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.

 

Prof Ford doesn’t ‘remember’ the date because...

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




the bottom line is that the man is guilty, an accusation has been made and ultimately it should be looked into and investigated, 


Well that is about as scary a thing I have ever read before. An accusation denied by 3 different individuals named by Mrs. Ford, but the bottom line is the man is guilty. Hope you duck jury duty, as I wouldn't want you on one deciding my fate.

The real bottom line is that yes, our memories are faulty. Mrs. Ford's is very faulty. Does not know the year, does not know the date, does not know the names of others, changed her story, different variations.

How do you investigate that ? It's 36 years old at least and why is he considered guilty ? Innocent until proven guilty. She needs to testify, otherwise it is what it appears, a delaying tatic




posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

Well, to be fair look at the accusations being thrown at Dr. Ford in this thread. No one here knows jack about what did or did not happen but everyone is talking like they do. So it's perfectly fine to impugn the accuser but hands-off the SCOTUS wannabe who is nothing short of an Eagle Scout. Because, Trump...



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Generally I think sexual assault accusations would be enough to re-open the background check based on new information just to be 100% sure. Theres nothing wrong with being 100% sure that this didnt happen at this point, especially to a lifetime appointment and one as important as the supreme court.

About Ford's testimony at this point right now I dont see it being enough to stop the nomination, there are too many inconsistencies and I think she'd have to provide more specific details and a better explanation that irons out the inconsistencies well. Now its reported on NBC that a schoolmate did recall hearing rumors of the sexual assault occuring so idk.

But..would I be surprised if it did happen..no. My opinion of Kavanaugh has shifted a lot lately. At first I didnt think he was that bad, but he constantly always just seemed to remember with perfect detail stuff good for him, and not remember..or too drunk to remember anything that would come back negatively. Doesnt help he worked with Alan Kozinski and Rob Porter. Known sexual abusers. Doesnt help perception atleast.

Im starting to smell more and more fishy stuff out of Kavanaugh



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

It's not about being fair as far as I am concerned. When accusations 36 years old that has changed more than once are enough to paint a guilty plea on someone, then we are done as a civilized society.

I agree that Mrs Ford should not be disparaged nor threatened but this should have been handled a lot different. Certain parties are taking advantage of someone who is a victim, and totally disregarded the implications simply to score political points.

This should have been dealt with 36 years ago, in 2012 when she allegedly discussed it with the therapist, in July when it first came to the attention of Senator Feinstein.

No one is being disparaged more than the nominee. He is being accussed of rape with no way to defend himself and now the accuser refuses to even testify under oath.

There are two other individuals that were named, not as participants but as present witnesses by the accuser and both have denied her claims. There is no way to investigate this further when the accusers memory is so faulty as to even the year it occurred.

Sounds to me like someone is being very careful so that exculpatory evidence can not be presented. I am all for hearing Mrs. Ford out but the time is Monday, 36 years is long enough, I certainly wouldn't want her to forget more details.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: trb71

Background investigation into what? A party with an unknown amount of people, in an unknown location in Maryland, in an unknown year... I mean cmon.... talk about a waste of time and resources.... it's unreal

A2D



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
The op contends that the reason why Prof Ford can not nail down a date is cause it did not happen.

However, here is the thing: Can anyone really remember something specific that they were doing say 30 or 40 years ago? Does anyone really keep those kinds of records?



Ford claims that the event messed her up so badly that she couldn't have a normal relationship for 3-4 years afterwards.

That means it didn't affect her to the point that she had suppressed memory.

It also means it would be significant enough that she would be able to remember some specifics as she has clearly thought about it over and over and over for those 3-4 years...



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
She did take a lie detector test. She passed too, but the results are inadmissible in court so people don't push the test to the forefront of the argument on the veracity of her story.



by Krazysh0t: I don't know. I didn't look at the results. If you are curious, why don't you go Google and see if that information is available?


How very appropriate for this story... You're happy to argue that something occurred, and that the results are exactly as you claimed, but then when asked for any actual detail to be provided you argue its for someone else to investigate.

Which is EXACTLY what Ford is doing. Such irony.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I don't know about "refusing". I think she is just hesitant because the Senate is giving her an unreasonable deadline to be ready by Monday or they'll drop the investigation.


