unrealistic, it was an option all along, and that option was clearly not disclosed to her, despite her asking for it. The court directly asked her if her attorneys had informed her about the committee offering to meet her in California, Michael Bromwich, one of her attorneys was quick to interject. He interjected just to say she didn’t need to answer the question, claiming attorney-client privilege.
https://rwnofficial.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/5bad3e833d9ef72e178b456c-750-562.jpg
Share Tweet Flip Plus Email
Sounds like Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team might have gotten themselves into deep doo-doo.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a statement on Tuesday that points to the possibility that her legal team violated the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. How? Well, apparently it was by withholding key information from their client.
During her hearing on Thursday, Ford made it really obvious that she did not have a clue that the Senate Judiciary Committee supposedly offered more than once to come to her to get her testimony in a more private setting as she had wanted.
“I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request,” Ford said at one point during her testimony.
Trending: Christine Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Drops Massive Bomb Moments Before Kavanaugh Vote
But she was wrong. It wasn’t unrealistic, it was an option all along, and that option was clearly not disclosed to her, despite her asking for it. The court directly asked her if her attorneys had informed her about the committee offering to meet her in California, Michael Bromwich, one of her attorneys was quick to interject. He interjected just to say she didn’t need to answer the question, claiming attorney-client privilege.
Ford responded anyway.
“I just appreciate that you did offer that,” she said. “I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you — had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not — it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.”
How about that folks? Not suspicious at all right? Wrong. It’s very suspicious.
“As detailed in the committee’s letter Tuesday, their offer to come to Ford was made repeatedly, unequivocally, and even publicly.
The committee provides the following summary of the three times it offered to Ford’s Democrat activist attorneys, Bromwich and Debora Katz, to come to Ford to avoid prolonging the difficult process and the spectacle of a public hearing, which Ford insisted she wanted to do:
“On three occasions, Grassley and Judiciary Committee staff told Ford’s lawyers that committee investigators were willing to come to her.”
“· On September 19, Chairman Grassley sent a letter to Ford’s attorney Debra Katz informing her that committee staff “would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her.”
“· On September 21, committee staff sent an email to Ms. Katz saying that “the Chairman has offered the ability for Dr. Ford to testify in an open session, a closed session, a public staff interview, and a private staff interview. The Chairman is even willing to fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford and you in California, or anywhere else, to obtain Dr. Ford’s testimony.”
“· On September 22, committee staff again wrote an email to Dr. Ford’s lawyers, reminding them that “committee investigators are available to meet with Dr. Ford, anywhere and anytime, if she would prefer to provide her testimony outside of a hearing setting.”
“ The committee suggests that Ford’s lawyers have some major questions to answer regarding their apparent attempt to block their own client from knowing about the offer, which would be a clear violation of the ABA code of professional conduct. ”
“Clearly, Ford’s attorneys did not tell her that we could protect her privacy and speak to her in California,” the committee concludes. “The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct require a lawyer to consult with his or her client about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives—including informing the client of settlement offers.
“It is deeply unfortunate that Ford’s Democratic-activist lawyers appear to have used Ford in order to advance their own political agenda. A lot of pain and hardship could have been avoided had Ford’s attorneys informed her of the committee’s offer to meet her in California to receive her testimony.”
Share Tweet Flip Plus Email
Sounds like Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team might have gotten themselves into deep doo-doo.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a statement on Tuesday that points to the possibility that her legal team violated the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. How? Well, apparently it was by withholding key information from their client.
During her hearing on Thursday, Ford made it really obvious that she did not have a clue that the Senate Judiciary Committee supposedly offered more than once to come to her to get her testimony in a more private setting as she had wanted.
“I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request,” Ford said at one point during her testimony.
Trending: Christine Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Drops Massive Bomb Moments Before Kavanaugh Vote
But she was wrong. It wasn’t unrealistic, it was an option all along, and that option was clearly not disclosed to her, despite her asking for it. The court directly asked her if her attorneys had informed her about the committee offering to meet her in California, Michael Bromwich, one of her attorneys was quick to interject. He interjected just to say she didn’t need to answer the question, claiming attorney-client privilege.
