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.

 

Senator Grassley Sends Criminal Referral to FBI - Investigate This Brett Kavanaugh Accuser.

page: 15
67
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

What kind of life did you lead that going to a party of 4 boys you never met to have the one girl you know, who you went with, disappear without a trace, and that is just a normal day to you.




posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
She does not know him (present tense)
She does not remember meeting him at a party 30 years ago.

That does not mean she never met him.

It means that as far as she knows she never met him and never went to a party her friend disappeared from. Based on what we know, that is likely the truth.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yep, she says she doesn't know him. When asking to be a corroborating witness to a friend, that's pretty conclusive. Oh and never remembers meeting him ever.

The only pretzel being baked right now is your own, fella.

Keyser : "I do not know him and don't remember ever meeting him"
You : "Ah! So you might have met him at the party!"

Give me a break. Layering on hypotheticals about what Keyser DIDN'T say, on top of a non-corroborated accusation of sexual assault is taking you further from what we know.

What we know is
- Dr Ford changed her story multiple times.
- she can't remember any detail that could bring in any witness, like how did she get home
- none of the people she says were at the party remember it, including her friend who doesn't even know Kavanaugh.

There is no case to answer and the accusation is completely unbelievable.



edit on 1/10/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: soberbacchus

Do you have any recollection of raping multiple women in a satanic ritual and then killing them?


My watch was stolen.

I don't remember exactly when and where it was stolen, but I remember seeing this particular guy I hardly knew 37 years ago stealing it.

These 4 other people were with me when he stole it, even though they say they have no memory of it happening...or even saying they didn't meet the guy.
The guy denies he stole it...but I'M 100% SURE he stole it.

NOW...

Is this guy guilty unless he can prove he didn't steal it?
Should he lose the new job promotion he is about to get because of my accusation?

edit on 1-10-2018 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: soberbacchus

What kind of life did you lead that going to a party of 4 boys you never met to have the one girl you know, who you went with, disappear without a trace, and that is just a normal day to you.


Well put.
We're being asked to believe the utterly incredible, with no proof, yet plenty of STATED motive for Democrats to spin in order to delay the seating of a Justice to the SC.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

The important thing is you agree he shouldn’t have the sexual assault allegations held against him if no more evidence arises


Correct.

If I was on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Kavenaugh presented as the ideal nominee (I think he is far from it) and all we had to go on was these allegations and an FBI investigation turned up no supporting evidence, no witnesses or even found evidence disproving the claims, I would have to vote yes to his nomination.

Again, I think he has disqualified himself with his man-baby tantrum raving about partisan conspiracies and "Clinton's revenge". I also think he seriously fudged in his description of himself as a choir boy who didn't have time to party. Dishonesty is disqualifying.

But if it was just the sexual assault allegations and no corroborating witnesses or supporting evidence? Allegations by themselves and unsupported should not be damning to a nominee unless supported in some credible way. Investigated? Absolutely. But allegations don't count by themselves.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Then we agree he should be confirmed.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Oh, you couldn't make it up ... Democrat lawyer for Ellison... accusations 'unsubstantiated'. LOL
They are not calling for any FBI investigation, yet Ellsion is asking to be the States #1 law enforcement officer.

New rules.. believe all women, unless they are accusing a Democrat, in which case ignore them until they can prove it.





posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yep, she says she doesn't know him. When asking to be a corroborating witness to a friend, that's pretty conclusive. Oh and never remembers meeting him ever.

The only pretzel being baked right now is your own, fella.

Keyser : "I do not know him and don't remember ever meeting him"
You : "Ah! So you might have met him at the party!"

Give me a break. Layering on hypotheticals about what Keyser DIDN'T say,


It is not hypothetical?
You changing what she said to "She never met him" is hypothetical.

I am just quoting what she said.

Maybe this will help you, but I suspect clarity is not your aim:


On Saturday, Keyser said through her lawyer in a letter to the committee that she was willing to "cooperate fully with the FBI's supplemental investigation" into Kavanaugh.

"However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," the letter from Howard Walsh, Keyser's attorney, said. It continued that Keyser "does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account."

"However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question," the letter continued.

www.cbsnews.com...

Is there anyone on this thread that can list everyone they ever met at a party in HS? Under penalty of Felony Perjury?

It's effed up that you guys are so obsessed with a narrative that you begin with that premise.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Is the guy who stole your watch a Democrat or a Republican?



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: soberbacchus

Then we agree he should be confirmed.


I think you have some reading comprehension issues.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: IAMTAT

Is the guy who stole your watch a Democrat or a Republican?



He STOLE from me!
...so, obviously he's a Democrat.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   

That does not mean she never met him.


In the absence of other evidence, in regards to this case, yes it does. Anything else is just pure speculation that has no place in the investigation.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Dude. She says clearly she doesn't know Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

Are you suggesting she left out the bit about knowing him previously and perhaps meeting him one to one??? You are reaching. Remember that as a witness her job is to corroborate the accusation. She didn't. You're trying to pick scenarios based on what she DIDN'T say that MIGHT corroborate the story. That's a nebulous talking point never mind the fact it is wholly without place in any investigation.

This is Ford's friend we're talking about - one she is STILL in contact with and was in contact with AFTER she made the claim.

Jeez.

edit on 1/10/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: IAMTAT

Is the guy who stole your watch a Democrat or a Republican?



He STOLE from me!
...so, obviously he's a Democrat.


Sorry mate - if he's a Democrat, you'll have to prove it.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gazrok

That does not mean she never met him.


In the absence of other evidence, in regards to this case, yes it does. Anything else is just pure speculation that has no place in the investigation.


Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Kavenaugh's guilt has not been proved or disproved.

His innocence is "speculation" as much as his guilt.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.
You see reasonable doubt is on the side of the accused, not the accuser.

He has not - doesn't have to - and never will - prove his innocence.

Unless some new evidence comes forward to prove Kavanaugh did it, then the only fair thing to do is confirm him.
Really he should have already been confirmed and Dr Ford should have been referred to the police to take it up with them.
You can prosecute SC Justice's you know.
edit on 1/10/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

Dude. She says clearly she doesn't know Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.



No doubt there are hundreds of people from your HS years that you might say the same about.

That would not qualify as under oath as "having never met them".

I just went to a HS reunion where everyone gave HS pictures for a slide show.

Pictures of me at parties where there might be 10 people in the picture and I could only name or recognize one or two.

The premise that you begin with is that someone remembers everyone they ever attended a party with 30 years ago in HS.

It's a stupid premise.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yep, she says she doesn't know him. When asking to be a corroborating witness to a friend, that's pretty conclusive. Oh and never remembers meeting him ever.

The only pretzel being baked right now is your own, fella.

Keyser : "I do not know him and don't remember ever meeting him"
You : "Ah! So you might have met him at the party!"

Give me a break. Layering on hypotheticals about what Keyser DIDN'T say,



"However, as my client has already made clear, she does not know Judge Kavanaugh and has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," the letter from Howard Walsh, Keyser's attorney, said. It continued that Keyser "does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account."




Thought I would place a red emphasis on the key word that you keep missing in that quote.
A tiny word that separates two separate and individual items or thoughts. Hope this helps you understand the real truth of that statement!
edit on 10 1 2018 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Is there anyone on this thread that can list everyone they ever met at a party in HS? Under penalty of Felony Perjury?

It's effed up that you guys are so obsessed with a narrative that you begin with that premise.

I can name every person I have met at a party when the only person I knew, and went with, disappeared without a word and never ever told me what happened to them.

What kind of life did you lead that that is common for you?



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join