She wrote the letter to Feinstein at least 6 weeks before the story first went public, which makes it nearly 2 months ago.

That sounds like plenty of time to get your head around the details of what you're claiming occurred.

Unless, of course, you only ever expected it to be a political 'hit and run' case...?



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Themaskedbeast

What if someone new gave her a new 'lie detector' (polygraph) test, asking her about the prior one ?

Just getting philosophical here ….



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Rewey


Is it true that Diane Feinstein is refusing to show Ford's accusation letter to anyone, including committee chairman Chuck Grassley? That's what I just heard on Hannity.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Rewey


Is it true that Diane Feinstein is refusing to show Ford's accusation letter to anyone, including committee chairman Chuck Grassley? That's what I just heard on Hannity.


Sure is true.

Unless somebody can actually publish a genuine copy.

The entire scandal is BS ☣



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

The only other person who she has placed at the party, Mark Judge, is trying his damnedest not to testify and the Senate is complying. Meanwhile, the Dems want him to testify. Considering this, I'd say your theory with this OP is wrong.

There are 2 people she's named besides Kavenaugh. Mark Judge and someone else whose name I forget. Both men have said they have no idea what she's talking about, and don't recall any such party ever happening.

Judge refuses to testify to that, though. Something about being under oath. Hmmm...
edit on 19-9-2018 by JohnnyCanuck because: Yes!



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

SURE IS!


Grassley demands Feinstein turn over letter from Kavanaugh accuser: 'I cannot overstate how disappointed I am'
www.foxnews.com... l



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Christine Ford is giving a BAD NAME to:

1. Democrats
2. Women
3. Mental Health Workers



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xuenchen
Christine Ford is giving a BAD NAME to:
1. Democrats
2. Women
3. Mental Health Workers

Because she brought the subject up, or because you don't believe her?



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

The only other person who she has placed at the party, Mark Judge, is trying his damnedest not to testify and the Senate is complying. Meanwhile, the Dems want him to testify. Considering this, I'd say your theory with this OP is wrong.

There are 2 people she's named besides Kavenaugh. Mark Judge and someone else whose name I forget. Both men have said they have no idea what she's talking about, and don't recall any such party ever happening.

Judge refuses to testify to that, though. Something about being under oath. Hmmm...


I know, right? I mean it's hard to believe the woman making the accusation wont testify under oath....oh....wait....your talking about the other person she dragged into her charade.....



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

The only other person who she has placed at the party, Mark Judge, is trying his damnedest not to testify and the Senate is complying. Meanwhile, the Dems want him to testify. Considering this, I'd say your theory with this OP is wrong.

There are 2 people she's named besides Kavenaugh. Mark Judge and someone else whose name I forget. Both men have said they have no idea what she's talking about, and don't recall any such party ever happening.

Judge refuses to testify to that, though. Something about being under oath. Hmmm...


I know, right? I mean it's hard to believe the woman making the accusation wont testify under oath....oh....wait....your talking about the other person she dragged into her charade.....
False equivalency...she will testify if the FBI investigates...likely because lying to them is a trip to Club Fed. Judge has made no such distinction, he doesn't want to testify. And I think it's kind of shameful of you to totally dismiss her claims because it suits your politics to do so.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xuenchen

SURE IS!


Grassley demands Feinstein turn over letter from Kavanaugh accuser: 'I cannot overstate how disappointed I am'
www.foxnews.com... l



Wait a minute! The FBI say they received the letter from Feinstein and when determined it was not a federal crime to investigate, they put the letter into his background check file? Can't it just be retrieved from the FBI file?



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Rewey


Is it true that Diane Feinstein is refusing to show Ford's accusation letter to anyone, including committee chairman Chuck Grassley? That's what I just heard on Hannity.


I've only heard, and I stress I haven't delved into this at any level, that she was not showing anyone the letter as it is apparently identical to one Ford wrote a while ago accusing someone else (Gorsuch?) of the same offence.

Others here might have more background than me on this one...



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Rewey


Is it true that Diane Feinstein is refusing to show Ford's accusation letter to anyone, including committee chairman Chuck Grassley? That's what I just heard on Hannity.


Sure is true.

Unless somebody can actually publish a genuine copy.

The entire scandal is BS ☣


Didn't the letter somehow leak to CNN? I thought they had a copy?




top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join