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 wants a full FBI investigation before she testifies

page: 40
74
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

But what is he going to rebut when he hasn’t heard her allegations under oath?

Hearsay from media groups about her accusation?

This is ridiculous

“Hey Brett, a lady says you tried to rape her at an unknown place at an unknown time. How do you respond?”

It’s totally worthless

In no other situation would the accused have to testify before accuser even made there accusation officially




posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

But what is he going to rebut when he hasn’t heard her allegations under oath?



He has already rebutted it? Both publicly and in 1-1 meetings with the WH and Senators.

He will have AS MANY CHANCES AS HE LIKES to FURTHER REBUT IT.

Mrs. Ford does not dictate how many hearings the judiciary committee has to confirm a nominee.

They can call him to testify again and he can spend hours or days rebutting it.

What she wants to happen is for him to go on record FIRST.

That is how an investigation works. A suspect is interviewed to determine the facts as he wants to present them and then investigators examine the veracity of those statements.

All he needs to do is tell the truth.

He can go ahead and rebut allegations a gazillion times after her testimony as well.

If he is consistent with the truth across his testimony before and after her testimony, then there should ZERO problem.

He has the natural advantage, even testifying first, as he has the GOP led Judiciary committee giving him a megaphone for as long as he likes.

She has one appearance to voice her accusation.



edit on 21-9-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

That is not how an investigation works

Show me one investigation where investigators interview the accused before they have even spoken to the accuser

Why is she insisting this be done backwards?

All she has to do is tell the truth and she will have zero problems



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

That is not how an investigation works

Show me one investigation where investigators interview the accused before they have even spoken to the accuser



Her accusatory letter is not a legal charge, it is evidence.

You interview a suspect based on evidence to either determine if the suspect needs further investigation or should be cleared of suspicion.




All she has to do is tell the truth and she will have zero problems


Correct.

If Kavenaugh disputes anything she says, he can appear before the GOP led Judiciary committee and spend hours or days refuting the charges. Mrs. ford does not have that luxury.

So, seeing as Kavenaugh will have a public megaphone to dispute any accusations as long as the GOP affords him one, I am unclear as to what the fear is of having him give testimony first.

you can say he doesn't know what he is being accused of, but that is just stupid. The accusation has been detailed in documents and interviews and he has already privately and publicly denied the accusation with both the press and Senate plus WH.
edit on 21-9-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

You are missing the point

Investigators never interview the accused before the accuser

It is the fundamental right in this country for the accused to know exactly what the allegations against them are

If this is not the case, the accused has no idea how to defend themselves

If she is being honest, his testimony is irrelevant to her accusation

But his defense is based on what she alleges occurred

How would you like to be grilled over nonspecific nebulous accusations that were not even made under oath?



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

Congress should not be giving her the time of day.
We now have political operatives advising and coaching both sides on what to say at hearings... so this is just a political game now with the best actor likely to win the public perception vote.
That is why he said/she said disputes should never ever touch the floor of Congress.


A neutral, professional, investigative body like the FBI conducting an investigation and reporting facts, evidence or lack-there-of would definitely be the least political route. Unfortunately the WH has refused to ask them to investigate, like Pres Bush did with the Anita Hill accusations.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Being cleared of suspicion?
That's not required. You either get charged or you don't.
If you are charged you need to be proven guilty - beyond reasonable doubt.

The issue here is that there is no legal case. No police force or attorney would bring a case based on the accusations.

Therefore what we have is very simple. A completely unsubstantiated accusation being played out for political ends.
This is a road that leads to a very bad place. What happens if this proliferates into a situation where every candidate gets accused by a person who didn't want them elected? How difficult do you think it would be to organise an army of accusers?
By not ignoring this woman and instead asking her to go to her local police force, Congress is playing a dangerous game.

Ford has no business being part of this process at all.

edit on 21/9/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

His defense has infinite time, only limited by how long the GOP led Judiciary committee wants to listen.



How would you like to be grilled over nonspecific nebulous accusations that were not even made under oath?


What are your non-specific concerns?

Did he or did he not push her into a bedroom along with Mark Judge (Who the GOP have refused to subpoena) and jump on top of her and grope her and try to pull her clothing off and cover her mouth when she tried to scream?

Does he need more specifics?

Was there more than one time he did this? He needs it narrowed down?



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

The issue here is that there is no legal case. No police force or attorney would bring a case based on the accusations.



Vetting people for security clearances or for Federal Judgeships is not a criminal process.

No legal case need be brought.

Simple illegal drug use in High school is disqualifying.

So is Sexual Assault.

Neither must be criminally charged to be disqualifying.

Odd how often you seem conveniently unaware of basic facts.




edit on 21-9-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   


Your letter requests that I demand that the FBI conduct an additional investigation into this matter. This request demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the FBI background investigation process. Before nominating an individual to a judicial or executive office, the White House directs the FBI to conduct a background investigation. The FBI compiles information about a prospective nominee and sends it to the White House. The White House then provides FBI background investigation files to the Senate as a courtesy to help us determine whether to confirm a nominee. But the FBI does not make a credibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee. Nor is it tasked with investigating those matters that this Committee deems important. The Constitution assigns the Senate, and only the Senate, with the task of advising the President on his nominees and conenting if the circumstances merit. We have no power to commandeer an executive branch agency into conducting our due diligence. The job of assessing and investigating a nominee’s qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours, and ours alone.

Second, your request ignores the fact that Dr. Ford has already made her allegations public. The purpose of the background investigation process is to compile information in a confidential manner. Confidentiality permits people to speak freely and candidly about the character and qualifications of the nominee. The White House requires the Senate to keep background investigation files private so that people can speak anonymously to investigators if they so desire. Because Dr. Ford’s allegations are in the public arena, there is no longer a need for a confidential FBI investigation.

