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: 16
67
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Poor comparison.

For every school gathering of 5 or 6 people I ever had, I remember it well enough - and I would certainly remember it if my friend talked me through it and described it to me.

Keyser's statement is all that matters. She says she never met Kavanaugh and has no knowledge of any party where Kavanaugh and Ford were there, let alone any attempted rape.

Moreover, if someone sexually assaulted me up to 8 miles from my house and I'd run out into the street and had to find a way home - I'd remember it. There were many times I did have to find my way home having been stranded - usually missing my train stop and waking up at the end of the line in Shoeburyness
I remember every time that happened how I got home.

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




posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.


I can't really discuss things with goofy invented logic.

A) Not Court of law, a nomination hearing. reasonable doubt is not a standard that is applicable.
B) "Reasonable doubt" never "proves" innocence, it only means the prosecution failed to meet that standard when it is demanded. Failure to convict someone of murder is not the same as proving their innocence.


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



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

We do not prove innocence. Innocence is the default position.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

None here.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Correct. The evidence as it stands now is insufficient to deny his nomination based on the sexual assault allegations.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Checkmate.

www.cbsnews.com...

Hired prosecutor doesn't buy Ford's story.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

Moreover, if someone sexually assaulted me up to 8 miles from my house and I'd run out into the street and had to find a way home - I'd remember it.


My hypothesis is she walked across the street to the Woodley Gardens Pool in Rockland where she had swimming with Friend Leyland before the party. She was likely picked up by her parents as would have been pre-arranged.

which comports with
Dr. Ford's Testimony of not remembering exactly where she was swimming (only estimating) based on where she usually went swimming that summer.
Those in attendance that Dr. Ford claims and Kavenaugh cites same on his Calendar. (PJ, Mark Judge, Kavenaugh)
"Timmy's" house, which was a one-bathroom, two story townhouse, modest as Dr. Ford described it.

No drama of getting home, just a walk across the street back to her friends public pool where her parents would pick her up.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gazrok
Checkmate.

www.cbsnews.com...

Hired prosecutor doesn't buy Ford's story.


That is not really a checkmate?

A Prosecutor that was given 5 minute stuttered intervals, asked the wrong questions and pulled from the process for incompetency and not allowed to question Kavenaugh as agreed?

Now suddenly her opinion matters?

She concluded that there would be insufficient evidence to bring the case to trial based on Ford's testimony alone.
That makes sense.

This is not a trial, the "prosecutor" had insufficient time to question and all of the witnesses were not interviewed and the FBI is now working on it.

We will see how this fleshes out.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.


I can't really discuss things with goofy invented logic.

A) Not Court of law, a nomination hearing. reasonable doubt is not a standard that is applicable.
B) "Reasonable doubt" never "proves" innocence, it only means the prosecution failed to meet that standard when it is demanded. Failure to convict someone of murder is not the same as proving their innocence.



You need to read and comprehend first in order to have a discussion.
Innocence NEVER needs to be proven, which is what I said.

This is what you said that I responded to.


Kavenaugh's guilt has not been proved or disproved. His innocence is "speculation" as much as his guilt.


That's a goofy statement.
You don't have to disprove guilt, you don't have to prove innocence.

You have to prove guilt. That's it.

Believe me when I tell you, your argument that it is OK to smear someone and get them fired or rejected for a career promotion based on utterly uncorroborated accusations just because it is not in court, is a lousy argument and utterly despicable. It's also a false narrative (one you've pushed several times across multiple threads as an excuse to tar and feather a political opponent in the absence of any proof) - I am confident the majority of people use their judgement in assessing such situations and reasonable doubt is at the heart of that assessment.




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



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

We do not prove innocence.


tell that to the poster I was responding to?



originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.


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



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.


I can't really discuss things with goofy invented logic.

A) Not Court of law, a nomination hearing. reasonable doubt is not a standard that is applicable.
B) "Reasonable doubt" never "proves" innocence, it only means the prosecution failed to meet that standard when it is demanded. Failure to convict someone of murder is not the same as proving their innocence.



You need to read and comprehend first in order to have a discussion.
Innocence NEVER needs to be proven, which is what I said.




You need to read your own posts.

You claimed that he had been PROVEN NOT GUILTY.