Ford responded anyway.
“I just appreciate that you did offer that,” she said. “I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you — had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not — it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.”
How about that folks? Not suspicious at all right? Wrong. It’s very suspicious.
“As detailed in the committee’s letter Tuesday, their offer to come to Ford was made repeatedly, unequivocally, and even publicly. The committee provides the following summary of the three times it offered to Ford’s Democrat activist attorneys, Bromwich and Debora Katz, to come to Ford to avoid prolonging the difficult process and the spectacle of a public hearing, which Ford insisted she wanted to do:
“On three occasions, Grassley and Judiciary Committee staff told Dr. Ford’s lawyers that committee investigators were willing to come to her.”
“· On September 19, Chairman Grassley sent a letter to Dr. Ford’s attorney Debra Katz informing her that committee staff “would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her.”
“· On September 21, committee staff sent an email to Ms. Katz saying that “ he Chairman has offered the ability for Dr. Ford to testify in an open session, a closed session, a public staff interview, and a private staff interview. The Chairman is even willing to fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford and you in California, or anywhere else, to obtain Dr. Ford’s testimony.”
“· On September 22, committee staff again wrote an email to Dr. Ford’s lawyers, reminding them that “committee investigators are available to meet with Dr. Ford, anywhere and anytime, if she would prefer to provide her testimony outside of a hearing setting.”
“The committee suggests that Ford’s lawyers have some major questions to answer regarding their apparent attempt to block their own client from knowing about the offer, which would be a clear violation of the ABA code of professional conduct.”
“Clearly, Dr. Ford’s attorneys did not tell her that we could protect her privacy and speak to her in California,” the committee concludes. “The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct require a lawyer to consult with his or her client about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives—including informing the client of settlement offers.
“It is deeply unfortunate that Dr. Ford’s Democratic-activist lawyers appear to have used Dr. Ford in order to advance their own political agenda. A lot of pain and hardship could have been avoided had Dr. Ford’s attorneys informed her of the committee’s offer to meet her in California to receive her testimony.”
Here is what we know:
– Christine Blasey Ford ‘wasn’t clear’ that the Committee had offered to come to her in California for a private interview instead of it being public at a Washington hearing.
– Christine Blasey Ford made it obvious that she wanted to avoid the media craze of a public hearing, but had no clue it was an option offered by the committee.
Why does any of this matter? It matters because of the delay that was caused due to Ford having to travel to Washington for the interview. The timeline played in favor for the Democrats and their agenda against Kavanaugh.
What you will find below is the full statement that was issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford indicated that she had not been made aware of multiple offers made by Chairman Chuck Grassley to send staff to California to interview her, a format that she said she would have preferred. Those offers were made in public statements and in statements directly to Dr. Ford’s attorneys in the days leading up to her public testimony. Here’s a summary of those offers:”
“On three occasions, Grassley and Judiciary Committee staff told Dr. Ford’s lawyers that committee investigators were willing to come to her.”
“· Ford said, “I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request.”
“· When Ford was asked if her attorneys had told her about the committee’s offer to meet her in California, her lawyers objected to her answering the question.
She answered anyway, saying “I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you—had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not—it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.’”
Knowing this, doesn’t it seem like Ford’s attorneys were manipulating her by withholding the fact that the Committee could come to her for the interview?
It is their job to make her aware of her rights and options. What do you think about this circus of attorneys?
https://rwnofficial.com/fords-lying-legal-tea...ouncement/
Do you suspect that there was a hidden agenda behind all of this, or do you think it’s a mere mistake with no harm intended?
https://rwnofficial.com/fords-lying-legal-tea...ouncement/
Sounds like Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team might have gotten themselves into deep doo-doo.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a statement on Tuesday that points to the possibility that her legal team violated the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. How? Well, apparently it was by withholding key information from their client.
During her hearing on Thursday, Ford made it really obvious that she did not have a clue that the Senate Judiciary Committee supposedly offered more than once to come to her to get her testimony in a more private setting as she had wanted.
