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.

 

Avenatti releases name and account of accuser

page: 24
22
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Swetnick never actually says Kavanaugh raped her.

Avenatti also keeps dodging this question when asked. Not to mention that she doesn't say how she knows he raped anyone or participated in spiking drinks or even how she knows drinks were spiked.

Avenatti got asked about the gang rape thing on The View and dodges the answer. You can see the video in the link.

The NYT could not corroborate any of Swetnick's claims.

Congressional sources say Swetnick cannot offer any evidence or witnesses to back her claims.

And the TIMELINE issues have been noticed along with wondering why a woman who got raped would go back to the rape parties a further 10 times.




posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


Have anything that is NOT a known Fake News site?


It helps to open it up and look at the court documents shown, plus I already posted a link to the website showing the actual defamation lawsuit against her in 2000.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
Thankfully, it is looking like this one is going to blow up in Avenatti's face.

So much for running for president. LOL



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   
LOL...they asked her 2 questions for the polygraph....what?



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


Bizare how desperate y'all are to NOT have the FBI investigate.

Bizare how desperate y'all are to NOT have the police investigate.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
It just keeps coming...

EXCLUSIVE: Julie Swetnick Was Sued For Domestic Violence And Defamation According To Court Documents

bigleaguepolitics.com...




So much for the impeccable reputation that Avenatti was flaunting.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
LOL...they asked her 2 questions for the polygraph....what?


lol, who paid for that?



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Yeah, they just asked her if her written statement is true.

The problem is - Ford's written testimony on which the polygraph was based conflicts with the letter sent to Feinstein on at least one point - the number of people at the party.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: chiefsmom

Yeah... not only are the dates strange (showing she would be a legal adult knowingly partying with minors where drugs and alcohol were allegedly involved), but according to her resume and court case records she had a judgement against her for almost $60k in 2015ish and hasnt worked since 2014.

Guess what? You don't maintain clearances with a judgement like that against you...

I hope people remember this smear campaign come November.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Yeah, they just asked her if her written statement is true.

The problem is - Ford's written testimony on which the polygraph was based conflicts with the letter sent to Feinstein on at least one point - the number of people at the party.



Yeah...even the one she wrote for the guy doing the polygraph says there were 4 boys and a "couple" girls....so now she remembered another girls that was there?



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
www.foxnews.com... guess trumps gonna speak on the new alegations soonish .....not sure how wise that is but at least its not a tweet


"I think the Senate, the Republicans, could not be nicer in the way they're handling this," Trump said as he arrived at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. "They could have pushed it through two and a half weeks ago, and you wouldn't be talking about it right now. Which is frankly what I would have preferred, but they didn't do that." The president also described Kavanaugh as "an absolute gem"who had been treated "very unfairly by the Democrats, who are playing a con game." "They know what they're doing. It's a con." Trump added. "They go into a back room and they talk with each other and they laugh at what they're getting away with. It's a con game, and that's what they play. And that's about the only thing they do well."



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas


twitter.com... seems kavanaughs highschool friend denies the new allegations saying they never hung out with people that went to her school


The guy that called into WRKO who knows Julie and her family said that she never would have run in Kavanaugh's circle either. That, and the fact that her mother used to call his mother to discuss Julie's mental health issues.


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



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Significance & Practical Application Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability. Nevertheless, polygraph testing continues to be used in non-judicial settings, often to screen personnel, but sometimes to try to assess the veracity of suspects and witnesses, and to monitor criminal offenders on probation. Polygraph tests are also sometimes used by individuals seeking to convince others of their innocence and, in a narrow range of circumstances, by private agencies and corporations. The development of currently used "lie detection" technologies has been based on ideas about physiological functioning but has, for the most part, been independent of systematic psychological research. Early theorists believed that deception required effort and, thus, could be assessed by monitoring physiological changes. But such propositions have not been proven and basic research remains limited on the nature of deceptiveness. Efforts to develop actual tests have always outpaced theory-based basic research. Without a better theoretical understanding of the mechanisms by which deception functions, however, development of a lie detection technology seems highly problematic. For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph.
source www.apa.org... so scotus says they are bunk and peer reviewed studies do as well why do we still use them?

anohter link from apa www.apa.org...

