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.

 

Ex-boyfriend filed restraining order against third Kavanaugh accuser

page: 6
41
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Lumenari

Yup, she sounds exactly like the type scum Avenatti would scrape up.



Indeed... and wasn't it interesting how quickly Avenatti smeared the accuser and said he was not credible... the hypocrisy is stunning.


Avenatti accidentally said on CNN the other night that the FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate any of these claims.




posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Parishna


She was underage, as far as drinking and buying liquor goes. She was 19, therefore, she could vote and be charged as an adult for a crime.

19 is an adult, according to the law. My mistake.



There is no concern about her buying liquor. It's about her being complicit with the alleged gang rapes of other underaged girls, where she returned to repeatedly to continue engaging in that environment, without nary a concern in her mind, to then, decades later and at an opportune time, suddenly remember it all and bring up things that further a democrat agenda in bringing someone down with nothing more than hearsay and slander.

She actually implicates herself in things done, more than her accusations do to others.

edit on 27-9-2018 by Parishna because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Parishna

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Parishna


She was underage, as far as drinking and buying liquor goes. She was 19, therefore, she could vote and be charged as an adult for a crime.

19 is an adult, according to the law. My mistake.



There is no concern about her buying liquor. It's about her being complicit with the alleged gang rapes of other underaged girls, where she returned to repeatedly to continue engaging in that environment, without nary a concern in her mind, to then, decades later and at an opportune time, suddenly remember it all and bring up things that further a democrat agenda in bringing someone down with nothing more than hearsay and slander.

She actually implicates herself in things done, more than her accusations do to others.


There's also the little matter that police aren't typically worried about charging people with underage drinking in the middle of a rape investigation.



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Parishna


The posters I was responding to made her complicit, even had her abetting rape and underage drinking, and suggested that maybe she supplied the liquor, because she was 19 and could. But, as far as I can see, she couldn't. Some other poster said that 19 and 20 year olds were "grandfathered" in, when the drinking age changed from 18 to 21 on July 1, of 1982. I'm not sure that's true, but it might be.



She actually implicates herself in things done, more than her accusations do to others.


And that, makes her story ring more true than not.


edit on 27-9-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Oh, you mean the liar Swetnick?

Sure, because any intelligent human believes someone will subject themselves to "gang rape" repeatedly yet keep voluntarily going back to that location/with those people.

Either she's the stupidest, lowest-IQ moron to have ever existed ever, or she's making it up. Or she consented to the behavior and now wants to criminalize her consensual mistake/very poor decisions. Either way, too bad. Should've reported it, and should've acted like it was a "gang rape" not a "party" that you go back to a dozen times over a short period of time.

Give me a break. I think all the accusers in this case are liars (as they were liars in accusations against Trump as well), but I find Sweat to be the least credible of all of them



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


'm not sure that's true, but it might be.


No, the laws made sense at one point in our history. You know, when legal adults over the age of majority could drink alcohol (since they can also own firearms, operate a motor vehicle and give their life serving this country)

Depending on which year it was (before those high strung anti's "ban this, ban that" cowards came along) an 18/19 year old absolutely could've purchased alcohol. Further, a child could've purchased it near freely provided they lied to the clerk and said they were purchasing it at the direction of their father/mother.

Things weren't always a # hole like they are today. Our country actually used to be exceptional, bold, daring, brave, and we knew how to take risks and win big. Nowadays, every body wants to be coddled and told how "special and great" they are without actually having to accomplish or do anything note worthy.

Of course we've also had plenty of loudmouths and politician coward scum who sold out our country/Constitution/liberty in the name of cowardly safety.

Why give your life defending your country, its honor or its Constitution or do anything requiring personal sacrifice when you can have people preening over you for being "brave enough" to call yourself a woman when you're really a man. Or when you can be "strong enough" to come forward with unfounded allegations of assault from 40 years ago simply to derail the nomination of a political party you merely disagree with. That's the problem with this country today: its people are soft as baby excrement.
edit on 9/27/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: UKTruth


Witness testimony is evidence. I have seen partial written testimony, and I believe that testimony to be true.


Kavanaugh's yearbook supports the women's claims, in my opinion.



The only witness testimony that we have seen (other than that of the accuser) state that they either don't recall the "gathering" ever occuring or deny it all together. One of whom was and still is a friend of Ford's who denies ever having met Kavanaugh. Keep in mind that, according to Ford, there were only a handful of people at this "gathering". How is that possible?



edit on 27-9-2018 by timequake because: typo



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Trying to destroy someone's credibility with someone who isn't credible to begin with. Do they not see how this will turn around and bit them in the ***.

A liberal female with a restraining order filed against her. Not as uncommon as you'd think. I speak from personal experience. Feminism and gender studies classes gave them the impression they could actually break the law without consequence. Because "mah vagina". Liberalism at it's finest.



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You said,


I'm not sure that's true, but it might be.


I saying that I lived through it at the time, so, if you can believe her accusations without a shred of proof, why can you not believe my statement? Oh, that's right, it doesn't fit your narrow minded narrative the MSM and DNC has told you to believe without question.

But, being as I actually think providing proof is something we should always strive to find or provide to support any statement, here you go....
Legal Information Institute: Grandfather Clause (Cornell Law School)

For example, when Washington, DC, raised its drinking age from 18 to 21, people between those ages, who could drink under the old law, were allowed to retain the right to legally consume alcohol under a grandfather clause.


Read it, understand it, and accept it!



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
All im saying is research these people before you blindly support them. Just because they have boobs.



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler


Okay, you're right. 18 is adult. But, it wasn't her house. She didn't buy the liquor. She didn't spike the punch. She observed, probably in hindsight.

Nobody is asking for criminal proceedings here. This is about the fitness of a US Supreme Court nominee.


Hahha your actually trying .. To defend this woman?

Goalpoast moving aside..

What the actual f**k?

You cant see whats playing out right infront of your eyes?

You think all these women stepping forward isnt being orcastrated by someone? Wink wink its the dems.

So why didnt ford say something for 6 weeks?

Thats right.. It didnt fit the agenda at the time πŸ‘Œ



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: samuelsson




So why didnt ford say something for 6 weeks?


If you listen to her testimony she eplains what she was doing and who she talked to during that time. I find her testimony to be extremely credible.



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: samuelsson




So why didnt ford say something for 6 weeks?


If you listen to her testimony she eplains what she was doing and who she talked to during that time. I find her testimony to be extremely credible.


Except for nobody confirming anything ?

πŸ˜ƒ



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Do you doubt that Ford talked to her Congress women, Her congress woman's staffer, Diane Feinstein, wrote letters and emails, interviewed and hired lawyers, took a polygraph and did an interview with the Washington Post?



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

LOL

πŸ–



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen


Do you doubt that Ford talked to her Congress women, Her congress woman's staffer, Diane Feinstein, wrote letters and emails, interviewed and hired lawyers, took a polygraph and did an interview with the Washington Post?




Yet in all that time, the one thing she could have done to ensure an REAL investigation was done she didn't do. That is, file a damned police report in that jurisdiction. That would have triggered all that she wanted to happen now.

But, I guess going to the press and the partisan politicians was more important, huh?

Right....no politics there.



posted on Sep, 27 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: projectvxn




Does the truth not matter in this endeavor?


Do you know the truth?


Anyone with any modicum of objectivity would defer to the evidence.

So yes.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 05:18 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
β€œRight after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO.


That guy that had an affair behind his wife's back - people think he's credible?

Wow, just think of all the people that thought President Clinton should have been Impeached for doing the same thing.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join