It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct comes forward

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil

Thank you!!! I remember Einhorn and the whole debacle... This must be what I'm remembering. (I guess that should be "mi- remembering.")

I wondered then if he was any relation to Ira Einhorn, who was convicted of murdering his girlfriend, but Einhorn said the CIA did it and framed him for it because he "knew too much."

Wow. Haven't thought about all that for decades!

Thank you again!




posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Why then is the person who supposedly pulled Mr. Kavanaugh off of the poor girl, saying that it never happened??! He's written a book and isn't too friendly to him then, so why would he cover for him now?

No proof is necessary when it comes to Democrats, just the seriousness of the charge!

Py



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

" How would you feel if you were molested years ago and not believed when you finally decided to come forward about it ?



I Dunno , but Why would I Wait So Many Years to Tell Anyone about it ? Maybe Because I Do Not Believe it Myself ? ...Hmm....



Well there's no easy solution here as people do lie about these things,in saying that these things also do happen , if an accusation is laid it should be investigated without bias.


So why did Feinstein sit on it until the last minute?




I don't know, do you think these allegations should be thrown out without investigation ?



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Hell no, it should not be thrown out!

This accuser absolutely needs to be investigated! Especially, her bank accounts.

Investigate the heck out of her!!
edit on 17-9-2018 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   
www.politico.com... guess kavanaugh and the alleged victim are both gonan testify before congress on the 24th www.politico.com...

Kavanaugh on Monday vehemently denied the accusation and said he is willing to speak to the committee. “This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone," he said in a statement. "Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday." The White House on Monday reiterated its support for Kavanaugh, reasserting his Friday statement that he "categorically and unequivocally" denies the allegation. “Judge Kavanaugh looks forward to a hearing where he can clear his name of this false allegation," White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement. "He stands ready to testify tomorrow if the Senate is ready to hear him.” Allies of Kavanaugh are pressing forward. The Judicial Crisis Network plans to run $1.5 million in ads to push Kavanaugh across the finish line in a campaign featuring a longtime friend of the judge's, according to a person familiar with the effort. If Kavanaugh's accuser accepts a formal invitation to testify in a public forum it would carry significant political risk for all sides, summoning echoes of Anita Hill's explosive 1991 testimony alleging sexual harassment by now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Such a hearing also could be difficult to follow through on without definitively derailing the GOP's plans to push Kavanaugh to a final vote later this month.
and

But Kavanaugh himself has only doubled down on a strenuous denial of Ford's allegation. The judge told Sen. Orrin Hatch in a Monday phone call that he did not attend the party more than three decades ago at which Ford says the assault occurred, the Utah Republican said. "I believe him. He's a person of immense integrity," Hatch told reporters, declining to address how Kavanaugh could speak definitively about not attending a decades-old event that Ford has only discussed in broad terms. Hatch suggested that Ford may have been "mixed up" in her memory of the night in question. President Donald Trump — rather than criticizing Ford, as he has blasted the #MeToo movement — told reporters Monday that "if it takes a little delay, it'll take a little delay" to vet the allegation. "We want to go through a full process ... and hear everybody out," Trump told reporters, adding that he has not spoken to Kavanaugh about the matter.
still nothing on a delay but apparently he will get to face his accuser before congress on the 24th



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Heck no, it should not be thrown out!

This accuser absolutely needs to be investigated! Especially, her bank accounts.




So did you have a time limit in mind that women are allowed to file allegations within ? Should we be setting time limits ?

Should we be throwing out any allegations made withingva certain time frame ? Abolish #metoo while we are at it ?



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   
www.washingtonpost.com... -f120-11e5-85a6-2132cf446d0a_story.html?utm_term=.224986659db5 still kind of reaks of this whole debacle when they tried to stop Tomas from getting on the bench

Republican Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) in a 2010 CNN interview: I can tell you Clarence Thomas was telling the truth. I believe that Anita Hill was an excellent witness. I think she actually believed and talked herself into believing what she said. There was a sexual harasser at that time, according to the sources I had, and he was her supervisor, he just wasn’t Clarence Thomas. I think she transposed that to where she believed it because she was outed by the feminist women at that time and she couldn’t change her mind after — she couldn’t change her tune. And that’s what happened.
its also interesting to note in the tomas case the judicary said no to his nomination but was approved by the senate any ways which i think will happen again this time



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Heck no, it should not be thrown out!

This accuser absolutely needs to be investigated! Especially, her bank accounts.




So did you have a time limit in mind that women are allowed to file allegations within ? Should we be setting time limits ?

Should we be throwing out any allegations made withingva certain time frame ? Abolish #metoo while we are at it ?


Yes!! I do. This needs to stop. The longer the accuser takes to make accusations, the more obscure and tainted their memory is.

There is no such thing as a one-time-in-thirty years, sexual abuser.

