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.

 

Creepy Porn Lawyer, now knows Kavanaugh is lying due to his virginity.

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 11:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Take a look at my past threads. You'll see where I stand on everything.

I'm beholden to no team or ideology. You're more than welcome to attack my morals over stance..

Do you think the evidence of Kavanaugh would stand up in court? Would you be OK with supporting unsubstantiated evidence ruining your sons life 36 years later?

Do you believe it's possible politics drive people to push agenda at the expense of a life? Either party.




posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

The right would be doing the same thing. Two sides of the same coin.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 12:08 AM
link   
"Its a little hard to listen to you with that pity dlck in your mouth"

-Deadpool 2 - Blind Al



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 12:11 AM
link   
My lulz cup overfloweth.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

It makes sense. You can't condemn without evidence. Yet, he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. He failed the interview in my opinion. When given tough questions, he constantly stumbled. If this was a utopia and all politicians weren't so bias / agenda-driven then he wouldn't make the position.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

And? you leave facts out like,fake allegations,you liberals all the same,blame everything on someone else,why not tell truth and get a backbone



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

keith ellison ????????????



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



Do you think the evidence of Kavanaugh would stand up in court? Would you be OK with supporting unsubstantiated evidence ruining your sons life 36 years later?


If Kavanaugh's life is ruined because of this process, there is no one to blame but Kavanaugh himself for being less than honest about his past.

Kavanaugh isn't on trial to defend is life, liberty or freedom. He's being evaluated for his fitness to be elevated to a position to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. If any of these are allegations are true, if it's been found that Kavanaugh misrepresented himself to the American people or the Senate or Congress, then he isn't qualitied to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Yes, it's a grueling process and the candidate's life is put under a microscope. Would you have it any other way, when you're talking about a life time position on the highest court of the land?
edit on 26-9-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Sookiechacha

As Susan Collins said "if he did this, it's disqualifying, and if he lies about it, it's disqualifying."





And I agree with her. But as far as the FBI, they investigated the Anita Hill thing due to the crime accusation happening during government work, but Kavanaugh's alleged crime happened long before anyone worked for the government. So the FBI has no jurisdiction. This has all been explained many times. You do understand this right?



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Oh? The FBI can only investigate the government work a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States has done? Nothing from his deep past?

BS!
edit on 26-9-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude


Oh? The FBI can only investigate the government work a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States has done? Nothing from his deep past?

BS!


Look it up. This has been explained by the people who task the FBI, I'm guessing they would know. This is said to have happened in the early 80's when all involved were teenagers. And there is no statue of limitations in Maryland. So for an investigation, this would go to the Maryland police of some sort. Background checks, like the six already done on him, are from the FBI. If you can show me where this falls under the FBI, then I will be wrong.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude


Oh? The FBI can only investigate the government work a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States has done? Nothing from his deep past?

BS!


BS back at you!



Your letter requests that I demand that the FBI conduct an additional investigation into this matter. This request demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the FBI background investigation process. Before nominating an individual to a judicial or executive office, the White House directs the FBI to conduct a background investigation. The FBI compiles information about a prospective nominee and sends it to the White House. The White House then provides FBI background investigation files to the Senate as a courtesy to help us determine whether to confirm a nominee. But the FBI does not make a credibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee. Nor is it tasked with investigating those matters that this Committee deems important. The Constitution assigns the Senate, and only the Senate, with the task of advising the President on his nominees and conenting if the circumstances merit. We have no power to commandeer an executive branch agency into conducting our due diligence. The job of assessing and investigating a nominee’s qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours, and ours alone.

Second, your request ignores the fact that Dr. Ford has already made her allegations public. The purpose of the background investigation process is to compile information in a confidential manner. Confidentiality permits people to speak freely and candidly about the character and qualifications of the nominee. The White House requires the Senate to keep background investigation files private so that people can speak anonymously to investigators if they so desire. Because Dr. Ford’s allegations are in the public arena, there is no longer a need for a confidential FBI investigation.