In 1991, the FBI’s additional investigation into Professor Anita Hill’s allegations occurred when the allegations were still non-public. When the Senate received Professor Hill’s non-public allegations of sexual harassment, then-Chairman Biden expeditiously notified the White House. (That decision sits in sharp contrast to Senator Feinstein’s decision to sit on Dr. Ford’s allegations for more than six weeks.) The White House directed the FBI to conduct a handful of interviews regarding Professor Hill’s allegations. The FBI completed the interviews within a few days. The White House turned the interview reports over to the Senate as a courtesy. The contents of one of those reports was leaked to the public soon after. The hearing was subsequently reopened five days after the allegations were made public. We are in the same position the Committee was in after Professor Hill’s allegations were leaked. After that leak, we did not ask the FBI to conduct an investigation. Instead, we reopened the hearing and assessed the testimony that was given on our own. As in 1991, it is now up to the Senate to gather and assess the relevant evidence.


Grassley's letter to Democrats seeking them to join in the investigation

Obviously, the Senate committee are following protocol.

Edit add: a reply to: soberbacchus

Some reason didn't carry over....but speaking about needing to understand the facts. A lot more facts on above link.


edit on 9 21 2018 by CynConcepts because: Corrected spacing.

edit on 9 21 2018 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: SourGrapes



i'm not playing stupid. why don't you explain why a few days is a big deal? i honestly want to know!



Not to interrupt your argument..

But seriously, can you please show me the OTHER Blasey Ford at Palo Alto ? You said it wasn't her on ratemyproffessor.com, but she is the only Christine Blasey Ford I can find as a professor at Palo Alto. And I had to dig through departments to find her. Please help me with the other Blasey Ford Professor.


(post by CrawlingChaos removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: SourGrapes



i'm not playing stupid. why don't you explain why a few days is a big deal? i honestly want to know!



Not to interrupt your argument..

But seriously, can you please show me the OTHER Blasey Ford at Palo Alto ?


I think Knoxie mistakenly assumed you would do basic research to confirm your bunk.

Seeing that as unlikely, here you go.

Far-right news sites smear California professor after misidentifying Kavanaugh accuser

“I thought, ‘Phew, that way when people look her up, they’ll know it’s different.’ I guess not,” said the misidentified professor.

www.nbcnews.com...



Fox News host Laura Ingraham also shared the Grabien post to her Facebook followers and later deleted it. Posobiec, one of the initial pushers of the Pizzagate hoax, linked directly to the wrong RateMyProfessors.com page from his Twitter account on Sunday night.

edit on 21-9-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: SourGrapes



i'm not playing stupid. why don't you explain why a few days is a big deal? i honestly want to know!



Not to interrupt your argument..

But seriously, can you please show me the OTHER Blasey Ford at Palo Alto ?


I think Knoxie mistakenly assumed you would do basic research to confirm your bunk.

Seeing that as unlikely, here you go.

Far-right news sites smear California professor after misidentifying Kavanaugh accuser

“I thought, ‘Phew, that way when people look her up, they’ll know it’s different.’ I guess not,” said the misidentified professor.

www.nbcnews.com...



What's bunk ? That's there is only 1 Blasey Ford at Palo Alto ? I just wanted to see the other one Knoxie mentioned. This is a good start to get to the bottom of it, thanks.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos


God, even as a jest it feels like a slimeball B.S. move...


hahahaha...

Attempted rape is just hilarious!

Pretty sure you feel like a slimeball 24/7 and have no problem with it.
edit on 21-9-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos


God, even as a jest it feels like a slimeball B.S. move...


hahahaha...

Attempted rape is just hilarious!

Pretty sure you feel like a slimeball 24/7 and have no problem with it.



Guess you missed the point of that satire. I can explain it to you if you like ? I think fake allegations are very much on par with assault, they both hurt people and leave damaging scars for years to come.

You can call me a slimeball if you like, i'm not bothered by random people on the internet calling me names. Do you often feel the need to call people on the internet names ?



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Reply to So berbacchus : It's not "evidence", it's an allegation not backed up by facts or corroborating witnesses or DNA or anything really.
Not to mention that the accuser did research for an abortion pill maker and has it out for him.

edit on 21-9-2018 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


Her accusatory letter is not a legal charge, it is evidence.

Exactly the point. There are no charges formally leveled against Kavanaugh. Ergo, there is nothing for him to refute.

For him to have anything to refute, there must first be charges leveled, which would be a testimony by Ford.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

The issue here is that there is no legal case. No police force or attorney would bring a case based on the accusations.



Vetting people for security clearances or for Federal Judgeships is not a criminal process.

No legal case need be brought.

Simple illegal drug use in High school is disqualifying.

So is Sexual Assault.

Neither must be criminally charged to be disqualifying.

Odd how often you seem conveniently unaware of basic facts.





He has already been vetted several times, including the FBI reviewing the letter, deciding to take no action and just passing it to the Whitehouse.
Odd how you often seem conveniently unaware of the facts.

A dog and pony show in Congress of he said/she said adds nothing to what we already know. there are no grounds for an investigation. So any debate at this point is meaningless beyond the political theatre. This is exactly what Democrats are going for. Congress should not be entertaining this woman or any other person who makes unsubstantiated claims.
The precedent will be set that anyone can just derail an appointment by making stuff up.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Latest excuse for her not testifying Monday is coming out....she is afraid to fly.

I mean this is getting ridiculous.

They'd have us believe she has been curled up in fetal position since the alleged incident?

Such a sham....looking forward to the show next week and just how big the flames get when its shown to all be made up.




top topics



 
74
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join