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: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
And a lot of the braying here about her right to be considered is truly neanderthal.


Explain, please. I'm not saying she shouldn't have her story considered, I'm saying she needs to take some proactive steps here, such as STFU and appear before the Senate when asked to do so. Doors have been opened for her to have her story considered, she's the one who seems to be filled with excuses of why she isn't walking through them. She does not have a right to delay the proceedings purely as a convenience to her, her schedule, or her feels.




posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
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?


Sounds like the dems figured out another stall....if the committee gets to pick outside counsel to question them....guess how long it will take the committee to agree on outside counsel......


Just another stall.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson

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


For some it should be psych evals every six months. But I digress.

Lie detector tests check stress levels, nothing more. So if a lie she was comfortable with it. Or has found acceptance and peace over a traumatic event that should have produced unusual stress. Or she is so buggy that her baseline is indistinguishable from a requested lie.

You have zero idea what ypu are talking about. By your idiotic logic, any time somebody was asked about something that had caused them stress it would show up as a lie when they were telling the truth. Which it obviously doesnt. Because that's an incredibly stupid thing to think.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

She never said that she wont testify. Just that she wouldn't testify Monday, on 3 days notice, on national television. She said she would gladly testify later in the week. But sure, morons, keep prattling on about how she flatly refuses to testify. You guys never let little things like facts or common sense get in the way before!



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
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.

Would this be the Canadian angle that put a murdering, husband beating person into our highest position?

This is not an area any Canadian, myself included, can cast moral judgement from. We have dubious politicians & judges in abundance.
edit on 20-9-2018 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: burdman30ott6

She never said that she wont testify. Just that she wouldn't testify Monday, on 3 days notice, on national television. She said she would gladly testify later in the week. But sure, morons, keep prattling on about how she flatly refuses to testify. You guys never let little things like facts or common sense get in the way before!


First of all, they issued the invite for Monday a week in advance, not "3 days." Second, she did initially say she wouldn't testify before an FBI investigation had been performed... tell me, please, if she's simply wanting her story to be heard why she should be in a position to negotiate any manner of anything prior to telling that story?
www.nytimes.com...
As for the "OMG, on national TV!!!" thing, the Senate invited her to testify behind closed doors... that makes your "national tv" argument appear to mean YOU are the one who's struggling with facts and common sense getting in the way of your witch hunt.

As an aside, let's say she was invited on 3 days notice. Isn't the truth the truth? If I ask someone a question about their version of an incident, am I going to receive the real story immediately upon asking the question, or do I need to give them a few weeks to respond? Are we to ignore the fact that her narrative requires time for coaching and formulation before she's ready to give it and be asked details about it? Does she need to undergo further regressive therapy between now and then to ensure her story is complete? WTF, man? The truth is the truth and, if it requires some manner of time to formulate beyond the initial recollection of events, it can hardly be considered "truth," ya?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
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.

Would this be the Canadian angle that put a murdering, husband beating person into our highest position?
And who might that have been?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

They even offered to send a team to hear her testimony, so don't give me that garbage. They are bending over backwards to hear her out. Maybe you didn't notice how she scrubbed the Trump hate from her social media?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.


The main problem I have with this 'honest mistake' theory, which I also originally considered, is that she implicated Kavanaugh's friend, Mike(?) Judge as well, as the one who jumped into the situation and saved the day.

That suggests it's unlikely she mistook the other Kavanaugh for the assailant, as she paired the alleged assailant with a second witness/accomplice. It also suggests she knew Kavanaugh as she also knew he had a friendship with Judge.

This whole allegation reeks, IMHO...
edit on 20-9-2018 by Rewey because: Seplling is hrad

edit on 20-9-2018 by Rewey because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Maroboduus

They offered her a closed door session with a week notice.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I believe she does NOT want to Testify under oath.
so far without taking a oath to tell the truth she is not under very much legal jeopardy.

Once she takes that oath and they found out she lied anytime in the future she could spend 5 years in prison for perjury and lose her job and be sued big time.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Rewey


The main problem I have with this 'honest mistake' theory, which I also originally considered, is that she implicated Kavanaugh's friend, Mike(?) Judge as well, as the one who jumped into the situation and saved the day. 


I found it odd that he was outed so quickly -- as if for a purpose. Probably because of the books he wrote about his party days and alcoholism recovery. But I also had the weird thought that Judge is the real guilty party, and she assumed he would play along to protect himself. Whatever the truth is, I think his name was leaked for a purpose. I'm sure he understands that too, hence his reluctance to testify.


That suggests it's unlikely she mistook the other Kavanaugh for the assailant, as she paired the alleged assailant with a second witness/accomplice.


Another (remote) possibility is that someone claimed to be Kavanaugh, so she truly believed it was Kavanaugh...then. But I would assume she would know that Kavanaugh isn't the same person by now.


It also suggests she knew Kavanaugh as she also knew he had a friendship with Judge. 


Or perhaps she knew because she had read Judge's books....



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Your OP is flawed.

Point in case, I almost raped a girl at a party while drunk as a teenager in 2000 OR 1999. I was drunk, she was drunker, no one else witnessed the event, even though a hundred other teenagers were at the party, because I had her alone in a room.

I can't recall the date either.

Certainly I am not proud of my actions, yet I would not deny the event.

Christine is that you? Because your story changed once called out and you edited your post to be more believable.

Really similar to the present situation at hand...



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
This whole thing is like a commercial.

All the "living testimonials" are claiming they know everything 😃



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Maroboduus

They offered her a closed door session with a week notice.


Grassley even offered to send a male/female team to her HOME and interview.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


I like how MSNBC and CNN always refer to Christine Ford as "Dr. Ford", as if that makes her credible. This is giving doctors a bad name.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xuenchen


I like how MSNBC and CNN always refer to Christine Ford as "Dr. Ford", as if that makes her credible. This is giving doctors a bad name.


And yet these same dimwits refuse to call DJT "President Trump". TDS is real.



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

The reason she doesn't want to testify in front of congress is because she is lying, and lying to congress is a crime.

It's pretty obvious



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Thursday, September 20, 2018
BREAKING: FORMER SCALIA LAW CLERK Drops Pictures and Evidence That Blows Christine Ford’s Case Wide Open


case of mistaken identity

www.thegatewaypundit.com...



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xuenchen


I like how MSNBC and CNN always refer to Christine Ford as "Dr. Ford", as if that makes her credible. This is giving doctors a bad name.


And we are supposed to actually believe an (over) educated person like her wrote that letter.

It resembles an 8th Grade level school book report 😃

"The smoke is sticking to the mirrors !!"







 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join