He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

We do not prove innocence.


tell that to the poster I was responding to?



originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.


I am telling you. He starts off innocent. They need to prove guilt. They are at about 5% of the way there in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

More of your fantasy parading as fact.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Yes, we'll see. It's a reading of the room to be sure.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.


I can't really discuss things with goofy invented logic.

A) Not Court of law, a nomination hearing. reasonable doubt is not a standard that is applicable.
B) "Reasonable doubt" never "proves" innocence, it only means the prosecution failed to meet that standard when it is demanded. Failure to convict someone of murder is not the same as proving their innocence.



You need to read and comprehend first in order to have a discussion.
Innocence NEVER needs to be proven, which is what I said.




You need to read your own posts.

You claimed that he had been PROVEN NOT GUILTY.



He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.


here is my full post

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.


You're dishonest as well as partisan it seems.
'Not Guilty' is a verdict. It happens when an accuser fails to prove their case.
A 3yr old understand that.


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



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

All of that is your fantasy and is not supported by Ford.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

We do not prove innocence.


tell that to the poster I was responding to?



originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.


I am telling you. He starts off innocent. They need to prove guilt. They are at about 5% of the way there in my opinion.


Right. But what I responded to was a poster that claimed Kavenaugh had been "PROVEN NOT GUILTY"

Which is just dumb.

He has a presumption of innocence. That presumption does not equate to him being PROVEN innocent.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

We do not prove innocence.


tell that to the poster I was responding to?



originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.


I am telling you. He starts off innocent. They need to prove guilt. They are at about 5% of the way there in my opinion.


Right. But what I responded to was a poster that claimed Kavenaugh had been "PROVEN NOT GUILTY"

Which is just dumb.

He has a presumption of innocence. That presumption does not equate to him being PROVEN innocent.


'Not Guilty' and 'Innocent' are two very different things.
You are showing your lack of knowledge by using them interchangeably.
As I said in my post Kavanaugh does not have to prove his innocence.

Take some time to learn the difference between 'not guilty' and innocent' and then you might be able to have that discussion you were after. But at least come to the party with some basic knowledge.

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



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gazrok
Yes, we'll see. It's a reading of the room to be sure.


Right. If this was an investigation and the cops call in the prosecutor to talk to a witness, Mitchell made the right call. "I wouldn't take this to trial". She would also tell the cops they need to actually investigate the claim first.
That is what is happening this week.
After the FBI investigates is when the evidence and testimony should be evaluated.
Cops present full evidence to a prosecutor asking if it warrants going to trial.
Not just the first statement or allegation.
We will see where it lands by the end of this week.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

We do not prove innocence.


tell that to the poster I was responding to?



originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.


I am telling you. He starts off innocent. They need to prove guilt. They are at about 5% of the way there in my opinion.


Right. But what I responded to was a poster that claimed Kavenaugh had been "PROVEN NOT GUILTY"

Which is just dumb.

He has a presumption of innocence. That presumption does not equate to him being PROVEN innocent.


'Not Guilty' and 'Innocent' are two very different things.



Please...go ahead and tell me the difference between:

"Proven innocent"
and
"Proven not guilty"

Note:
Being "found" not guilty by jury trial is different than "proven not guilty"
Being "presumed" innocent is different than being "proven innocent"

Go ahead and explain how he has been "Proven not guilty".



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

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.

We do not prove innocence.


tell that to the poster I was responding to?



originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.


I am telling you. He starts off innocent. They need to prove guilt. They are at about 5% of the way there in my opinion.


Right. But what I responded to was a poster that claimed Kavenaugh had been "PROVEN NOT GUILTY"

Which is just dumb.

He has a presumption of innocence. That presumption does not equate to him being PROVEN innocent.


'Not Guilty' and 'Innocent' are two very different things.



Please...go ahead and tell me the difference between:

"Proven innocent"
and
"Proven not guilty"

Note:
Being "found" not guilty by jury trial is different than "proven not guilty"
Being "presumed" innocent is different than being "proven innocent"

Go ahead and explain how he has been "Proven not guilty".


Do some research to gain some knowledge... I'll even start you off as a kind gesture.
www.amacdonaldlaw.com...

If that doesn't work, if you have children or know some small child, ask them.. they'll be able to help you out.




top topics



 
67
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join