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.

 

Kavanaugh Accuser Says, "I Thought He Might Inadvertently Kill Me "

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Either way Kavenaugh is continuing to refute these claims and said in his statement he is willing to testify before the committee regarding these allegations. Without evidence, this will be a he said she said, even if both parties are under oath.

That's just my observation, in an attempt to reserve judgement and the whole due process thing (innocent until proven guilty etc)...




posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

1) SCOTUS judges aren't elected
2) Kavanaugh hasn't been confirmed yet
3) This confirmation process is being performed at a blisteringly and unprecedented fast pace so any accusations coming forward now seem late in the game
4) If she isn't credible, then stop slandering her character and intentions and just subpoena her. She already said she is willing to testify.
edit on 17-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   
What evidence could she bring? There's no blue dress.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Either way Kavenaugh is continuing to refute these claims and said in his statement he is willing to testify before the committee regarding these allegations. Without evidence, this will be a he said she said, even if both parties are under oath.

That's just my observation, in an attempt to reserve judgement and the whole due process thing (innocent until proven guilty etc)...

Of course Kavanaugh is going to deny these allegations. Talk to anyone in prison and they'll all tell you they didn't do it. Sheesh... How about instead of having him testify (or in addition to him doing it) we get Christine Blasey Ford to testify?
edit on 17-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
What evidence could she bring? There's no blue dress.

There's the therapy session notes from 2012 which corroborates her story.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Next the therapist will be invited to testify.

Then the notes will need to be scientifically dated.

And then it's Election day. Kavanaugh not confirmed yet.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I dont know if I wasnt clear enough in my post, but that's what I was referring to when I said it would turn into a he said she said without evidence, and it looks like they may both testify under oath...

One would wonder if Kavanough really is denying these accusations, if he plans on suing her for defamation?



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually she referenced 4 males in the notes, which she stated was an error on the part of the psychiatrist...



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

Kavanaugh, is attempting a hail mary right now by flat out saying the altercation didn't even happen. He isn't saying that it happened but not as severe. He is straight up saying they never did anything. That's a little extreme for a denial when it is easier to muddy the waters by merely insisting that the situation wasn't as bad as described. I find that puzzling considering the credible therapy notes.

Furthermore, how does the existence of the therapy notes lead credence to this being a he said/she said situation? If she talked about this story during a time in her life outside of today's circumstances than it increases the credibility of the story substantially. Kavanaugh only has his buddy backing him up. Can't really say that a friend is the most credible witness though.
edit on 17-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Next the therapist will be invited to testify.

Then the notes will need to be scientifically dated.

And then it's Election day. Kavanaugh not confirmed yet.

So? What's the problem? Afraid that Kavanaugh won't be able to survive a confirmation when the Dems take over? Aren't the Repubs supposed to maintain control of the Senate though? So I'm confused why you are scared of this outcome here.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually she referenced 4 males in the notes, which she stated was an error on the part of the psychiatrist...

There were four males. The situation was that there were four males at the party but only 2 participated in the assault. The therapist didn't expand on that in her notes so that is why Ford calls it an error on the psychiatrist's part. The psych at the time probably didn't think that detail was overly important to dealing with Ford's mental health and prioritized other things to discuss with her.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The only corroboration is that Ford made a claim.

Recalling a 30 year old story is spotty at best.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You don't think it leads credence even slightly to the plausibility of her story if she told it to a marriage counselor in an attempt to fix her marriage 5 years before any current events went down? I really feel like a lot of you guys go out of your way to disbelieve anyone who claims something bad against a conservative politician.
edit on 17-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

1) SCOTUS judges aren't elected
2) Kavanaugh hasn't been confirmed yet
3) This confirmation process is being performed at a blisteringly and unprecedented fast pace so any accusations coming forward now seem late in the game
4) If she isn't credible, then stop slandering her character and intentions and just subpoena her. She already said she is willing to testify.


Doesn’t matter. The accuser came out of the woodwork over 30 years later, at the exact moment his character is being put under a microscope. Sexual assault is not a political tool.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Actually she came out anonymously 3 months ago, but she said the press mishandled the revelations and decided to drop the anonymity recently.

Though regardless, as I pointed out to another poster in this thread, there is no statute of limitations in Maryland on sexual assault. 1 year, 10 years, 30 years, 80 years as long as the evidence is credible then a case can be brought forward and tried. Kavanaugh isn't an exception because he is about to confirmed to the SCOTUS.

Would you rather he be confirmed then ultimately investigated for these allegations and then impeached (if found guilty)? Personally, I think it is better for the national narrative to settle this matter before he is confirmed regardless of guilt. Less messy all around.
edit on 17-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Actually she came out anonymously 3 months ago, but she said the press mishandled the revelations and decided to drop the anonymity recently.

Though regardless, as I pointed out to another poster in this thread, there is no statute of limitations in Maryland on sexual assault. 1 year, 10 years, 30 years, 80 years as long as the evidence is credible then a case can be brought forward and tried. Kavanaugh isn't an exception because he is about to confirmed to the SCOTUS.

Would you rather he be confirmed then ultimately investigated for these allegations and then impeached (if found guilty)? Personally, I think it is better for the national narrative to settle this matter before he is confirmed regardless of guilt. Less messy all around.


There are reasons for statute of limitations, and this sort of circus is one of them.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

No. The reason for a statute of limitations is to prevent evidence degradation. Not to protect politicians 30 years after misbehavior. However, none of this matters since Maryland still doesn't have statute of limitations on sexual assault no matter what you think about them.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Im not going out of my way.

Here is my take:

She hates Trump, as has been shown. She has an axe to grind against Kavanaugh, as has been shown. Judge, the person claimed as a witness, states she is FOS.

Seems like its plausible that she inserted Kavanaughs name in place of whoever the unnammed person from the 2012 therapist report.

Nonetheless...i am wholly disinterested in what someone did in high school. I would be considered a good person by any standard (believe it or not). My reputation is one of high integrity and strong character. But as a high schooler i was a raging asshole full of typical teen angst. It boggles the mind how anyone can find this story relevant, if they choose to find it credible.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then I would recommend an investigation be started immediately. The FBI chose to decline, and I am of the opinion that filing a false report should be the next step without some kind of actual proof.

To me, it appears that referring this matter to the FBI was (yet another) an attempt to weaponize the FBI for political purposes by a Democrat.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

No. The reason for a statute of limitations is to prevent evidence degradation. Not to protect politicians 30 years after misbehavior. However, none of this matters since Maryland still doesn't have statute of limitations on sexual assault no matter what you think about them.


Yes. To prevent evidence degradation, and to prevent injustice. It does matter.




top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join