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.

 

Defamation of Character -Kavanaugh

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: CynConcepts
just out of curiosity, how old were you?


I was 14 when I yanked his trunks off. Even worse would be grade school years 1st -5th grade where my 2 best friends and I would tackle a certain boy at recess. We would pin him down, tickle him and kiss him so he would have cooties!

The 70s and 80s was a completely different era growing up than it is now.




posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: Xtrozero

She says he tried to remove her clothes against her will. That's all that needs to have happened to be categorically defined as sexual assault.

Regardless of whether Kavanaugh did in fact assault Ford or not, you're making a lot of rape apologist arguments here. It really doesn't sound good.


Oh my goodness! If that is all that needs to happen a lot of kids who grew up in the 80s are going to be classed as sexual assaulters. It just happened to be a prank that kids did back then. Yank a boys swim trunks down or a girls bikini top. It was done in fun with friends. Yes, it was embarrassing, you would cover and run!

No one back then considered it to be sexual assault, but with your post quoted it seems that it is. Even worse if you can accuse someone now of such a charge! Rediculous. At this rate folks are going to be sexual assaulters for simply asking someone out in 2050!


Hmm, ok, just so I understand you clearly, you're intimating that if Kavanaugh held down this girl unwillingly and tried to remove her clothes, thats just 'kids being kids'?


Honestly, no one wanted their bikini loosened nor swim trunks ripped off. We all wiggled and ran to hide. It was horseplay. Now, whether this is simple misinterpreted horseplay or not in this case, I have no real facts...just saying it is possible.

Plus your original quote would tag me as some sexual assaulter since I did tackle a boy and wriggled his trunks off and dove in the lake. He was being a baby saying the water was too cold...so I forced him to swim to shore and collect his shorts by leaving him on the floating raft.

So naturally, I personally would like this to all be settled and determine whether my own past will come back and destroy my future.


Well so if I held you down against your will (lets just assume you don't know how devlishly handsome I am) such that it was clearly something you didn't want, and try and remove your top, your bra, your pants, etc, that you would be fine with that?

You may be the first female rape/sexual assault apologist I've met, so that's a new one for me.

For the record if you did that to the boy now you would indeed be at risk of being charged with sexual assault. Just because the culture of the past had its own way doesn't make it right. That's why things like slavery, women not voting, etc are bygone relics and not pillars of our great nation that we cherish.


Dude, it was only bikini tops for girls back then. Pants was for the boy thing. Times have changed. My point is that folks should not be condemned for what was extremely acceptable at the time...especially decades earlier.

I certainly would take offense of a stranger doing so...but a friend...eh. My own grown ass drunk cousins still will untie my bikini strings when swimming in the lake. It is just horseplay. It is not sexual, just a prank.

Ford says the other guy in room was laughing and broke them up when he jumped on them...sending them tumbling. To me, it sounds like it was simply horseplay.



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

That's the logical conclusion for sure, but I've met some weirdos.

Sensory deprivation is a thing. Choking is a thing. Physical abuse is a thing... some crazies like that.... rape fantasies are also a thing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not condoning any of this...I'm all for due process and innocence until proven guilty... just trying to run through all the options here. And one distant option is that girl was a freeeaaaak.

A2D



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

preventing her from leaving the room...
pushing her into the bed and holding her down...
holding his hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming
two things come to mind... false imprisonment and assault...



I don't think we have ever gotten a time line on all this..was it 30 seconds... 10 minutes...Seems he wasn't very successful if there at all...not even a stolen kiss...

Once again it seems to be her perspective of the situation...and with nothing else support it, even in her own words are you going to suggest "false imprisonment and assault" I guess we can lock up about 90% of the population then.

I asked this of others so I'll ask of you..

You do not see anything fishy about her being a left wing activist and a psychologist that works in the abuse field to come forward with this story of over 35 years ago, and she can only narrow it down in a two year span? On a guy that has been investigated 6 times by the FBI for high end judge positions?

In the end he says he wasn't even there...



