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.

 

Ford - Kavanaugh Hearings 9-27-18

page: 160
79
<< 157  158  159    161  162  163 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Personally I think Presidents have the constitutional right to appoint while in office and that no matter which party is in power, that should be the case always. There should be a time limit on how long a vote can be delayed however to stop the partisan madness. Both sides are phony on that topic. Transparently so.

What you said though was factually wrong. I'm not a partisan. It was applied to a Presidential election year. That was my only point.

Problem is partisans think it's a sporting event and cheer on their side no matter how bad the behavior. I doubt most voters even know anything about issues other than what they have been spoon-fed and do what their team leaders tell them blindly and the politicians know that and play their followers like a fiddle.

These hearings are being used as campaign tools and no matter who is doing it, it's sickening and even more sickening that party loyalists just don't care. That's how we got into this mess; partisans.




posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: IAMTAT

The worst thing here is that Judge is a recovering alcoholic, struggles with depression, etc., oh and is a cancer survivor.

How long do you think it will take before they hound him to either relapse or commit suicide?

This is why he wanted to be kept in private on this. He's fragile.


Just watch what Avenatti and Co. pull out on Mark Judge this week...With Judge, finding 'smear' material will by like trying to find diamonds at Tiffany's.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Identified
What is everyone going to say when the FBI comes back a day later and says there is nothing? When they say we can't even get a warrant based on these allegations? The FBI can't Constitutionally just investigate people. There has to be something to actually look at and reason to believe a crime may have been committed.

What are they going to do when they request her therapy records and she refuses? She has already said she will refuse to provide them.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

What you describe is entirely consistent with someone trying to explain something truthfully in a way that is easy for them to understand.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Ok so they've added another act to the circus. Will the democrats accept the outcome of the investigation they demanded?



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
Ok so they've added another act to the circus. Will the democrats accept the outcome of the investigation they demanded?



Of course not.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Identified
What is everyone going to say when the FBI comes back a day later and says there is nothing? When they say we can't even get a warrant based on these allegations? The FBI can't Constitutionally just investigate people. There has to be something to actually look at and reason to believe a crime may have been committed.

What are they going to do when they request her therapy records and she refuses? She has already said she will refuse to provide them.


That's the problem here. The FBI has very narrow powers and they can't just ask for things for no legal reason. I'm not sure if a judge would give them a subpoena for her records if she declined. These accusers can stall on every last thing and force the FBI to seek subpoena or warrants and that takes times and may never be granted and then what? Nothing. And then we have people crying it wasn't thorough and the FBI is partisan and it's just a complete mess.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Flake should watch this video, from former VP Biden when he was chair of the same committee, so democrats was Biden wrong back then ?
He sounds right to me.


edit on 28-9-2018 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I'm interested in these other two people who claim to be the Judge and Kavanaugh in Ford's story. This is about to get very interesting if the FBI aren't hampered by coddling the accuser.

And don't think for a minute that the MeToo brigade won't inundated the FBI with "info" just to slow the process.
edit on 28-9-2018 by Identified because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Of course not.

Facts/Truth are not the object here.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
Ok so they've added another act to the circus. Will the democrats accept the outcome of the investigation they demanded?

Well, if it's as comprehensive as it can be in a week, they're pretty well gonna have to. Though neither party is beyond pissing in its boots.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I hear some Dems are already calling this a SHAM investigation.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
The thing that strikes me, and I can not get out of my mind, is:

If she can not remember where the house was,
If she can not remember who took her there,
If she can not remember the date,
The Month,
The Year,
If she can not remember how she got home,

How can she possibly be 100% certain it was Kavanaugh?

It seems too convenient.
No witness to testify they took her to the party.
No witness to testify they saw her in the area.
No witness to testify they took her home.
No way to argue the date in question.


Yeah, I just can not accept this as true.
Quad



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: ketsuko

The FBI should also look into who violated Christine Fords wishes by leaking her letter to the public.


Was the letter leaked?

Dr. Forward came forward publicly with the Wapo interview before the letter was made public.

So I am confused both about the significance of the letter being released, since Dr. Ford had already gone public as well as whether it was released officially or "leaked".

Who published it first and when?



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Identified

It's an investigation she is asking for so no one will make her turn over records. It's a circus.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
Ok so they've added another act to the circus. Will the democrats accept the outcome of the investigation they demanded?



You remember when Hillary said Trump and rhe repubs should accept the election results whatever they may be, right? They almost never swallow their own pills.

A2D



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

According to Ford it was leaked. Democrats blamed Republicans. Republicans then proved it had to be someone Ford trusted since the Democrats and her lawyers that the Democrats bought for her are the only ones who had it.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

The reason Dr Ford came forward was because she had the press already at her house..... someone leaked her name.

A2D



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: ketsuko

The FBI should also look into who violated Christine Fords wishes by leaking her letter to the public.


Was the letter leaked?

Dr. Forward came forward publicly with the Wapo interview before the letter was made public.

So I am confused both about the significance of the letter being released, since Dr. Ford had already gone public as well as whether it was released officially or "leaked".

Who published it first and when?


Maybe it was a Chinese spy...err...guy in Feinstein's office, or possibly (and sadly most likely) one of Fords "Beach Friends" looking for a quick buck.



posted on Sep, 28 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Identified

IIRC it's her ex bf who says the scene she describes was something he was involved in with her.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 157  158  159    161  162  163 >>

log in

join