That gatewaypundit article sucked. Here's some links that provide a more understandable timeline. The big remodel added a new master bedroom behind the garage that had two doors for egress. There was no need for her to have a second front door after the big remodel was complete in 2008 except that they wanted to convert the old master bedroom into a rental space before 2012 where a therapist had her office for awhile then they rented it to college students and Google interns. You can see in the remodel floorplan that they added an enclave with a sink with cabinets in the back of the old MBR/new rental space. So her testimony about the second front door was BS.
https://www.realclearinvestigations...uments_undermine_fords_exit_door_account.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ns_about_fords_double-door_story__138225.html
https://padailypost.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/building-permit.pdf
Did
you read those articles? Because while they might not not have been as shitty, getting tripped up by simple grammar, the information they contain refutes their arguments. Which their arguments are entirely just speculation, so how you're getting that it "busts" her testimony, well I can certainly speculate about the reason for that.
But hey, you were nice enough to provide things that for you made it clear her testimony about the second door was BS, so let's get to them so we can put an end to this whole stupid line of reasoning.
Hmm, both are from "RealClear____",which I'm not RealClearFamiliar with. Generally not a good sign, but a quick Google seems to indicate they skew right some - but nothing extreme, so ok, let's see about the message first before we think about the messenger.
The first one speculates a bunch about the renovations. It acts like she implied the renovations happened around the same time as the 2012 session (which again, is based on just simple idiocy, just like that article you called shitty). But then we have this:
All the remodeling, including a new bathroom, was completed by February 2010.
Well so much for that, then, eh?
Then it brings up that there was another tenant, a therapist. Oh, now there's something that might prove interesting. Maybe the therapist was there helping deal with her traumatic experience? But you claim the therapist had her old office (what, you know that's the new master bedroom, right?) and then rented it to college students and Google interns. Well, let's see what the articles have to offer there.
This is from the second article:
It is listed as this person’s residence from 1993 to July 2007, a week or so after she sold the house to the Fords. Her name is Dr. Sylvia Randall, and she listed this address for her California licensed practice of psychotherapy, including couples psychotherapy, until her move to Oregon in 2007.
Oh yes, what a bombshell, she still had it listed as her residence for a week after she sold it, to the Fords. Oh no, online directories still have it listed for her professional address even though she had moved to Oregon the same year she sold the house to the Fords. I'm sure its completely impossible that they haven't been updated or anything. The therapist was operating out of it
before the Ford's owned it, not after. You know, when the therapist own the house, before selling it to them. The second article then speculates on this therapist, oh look she wouldn't say if she was or wasn't the Ford's therapist, but she is a couples therapist and even specializes in that type of trauma. Oh, well then the first article nicely refutes that speculation. She was not the Ford's therapist. Well shit. All that rampant speculation for no fucking reason. Although, I'm not sure where exactly they were expecting it to lead.
Oh, and since that happened in 2007, before the Ford's applied for and got granted a permit for renovations, in 2008, it has fucking nothing to do with it. But hey, why let that put an end to the speculation about the Ford's renting it out to businesses and all manner of people? You clearly didn't read the fucking articles yourself if you're claiming she rented it to this therapist after the renovations but before 2012. But then you completely ignore that the therapist lived and ran her business out of the house from 1993 to 2007, when she sold it to the Fords. So, uh, where is your proof that they renovated it to be a closed off space so they could rent it to this therapist for her business before then renting it to college kids and interns? Because its not in either of those articles. Which you clearly didn't fucking read if you're claiming that.
So that's pretty fishy. But hey, so they didn't rent it to the therapist, they're renting it to Googlers and students! So see, they still renovated that to be a closed off section specifically to rent it out.
I don't know, maybe we should take a look at that floorplan. It might help to clear things up.
The renovated space says bedroom-den for the room with the 2nd front door. But, wait, that room is still connected to the rest of the house internally by a door/hallway, so according to the the renovation floorplan, it is not "self-contained" at all. And also the claim that she doesn't even have access to it any more doesn't hold up either. Huh, so much for it having been built only for them to rent this separate space. Although it would make more sense if they had done that actually, as this way they would be isolated and not have direct access to the rest of the house. But it still is.
Maybe they lock that inside door or its blocked off some how. But...uh, so yeah they added a sink and some cabinets, like for a little kitchen area, right? But they took out the bathroom that used to be off that room when it was the master bedroom? That's a weird decision to make if its supposed to be a closed off area for renting out, don't you think? Are they expecting their tenant to use the sink to bathe and go to the bathroom? Why would they add a sink but remove the toilet and bath/shower? Especially if that room was supposed to be its own sectioned off from the rest of the house as a rental?
Ok, so they "host" some Google interns, which hell I'll give you that they probably started doing Airbnb or something, although I haven't seen anything yet to support that they do rent it or how long they've been doing that (despite these articles speculating that was the whole point of the second front door when they did the renovations; which we've already established them and you claiming did it to rent for this therapist doesn't hold up). I don't know if they had kids or something that were living with them and maybe moved out (or still live there?), but that'd be my guess is their kids were still with them, and the room with a second front door was probably a den, hence it was still connected to the rest of the house on the inside. A den, where they might, say, host parties. During which, maybe she might be apprehensive about being stuck in a room with only one exit, possibly because of a traumatic assault that happened to her when she was younger. But that's just me speculating.
Nothing in any of that stuff actually refutes her claim with regards to the second door. The new master bedroom has two exits, and the rest of the house has two exits too. If anything, it actually makes her claim seem more plausible, as this way she has potential exits in other parts of the house where she didn't before.
The one article then speculates that she didn't add a second door on their new beach property even though they applied for permits to renovate it just this year, hinting that well see that proves the whole thing is bullshit. But it (perhaps conveniently?) doesn't specify what doors were already there, so its entirely possible that the master bedroom there already had two exits, so no need to add a second. Or possibly since it wasn't their primary residence, that she wasn't as apprehensive about it. Or, maybe since she sought therapy/counseling, that she no longer feels the need for it, hence why they wouldn't add it now that they're renovating that property. See, that's the thing about speculation, you can speculate literally any fucking thing that you want. But the thing is, when you can read two articles and easily refute their arguments, just using those two arguments information, then your speculation is just stupid.