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

oh, I am pretty sure that we will never know what really happened.
but when you say guilty until proven innocent, that is the standard we have set when it comes to criminal court cases, where the result could very well land a person in prison.
when it comes to nominations like this, there is no standard. there probably should be but I don't think it should be the same standard we use to determine if a person should have their freedom removed from them... to have their constitutional rights revoked for a time.
when it comes to the supreme court, the person should be beyond reproach of which I don't believe this guy was before this allegation came along.
it will end up being like trump being elected as president now. where a portion of our country believes that we have someone in office that is a sexual predator. and is it really too much to ask that people at least pretend to take the accusations seriously and act like they are looking into it with an open mind?



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer


Sure, its entirely possible she is lying or making this up for an agenda. I can't make an assumption one way or another without some kind of investigation or deeper dive into the accusations (and neither can anyone else for that matter).



There becomes a point of nothing that can be investigated, that is why these types of accusations are so good, you get all the punch without risking defamation of character...a 35 year old story that was a "what if" situation at best.



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

"Guilty until proven innocent" is not the standard we have set.

The standard is innocent until proven guilty.

And her accusation is not proof of anything. If it is, then you are guilty of burning a dog alive because I was there. I saw it. It happened over 10 years ago ... at a party ... but I remember it now.



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts
I grew up in the 70's.... and no we didn't undress each other like you were.
and 17 is a long shot from 14...
you'd think that by that age, you'd have outgrown those childish games.



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I can only speak for myself.

Despite the very dubious timing of these accusations, I want to hear this woman out.

I do not think that the confirmation should be held up more than a week or so though, because otherwise the precedent will be set to make any accusation to delay these things for weeks or months.

So hopefully she will testify next monday.

Now i could counter you question with this one.

Is it too much to ask for people to call out feinsteins and the dems fo setting on these allegations for two months, and using this womans story for political points?

Yet I see very little of that occurring on the left.

In addition, why are the very people demanding this woman be heard absoluitely silent on the alleged victims of dnc second in command keith ellison?



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I don't think the accuser counts as defaming Kavanaugh's character because what she is saying is probably true. As for not testifying, she is going to testify on Monday.

New York Times: Hearing Set for Monday to Hear Kavanaugh and his Accuser
edit on 18pmTue, 18 Sep 2018 16:03:15 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't think the accuser counts as defaming Kavanaugh's character because what she is saying is probably true. As for not testifying, she is going to testify on Monday.

New York Times: Hearing Set for Monday to Hear Kavanaugh and his Accuser


Just curious, how do you know what she is saying is probably true?



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't think the accuser counts as defaming Kavanaugh's character because what she is saying is probably true. As for not testifying, she is going to testify on Monday.

New York Times: Hearing Set for Monday to Hear Kavanaugh and his Accuser


Just curious, how do you know what she is saying is probably true?


Because any man with conservative leanings is inherently evil, duh!



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

sorry, getting dyslexic in my old age or something... I meant to say innocent till proven guilty.

but that is a standard when it comes to criminal courts, to prevent us from throwing the innocent into jails..
which, is revoking a constitutional right from someone.
there is no constitutional right that gives anyone the right to sit on the supreme court. that is something that should be granted to those who are found worthy of that position. the integrity of the court itself is at stake. guilt isn't really the question, but rather if the person of good reputation and highly qualified for the job.
this little nugget of information along with a whole mess of others facts and testimonies should be considered by each person making the decision and they will have to decide just how much weight they give to this part of the story...

but they should at least look at this story before making that determination in a serious and honest manner. or at least pretend are!



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't think the accuser counts as defaming Kavanaugh's character because what she is saying is probably true. As for not testifying, she is going to testify on Monday.

New York Times: Hearing Set for Monday to Hear Kavanaugh and his Accuser


The date is set, but she has gone dark and wont respond. They are planning on nixing the hearing if she does not reply to numerous requests to appear.

Seems she may be a bit worried her lie is about to be major news.....and likely destroy any credibility she has....



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't think the accuser counts as defaming Kavanaugh's character because what she is saying is probably true. As for not testifying, she is going to testify on Monday.

New York Times: Hearing Set for Monday to Hear Kavanaugh and his Accuser


She hasn't agreed to testify in fact it appears likely she won't because her atty refuses to respond.

