Sep 30, 2018 by

“I Do Not Believe Christine Blasey Ford”

By Donna Garner


Christine Blasey Ford may well have committed perjury.

Chadwick Moore has presented very credible research that proves Christine Blasey Ford is not a licensed psychologist and may have committed perjury by misrepresenting herself in her sworn testimony against Brett Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 9.27.18.  Excerpts from Moore’s article are posted further on down the page.

To verify for myself, I utilized the following two public links searching under the names “Christine Blasey Ford,” “Christine Ford,” and “Christine Blasey.”  She is not listed as a licensed psychologist:  https://search.dca.ca.gov/ and https://search.dca.ca.gov/resultsWhen entering those three names, the website displayed “No Results Matched Your Search Criteria.” 

I also checked to see what I could find about Christine Blasey on the Stanford Medicine CAP Files. Here is the link to the people listed, and her name is listed there as “Christine Blasey.”  However, when I clicked on her name to view more of her information, the page is very stark and appears to have been scrubbed of pertinent information: https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/christine-blasey

At the bottom of the page, I have listed numerous resources that cast doubts about the credibility of Christine Blasey Ford.  Please take the time to go through them to verify the information for yourself.


“Records Show Dr. Ford Is Not a Licensed Psychologist, May Have Committed Perjury”

By Chadwick Moore, Editor-in-Chief

TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE, PLEASE GO TO: https://www.dangerous.com/49836/records-show-dr-ford-is-not-a-licensed-psychologist-may-have-committed-perjury/

Excerpts from this article:

Testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford identified herself as a ‘psychologist,’ but records indict this is a false statement under California law. Someone at Stanford University also appears to have caught the blunder and edited Ford’s faculty page.

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 may have 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, as with almost every other state, 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 database also did not turn up any results for Ford.

…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.”

Whereas the term “research psychologist” may be common in academic parlance, and permissible within accredited institutions, 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…

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.

…If Ford committed perjury, she could face up to five years in federal prison.

Chadwick Moore is a journalist, political commentator, and editor-in-chief of DANGEROUS, currently working on his first book. He tweets at @Chadwick_Moore.



9.29.18 – “Maryland authorities say they’ll investigate Kavanaugh — if a victim files a complaint” – BY Louis Casiano – Fox Newshttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/29/maryland-authorities-say-theyll-investigate-kavanaugh-if-victim-files-complaint.html

Quotes from this article:

Authorities in Maryland on Friday said they were prepared to conduct a state-level criminal investigation into sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh — provided that a victim comes forward.  But Manger and McCarthy noted that prosecution was unlikely in Maryland because authorities would have to apply the law that existed at the time of the offense, not the law that exists now…“For example, in 1982, assault and attempted rape were both misdemeanors and subject to a one-year statute of limitations…To date there have been no criminal reports filed with the Montgomery County Department of Police that would lead to the initiation of any criminal investigation related to Judge Kavanaugh.”


9.30.18 – “Breaking: Christine Ford Caught in Major Lie – Photos Prove House Updates Occurred Much Earlier Than Claims in Senate Testimony”  — by Jim Hoft – The Gateway Pundithttps://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/breaking-christine-ford-caught-in-major-lie-photos-prove-house-updates-occurred-much-earlier-than-senate-testimony/


9.28.18 (11:00 A. M.) — “America Hanging in the Balance Over Supreme Court Choice of Brett Kavanaugh” — By Donna Garner — EdViews.orghttp://www.educationviews.org/america-hanging-in-the-balance-over-supreme-court-choice-of-brett-kavanaugh/


9.27.18 — “Former federal prosecutor, Sidney Powell: Testimony Wasn’t Credible”

LINK TO 8:02 MINUTE YOUTUBE:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLTgUWqV8dk&feature=youtu.be


9.26.18 – “Polygraph expert, University of Maryland’s Thomas Mauriello, says Christine Blasey Ford’s polygraph test unbelievable and useless without specific questions, each on a single issue” by Kathryn Blackhurst – LifeZette — https://www.lifezette.com/2018/09/expert-calls-kavanaugh-accusers-polygraph-test-unbelievable/?utm_medium=email


9.20.18 — “Accuser of Brett Kavanaugh Makes Money from RU-486 Abortion Pills” – by Mike Adams (with comments from Donna Garner) – EdViews.orghttp://www.educationviews.org/accuser-of-kavanaugh-makes-money-from-ru-486-abortion-pills/


On 9.25.18, Politifact  rated Mike Adams’ article with a “Pants on Fire.”  However, I believe the ever-left-leaning Politifact is blinded by its bias.

