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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Seems like you are making a lot of negative assumptions about her while assuming Kavanaugh's integrity. Noticeably assumptions that align with your partisan side of politics. Meanwhile, I'm advocating for investigating this and having Ford testify because regardless of guilt these questions now need to be answered in a reasonable manner so they don't cloud Kavanaugh's judgeship after confirmation.

What do you think will be a messier situation? Investigating this now thoroughly or waiting until after he is confirmed and the Democrats start talking impeachment about him and (provided they have the numbers) start opening up impeachment investigations into him? I'd go with option 1 myself, but what do I know? I'm a stupid liberal.
edit on 17-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

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.

Not in Maryland it doesn't since they don't exist there.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Let’s see, I’m guessing the rwnj’s are coming to his defense being the hypocrites that they are. Then again sexual predators are held in high regard by them. They have a long history of supporting and propping up these types. Kinda like a republican badge of honor I guess.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

My assumptions are supported by the 35 year gap in telling the story, the 65 women who attest to his character, the fact that he served as a federal judge while this lady (and Feinstein) sat on the information (its only important if he's a SCOTUS nominee?), the court records showing his mom ruling against her parents, and the proof of her political activism as a member of the #resistance.

I have no "partisan" side here. I am a social anarchist, which puts me at odds with both cults, er...parties.

The messiest situation: allowing 35 year old allegations to over rule common sense supported by 35 years of impeccable behavior. It really is a can of worms that should not be opened. If there is a CREDIBLE complaint im all ears. This...looks like she was influenced her own axe to grind.

Even messier: allowing this circus to degrade the confirmation process. Refer it for criminal prosecution or leave it alone. Character smears should be beneath our legislature.
edit on 9/17/2018 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

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.

Not in Maryland it doesn't since they don't exist there.


It does matter for the exact same reasons it matters elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I heard kavanah also used to crap in his diaper.

I wonder what mark judge has to say about the event.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: soundguy
Let’s see, I’m guessing the rwnj’s are coming to his defense being the hypocrites that they are. Then again sexual predators are held in high regard by them. They have a long history of supporting and propping up these types. Kinda like a republican badge of honor I guess.


I'm sure they are those dumb people looking for proof and evidence. they should stop asking questions and believe her story not matter what. All sexual harassment cases are always true. The Dems would never ever make up a fake story to delay until after the midterms their moral virtue would never allow that. Amen



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Oh man....we can't play the race card so.....RAPE!!!

I am so f'n sick of this because there ARE women and men out there who are subject to this.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So your assumptions trump federal investigations then? Well sorry bro, you may be verbose but I trust your assumptions as well as I trust any other random's assumptions. Not at all. Federal investigations are designed to get to the bottom of these matters. Pretending like it doesn't need to be investigated because you trust to Kavanaugh's character is a laughable line. As I've said several times now, there is no statute of limitations in Maryland. It is 100% legal and ok to investigate a crime 35 years ago in the state.


The messiest situation: allowing 35 year old allegations to over rule common sense supported by 35 years of impeccable behavior. It really is a can of worms that should not be opened. If there is a CREDIBLE complaint im all ears. This...looks like she was influenced her own axe to grind.

Oh please. The can is already been opened. At this point we either get to the bottom of it now before the confirmation or have a messy and drawn out legal battle that may involve impeachment afterwards.
edit on 17-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

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.

Not in Maryland it doesn't since they don't exist there.


It does matter for the exact same reasons it matters elsewhere.


No. If there are no laws on the books pertaining to them then there is no argument to be made about the evidence or Ford's story being subject to them. You can't change reality to suit your narrative. You have to follow the laws on the books. There are no laws on statute of limitations in Maryland.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Seems like you are making a lot of negative assumptions about her while assuming Kavanaugh's integrity. Noticeably assumptions that align with your partisan side of politics. Meanwhile, I'm advocating for investigating this and having Ford testify because regardless of guilt these questions now need to be answered in a reasonable manner so they don't cloud Kavanaugh's judgeship after confirmation.

What do you think will be a messier situation? Investigating this now thoroughly or waiting until after he is confirmed and the Democrats start talking impeachment about him and (provided they have the numbers) start opening up impeachment investigations into him? I'd go with option 1 myself, but what do I know? I'm a stupid liberal.


There is no need at all for her to testify except in a courtroom. It's not a matter for Congress.
Let her bring a case against Kavanaugh - sue him.

You lose your system of justice if you start giving accusers access to millions of people to tell their story and execute a trial by media with an audience willing to side with whichever political party they support.

Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty and no punishment should be forthcoming until the point that this woman has been to court, made her case and Kavanaugh is found guilty.
Until then there is no reason to either listen to her or believe her.

