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: 8
67
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


She was being questioned on her memory of the events during her polygraph, she was not in her hastily written letter to Feinstein. She explained all that in her testimony and questioning by Racheal Mitchell.

There's no reason to think she lied in either case. Her memory was better jogged under questions the polygrapher was asking her.




posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen



Dr. Ford’s counsel appears on morning shows saying her client wants public hearing to tell her story.


www.judiciary.senate.gov... made-and-disputed-regarding-judge-brett-kavanaugh

Where does Grassley say that Ford can have her public hearing with the Judicial Committee in California? You know, for context.



Some indication here ......

Dr Ford not clear about Committee offers



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Identified

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ausername

Her friend doesn't deny Kavanaugh raped her either. But the fact she said she doesn't remember ever meeting him is more meaningful.


Don't forget Ford also testified that she had been at 4 or 5 other parties with Kavanaugh prior to this incident. So Leland must not have been at those either.

I'm surprised not a single person has dug out old party photos showing any of these people together.
She testified that Leland drove her home from that party but Leland has no recollection of seeing Kavanaugh.


No she didn't. She said she came from the Country Club, where she had been swimming, but she didn't remember how she got there. She also didn't remember how she got home.


Correct.
The reason she "can't" remember is, most likely, because at the time of the alleged event, she was licensed to drive herself...
Which means she was NOT 15 at the time, as she claimed
Which means the alleged event did NOT happen in 1982, as she claimed

Her entire timeline is bogus.


I don't see how you arrive at any of those suppositions.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Where did Grassley offer to have a public hearing before the Judicial Committee in California? I believe that's what she was confused about, because he never did.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

She was asked only 2 questions in her polygraph.
She was asked if her statement was correct and if anything in the statement was false.
That's it.

That "statement" was a handwritten note with things scribbled out and changed all over it. It did not even mention last names.

It's laughable that her attorneys try to use this as evidence.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler


She was being questioned on her memory of the events during her polygraph, she was not in her hastily written letter to Feinstein. She explained all that in her testimony and questioning by Racheal Mitchell.

There's no reason to think she lied in either case. Her memory was better jogged under questions the polygrapher was asking her.






Hahahaha!

The extent you will go to justify your position is hilarious!

Show me the questions that the polygraph examiner asked her to have her jog her memory

He stated he only asked her two questions

Why was that testimony different than what she testified to the committee about?

She has told three different stories about how many people were there

Which ones were lies?



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The video clip is a beautiful example of what I was saying earlier of her snowing her attorneys with the ditzy act.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 30-9-2018 by Identified because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Identified

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ausername

Her friend doesn't deny Kavanaugh raped her either. But the fact she said she doesn't remember ever meeting him is more meaningful.


Don't forget Ford also testified that she had been at 4 or 5 other parties with Kavanaugh prior to this incident. So Leland must not have been at those either.

I'm surprised not a single person has dug out old party photos showing any of these people together.
She testified that Leland drove her home from that party but Leland has no recollection of seeing Kavanaugh.


No she didn't. She said she came from the Country Club, where she had been swimming, but she didn't remember how she got there. She also didn't remember how she got home.


Correct.
The reason she "can't" remember is, most likely, because at the time of the alleged event, she was licensed to drive herself...
Which means she was NOT 15 at the time, as she claimed
Which means the alleged event did NOT happen in 1982, as she claimed

Her entire timeline is bogus.


I don't see how you arrive at any of those suppositions.


How may times does this have to be explained to you?

She was offered to have people fly out to take her testimony

When Grassley told her, she said she didn’t know about that and would have liked to have done it that way

the Dems that don’t care about her at all wanted the testimony to be public to have more of an impact

She told Grassley she would have liked to have done it like they offered

That’s it

You can spin all you want they didn’t offer to fly out every senator there and do it public, but it is irrelevant



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Not only that, but it was only one page long and extremely vague, not even containing information she included in her first letter.

She has been extremely shrewed and people are falling all over her being fragile and confused because of 30 yrs of trauma and I am not buying it.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


She took the polygraph after writing her letter, right? The polygraph didn't indicate a stress point while she talked about the number of people in attendance, so it wasn't a big deal to her and her memory. What was a big deal, and indelibly etched in her mind were the two that corralled her into the bedroom and sexually assaulted and tried to rape her. Her fuzzy memory of the number and gender of the people at the gathering who didn't assault her has nothing to do with the event in question.

For me, the more I talk about ancient events in my past, the better my memory becomes.

edit on 30-9-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler


She took the polygraph after writing her letter, right? The polygraph didn't indicate a stress point while she talked about the number of people in attendance, so it wasn't a big deal to her and her memory. What was a big deal, and indelibly etched in her mind were the two that corralled her into the bedroom and sexually assaulted and tried to rape her. Her fuzzy memory of the number and gender of the people at the gathering who didn't assault her has nothing to do with the event in question.




It is relevant

The polygraph did not pick up she was lying when she said 4 boys two girls there

So when she changed her testimony to the committee that means either the polygraph was not reliable because it didn’t pick up she was wrong then, or it was reliable and she was lying to the committee



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Even the Grassley letter to Katz: You have stated repeatedly that Dr. Ford wants to tell her story.

This was in the same letter where he says they have tried to set up meeting her "in a time and place convenient for her."

So what exactly did Ford think was being offered and how did she expect to tell her story?

This woman is no where near as stupid and confused as she is playing.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

nevermind


edit on 9/30/18 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen


Where did Grassley offer to have a public hearing before the Judicial Committee in California? I believe that's what she was confused about, because he never did.



I never said he did.

I'm questioning what "Dr Ford" said, not Grassley or anybody else.

There is a claim she requested or "understood" the entire Committee come to California.

😎



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

They never asked her those kind of questions in the polygraph.
They asked her TWO questions.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Nevermind
edit on 30-9-2018 by Identified because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Well, that's not what I responding to. However, that's not what the letter in the OP says either. Ford wanted to give her testimony in a public forum. Apparently she and her attorney's didn't want to just give a statement to be entered into the record like Keyser's and Judge's were. She wanted to address each Senator and answer their questions.

Grassley also said, over and over, that all the Dems had to do was ask for an FBI investigation, insisting that they never did. But the Dems presented no less than 5 letters they wrote, asking for an FBI investigation. Maybe Grassley and Graham should investigate themselves.

Apparently, Grassley also hid from the Dems the fact that two men came forward to claim that they were the ones who assaulted Christine Ford, until the day of, I believe. What happened to them? Why didn't anyone read their statements into the record?





edit on 30-9-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You do realize that opinion in a ruling was concerning a FOIA hearing about fee's for students vs. educational institutions.
Not in offering an opinion on the reliability of said tests.

He did not agree with polygraphs, only that the government was satisfied for screening within their internal uses...and cited case law to support.

But, in the full text of the second, he would not release all the requested FOIA information because it would expose the flaws, techniques and allow persons to surcomvent the screening.

Ergo, they are flawed. As a judge, he protected the procedures flaws from becoming common knowledge to would be abusers.

In a very legal manner, he said they are flawed. Using your source.

Mg



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


I don't know why Dr Ford and her attorney's didn't respond to offers to have a staffer fly out to get her statement. I assume they had a reason. I only know that they insisted, several times, on a public forum to give her testimony.







 
67
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join