However i was reading more about her early statements and they really don't match to what she claimed now. First in psychiatrist report it was 4 guys holding her down. Now it appears only 2 guys were there and only one held her down. The other for some strange reason is jumping and wrestling while kavanaugh is attempting to rape her. So this guys sees his buddy raping a girl and decides its a good time to jump on both of them and start wrestling?

Lets assume he disproved his first response would have been to pull him off maybe slug him or even be like what are you doing? But no it turns into a pile on makes zero sense.

Her story originally doesn't even mention names the 4 guys were supposedly college guys that attended the party. So she makes it seem like she didnt know who they were.



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: CynConcepts
I grew up in the 70's.... and no we didn't undress each other like you were.
and 17 is a long shot from 14...
you'd think that by that age, you'd have outgrown those childish games.





To be honest, I am a kid at heart and as I pointed out in earlier post above, my own cousins still will yank my bikini strings loose while swimming. They actually are 5-10 older than I. It is not sexual and simply pranks.

It is fun to be a kid now and again, instead of the stuff in the mud politically correct work a drone every freaking day. Sheesh. As a grandma, I feel so sorry for my grandchildren. Life is for living not simply protocol rituals.

Edit add: sorry OP for getting too personal and off topic. Obviously, I am curious how this turns out. I certainly have found the accuser story does seem suspect against Kavanaugh. Feinstein has proven again and again to be deceptive. I feel that Ford has been taken advantage of by the democrats and is simply a political tool of deception.
edit on 9 18 2018 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't think the accuser counts as defaming Kavanaugh's character because what she is saying is probably true. As for not testifying, she is going to testify on Monday.

New York Times: Hearing Set for Monday to Hear Kavanaugh and his Accuser


The date is set, but she has gone dark and wont respond. They are planning on nixing the hearing if she does not reply to numerous requests to appear.

Seems she may be a bit worried her lie is about to be major news.....and likely destroy any credibility she has....


I cant read the times article, but I have not heard she has confirmed she will be there.

I have just a guess that she will not respond, which will force the republicans to say they are moving ahead with the vote, and then she will come out and say she did want to testify, and to push the vote back again.

Just a hunch and I hope I am wrong.



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't think the accuser counts as defaming Kavanaugh's character because what she is saying is probably true. As for not testifying, she is going to testify on Monday.

New York Times: Hearing Set for Monday to Hear Kavanaugh and his Accuser


The date is set, but she has gone dark and wont respond. They are planning on nixing the hearing if she does not reply to numerous requests to appear.

Seems she may be a bit worried her lie is about to be major news.....and likely destroy any credibility she has....


As long as she doesn't go on official record he can't sue her. The moment she testifies falsely he can take her to court.



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: darkbake
I don't think the accuser counts as defaming Kavanaugh's character because what she is saying is probably true. As for not testifying, she is going to testify on Monday.

New York Times: Hearing Set for Monday to Hear Kavanaugh and his Accuser


The date is set, but she has gone dark and wont respond. They are planning on nixing the hearing if she does not reply to numerous requests to appear.

Seems she may be a bit worried her lie is about to be major news.....and likely destroy any credibility she has....


As long as she doesn't go on official record he can't sue her. The moment she testifies falsely he can take her to court.


It was a good play by the Republicans to make it a hearing where she is sworn in.....when real world consequences are on the table, liars tend to disappear....

Her story has already changed from what her psychologist notes said as well.



posted on Sep, 18 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

personally I was kind of irked when this story came out. I kind of thought that there was enough there to begin with.
and, I don't believe that she was originally wanting to become center stage to this. someone outed her and she found reporters at her house and workplace asking her questions. someone, force her out. that irks me even more.
I think feinstein was really just trying to protect her identity and privacy and maybe consulted with a few dems and decided to refer it to the FBI asking them to investigate, but then some dems pressured her to come out and say what little she said...
and then the leaky washington started leaking more and more of the story and well..
she was outed.
as far as keith ellison, I have no idea... I mean i have no idea of what the story is, or who he is, outside of what you just mentioned. sex seems to be the political go to tool in washington whenever you want to get rid of someone you don't like. so I try not to pay too much attention to the stories.




top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join