In 1991, the FBI’s additional investigation into Professor Anita Hill’s allegations occurred when the allegations were still non-public. When the Senate received Professor Hill’s non-public allegations of sexual harassment, then-Chairman Biden expeditiously notified the White House. (That decision sits in sharp contrast to Senator Feinstein’s decision to sit on Dr. Ford’s allegations for more than six weeks.) The White House directed the FBI to conduct a handful of interviews regarding Professor Hill’s allegations. The FBI completed the interviews within a few days. The White House turned the interview reports over to the Senate as a courtesy. The contents of one of those reports was leaked to the public soon after. The hearing was subsequently reopened five days after the allegations were made public.

We are in the same position the Committee was in after Professor Hill’s allegations were leaked. After that leak, we did not ask the FBI to conduct an investigation. Instead, we reopened the hearing and assessed the testimony that was given on our own. As in 1991, it is now up to the Senate to gather and assess the relevant evidence.


Letter to Minority Senate Committee explaining

So can we move on from this BS excuse that the FBI should investigate. The Senate Committee has been investigating and for some reason the minority Senate has refused to actually join in? Crazy, since they are the ones who say this needs to be investigated!



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko


Nope. From what I understand, emails were flying around about the "Floppy Bandit" AKA Brett Kavanaugh, and old stories were being confirmed as early as July. Rodriquez and her attorney did their due diligence to confirm her memories.


How? By asking a bunch of people who said she wasn't right?


Oh Honey, she has corroborating witnesses!

Some Classmates Have Corroborated Details About the Incident & One Says ‘I’ve Known All Along’ heavy.com...



Oh Honey?


Nice sexual assault you just committed. You dehumanized him and reduced him to a sexual object with your ignorant and sexist comment.

And yes, that statement was used to mock the stupidity of your leftist comrades that think EVERYTHING is sexual assault these days.

Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it? Guess what? It always sounds stupid.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler




The dems alraedy had their say and sat obn allegations for 6 weeks, so I guess they didnt want to hear it as well.


The Dems didn't know about Deborah Ramirez' allegations 6 weeks ago. They didn't even know about her 1 week ago. There is no reason for the Republicans to ram rod this through without an FBI investigation into these allegations or allow witness testimony at the confirmation hearings.


Her witnesses say it didnt happen. What's to investigate?

Hell, she doesn't even know if it happened.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude




What did the R's do to hamper any of this?


Why're refusing to allow the FBI ro re-open Kavanaugh's investigation. They're refusing to let witnesses testify. They're refusing to hear from anyone else but Christine Blasey Ford, while several others are still coming forward with allegations and testimony about Kavanaugh's behavior as a student at Georgetown and Yale.



You really need to study up on law in general. This isnt court.


No, it isn't court, it's congress, and it's the White House. They can do as they please, far more than any Court.

In Anita Hill's case, an FBI investigation was done, and Mitch McConnell insisted on it.


September 23, 1991: Biden says in a statement reported in the Times that this is the date on which Hill agreed to allow the FBI to investigate the allegations.

Then-White House deputy press secretary Judy Smith said in a statement published by Newsday on October 6, 1991, that Hill's allegations of harassment were "brought to the attention of the Judiciary Committee" on September 23 -- a time frame that differs from Hill's account -- and the committee "immediately" informed the White House. The White House then "promptly directed the FBI to conduct a full, thorough and expeditious investigation," according to the statement.

September 26, 1991: Three days later, the FBI completed its investigation, and a report was submitted to the White House and the Judiciary Committee, according to Smith's statement. "The White House reviewed the report and determined that the allegation was unfounded," the statement said.

September 27, 1991: The committee deadlocked 7-7 on whether to recommend the Senate confirm Thomas' nomination. The panel then voted 13-1 to send his nomination to the Senate floor without a recommendation.

October 6, 1991: National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg obtained a copy of the FBI report and reported on the allegations, the first time the public became aware of the story.

