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.

 

It wasn't Kavanaugh -- it was THIS guy!

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneArmedBandit
a reply to: theantediluvian

Smoking gun proof it was Kavanaugh.




Chackmate Slavanaughff


That is the funniest thing I've read all night!

OP forgot to include this pic. Not that it matters.





posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

A good parallel would be Keith Ellison.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rewey
a reply to: theantediluvian

To say the resemblence between the school photos is the smoking gun is disingenuous. That's his opening point. There are far stronger parts of his argument as you read the whole thing.


You have a point now that I actually read it. I just kind of trusted Ante that it was a weak effort but he does make some points worth pondering. With what we've been told so far as regards evidentiary items he makes an excellent case for reasonable doubt.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: DBCowboy

That is funny.

I noticed the other day that if you take the word Kaepernick and you take the words (a knee)
out of his name what do you have left?

I found that totally ironic!





posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Nice Meme.

That's totally awesome.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


I notice you skipped the Dems loving ted Kennedy with your defense there!


I guess I could have said Joe Scarborough but I think he quit the Republican party last year. Also, I've never been too sure about Ted Kennedy's innocence myself.



As far as the booker situation, clearly it’s different

But by the critieria of many, including bookers party members, that would be assault

And this is bookers version, who knows what an investigation would reveal!


All I can say is that somewhere around a gajillion right-wingers told me this was a sexual assault:




However, the Dems are unbelievably disgusting for the trivialization of sexual abuse by setting on this story for months to use politically, and having double standards when more strained allegations are leveled at members of their party leadership like Ellison


I really don't think there's much room for anyone to talk here but I've listed 5 Democratic politicians, including the longest serving member of Congress (Conyers), the very popular Al Franken and the NY AG who was investigating Trump (Schneiderman), who are all out of a job.

Personally, I thought the Democrats overreacted in Franken's case specifically so that they wouldn't be called hypocrites by right-winger and alas, it's happening anyway so they should have just said screw it with Franken just like Republicans have with Trump (or like Trump did with Ailes).

I have only been following the Ellison thing sporadically. I have mixed feelings about it but I do think there should be a House Ethics Committee investigation. I can also see where Dems would want to wait until after the midterms before any of them called for it.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Rewey


To say the resemblence between the school photos is the smoking gun is disingenuous. That's his opening point. There are far stronger parts of his argument as you read the whole thing.


No, it was sarcasm. There were no smoking guns. I wouldn't call anything he presented a "strong" argument but maybe you'd like to pick up the mantle of defending this nonsense and pick out something you found compelling?


Sure, happy to. I'm not claiming Ed's argument is definitive proof of anything as, like Kavanaugh, I wasn't there on the night (zing!). But Feinstein also said she doesn't know that what Ford said is the truth, so we're at a level starting point here. Also, I don't need to argue an airtight case - only provide reasonable doubt.

Here are the two scenarios we have:

Ford: "it happened at a party but I can't remember the date or year, whose house it was (but do remember every person there), how I got to or from the house, but trust me - it happened..."

Ed, on the other hand, argues:

- the location of the house matches ford's claim;
- the layout of the house matches ford's claim;
- the relationship between Garrett and Judge makes sense compared to ford's claim, both at the time and the current friendship;
- the resemblence of the yearbook photos;
- the fact that the host would be at his own party, and feel comfortable moving around to other rooms of the house;
- plus, Mark Judge says Kavanaugh wasn't there

Think about it - if you simply exchange Garrett for Kavanaugh, then both Ed's argument AND Ford's claims suddenly make sense.

Again, I have no skin in the game, but I will say that Ed's story had numerous supporting elements, and is at least plausible. I wouldn't be so quick in dismissing it given how you seem to readily accept ford's version of the events.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The right wingers that told you what Franken did was so bad are wrong

I said so at the time

It was a joke, and I didn’t think it was a big deal

I didn’t like Franken at all, but he was treated unfairly and didn’t deserve to be drummed our like that

In all of these cases, it should be innocent until proven guilty

I don’t care the party

And yes both sides are guilty

But the Dems are the bigger hypocrites about it because they claim to be the champion for this cause

Just like Republicans that demand people act with a certain morality are the bigger hypocrites when they ignore people like trumps behavior

The Dems are ignoring Ellison’s accuser. I don’t really care as long as authorities are looking in to the matter

But for them to ignore her, and act this way about Kavanaugh is disgusting

There are actually Dems like gillibrand saying that the fact Kavanaugh isn’t asking for the fbi to investigate him must show he is guilty

Gillibramd who was bill Clinton and Weinstein’s pal!

