If it does'nt support their position they will embrace the claim that an FBI report means nothing. Just like Crazy Old Uncle Joe Biden pontificated about during the Clarence Thomas hit job. Most likely they will prattle on that the investigation was'nt thorough enough and given enough time therefore it's invalid.I agree that it may help some Republicans vote yes. But count on the Democrats to bray that it doesn’t really clear him when it comes out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
...Most likely they will prattle on that the investigation was'nt thorough enough and given enough time therefore it's invalid.
A license is only pertinent to someone wanting to practice as a Psychologist. Did she claim to be a licensed or practicing Psychologist?Nope, it's totally wrong to call yourself a psychologist based on degree alone. Doctorate doesn't matter either. The License matters. In some states you can get a full or limited license with a master's if it was the right kind (clinical training . practicum, etc). Conversely one could have a Ph.D. in a non-clinical branch and not even be close to being qualified for therapy. Each state rolls different. Not sure what CA's penalty is but in CT it's 5 years in jail for impersonating a psychologist.(Really practicing without a license) I recall being surprised when some of
my Doctoral professors would reply to questions by saying "Well, I'm not sure, I'm not a clinician" when asked about licensing or field work
IF, IF, IF What folks are saying about her it wouldn't matter at the state level because she was out of state. But maybe on the not being truthful while under oath to the Senate.
As an aside, I kind of wondered as her nuerochemical explanation of why her memory couldn't be wrong was, not entirely accurate.
A license is only pertinent to someone wanting to practice as a Psychologist. Did she claim to be a licensed or practicing Psychologist?
Having a PHD would definitely qualify someone as being a Psychologist.