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: 20
24
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

The affidavit in the media is actually evidence of Ford creating a media spectacle. At the end of June she had a friend email her asking what his name is so she could say Kavanaugh, and then in July she contacted the Post.




posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Vasa I believe they are Affidavits, the problem is they are not backing up her claims, but simply backing up the fact that after 2012 she has talked about these claims. They are to try and assure people that the claims are not political.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Question Sookie.

Ford has said there were 2 boys involved and 2 other boys at the house, 4 boys involved, only 4 people at the party, 4 boys and a couple of girls at the party ... which statement is accurate? And if she can't get that detail right, why is her claim of who was involved to be believed?



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: latic


I am not a witness. The argument was whether or not she is a witness, not whether or not the assault is alleged or confirmed. By definition, she is a witness.



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



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: latic


I am not a witness. The argument was whether or not she is a witness, not whether or not the assault is alleged or confirmed. By definition, she is a witness.



False. She is not a witness. There are no charges. She is claiming she witnessed something, she is not a witness using the definition you are trying to use. Maybe I am wrong, can you tell me what definition of witness you are using?



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are deflecting the fact you made an incorrect statement. Own up to it and move on, otherwise you are calling into question your own motives and credibility.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: latic


Fine. I should have used the adjective "alleged" in both sentences.

The accuser is a witness. She doesn't have to use the adverb "allegedly" while testifying.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Definition of witness (Entry 1 of 2)
1
: attestation of a fact or event : testimony
2
: one that gives evidence
specifically : one who testifies in a cause or before a judicial tribunal
3
: one asked to be present at a transaction so as to be able to testify to its having taken place
4
: one who has personal knowledge of something

www.merriam-webster.com...


Testimony evidence is a legal term that refers to written or oral statements used as evidence in a criminal or civil trial. There are many different ways that testimony evidence is used in a trial, including as an account of a crime or as an expert opinion on an aspect of the trial. www.wisegeek.com...


Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings are not criminal proceedings. But they are legal proceeding that follow Roberts Rules of Order.


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



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The accuser is an accuser. There is no case. She is not a witness. She allegedly witnessed something, very different.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings are not criminal proceedings. But they are legal proceeding that follow Roberts Rules of Order.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Thanks for that. This is what YOU wrote.


Testimony evidence is a legal term that refers to written or oral statements used as evidence in a criminal or civil trial.


So please inform me of what trial her written or oral statements are being used in.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The accuser is an accuser. There is no case. She is not a witness. She allegedly witnessed something, very different.




So by her own account, Julie Swetnick (the Brett Kavanaugh accuser) was an adult college student who was attending high school "sex parties" with minors.

She said she went to 10 of these parties.

If the FBI should investigate anyone, it should be her.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings are not criminal proceedings. But they are legal proceeding that follow Roberts Rules of Order.

Great, so now let me know when she testifies as part of the hearings. Until that time she is not a witness. She could end up being one, as of now she is not.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler


BACK UP! This isn't about me! My relationships are none of your damned business!

Kavanaugh is the topic, his accuser's are the topic. Not Me!


No, but I'm pretty sure you just made Grambler's point for him.....

When you're accused of something you are not required to defend yourself. We should not (and can not responsibly) infer you disrespect women simply because you refused to answer the question.

To me, it seems you refused to answer the question because the question was ridiculous - a fact Grambler, myself and several others have been trying to point out RE: Kavanaugh for a week now.

If the accuser has evidence, she should take it to law enforcement in that State assuming the statute of limitations hasn't expired. Problem is, laws are not retroactive. So even though MD doesn't have a statute of limitations now, it very possible any attempt to prosecute for a 36 year old crime could be dismissed due to prohibitions on bills of attainder and/or ex post facto and other retaliatory legal actions. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).

So lets be clear that criminal charges are not possible in relation to this incident. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, there is absolutely no good cause to not confirm Kavanaugh. None of that saying the Senate has to use a legal standard to complete their Constitutional duty of "advise and consent" or that Congress itself couldn't impeach Kavanaugh if evidence did come to light in the future.


edit on 9/26/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings are legal proceedings, and the "accusers" will testify as to their personal account and to what they experienced and/or witnessed before the Judicial Committee. By definition, they are hearing witnesses to Kavanaugh's fitness to serve as a US Supreme Court Justice.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

They are not legal proceedings. The hearing is not a trial, the Senators are not judges, there is no jury, and there is no prosecutor. This is the Senate doing its "due diligence" in fulfilling its Constitutionally mandated role of "advice and consent" RE: Presidential appointments

Attempting to frame this as a criminal trial (or trial of any type) is ridiculous. There will be no verdict. All participants are merely witnesses testifying before the committee under oath so the Senate can fulfill its duty of "advice and consent"

edit on 9/26/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




No, but I'm pretty sure you just made Grambler's point for him.....


No I didn't.



When you're accused of something you are not required to defend yourself. We should not (and can not responsibly) infer you disrespect women simply because you refused to answer the question.


Kavanaugh is the victim of his own self adulation. He's the one who voluntarily claimed that he ALWAYS treated women with dignity and respect. That's not true according to his yearbook, his friends and the women who felt disrespected and humiliated by his behavior.



So lets be clear that criminal charges are not possible in relation to this incident. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, there is absolutely no good cause to not confirm Kavanaugh.


NOT! In this case "reasonable doubt" works the other way. IF there is any inkling of reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh is even a tiny bit guilty of participation in these escapades, he should NOT be confirmed. If Kavanaugh lied or misrepresented himself to the American People, Congress or the Judicial Committee, he has no business ever serving on the Supreme Court.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




They are not legal proceedings.


Yes they are. Correct, this isn't a criminal proceeding. It's a confirmation hearing, overseen by the Judicial Branch, executed by the Judicial Commmittee, after several FBI investations, to evaluate the fitness of the candidate for the US Supreme Court, the highest judicial court of our land. It's all "by the book" legally.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yeah that's right, I should have been more clear with that


I think it is safe to concede that they are legal proceedings under oath. You are also correct in assuming I meant "criminal charges" But this isn't a trial, or a situation where Judge Kavanaugh is a defendant. His title is "nominee" for the purpose of the confirmation process, and if he renders a statement under oath (as I expect he'll do, provided the accuser does the same) he will be a "witness" giving testimony to the committee

I also don't need to say that he should be presumed not guilty until the burden of proof is met (in this case, that burden is whatever the committee says it is)
edit on 9/26/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And when they do testify then we can call them witnesses. As of now, she is not a witness.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in

join