Psychologists have repeatedly told U.S. courts that polygraph tests--popularly thought to reveal a person's truthfulness through assessment of physiological states--are theoretically unsound and not valid in assessing honesty. Explains psychologist Leonard Saxe, PhD, a professor and polygraph researcher at Brandeis University, "Because of the nature of deception, there is no good way to validate the test for making judgments about criminal behavior. There is no unique physiological reaction to deception." Recent formal documentation of this comes from a National Research Council (NRC) blue ribbon panel appointed a year ago to examine the scientific validity of the polygraph for national security. Many psychologists served on the panel, including Paul Ekman, PhD, a longtime researcher of deception detection (see main article). The panel's report to NRC found no evidence of polygraph validity. And theirs isn't the first scientific report to case doubt on the measure. In fact, due to such skepticism, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 1998 case involving military courts that a defendant did not have a right to introduce polygraph evidence. The Supreme Court decision cited scientific judgments about the accuracy of the test. This decision, along with a 1988 law banning the use of polygraph tests of most employees, has led to a marked reduction in reliance on polygraph testing, notes Saxe. The ruling helped to dampen the tests' use in state and federal court, where the results are rarely accepted as evidence.
so if even the scotus thinks they arent accurate why are they still used>?



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

You know the more I consider Avenatti and his client, the more I think that they have just helped Kavanaugh.

If that gets exposed as a hoax, the other two claims take much more damage as a result.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou

I hope she gets jail time with Ford for lying when this is all over.

There's a special place in hell for people like her and Ford and Avenatti that would purposely ruin a man's life, along with his family, for the simple fact of hating the current president.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas

Significance & Practical Application Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability. Nevertheless, polygraph testing continues to be used in non-judicial settings, often to screen personnel, but sometimes to try to assess the veracity of suspects and witnesses, and to monitor criminal offenders on probation. Polygraph tests are also sometimes used by individuals seeking to convince others of their innocence and, in a narrow range of circumstances, by private agencies and corporations. The development of currently used "lie detection" technologies has been based on ideas about physiological functioning but has, for the most part, been independent of systematic psychological research. Early theorists believed that deception required effort and, thus, could be assessed by monitoring physiological changes. But such propositions have not been proven and basic research remains limited on the nature of deceptiveness. Efforts to develop actual tests have always outpaced theory-based basic research. Without a better theoretical understanding of the mechanisms by which deception functions, however, development of a lie detection technology seems highly problematic. For now, although the idea of a lie detector may be comforting, the most practical advice is to remain skeptical about any conclusion wrung from a polygraph.
source www.apa.org... so scotus says they are bunk and peer reviewed studies do as well why do we still use them?

anohter link from apa www.apa.org...

Psychologists have repeatedly told U.S. courts that polygraph tests--popularly thought to reveal a person's truthfulness through assessment of physiological states--are theoretically unsound and not valid in assessing honesty. Explains psychologist Leonard Saxe, PhD, a professor and polygraph researcher at Brandeis University, "Because of the nature of deception, there is no good way to validate the test for making judgments about criminal behavior. There is no unique physiological reaction to deception." Recent formal documentation of this comes from a National Research Council (NRC) blue ribbon panel appointed a year ago to examine the scientific validity of the polygraph for national security. Many psychologists served on the panel, including Paul Ekman, PhD, a longtime researcher of deception detection (see main article). The panel's report to NRC found no evidence of polygraph validity. And theirs isn't the first scientific report to case doubt on the measure. In fact, due to such skepticism, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a 1998 case involving military courts that a defendant did not have a right to introduce polygraph evidence. The Supreme Court decision cited scientific judgments about the accuracy of the test. This decision, along with a 1988 law banning the use of polygraph tests of most employees, has led to a marked reduction in reliance on polygraph testing, notes Saxe. The ruling helped to dampen the tests' use in state and federal court, where the results are rarely accepted as evidence.
so if even the scotus thinks they arent accurate why are they still used>?


They are still used because the general public believes they are true. It is just another tactic for attorneys to say "look...she took a lie detector test"....similar to "look....she made a sworn declaration"....neither are good enough for court or law enforcement.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

The stakes with confirming Kavanaugh and for the upcoming midterm elections are bigger than most realize.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Deetermined

You know the more I consider Avenatti and his client, the more I think that they have just helped Kavanaugh.

If that gets exposed as a hoax, the other two claims take much more damage as a result.



You know the sad thing is? Those who will suffer the most from the fallout of this charade, will be the ones stupid enough to take money from elected officials.

Unless people in charge are rounded up and charged, we will see this happen over and over again. For those of us paying attention? This type of dirty politics isn't anything new......



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

Desperate people do desperate things. As previously reported, it looks like Julie Swetnick has a total of approximately $100,000 in federal and state tax liens against her.



posted on Sep, 26 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Athetos
Any of the other boys getting charged? Or just the ones who went on to have political careers?
Serious question, why only name two train cars and not the whole gang.
a reply to: Grambler


Actually the only people named are ones she never saw participate. The ones she knows participated she has not named.

Wonder why.




top topics



 
22
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join