October 11, 1991: Hill testifies that Thomas had sexually harassed her while she worked with him at the Education Department and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hill said Thomas frequently asked her out on dates and described his sexual interests to her. Thomas denies the allegations.



October 15, 1991: The Senate confirms Thomas in a 52-48 vote, the narrowest margin in the 20th century.


www.cnn.com...

And yes, they treated her like dirt, and although it is still shameful for them, they don't seem to learn from their mistakes.


What is it about the Hill-Thomas case that is so hard to grasp for you people? There was an investigation because they were Federal employees. That is the ONLY reason.

And being a women doesn't protect you from being cross examined or treated like a man, after all, we are all equal right?

What's wrong? Can't take the same judgement, investigation and rough handling when being questioned as a man can?

Need to be treated like a little child? Handled with kid gloves?

Because Muh Woman?

Huh, guess y'all actually CAN'T do everything a man can do hey?
edit on 26-9-2018 by Malcador because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Malcador


Ramirez does have witnesses that say they became aware of the incident. There are witnesses to other things not mentioned by Ramirez or Ford. There is "year book" evidence, too.

However, Kavanaugh's cavalier attitude toward women's sexuality isn't the only problem Kavanaugh has. He lied to Congress about receiving stolen emails from Leahey's office and he lied about his friend at Trump's personal attorney's firm. There's more....

It's Kavanaugh's dishonesty that disqualifies him from this SCOTUS promotion. Not the word of victimized women of the '80s.


edit on 26-9-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: ketsuko

You know, they are starting to sound remarkably like the stereotypical Deep South before the Civil Rights movement...

No proof needed, just the accusations of a white woman against a black man was enough to get him lynched, or put in prison if he was lucky.

Am I alone in seeing the similarities??


You are not.

I haven't seen Democrats this mad since the Republicans took away their slaves.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

are they getting heavy yet? Damn, those goal posts.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Malcador


Ramirez does have witnesses that say they became aware of the incident. There are witnesses to other things not mentioned by Ramirez or Ford. There is "year book" evidence, too.

However, Kavanaugh's cavalier attitude toward women's sexuality isn't the only problem Kavanaugh has. He lied to Congress about receiving stolen emails from Leahey's office and he lied about his friend at Trump's personal attorney's firm. There's more....

It's Kavanaugh's dishonesty that disqualifies him from this SCOTUS promotion. Not the word of victimized women of the '80s.



No witnesses that were actually at the alleged incident. And are we to take the word of a woman that doesn't even know herself if it happened? Really?

And now that everything else is failing you bring up stuff that isn't even relevant to this topic.

Goalposts! Thy can't move thy self.

You do realize that you are 1 of 3 people still arguing for this charade right? Only the hardcore leftists are still banging this drum.

Right, left and center have figured this garbage out for what it is.

People across the political spectrum have rightly determined this to be complete nonsense. Everyone but the most radical and extreme leftists have abandoned you.

You see that right?

Do you understand the ramifications of that?

Its you, 2 others and the nitwits at CNN that still buy this crap. No one else.

Kav will be confirmed and next up will be Amy. Can't wait to see what mind games and mental gymnastics the left will go through to smear her.

I guess you could play the race card because the sex assault card wont work for her.
edit on 26-9-2018 by Malcador because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts


You want me to accept the official Republican excuse for ignoring new evidence regarding Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing that was written by Sen Grassley? Just because Grassley wrote and sent the letter doesn't make its contents established protocol.

Please! Talk about politics!

Yes, the FBI doesn't assess credibility. They gather facts and let the committee do the assessment. The committee doesn't gather and investigate, it evaluates.

Yes, the FBI doesn't decide who to investigate, when and why. They need to be requested to re-open their investigation, either by the White House or the Senate.

Democrats and accusers wouldn't be demanding an FBI investigation if it was an impossible policy request. It isn't. It's not only doable it's irresponilbe not to have the FBI tke a look at all the new evidence being brought forward, when looking a filling such an important position.








edit on 26-9-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join