You either are a predator, or you are not. Thirty five years is eff'n ridiculous and people like her (male and/or female) need to be brought up on charges for false allegations.
edit on 17-9-2018 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaYote
a reply to: Lumenari

Must these things always degrade to the Left this, the Right that?
Bottom line, do you want some entitled jerk to attempt rape on your daughter? And then thirty years later he gets to sit on the Supreme Court?
I know there are all sorts of teenage shenanigans, but there is NO Way a person who thinks that it's OK to rape someone as a teenager, has his head on straight. Clearly Kavenaugh would have done so, if his buddy hadn't horsed around/intervened.

By the way, the woman took and passed a lie detector test, let's see if Kavanaugh is willing to take one. (and, yes, lie detector tests are not perfect...blah blah.....)


She never said she was raped, first off.

Secondly, the other guy in the room said it never happened.

Third, why wait 36 years?

All you are seeing is history replaying itself in the same old tired manner... she is the next Anita Hill so the Democrats can attempt a hail Mary.




posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   
www.mediaite.com... think this has been posted turns out the house was never forclosed on and another link is a response from chuck grassley

www.judiciary.senate.gov...

“Anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has deserves to be heard, so I will continue working on a way to hear her out in an appropriate, precedented and respectful manner. “The standard procedure for updates to any nominee’s background investigation file is to conduct separate follow-up calls with relevant parties. In this case, that would entail phone calls with at least Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. Consistent with that practice, I asked Senator Feinstein’s office yesterday to join me in scheduling these follow-ups. Thus far, they have refused. But as a necessary step in evaluating these claims, I’ll continue working to set them up. “Unfortunately, committee Republicans have only known this person's identity from news reports for less than 24 hours and known about her allegations for less than a week. Senator Feinstein, on the other hand, has had this information for many weeks and deprived her colleagues of the information necessary to do our jobs. The Minority withheld even the anonymous allegations for six weeks, only to later decide that they were serious enough to investigate on the eve of the committee vote, after the vetting process had been completed. “It’s deeply disturbing that the existence of these allegations were leaked in a way that seemed to preclude Dr. Ford’s confidentiality. “Over my nearly four decades in the Senate I have worked diligently to protect whistleblowers and get to the bottom of any issue. Dr. Ford’s attorney could have approached my office, while keeping her client confidential and anonymous, so that these allegations could be thoroughly investigated. Nevertheless, we are working diligently to get to the bottom of these claims.”
which seems like pretty strong condemnation of Fienstines behavior on the matter



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
www.newyorker.com... seems the left has feared a kavanaugh confirmation as far back as 2012 during romneys attempt

The precedents supporting the constitutionality of ACA haven’t changed, but the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, has. As in the Senate, moderate Republicans held sway for years at the Supreme Court, but that species has vanished on both sides of First Street. The likes of Lewis Powell and Sandra Day O’Connor have been replaced by the likes of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. In order to strike down health-care reform, the new Republican Justices would have to change the underlying constitutional law, which they have proved themselves more than capable of doing. They have already cut a swath through the Court’s precedents on such issues as race, abortion, and campaign finance, and it’s possible that they will assemble the votes to do the same on the scope of the Commerce Clause. The high-stakes health-care case is a useful reminder of the even higher stakes in the Presidential election. If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh. ♦
i bring this up mostly to provide context of why did she not bring up her accusations then? did she not have a problem with him being a federal judge? and only voiced her complaints on the eve of confirmation to scotus? just smells fishy but i guess they both get to see each other infront of the senate if not a court of law to let him face his accuser



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Can't stand Trump or Hillary..
Given that, the allegations are so late and absurdly timed to fk with this nomination that any sane person has to see this as a ploy.

The only witness says this is bs..many years of background investigation has already happened with no discernable indication of him being a rapist..

Hit piece.. plain and simple.

B



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

She admits she doesn't remember when it happened or where is happened. Originally it was 4 guys in the room now its changed to two. I want very much to believe her however waiting 36 years and than only coming forward because she was outed by the press.

Had the reporters not outed her she would have remained anonymous. Because her story doesn't make sense i see why. I have a feeling alcohol was not the only thing she was on.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   
truepundit.com... / not the biggest fan of trupundit but the other source is reddit and i dont think we are supposed to post links to other message boards but it seems fords brother worked for fusion gps....... which im sure will be interest to some members more then others


Ralph Blasey III, Christine Ford’s brother was formerly employed at the D.C. offices of Baker & Hostetler LLP. That’s the same firm that made payments over over half a million dollars to Fusion GPS. Ralph Blasey III left Baker & Hostetler LLP in 2004. Still, its’ just another rather odd twist to the case of the accuser of Brett Kavanaugh. First it was revealed Ford is a far left, Northern California professor. Then last night it was revealed that Brett Kavanugh’s mother, a Maryland district judge in the 1990’s foreclosure case against Christine Ford’s parents. And now this. Christine Ford’s brother once worked for Baker & Hostetler LLP that paid Fusion GPS $523,651 between March 7, 2016 and Oct. 31, 2016. Even though the payments were made after Blasey III left Baker & Hostetler LLP, one has to wonder (and investigate) his connections with the law firm. He may have had no knowledge at all of the payment. Ralph Blasey might have had ZERO influence with the payment.
so he worked for a lawfirm connected to fusion gps

twitter.com...

