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: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

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.


She dragged him into it. If some random lady made an accusation about someone I knew and I had no idea what she was talking about and it was as big as this....you couldn't pay me enough to get involved.

She may have some odd need to blow up her own life with what I consider very shoddy accusations, but why would anyone else want to be involved.

Suits MY politics? How long did Feinstein sit on this again?

It isnt a false equivalency....this lady decided to give her story to those in charge of the Kavanaugh hearing on the dem side.....she didnt give it to the FBI or even the police.....she went straight to the politicians.

But now that she has blown her life up she suddenly wants the FBI involved? And says so AFTER the FBI had already said they were not going to investigate even after looking at her supposed "evidence"?

This is laughable.




posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




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.

Try doing that in a local court of law
"Judge , you have set an unreasonable timeline and I cannot testify"
Come back afterwards
Oh , wait....you will not be able to.



posted on Sep, 19 2018 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rewey

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?


They did not publish the letter.

They wrote an article saying someone told them what was in parts of the letter.

This is a hoax, and that is what the FBI is investigating, but CNN won't tell you that.

"It's a Hoax !!"



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Then why is she unwilling to testify if she has nothing to hide?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Then why is she unwilling to testify if she has nothing to hide?

Because of threads like this, quite likely. Same reason so many victims of sexual assault stay quiet.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rewey

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...

Gateway Pundit reported this, that Ford had sent a letter to Feinstein making similar accusations against Gorsuch. If true, then perhaps we should be asking why Feinstein didn't take her seriously the first time, but did now.

It's entirely possible that "someone" did "something" to her, but in her mind she's simply substituting in anyone she can remember from high school.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I've been thinking along similar lines. Apparently we're not the only ones:

A Case of Mistaken Identity?


Yesterday, word circulated in certain quarters of the D.C. legal/public policy community that the assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh may be a case of mistaken identity. In other words, the incident happened, but the perpetrator wasn’t Kavanaugh.

In the version I heard, the assault was committed by a guy who attended the Landon School, not Georgetown Prep where Kavanaugh was a student. 


My thought has been that the accuser did in fact experience what she is basically accusing Kavanaugh of doing, but it wasn't Kavanaugh. Maybe an honest mistake. Maybe.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Actually exactly what I told my coworker earlier, but I don't think she thinks it's Kavanaugh I think it's using a real event for political purposes.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Boadicea

Actually exactly what I told my coworker earlier, but I don't think she thinks it's Kavanaugh I think it's using a real event for political purposes.


I think so too. My best guess is that she told other Dem activists about the experience, and at some point realized the basic facts could be applied to Kavanaugh (and possibly Gorsuch). Hence the very few details -- only those that can be applied to Kavanaugh.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I've been thinking along similar lines. Apparently we're not the only ones:

A Case of Mistaken Identity?


Yesterday, word circulated in certain quarters of the D.C. legal/public policy community that the assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh may be a case of mistaken identity. In other words, the incident happened, but the perpetrator wasn’t Kavanaugh.

In the version I heard, the assault was committed by a guy who attended the Landon School, not Georgetown Prep where Kavanaugh was a student. 


My thought has been that the accuser did in fact experience what she is basically accusing Kavanaugh of doing, but it wasn't Kavanaugh. Maybe an honest mistake. Maybe.


Whether or not it is a true case of mistaken identity, that is likely the excuse they will use.

Wonder if Ford will think this charade was all worth it after the dems dump her next week.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Then she will be opening herself up to charges and lawsuits. If she said it happened on said date. Then everyone that was there can have the operunity to provide proof they weren’t. Sporting tickets, family pictures, vacations and so forth. Cannot pull up a date, cannot be proven wrong

Proven wrong under oath and orange is the new black

Then again, doesn’t everyone get a poligraph test every 6 months....sorry that’s a dental check up

or perhaps it is just because she is lying?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That is nothing but the truth of the matter.

I know women who've been assaulted as well, and they remember everything, date, approx. time, place, and many other details very clearly.

That Ford doesn't, makes this smell really bad.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

Knowing how the public is at this point, would you want to do anything where it would put your life or your families life in danger? Every time there has been an accuser against the president or one of the presidents staff, people tend to threaten. A person would have to take that into consideration about such, before making any sort of public statement.

But beyond that, how is this any different than say Anita Hill, or Bill Cosby? Both events happened in the past, and yet there was investigations that were done. Why not in this case?

If the woman is lying then she should be punished. But what if she is telling the truth?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I'm pretty sure she's already regretting letting herself and her experience be exploited. She was probably promised her name would never be public... That she'd be protected... That she'd be a #MeToo hero...

Act in haste and rue at leisure.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I don't think so. Serious issues that are painful or horrible, like heavy abuse or even rape, are often clouded as a defense against such, by the mind to prevent further anguish by the person. They lie dormant in the subconscious for years, giving flashes from time to time.

So tell me what is the difference between this, and say Bill Cosby, where the events were clearly past the statue of limitations? Or say this and Anita Hill?

There should be some form of investigation that is done, to determine if it is or is not the case.

This is for 2 reasons. First is to find out the truth. If the woman is lying, then she should be punished, cause it is slander and defamation of character. It is wrong to interfere with a persons ability to do a job, and is against the law. However, on the same line, if she is telling the truth, then this presents a whole new question, as it was a crime then, and the question is should this man be sitting as a judge at any level, if as a teen he did indeed do this deed.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Cosby was investigated on charges not past statute of limitations. This is. There is also nothing to investigate. What exactly would they investigate? A party that may have happened at some point in a 3 year period at an unknown location 35 years ago?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

False. What you are saying isn't what is claimed. She said she remembered it and it kept her from relationships.

I have known many assault victims and took my ex gf to the hospital and police station.

Not one forgets the year is t happened. Not one.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: sdcigarpig
Cosby was investigated on charges not past statute of limitations. This is. There is also nothing to investigate. What exactly would they investigate? A party that may have happened at some point in a 3 year period at an unknown location 35 years ago?
This is not about pressing charges...this is about defining the character of a man who wants to sit on your Supreme Court. As such, she should be heard. Unless the criteria of white, male and Republican have wrapped it up in your books.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Stop being a race baiter. She is invited to be heard. I support it. The only racist person bringing in race here is you, black or white I don't care.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck




As such, she should be heard.

no she should not, she hasn't even produced enough information to get a police report
this is not about kavanaugh
this is about the dems attempting to derail the scotus nominee of the potus
nothing more nothing less



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join