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: 168
79
<< 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Quadrivium

It is my understanding she said " Brett " once in the handwritten statement and " Mark " was mentioned three times.
She also didn't sign it with her legal name but as Christi Blasey.

That polygraph was a mess even beyond the standard.




posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: IAMTAT
THIS didn't take long...

Ford's lawyers (Read Fiendstein) say the supplemental FBI investigation MUST NOT have a scope or a time limit.


Yes because 35 years isn't long enough....... She and her Feinstein approved lawyer can decide not to cooperate with the FBI. Does she think someone else will have more evidence? Why didn't she mention anything like that in her testimony before the Senate?


I'm going to love the Democrats voting no after the FBI doesn't come up with any more evidence that is conclusive. Time to show their true colors. They are going to go apeshot when Bader-Ginsburg finally doesn't wake up from her naps. Breyer is 80, maybe we can get a 7 to 2 Court? You just know the Democrats won't be satisfied with the result after the FBI does their one week investigation. Feinstein will come up with another willing victim.



The Civil War has started.....people just don't realize it.

We will never have another 90 vote Confirmation for the Supreme Court in our lifetimes.


We might if we all vote in the Libertarian party and lose the Uniparty. Or if the R's sweep because the D's are totally 'unhinged'.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Women confronting Flake on elevator work for Soros.



SOROS STRIKES AGAIN: Flake screamer/assault victim is co-exec. dir. of the Soros-funded left-wing group Center for Democracy & Center for Democracy Action Fund.


twitter.com...



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: soberbacchus

Article

The gist of the letter, including some details were being reported on before Ford's identity was publicized.


This article is not leaking the letter or her name.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.


According to Ford, she told friends on the beach and that is where the leak originated.

The Dems did not out her, though that is convenient rhetoric as long as facts aren't involved.


Cause she tetsified only her, her democratic congresswoman, and fienstein teams had that letter.

And it was leaked, so one of them did it.



You might be conflating two different things.

A) Her name being leaked to the media and thus her going public. She said this happened after discussing with "beach friends"

B) The letter being shared with the press.

As best I can tell A) happened before B)

The letter wasn't leaked, it was part of the press explaining her accusation once she went public.

Can you please demonstrate otherwise if you disagree?




Her name may have been leaked first; i dont know. But she never authorized anyone to reveal the letter, no one has said she has. And the letter was leaked, so one of those dems did that.

Even the intercept which got the letter only said fienstein didnt leak it. If it was legitimately given at fords request then they would have no reason to make claims like that.


The intercept reported on the EXISTENCE of a letter, but NOT the letter itself.
theintercept.com...

They also said that Feinstein and staff were not the source.

The letter did not "leak" until AFTER Ford had gone public and AFTER Feinstein got permission to share the letter with the FBI and it was officially sent to FBI, added to Kavanaugh's background file and shared with the SENATE.

The dems did not out Ford and the letter being share followed her going public and after the letter was officially added to Kavenaugh's file and shared with the Senate.

www.vox.com...



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Grambler

The dems opened themselves up for Garland by being partisan and setting this in motion with the Biden rule. Both parties need to stop it, moreso the Democrats, but neither has clean hands.


Why do you think it would be any different? If Democrats had waited to try and block Kavanaugh's vote Republican's would have done away with the 60 vote rule at this point anyways, and nothing about the outcome would have changed from what we have now.


Ok I am sure someone probably stated this but in case not, What 60 vote rule? The Dems abolished it last administration. Are u implying that the R's have to reinstate it now?


The Dems used in 2013 for Presidential Nominees and Judicial nominees for lower courts. (excepting the Supreme Court)
In 2017 the GOP expanded it to Supreme Court Nominees.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: IAMTAT

I am so tired of the words "deemed credible" as if they mean the same as "proven in a court of law."

I am tired of deemed credible being used when there is zero credibility because their own witnesses contradict them.


TRUMP:
"It was an incredible moment, I think, in the history of our country," He said. "But certainly she was a very credible witness. She was very good in many respects."
www.politico.com...



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

She was credible as a witness since none of the inconveniences were brought up. There is no credibility to her story. It's changed 5 times.

It's nice to know that you take what Trump says at face value though.
edit on 29-9-2018 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

From what I can gather Feinstein came forward on Sept 13th and claimed she had a confidential letter regarding Kavanaugh and that she referred the matter to investigators.