Without question, Christine Blasey Ford is a Director of Biostatistics at Corcept Therapeutics (CT).  CT makes a pill called “Korlym” whose active ingredient is mifepristone also known as RU-486 (a.k.a., the abortion pill).  CT is using RU-486 to treat Cushing’s syndrome. RU-486 is produced in the Unites States by Danco Laboratories under the brand name “Mifeprex.”  Mifeprex, blocks progestin, needed to sustain pregnancy. Later, a drug is administered called “misoprostol” which causes uterine contractions that ensures the grape-size fetus is expelled.

Even though CT is not directly involved with selling the abortion pill, the company undoubtedly is nervous about any possible U. S. Supreme Court rulings that might limit the sale of RU-486, thus having a negative financial impact on their own research and development.  For CT and Christine Blasey Ford, there is a definite vested interest in making sure that Brett Kavanaugh is not confirmed to the U. S. Supreme Court because of what they think he “might” do.


This explanation about Christine’s financial ties to CT provides motive and a financial incentive for her to make up a fictitious tale which looks believable because of her having grown up in the same general area of Montgomery County, Maryland, and in the same general timeframe as Brett Kavanaugh.  

Christine is also an admitted Silicon Valley Democrat, has donated to George Soros’ organization (ActBlue), comes from a Democrat-dominated family, has been involved in leftist protests against Pres. Trump, and takes legal counsel from two leftist lawyers:  (1) Debra Katz, a DC/#Me Too/sexual harassment lawyer and (2) Michael Bromwich, a DC lawyer who is representing disgraced former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. 

With all of this in mind, I believe Christine Blasey Ford’s political and financial motives for making false allegations against Brett Kavanaugh are quite clear; and I hope that the FBI decides to investigate her with the same care as they investigate Brett Kavanaugh. 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Avatar

    I would love to see a speech or lecture given by Doctor Ford to see if she spoke with the “up talk tone” in her Senate Judiciary Committee testimony. IMHO this was pure theatre!

  2. Avatar

    God you’re an idiot. Of course when one addresses a lib that’s akin to saying the sun is hot.

  3. Avatar

    Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is apparently a Zelig-like figure who has met and posed with every prominent American liberal.

    Photographs show Dr. Christine Blasey Ford with George Soros, Harvey Weinstein, and Bill Clinton.

  4. Avatar
    wanna play devil's triangle?

    instead of reading clearly partisan outlets, perhaps read, you know, the source material. the fact she is not registered is not dispositive to the question. from the state of California’s Board of Psychology:

    “3(b). Exempt Settings

    You are not required to register with the Board if you are employed directly by an educational institution (approved or accredited) a school district or a governmental entity (federal, state, county, municipal, etc.), or if you were functioning under a waiver issued by the following departments: the California Department of Health Care Services pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code Section 5751.2, the California Department of Public Health pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 1277, or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation pursuant to Penal Code Section 5068.5. NOTE: All requirements of Section 1387 of the CCR must be met in order for your hours to count toward the licensure requirements.”


    “However, I believe the ever-left-leaning Politifact is blinded by its bias.”

    in other words, you are not going to take on the arguments in the pf article. just shout “partisan” and declare victory. m’kay . . .

  5. Avatar

    Reading the appalling report of Dr. Ford’s ‘Let’s Pretend’ approach to the misleading Psychologist label she has
    accepted as true (even though she knows full well she has not earned that professional title), I realized my
    misgivings about this woman were well founded. Whatever dark truths may be found to darken Judge Kavanaugh’s road to maturity, the public needs to know that chances are probably close to 100 % that, far from
    actually walking on water or being a modern-day Jeanne d’Arc, Dr. Ford’s reasons for coming forward were
    indeed politically motivated.

  6. Avatar
    Susan A. Nunes

    Why do you persist in posting lies about Ford? Ford is a professor of psychology, but she teaches data analysis and clinical trial design. She never claimed to be a practicing psychologist requiring a license to do so.

    Now let’s stop putting the victim on trial and focus on the drunken rapist you support for the high court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.