“I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request,” Ford said at one point during her testimony.
Trending: Christine Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Drops Massive Bomb Moments Before Kavanaugh Vote
But she was wrong. It wasn’t unrealistic, it was an option all along, and that option was clearly not disclosed to her, despite her asking for it. The court directly asked her if her attorneys had informed her about the committee offering to meet her in California, Michael Bromwich, one of her attorneys was quick to interject. He interjected just to say she didn’t need to answer the question, claiming attorney-client privilege.
Share Tweet Flip Plus Email
Sounds like Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team might have gotten themselves into deep doo-doo.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a statement on Tuesday that points to the possibility that her legal team violated the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. How? Well, apparently it was by withholding key information from their client.
During her hearing on Thursday, Ford made it really obvious that she did not have a clue that the Senate Judiciary Committee supposedly offered more than once to come to her to get her testimony in a more private setting as she had wanted.
“I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request,” Ford said at one point during her testimony.
Trending: Christine Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Drops Massive Bomb Moments Before Kavanaugh Vote
But she was wrong. It wasn’t unrealistic, it was an option all along, and that option was clearly not disclosed to her, despite her asking for it. The court directly asked her if her attorneys had informed her about the committee offering to meet her in California, Michael Bromwich, one of her attorneys was quick to interject. He interjected just to say she didn’t need to answer the question, claiming attorney-client privilege.
Ford responded anyway.
“I just appreciate that you did offer that,” she said. “I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you — had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not — it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.”
How about that folks? Not suspicious at all right? Wrong. It’s very suspicious.
“As detailed in the committee’s letter Tuesday, their offer to come to Ford was made repeatedly, unequivocally, and even publicly.
The committee provides the following summary of the three times it offered to Ford’s Democrat activist attorneys, Bromwich and Debora Katz, to come to Ford to avoid prolonging the difficult process and the spectacle of a public hearing, which Ford insisted she wanted to do:
“On three occasions, Grassley and Judiciary Committee staff told Ford’s lawyers that committee investigators were willing to come to her.”
“· On September 19, Chairman Grassley sent a letter to Ford’s attorney Debra Katz informing her that committee staff “would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her.”
“· On September 21, committee staff sent an email to Ms. Katz saying that “the Chairman has offered the ability for Dr. Ford to testify in an open session, a closed session, a public staff interview, and a private staff interview. The Chairman is even willing to fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford and you in California, or anywhere else, to obtain Dr. Ford’s testimony.”
“· On September 22, committee staff again wrote an email to Dr. Ford’s lawyers, reminding them that “committee investigators are available to meet with Dr. Ford, anywhere and anytime, if she would prefer to provide her testimony outside of a hearing setting.”
“ The committee suggests that Ford’s lawyers have some major questions to answer regarding their apparent attempt to block their own client from knowing about the offer, which would be a clear violation of the ABA code of professional conduct. ”
“Clearly, Ford’s attorneys did not tell her that we could protect her privacy and speak to her in California,” the committee concludes. “The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct require a lawyer to consult with his or her client about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives—including informing the client of settlement offers.
“It is deeply unfortunate that Ford’s Democratic-activist lawyers appear to have used Ford in order to advance their own political agenda. A lot of pain and hardship could have been avoided had Ford’s attorneys informed her of the committee’s offer to meet her in California to receive her testimony.”
Share Tweet Flip Plus Email
Sounds like Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team might have gotten themselves into deep doo-doo.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a statement on Tuesday that points to the possibility that her legal team violated the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. How? Well, apparently it was by withholding key information from their client.
During her hearing on Thursday, Ford made it really obvious that she did not have a clue that the Senate Judiciary Committee supposedly offered more than once to come to her to get her testimony in a more private setting as she had wanted.
“I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request,” Ford said at one point during her testimony.