On Sept 16th Ford came out as the author of the letter Feinstein was referring to days earlier. During this time the letter was still confidential, however, the next day, Sept 17th, the letter was public.

Ford claims she came out because reporters already knew. I'm not entirely sure that is true but if it is they may have been tipped off by statements Ford admits she made to friends in the weeks prior.

I believe the Republicans are using the supposed leak to score political points and not because they really care if Ford was outed, but I am not sure at this point who actually leaked the letter or if it was actually leaked per se.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Women confronting Flake on elevator work for Soros.

Please show us that she lied. Otherwise...so what?



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Identified




She contacted The Post through a tip line in early July, when it had become clear that Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of possible nominees to replace retiring justice Anthony M. Kennedy but before Trump announced his name publicly. A registered Democrat who has made small contributions to political organizations, she contacted her congresswoman, Democrat Anna G. Eshoo, around the same time. In late July, she sent a letter via Eshoo’s office to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

WaPo

Reporters already knew because she had been telling them for months...



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Ford stated she and her friends had been at 4 or 5 other parties with Kavanaugh prior to the incident.

If that was true then was Leland never at any of those parties? Who were the other female friends she went to parties with regularly that didn't include Leland?

Is there no one else who can place Kavanaugh at any party where Ford and/or Leland was also present?



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I'm really starting to doubt Kavanaugh's story. I'm not 100% believing Ford either.

But the Renata Alumni thing...and Kavanaugh telling us he was a virgin. The other allegations...stories of his drinking.

I need more information, but I'm leaning towards NOT wanting him on the Supreme court.

Keep in mind that there are literally 100s of other Judges waiting in the wings who are just as qualified as Kavanaugh.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I know Ford outed herself if not completely then basically by dropping clues to everyone who would listen. But the question is who "leaked" the letter.

I'm not even sure why it matters that the letter was released since Ford already went to the press anyway.

I also find it odd she played dumb on the entire GoFundMe management but was confident in maintaining anonymity with a reporter over an app.

I think the Senators, and in particular the Republicans, are blowing this out of proportion for political reasons and need to get back on track regarding allowing this fiasco to have gotten so out of control.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   
On the bright side, a week of mud-slinging, gaslighting and screaming protesters awaits.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Keep in mind Kavanaugh was "just as qualified" right up until the last day when all these allegations just happened to come out.

Anyone nominated from here on out will see the same attacks even though the month, year or decade before they were "just as qualified."

I don't even look at this from the standpoint of Kavanaugh being the accused. I look at this from the standpoint that the Senate Judiciary Committee did this to the process.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Identified
a reply to: amazing

Keep in mind Kavanaugh was "just as qualified" right up until the last day when all these allegations just happened to come out.

Anyone nominated from here on out will see the same attacks even though the month, year or decade before they were "just as qualified."

I don't even look at this from the standpoint of Kavanaugh being the accused. I look at this from the standpoint that the Senate Judiciary Committee did this to the process.



But they alwasy do this to the process, since the 80s no matter if it's a Democrat nominee or a republican nominee. They either dig up dirt or delay the process as long as possible.

Just looking at what's going on though, it appears as though Kavannah is lying about a lot of his past. Makes me wonder if he has the character I'd want on the supreme court. Too much to just be a coincidence. I'm saying next.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

I don't recall high school yearbooks being questioned before. Or whether someone drank during the week, as if those asking have never been near Dupont Circle during happy hour on a weekday.

I'm not bothered by someone not being particularly forthcoming when asked about ralphing and boofing during a SCOTUS confirmation.

I am, however, very bothered that this is to be considered the new standard of questioning.

Unless the next was in a coma for the last 40 years I suspect they too won't answer every ridiculous question just the way everyone wants.



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Not one of his ex or the dozens of girls that we know knew him dispute his being a virgin and not one witnessed him treat women poorly at parties.

Only women that seemingly never met him say bad things.

More than 60 people who knew Kavanaugh have signed a letter to directly refute Avenatti’s allegations
twitchy.com... tions/

edit on 29-9-2018 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yeah, he's a choir boy. Too bad his calendar didn't back it up.

Personally I don't care but his CYA doesn't seem like the kind of person who should be a top level judge. Truth and all that stuff being important in decisions...
edit on 9/29/2018 by roadgravel because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 165  166  167    169  170  171 >>

log in

join