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.

 

Juanita Broaddrick is right about Kavanaugh allegations

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

So without a date and place of assault is it really an accusation?




posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueJacket


we should investigate trump, too - right?

i think there are 19 claims of sexual assult against him. not to mention his own comments.


"Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: BlueJacket


we should investigate trump, too - right?

i think there are 19 claims of sexual assult against him. not to mention his own comments.


"Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything."


I believe someone is.....



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: JBurns

Last time I checked 1978 was 40 years ago. That said, if Clinton runs for office/is up for an appointment/etc then I agree that these claims need to be thoroughly investigated.


The FBI investigates crime. They do not do due dilligence on behalf of Congress.

So having the FBI investigate anything that cannot possibly end in a criminal indictment is truly a waste of taxpayer resources. Regardless of if there is an appointment looming.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


The person making the accusation is now in fear for her life and that of her family. Threats of violence and death threats, is making a far more difficult problem worse. This is bad enough as it is, and if it is a lie, she should be held accountable, but if it is not, then this is not the way to handle it. No one should go through that


I couldn't agree more. It is ridiculous and should be categorically denounced

If anyone (besides those making the threats) is to shoulder blame for that though it is Diane Feinstein. Feinstein promised Dr. Ford her name would be kept confidential, and what does she do? Immediately turns around and leaks it to the press and puts her in the national spotlight. Those making threats should be denounced in the strongest of terms, I agree, but so should Diane Feinstein for politicizing what is a bad situation no matter how you cut it



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's also the job of the FBI to perform thorough background checks on federal employees. Which is the case here.

Do you want the FBI to shirk their duties for wholly political reasons?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's also the job of the FBI to perform thorough background checks on federal employees. Which is the case here.

Do you want the FBI to shirk their duties for wholly political reasons?

You have some evidence the fbi "missed this" in their check of the nominee? Please by all means present it.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

How would the FBI have found it? Two of the involved parties claim to not remember the event. The third wouldn't have even been on the FBI's radar and she only ever told her therapist.

So how would the FBI been aware of the allegations?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Hillary said that's old news.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

So you do not have evidence that the fbi did not do its job completing the background check on kavenaugh?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why should they not reopen their background check if new information comes to light?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

There can be an interview. She's invited to one. She's refusing to go.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Why should they not reopen their background check if new information comes to light?

is that how these background checks work?
open them every time someone doesnt remember something?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's also the job of the FBI to perform thorough background checks on federal employees. Which is the case here.

Do you want the FBI to shirk their duties for wholly political reasons?


The letter was written and placed in his file.

Without there being a crime to investigate, what would you have them do?

What CAN'T happen is that a legislative body usurp the resources of an executive agency to do their due diligence on their behalf. The FBI does its background check and submits the results to Congress, who then needs to dig into whatever concerns them.

In this case, its having a hearing where the accuser can speak her mind. But she won't. She instead demands that the FBI act outside of their jurisdiction to investigate a crime that they cannot prosecute.

You seriously don't see how morose that is?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's also the job of the FBI to perform thorough background checks on federal employees. Which is the case here.

Do you want the FBI to shirk their duties for wholly political reasons?

You have some evidence the fbi "missed this" in their check of the nominee? Please by all means present it.


He doesn't, because their resulting file is confidential.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I truly hope this DESTROYS Ford's life.

Hopefully, then it will cause others to think twice about turning very serious accusations into a political three ring circus.
edit on 20-9-2018 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

When Anita Hill brought forth accusations against Clarence Thomas, before she even was in DC, the FBI started an investigation, to get statements and the truth of the matter.

The way that this is being handled does not seem right. The FBI should be gotten involved, and then interviewed her, and any and all who can state what all they know about this, then report to the senate and then have her flown out to testify infront of the senate, just like Anita Hill.

But one other thing has come up.

Why are we even questioning this woman who has made this accusation, and not the thousands of men who had waited 40 to 60 years to report that a priest molested them? Why are those men believed, more readily than this one woman, or any who are making an accusation against a public figure? Why are those men entitled to an investigation, and not her?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Could the same be said for man who accused a priest of molesting him some 40 to 50 years earlier in his life, with no clear memory of the date?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig




Why are those men believed

because perhaps they remembered the date and location of the crime?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: shooterbrody

Could the same be said for man who accused a priest of molesting him some 40 to 50 years earlier in his life, with no clear memory of the date?

if the priest is in the process of nomination to be a scotus justice and the man cant remember when or where and has no witnesses to back the mans story then yes

why do you leave out the fact that this accuser doesnt even have enough information to get a police report?




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join