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: 8
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I highly doubt it happened. But even if it did, it's irrelevant. I'd imagine we've all done things in the far far past that democrats would claim disqualified us from being elected to something today if we're running as a Republican. When I was a Freshman in High School (1994), one of my teachers said I locked her in a closet. I didn't. Just before I was expelled, because she was pregnant and said I caused so much stress she almost lost her baby, all my classmates wrote letters to the principal telling him I didn't lock her in the closet. She quit, I wasn't expelled. This is the kind of BS a liberal would pull up to say I wasn't qualified for an elected position that threatened their destructive policies. They would say I did, in fact, lock a pregnant woman in a closet.




posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

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.


LOL!!! The woman, herself, has been asked to testify by both parties and is refusing to do so. When the accuser doesn't want to testify the accusations smell strongly of BS right out of the gate.

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. Ultimately I'm sure she'll come around (she DID come on the record to make sure her story was right and DID offer to testify originally), but I can see where she is coming from. Preparing for a Senate questioning isn't easy.


How is it unreasonable? If this has bothered her for 36 years then she should be more than ready to testify. Why would any sane person telling the truth need more time to testify? Does that honestly make sense to you?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Christine Ford's lawyer says that she is ready to testify next week if certain conditions are met including ensuring her safety. Not on Monday though.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Christine Ford's lawyer says that she is ready to testify next week if certain conditions are met including ensuring her safety. Not on Monday though.

wow
an accuser with no crime date no crime scene and no witnesses is in negotiations with the gop controlled senate judiciary committee to testify against the potus' nominee for the scotus

if i wrote the script hollywood wouldn't buy it because it is unbelievable



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck]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.


How does 35 years of providing women the most opportunities in the judicial system than anyone else in history define his character? How does not a single woman other than Ford have anything but sterling comments about his whole life mean as to his character?

How does doing something like this at 11th hour nothing more than a delay tactic to extend this past midterm elections to hopefully take majority control then delay it for two years to have the next President pick again?

Outside of what we would call horseplay back in the 80s this has nothing...She reached a point it was no longer play for her and he stopped... that is by her words...



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Christine Ford's lawyer says that she is ready to testify next week if certain conditions are met including ensuring her safety. Not on Monday though.


Certain conditions? Like what? This is really getting to be rediculous and hope the committee stands by their scheduled date.

Ooh...next Thursday...but then oh my gosh...I was scared so need to reschedule! Ugh!



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

If she had said that Brett Kavanaugh knocked her in the head and took her purse at a party this would have been dismissed as nothing. There is something about sex that has people all hung up.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

she couldnt do that as it required a time and place



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Maybe she can't remember because it didn't happen. I heard claims she took a lie detector test I wish Maury would give the results already

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.


So, she passed "a" lie detector test? Have the questions and results been released? For all we know, she was asked if she's lying.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Kavanaugh accuser Christine Ford opens door to testifying next week

I guess we'll see if she's telling the truth.


“As you are aware, she has been receiving death threats, which have been reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and she and her family have been forced out of their home,” the email continues. “She wishes to testify, provided that we can agree on terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”


I wonder which terms are these...


In the letter Thursday, Ford's attorneys wrote that it “is not possible" for Ford to testify on Monday. The lawyers added that "the Committee’s insistence that it occur then is arbitrary in any event.”

Late Tuesday, Ford's lawyers had strongly suggested she would only testify if a "full investigation" were conducted first by the FBI.


Looks like the delays attempt are in full run.

I'm still trying to figure it out how they can run a "full investigation" when the victim doesn't even remember the date it happened, and it won't testify so they can collect more details.

Really. Someone enlighten me on this one.

edit on 20/9/2018 by vinifalou because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/9/2018 by vinifalou because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Christine Ford's lawyer says that she is ready to testify next week if certain conditions are met including ensuring her safety. Not on Monday though.


Obvious stall tactic.

Democrats have really lost it now.

So obvious.




posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

now they will say she is ascared to fly like john madden



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
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
Certainly looks like a weaponised accusation, but that does not affect the veracity of her report either way. What's important is the character of the appointee and if what she has to say is truthful, she should be heard out, IMHO.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

This


Certainly looks like a weaponised accusation

doesnt square with this



she should be heard out

no matter how much maple syrup or gravy and curds you put on it

if it looks like a "weaponised accusation" how does that in any way reflect on anyones character other than the accuser?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: shooterbrody
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
Certainly looks like a weaponised accusation, but that does not affect the veracity of her report either way. What's important is the character of the appointee and if what she has to say is truthful, she should be heard out, IMHO.


Here's the problem, though... at some point the law of numbers needs to be considered here. This is the makeup of the equation as I see it...
1. We have an accusation of an incident from 36 years ago, the details of which have changed throughout the telling of the story.
2. We have an accuser whose background opens the door wide for this to be an agenda driven accusation rather than a factual one.
3. We are well beyond any statute of limitations, so there is zero criminal angle here, only a character angle.
4. We have dozens upon dozens of females who personally knew the man during the time in question who are saying he was a great guy and have no additional accusations against him.
5. The accuser, who absolutely owns the burden of proof, is reluctant to testify before Congress to resolve this in a timely manner, and is instead pushing for a federal law enforcement investigation... the most obvious rationale for this would be that she's worried about committing felony perjury before the Senate whereas she can control the legal damage for essentially doing the same with the FBI.

The math here honestly leads to the most sensible course of action being to hold the additional testimony as scheduled on Monday and, if she fails to show, hold the confirmation vote as scheduled. If she shows before the Senate, then ask her questions, ask Kavanaugh questions, and go from there.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

I doubt anyone cares about her lies. Not to the point of threatening her. We've been expecting a democrat payoff on the first hoochie they could find to come forward and say Judge Kavanaugh did something to her 100 years ago.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
New developments. Per this report on Zero Hedge, Ford might be willing to testify next week, but not on Monday. Supposedly, the committee would hire an outside counsel to question her, rather than the committee members themselves.

I found this part especially interesting:

Meanwhile, former clerk to the late USSC Justice Antonin Scalia, Ed Whelan, insists that evidence will emerge next week exonerating Kavanaugh, and that Dianne Feinstein will "soon be apologizing" to Kav.

By one week from today, I expect that Judge Kavanaugh will have been clearly vindicated on this matter. Specifically, I expect that compelling evidence will show his categorical denial to be truthful. There will be no cloud over him.

I wonder if Ed Whelan knows something is about to surface?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: carewemust
Christine Ford's lawyer says that she is ready to testify next week if certain conditions are met including ensuring her safety. Not on Monday though.

wow
an accuser with no crime date no crime scene and no witnesses is in negotiations with the gop controlled senate judiciary committee to testify against the potus' nominee for the scotus

if i wrote the script hollywood wouldn't buy it because it is unbelievable


We've hit the lowest point in politics I've ever seen. I really didn't think it'd be worse than it was after Trump won the election.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Can't remember the date.
Can't remember the year.
Can't remember the house.
Can't remember how she got there.
Can't remember how she got home.

Either she was too drunk to be a credible witness for her own actions or it was all just a dream.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
We are well beyond any statute of limitations, so there is zero criminal angle here, only a character angle.

Like I said. If this were a Canadian judge angling for a lifetime appointment, I think that would be a little more important to me. And a lot of the braying here about her right to be considered is truly neanderthal.







 
12
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join