The truth, which we all know, is that she would not have a hope of hell of winning a court case - there is most certainly reasonable doubt (to put it mildly). Even in a civil case with a lower bar, there is no chance.

You've lost your perspective completely if you support these horrible smear tactics by Democrats.

edit on 17/9/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is no need at all for her to testify accept in a courtroom. It's not a matter for Congress.
Let her bring a case against Kavanaugh - sue him.

Uh yes there is. That is why there is a national discussion going on today for that very matter.


You lose your system of justice if you start giving accusers access to millions of people to tell their story and execute a trial by media with an audience willing to side with whichever political party they support.

Uh no... Investigating creditable claims of impropriety is literally the entire point of the system of justice. What WILL kill our system of justice though is trying to let someone off the hook because you think the claim in question is partisan but never investigate it to find out. There will be many Democrats protesting if Kavanaugh coasts through without Congress investigating this for instance. And Republicans REALLY don't need another unpopular issue dragging down their November reelection chances.


Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty and no punishment should be forthcoming until the point that this woman has been to court, made her case and Kavanaugh is found guilty.
Until then there is no reason to either listen to her or believe her.

No one called him guilty. Investigations exist to collect evidence to prove guilt. Stop jumping the gun. If you don't even understand the point of an investigation you may be out of your element with this discussion right now.


The truth, which we all know, is that she would not have a hope of hell of winning a court case - there is most certainly reasonable doubt (to put it mildly). Even in a civil case with a lower bar, there is no chance.

Actually no. It isn't "what we all know". That is merely just your extremely partisan opinion.


You've lost your perspective completely if you support these horrible smear tactics by Democrats.

I won't apologize for wanting an investigation to get to the bottom of these questions. Kavanaugh will be a SCOTUS judge for the rest of his life. We can put his confirmation on hold for a few months to investigate these claims and see if they are truly as bad as they seem or not. If all is well then there should be no issue.

I'm really confused why conservatives are averse from investigating their own these days. Even if the attack in question is partisan, it still does good to investigate it. We humored quite a few blatantly partisan claims against Democrats during the Obama years, and even investigated them. Yet you guys are making up excuse after excuse why we can't do a simple investigation into this matter. It's ridiculous and a travesty of justice.
edit on 17-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

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.

Not in Maryland it doesn't since they don't exist there.


It does matter for the exact same reasons it matters elsewhere.


No. If there are no laws on the books pertaining to them then there is no argument to be made about the evidence or Ford's story being subject to them. You can't change reality to suit your narrative. You have to follow the laws on the books. There are no laws on statute of limitations in Maryland.


Would you have followed Jim Crow laws simply because they were on the books?



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

That's a terrible comparison. You are asking me if I would have followed laws that existed in an attempt to enforce a law that doesn't exist. Never mind that my opinion on following laws is irrelevant as it pertains to the government obeying the law, but exactly how could someone enforce a law that doesn't exist? It's not like statute of limitation laws are all the same across the states that DO have them.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

That's a terrible comparison. You are asking me if I would have followed laws that existed in an attempt to enforce a law that doesn't exist. Never mind that my opinion on following laws is irrelevant as it pertains to the government obeying the law, but exactly how could someone enforce a law that doesn't exist? It's not like statute of limitation laws are all the same across the states that DO have them.


I’m just trying to see if you’d follow the laws on the books, or if you’d “change reality to suit your narrative”. It wasn’t a comparison.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

And I'm really trying to stay on topic. Since my actions regarding the law aren't part of the topic, I'm not going to answer your question. Hence why I keep circling back around to talk about the thread topic instead of answer your question.
edit on 17-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What exactly can you prove after 30+ years? Obviously not going to trial. So what do you want a two month long investigation that amounts to nothing or to just hope and pray the democrats win during the midterms so he gets rejected. Just be honest we know the true objective.

Let her speak but don't delay maybe senetors will flip and you'll get what you want



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

People go to jail for 30 year sexual assault accusations all the time. If such things can be proven in other cases, they can be proven here. Just because you don't understand the process doesn't mean it can't be done.

Also, it is merely your assumption that the investigation will amount to nothing, but if you believe that so sincerely, then what are you afraid of? Investigate the claim.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   
A picture has now surfaced. Christine Ford in her pink pooty hat and all. Everything coming out about her character just further indicates obvious political hit job.



San Francisco "Resistance" march.

truepundit.com...


edit on 17-9-2018 by EchoesInTime because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoesInTime

Wow... You guys are convincing yourself that a matter that happened 30 years ago and she told someone in 2012 before the dawn of this super partisan climate isn't true because you found a picture that is 100% unrelated to this matter. I hope you know that picture isn't admissible in court.




top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join