Her brother Ralph III worked for Baker Hostetler for 15 years. Baker Hostetler was/is Fusion GPS' law firm. She's affiliated with "Indivisible" in Silicon Valley. Pre-scrubbed her FB and LinkedIn, then lawyered up with a lefty DC feminist lawyer before flipping the switch.


www.latimes.com... as i posted earlier they will both testify next week it seems so that should be an interesting hearing



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   
www.vox.com... older vox article condemning the reliability of polygraphs

"There's no unique physiological sign of deception. And there's no evidence whatsoever that the things the polygraph measures — heart rate, blood pressure, sweating, and breathing — are linked to whether you're telling the truth or not," says Leonard Saxe, a psychologist at Brandeis University who's conducted research into polygraphs. In an exhaustive report, the National Research Council concluded, "Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy." This isn't exactly breaking news: Saxe's 1983 report for Congress ended up leading to a nationwide ban on private employers giving polygraph tests to employees, and a 1998 Supreme Court decision ruled against the use of polygraphic evidence in some federal courts because "there is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable." And yet polygraphs are still routinely used by government agencies and law enforcement. This raises an obvious question: Why are they relying on pseudoscience to screen employees and solve cases?
bring this up as another member stated she passed a polygraph test which are scientifically unreliable if not junk science to use the modern term

also from same source

Controlled lab studies have found that the tests are generally capable of correctly identifying a liar at rates greater than chance, but also incorrectly indicate that lots of honest people are lying too. And the National Research Council has concluded that even these trials are flawed, because they depend on people's responses to mock crimes, which probably don't reflect real-world emotions. When accused of an actual crime, many people understandably become anxious, even if they're innocent. Even worse, these trials aren't conducted on people trained in what investigators call "countermeasures": various strategies aimed at beating the test. Experts conclude that polygraph tests probably are beatable by people with training, a belief demonstrated by the federal government's recent attempts at arresting people offering to teach these methods. Because of all this, the American Psychological Association has recommended against using polygraph tests in investigations or employee screening. Research has consistently shown that polygraphs are not an effective way to reduce recidivism among sex offenders. And the National Research Council has gone so far as to say that federal agencies' overconfidence in the test for screening "presents a danger to national security objectives."


www.cnn.com...

www.smithsonianmag.com...



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Its very disturbing that someone can make an accusation that effects you getting a job with no proof the incident occurred. Having been accused before myself during a divorce id hate to have my job depend on someone who lied. If he didn't do this like he claims his career is being ruined by a false allegation.

Problem is no way to prove or disprove this happened after 35 years. So we have an accusation that can never be proven one way or the other. By default he's innoscent until proven guilty since the accuser cannot show he did it time to move on. If his career is ruined by an unfounded accusation where will it end.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   
dailycaller.com...

During the interview, Katz revealed that there was another girl present at the party, which allegedly took place in 1982 while Kavanaugh was attending Georgetown Prep. Ford previously told the Washington Post that there were four boys at the party but never indicated if there were other girls beside herself. “While we have you, perhaps you can help us fill in the blanks on some of her story. She says that she was at a party in probably 1982 in Montgomery County, Maryland. She says that there were four guys there, these are high school students, as was she. There were four guys there. Were there any girls there that day?” anchor Alisyn Camerota asked. “Yes, there was another girl at this party, yes,” Katz said. Camerota asked if Ford has tried to talk to any of the other partygoers to see if they will corroborate her story, but Katz declined to place the burden of proof on her client. “That’s not her job to do that. If this is going to be investigated, it should be done by investigators,” Katz asserted.
seems like another shift in the official narrative



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

" She never said she was raped, first off.

Secondly, the other guy in the room said it never happened.

Third, why wait 36 years?

All you are seeing is history replaying itself in the same old tired manner... she is the next Anita Hill so the Democrats can attempt a hail Mary."

I did NOT say she was raped or that she said that.... He was attempting to rape her...I said: "there is NO Way a person who thinks that it's OK to rape someone as a teenager, has his head on straight"

And ....again None of us know the whole story.... and again, I am no Democrat - just an American citizen who is sick and tired of corrupt people in BOTH parties, corrupt people running the world.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

" How would you feel if you were molested years ago and not believed when you finally decided to come forward about it ?



I Dunno , but Why would I Wait So Many Years to Tell Anyone about it ? Maybe Because I Do Not Believe it Myself ? ...Hmm....



Well there's no easy solution here as people do lie about these things,in saying that these things also do happen , if an accusation is laid it should be investigated without bias.


So why did Feinstein sit on it until the last minute?


I don't know, do you think these allegations should be thrown out without investigation ?


I think they should be recognized as a political ploy and/or games, and Feinstein should pay some penalty for waiting to the last minute. Perhaps loss of her committee chairs.

I also think the allegations should have been entirely dismissed unless the accuser came forward, which she did. Now I think she should receive as much scrutiny as Kavanaugh has undergone.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Fair enough, one thing is for sure, this is one big mess that needs to be sorted out. Just the fact that generally with these kinds of accusations the court of public opinion find them guilty till proven innocent.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join