Trending: Christine Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Drops Massive Bomb Moments Before Kavanaugh Vote
But she was wrong. It wasn’t unrealistic, it was an option all along, and that option was clearly not disclosed to her, despite her asking for it. The court directly asked her if her attorneys had informed her about the committee offering to meet her in California, Michael Bromwich, one of her attorneys was quick to interject. He interjected just to say she didn’t need to answer the question, claiming attorney-client privilege.
Ford responded anyway.
“I just appreciate that you did offer that,” she said. “I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you — had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not — it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.”
How about that folks? Not suspicious at all right? Wrong. It’s very suspicious.
“As detailed in the committee’s letter Tuesday, their offer to come to Ford was made repeatedly, unequivocally, and even publicly. The committee provides the following summary of the three times it offered to Ford’s Democrat activist attorneys, Bromwich and Debora Katz, to come to Ford to avoid prolonging the difficult process and the spectacle of a public hearing, which Ford insisted she wanted to do:
“On three occasions, Grassley and Judiciary Committee staff told Dr. Ford’s lawyers that committee investigators were willing to come to her.”
“· On September 19, Chairman Grassley sent a letter to Dr. Ford’s attorney Debra Katz informing her that committee staff “would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her.”
“· On September 21, committee staff sent an email to Ms. Katz saying that “ he Chairman has offered the ability for Dr. Ford to testify in an open session, a closed session, a public staff interview, and a private staff interview. The Chairman is even willing to fly female staff investigators to meet Dr. Ford and you in California, or anywhere else, to obtain Dr. Ford’s testimony.”
“· On September 22, committee staff again wrote an email to Dr. Ford’s lawyers, reminding them that “committee investigators are available to meet with Dr. Ford, anywhere and anytime, if she would prefer to provide her testimony outside of a hearing setting.”
“The committee suggests that Ford’s lawyers have some major questions to answer regarding their apparent attempt to block their own client from knowing about the offer, which would be a clear violation of the ABA code of professional conduct.”
“Clearly, Dr. Ford’s attorneys did not tell her that we could protect her privacy and speak to her in California,” the committee concludes. “The ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct require a lawyer to consult with his or her client about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives—including informing the client of settlement offers.
“It is deeply unfortunate that Dr. Ford’s Democratic-activist lawyers appear to have used Dr. Ford in order to advance their own political agenda. A lot of pain and hardship could have been avoided had Dr. Ford’s attorneys informed her of the committee’s offer to meet her in California to receive her testimony.”
Here is what we know:
– Christine Blasey Ford ‘wasn’t clear’ that the Committee had offered to come to her in California for a private interview instead of it being public at a Washington hearing.
– Christine Blasey Ford made it obvious that she wanted to avoid the media craze of a public hearing, but had no clue it was an option offered by the committee.
Why does any of this matter? It matters because of the delay that was caused due to Ford having to travel to Washington for the interview. The timeline played in favor for the Democrats and their agenda against Kavanaugh.
What you will find below is the full statement that was issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford indicated that she had not been made aware of multiple offers made by Chairman Chuck Grassley to send staff to California to interview her, a format that she said she would have preferred. Those offers were made in public statements and in statements directly to Dr. Ford’s attorneys in the days leading up to her public testimony. Here’s a summary of those offers:”
“On three occasions, Grassley and Judiciary Committee staff told Dr. Ford’s lawyers that committee investigators were willing to come to her.”
“· Ford said, “I was hoping that they would come to me, but then I realized that was an unrealistic request.”
“· When Ford was asked if her attorneys had told her about the committee’s offer to meet her in California, her lawyers objected to her answering the question.
She answered anyway, saying “I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and had you—had been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not—it wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.’”
Knowing this, doesn’t it seem like Ford’s attorneys were manipulating her by withholding the fact that the Committee could come to her for the interview?
It is their job to make her aware of her rights and options. What do you think about this circus of attorneys?
https://rwnofficial.com/fords-lying-legal-tea...ouncement/
Do you suspect that there was a hidden agenda behind all of this, or do you think it’s a mere mistake with no harm intended?
https://rwnofficial.com/fords-lying-legal-tea...ouncement/
(1)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