And more than any of that

The fact that Feinstein set on these allegations for two months, purely for the purpose of scoring the most political points is disgusting and does a disservice to every victim of sexual abuse




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



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aallanon
Isn’t that exactly what the chick did?


Point of order, your Honor. I ain't the only person in the world that still use the word "Chick"

I'd just prefer to have that on the official record.

Please, resume whatever important thing you were doing, I'm sure that it's, like, important and stuff.



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

What points are these?

Please tell me it's not this nonsense about the house having a staircase with a landing and bedrooms upstairs. How many houses would that describe? How many in affluent neighbors in particular? Sure, it could have been house or any number of thousands of others

Or this silly "not far from" the country club stuff. Is 3.5 miles far now?

What's that leave?

This guy is a friend of Mark Judge's from school. Cool story. So she identified Mark Judge correctly but misidentified his friend? Sure, why not?

The crux of this whole thing is this supposed resemblance. Even in blurry snaps of black and white photos from the year book those two don't look like they'd be easily mistaken for one another.

This is flimsy af but whatever — anyone can cook up whatever theories they want — where he really went off the deep end is in naming this guy and putting a spotlight on him based on this bull#.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

I really don't think there's much room for anyone to talk here


Yeah you say that a lot in your "threads". Kinda like when you were lecturing everyone about the Strozk-Paige texts being nothing more than meaningless texts between lovers.

That turned out well for you didn't it?

LOL



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Update on this.

Kavanaugh accuser won’t testify Monday but open to doing so later next week


Ford dismissed Whelan’s theory in a statement late Thursday: “I knew them both, and socialized with” them, Ford said, adding that she had once visited the other classmate in the hospital. “There is zero chance that I would confuse them.”



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Update on this.

Kavanaugh accuser won’t testify Monday but open to doing so later next week


Ford dismissed Whelan’s theory in a statement late Thursday: “I knew them both, and socialized with” them, Ford said, adding that she had once visited the other classmate in the hospital. “There is zero chance that I would confuse them.”


But every chance she wouldn't remember the date or year of the sexual assault, or whose house it was, or how she got there, or got home again. Ok.

She claims she couldn't have a normal relationship for 4-5 years after the event, so it wasn't some repressed memory. She obviously went over it again and again in her head for those 4-5 years.

She also claimed she thought Kavanaugh would 'inadvertently kill her', which also indicates it wasn't some repressed memory.

Seems she has remarkably clear memory when it's convenient for her to do so...



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Vector99


#metoo, unless you accuse a democrat!


It's almost like you just say things without worrying whether or not they have any basis in reality!


I try to mirror you as best I can.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13


That turned out well for you didn't it?


So far so good I'd say.

But don't worry! Dear Leader is getting you a whole bunch of new texts and a couple of them will surely contain ambiguous verbiage that you can interpret however you need to keep hope alive that a smoking gun is out there.

I'd urge a bit of caution though. Like I was saying to Grambler earlier, that whole "parallel book keeping" narrative that Hannity and Sara Carter spun up today — without offering a shred of evidence of it — sure smells like them preparing for the lack of that smoking gun in those texts and docs.

And it could be because they know something. The later piece from Sara Carter makes it pretty clear that she (and I would assume her benefactor Hannity) have already been given access to at least some of what's pending release.

Spoiler: her article about this new material didn't reference anything evidencing any super secret anti-Trump conspiracy.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Rewey


Seems she has remarkably clear memory when it's convenient for her to do so...


I don't know. I really don't have an opinion yet. She could of course be making it up. I think that's far more plausible than Whelan's "theory."



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


I try to mirror you as best I can.


Tryin' to get some of that CNN money eh?



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: OneArmedBandit

Oh man. That gave me flashbacks to the Roy Moore yearbook smoking-gun. Damn funny.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Rewey


Seems she has remarkably clear memory when it's convenient for her to do so...


I don't know. I really don't have an opinion yet. She could of course be making it up. I think that's far more plausible than Whelan's "theory."


Hang on... Really? You think it's more likely she made it up than she was just confused and thought it was someone else? That's interesting.

To add to my list above, Whelan's theory would also make sense of allegedly passing a lie detector test? Because she isn't thinking it's a lie as she tells her story?



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


I saw his tweets and something didn't seem right... I agree with ya!

If this stupid hearing goes ahead, I think it fair that we be allowed to question Feinstein about her role in all this.
How she received the information, why she sat on it, if she's discussing the matter with anyone, are the Chinese blackmailing her and providing the intel to leak to the press and cause problems in America's Government....

edit on 21/9/18 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join