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: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Let someone come forward with a specific claim and I will prove it. There are many ways to do it, and it really depends on the situation and accusation too. Again. That is an irrelevant question for me to answer.

You are assuming that women generally lie about being sexually assault and statistics say you are wrong, so going by that I'm going to assume I won't be accused of any sexual assaults by women.




posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Being a virgin throughout hs is no exoneration. If ANYTHING it gives more credence to her story. You republican idiots.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Burden of proof? We haven't even been able to have a proper investigation as Congress refuses to let the FBI investigate and actually collect evidence.


You keep missing this essential fact -- IT'S NOT FBI JURISDICTION.

Right now, this would be a Congressional matter and investigation. The FBI would not handle this, ever. They do background checks, and have done more than 6 on Kavanaugh to date, but this crime falls outside their scope and it's outside the statute of limitations in either case.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: network dude

Being a virgin throughout hs is no exoneration. If ANYTHING it gives more credence to her story. You republican idiots.


Oh look ...

Another "virgins are creepy" person.

Do you also mock Mike Pence for going everywhere with his wife?



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: network dude

Damn...at this point, at least try to make the claims believable, Dems!

#NeverLetAGoodCrisisGoToWaste



I hate to defend the Dems, I really, really do, but at least some of the smarter ones seem to be trying to distance themselves from this garbage.

www.politico.com...


I didn't see anything about distancing themselves from this "garbage".
All I saw was a doubling down on the BAMN smear and stall tactics.
From your link.


Democratic senators who have rallied behind Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh are doing the same for a second woman who accused the Supreme Court nominee

Multiple Democrats told POLITICO on Monday that they see Deborah Ramirez's account in The New Yorker as credible — if not airtight — evidence for a case that President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee has a pattern of untoward behavior toward women.They want the Judiciary Committee to postpone Thursday's planned hearing at which Ford and Kavanaugh are set to testify to allow more time to look into Ramirez as well as those made by Ford.


Then we have Hirono telling men to "Shut Up And Step Up"


#WalkAway



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Sure but the GOP doesn't want the FBI to investigation and actually validate his innocence.


What would the FBI do? Is this even something they can touch? Is it a federal offense? How would they find evidence either way from 30+ years ago?

Just because someone wants something to fall into the realm of an agency doesn't make it so.


It's a state issue not a Federal issue! The Progressives know that. The statute of limitiations is up. There is no law that can be broken nor penalty applied at this point.

BAMN By Any Means Necessary. Also remember before Kav was even selected the protestors with their sighns ready to REEEEE no matter who was named?

This is political and the Progressives should be ashamed of themselves to make sexual assault a political issue and subvert our judicial process. If you guys want to be taken seriously, stop telegraphing your intentions.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Let someone come forward with a specific claim and I will prove it. There are many ways to do it, and it really depends on the situation and accusation too. Again. That is an irrelevant question for me to answer.

You are assuming that women generally lie about being sexually assault and statistics say you are wrong, so going by that I'm going to assume I won't be accused of any sexual assaults by women.


Prove you didn't do it. It was about 20 years ago, and the girls who say it happened don't remember where or when but the remember YOU, so unless you can prove you didn't gang rape them, I'm afraid it looks like you did. You have already made the statement to the effect of being promiscuous in your youth. And you are a dope smoker, so were you blacked out when this happened? Tripping? Just don't remember? I'm sorry, it's sounding a lot like you are guilty here.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Burden of proof? We haven't even been able to have a proper investigation as Congress refuses to let the FBI investigate and actually collect evidence.


Burden of proof is given before any investigation starts.

He is INNOCENT, until an investigation proves him GUILTY.

How is that even hard for you to understand?

Geez.
edit on 25/9/2018 by vinifalou because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Burden of proof? We haven't even been able to have a proper investigation as Congress refuses to let the FBI investigate and actually collect evidence.


What evidence could they collect? DNA swabs?

Your answer is going to be witness accounts, go ahead and pull some stats up on how long those are good for.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Ask the FBI. That's their job and they've got a long history of investigating sexual assaults.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Burden of proof? We haven't even been able to have a proper investigation as Congress refuses to let the FBI investigate and actually collect evidence.


Burden of proof is given before any investigation starts.

He is INNOCENT, until an investigation proves him GUILTY.

How is that even hard for you to understand?

Geez.

No it isn't... Investigations happen when there is a credible accusations. Investigations exist to BUILD the burden of proof. You literally don't know how our justice department works...



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Then tell the police. I'm done with this irrelevancy.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent.
Scientific American

I'm not going to clog up the thread with all the numbers in there, but the whole reason we make it hard to prove people guilty is because we don't want innocent people paying for someone else's crimes.

You've made up your mind just because you don't like the guy.



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Ted Cruz for SCOTUS!


Beauty of that he has as much dirt on his fellow Congress Critters as they have on him and let the dirt fly!



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You literally don't know how our justice department works...


Says someone willing to throw out the statute of limitations for political reasons.
edit on 25-9-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you cannot have an investigation when there is nowhere and nothing to investigate.

In this case, there is no where or when. She can't remember time. She can't even recall who was there except to finger the Judge and that other Judge who has sworn that he wasn't there ... and those other people, including her lifelong friend, who all also swore they don't have any clue what she's talking about.

So basically what do the cops investigate?

A scene they can't find that's 30 years old and her statement and his and the statements of all the others who basically say they have no clue what she's on about including her friend.

What else do you expect the cops to do?



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: vinifalou

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Burden of proof? We haven't even been able to have a proper investigation as Congress refuses to let the FBI investigate and actually collect evidence.


Burden of proof is given before any investigation starts.

He is INNOCENT, until an investigation proves him GUILTY.

How is that even hard for you to understand?

Geez.

No it isn't... Investigations happen when there is a credible accusations.


Finally one thing you said that's true.


Investigations exist to BUILD the burden of proof. You literally don't know how our justice department works...


So he's guilty until proven innocent?




posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you cannot have an investigation when there is nowhere and nothing to investigate.

In this case, there is no where or when. She can't remember time. She can't even recall who was there except to finger the Judge and that other Judge who has sworn that he wasn't there ... and those other people, including her lifelong friend, who all also swore they don't have any clue what she's talking about.

So basically what do the cops investigate?

A scene they can't find that's 30 years old and her statement and his and the statements of all the others who basically say they have no clue what she's on about including her friend.

What else do you expect the cops to do?


It's all about stalling our judicial process and subverting Constitution. #RESIST



posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Apparently Avenattis claim may have been an epic 4chan troll on him...which is why his account is private now.




posted on Sep, 25 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

Isn't it also funny how LEOs are horrible jack-booted thugs until they want them to do something?




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join