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.

 

Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell COMPLETELY EXONERATES Judge Kavanaugh in new report

page: 4
78
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

See that's the problem. Going wilder is entirely consistent with that experience, it's just not what she claims happened to her. What she said she experienced and what we know she did do not seem to match.




posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: Xcathdra

Those Soros' backed protestors surely flipped FLAKE in an elevator...


yep.. that did it.
As soon as I saw that, i knew it was a problem.
The girls in the lift looked scared
Flake was looking around for security
He couldn't leave
He was being filmed
the Girls were asking legitimate questions about sexual assault and rape - but framing it very dishonestly.

Soros, Clinton, Kamel, Comey, Mccabe, Strzok... they all watched that little piece of footage and laughed!


Those cries of victimhood were disgusting. Flake is a wimp.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: SPNoble
Awesome news but I'm not gonna celebrate till he's officially sworn in, the Democrats have another 5 days or so to pull some BS


Not only will the Democrats pull a rabbit out of the hat...the FBI has been shown to be very liberal and anti Trump... they will rip Kavanaugh to shreds.

Kavanaugh doesn't have a fair chance, my bet he will not be sworn in....unless they find Blasey Ford lying or paid off etc...



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Ford's Senate testimony: 'I will never forget' the details of night of alleged assault

www.cnn.com...

Except how I got there, when it was, how I got home, what day, month, year it was ....



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
The PUSH BACK to Mitchell's report/findings is starting already. Pushing the "trauma erases memory" angle, without mentioning Christine Ford by name.

www.ajc.com...


Even if trauma does erase memory, she simply has not provided consistent, verifiable information to come to the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that Kavenaugh sexually assaulted her. In fact, she wasn't even close.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

They're like a snake eating itself. If it erases memory, that's probably why she thinks it was Kavanaugh.

Personally I don't think it was traumatic in her life. I think she let two guys have their way with her, she's just dumb enough to blame it on a guy Trump supports. But that's why Leland, Mark, and the other guy can't remember anytime where something like this happened, which of course Ford blames on mental illness. I've run across some crazy women in my 39 years and I can tell you that more times than not, they look strung out like Ford and sound just like her. I think she's a mental case.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I agree that she is being used by the DEMS and, being as she is a highly educated psychologist, she would know that it is mighty convenient that is it well documented that survivors of trauma have disjointed memories. I can remember the feel of the ground under me from my assault in 2013 in Chicago, (why we moved away, in fact). I can remember meeting this person, the man offering to help me locate my husband. (LONG story) and the sounds of the city. The way the man smiled and how we were laughing as we walked. The moments after the man kicked my feet out from under me and pushed me face forward into the ground, I have no memory. Or at least I didn't until a random encounter with a stranger "triggered" the memory of that night.

Unfortunately, no he was never caught. I refused to go to the hospital. I was ashamed and because of many many issues I wish to not discuss here, refused to go to the hospital. I initially even refused to make a police report.
Everything that happened to me as a child was never reported, not even to CPS. Even when bruises were noticed by teachers at school. a reply to: Grambler
edit on 10/1/2018 by Cornczech because: retarded

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



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Flake is a TOTAL wimp...would YOU vote for a "man" who allowed someone to yell at them: "LOOKK AT ME WHEN I AM TALKING TO YOU!!!!" My MOTHER used to say that to me when I was 5 years old!!!
a reply to: LSU2018


edit on 10/1/2018 by Cornczech because: meh



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


During a part of the question Mitchell asked Ford about her letter to Feinstein. In her response Ford stated Feinstein told her she would release the letter just prior to the vote occurring. 


Maybe I'm missing something, but I've been paying very close attention to exactly what DiFi did and didn't do, and as I recall and according to the hearing transcript, it was Ford's understanding -- and request -- that DiFi would maintain her confidentiality:

MITCHELL: Thank you, counsel. I want to make sure I understood what you said. Was it your understanding, it was going to be kept confidential up until right before the hearing?

FORD: It was my understanding that it was going to be kept confidential period.

When Mitchell tried to ask if her attorneys or anyone had spoken for to say otherwise, Ford's attorney did interrupt with an objection:

(UNKNOWN): Excuse me. You’ve all asked her not to guess, and now you’re asking her what’s possible. So I think if you want to ask her what she knows, you should ask her what she knows.

MITCHELL: Is that an objection (ph), counsel?

(UNKNOWN): It is an objection (ph)…

MITCHELL: I’ll have the chair rule on that.

FORD: I don’t know what the — I don’t understand.

Then, after some "off mic" discussion, Ford affirms her statement:

FORD: So I don’t totally understand the question, but I didn’t speak with anyone during that timeframe other than my counsel.

MITCHELL: OK. You’ve said repeatedly that you did not think that that letter that you wrote on July 30th was going to be released to the public, is that correct?

FORD: Correct.

MITCHELL: OK. And is it true that you did not authorize it to be released at any time?

FORD: Correct.

I'm really not trying to protect DiFi, but I also really believe that DiFi is being set up to take the fall for what the attorneys did.

Transcript of Hearing (Washington Post)



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   
well, she said she was afraid of flying, yet flew for "pleasure".....I guess she's afraid of "boys" except for her pleasure......a reply to: OccamsRazor04



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Outside of all the other discrepancies, her handwriting is what my middle school teachers would have called "chicken scratch." I can't believe she would send something so poorly put together.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: TinySickTears

No, that is the polygraph statement.



I heard that all two questions she had to answer were "Did you tell the truth?" and "Did you lie in any of your story?"

Did the left REALLY think they could push this through as a legitimate "She took and passed a polygraph test"?



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: ketsuko

It would be an all time epic backfire if the dems holding this info and using it to ambush kavanaugh caused them to not take the house or senate.
Do they not understand how many regular people are angry about this?


No. They don't care about regular people. They only think about them on election night.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

And the 2 questions were pre-arranged the night before and she knew what they would be.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Her bottom line:

A "he said, she said" case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

... along with her reasons:

    - Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.
    - Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.
    - When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.
    - Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question--details that could help corroborate her account.
    - Dr. Ford's account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended--even her lifelong friend.
    - Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.
    - Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.
    - Dr. Ford's description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.
    - The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford's account.

... definitely adds up to this account not meeting specific standards of proof, or even standards of a preponderance of the evidence to even indict Kavanaugh (if the statute of limitations hadn't expired, anyhow). Much of what she claims, I have been listing and citing over the past week or two, and I'm glad to see that maybe certain types of people here will believe the claims now that they're made by a professional prosecutor who lists reasons and sub-reasons for coming to her conclusion.

Now to read past your OP and see who is still living in denial...

Thanks the for post.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Cornczech

She says she was terrified of boys for years. Yet people from her college days have said she hooked up with guys a lot.


Yeah, she wasn't terrified any more than Swetnick was terrified of letting a bunch of underage guys donk her at a party when she was 21.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cornczech
Flake is a TOTAL wimp...would YOU vote for a "man" who allowed someone to yell at them: "LOOKK AT ME WHEN I AM TALKING TO YOU!!!!" My MOTHER used to say that to me when I was 5 years old!!!
a reply to: LSU2018



Absolutely not. I would have pushed my way through and kept walking while they yelled at me, just like Graham did when those annoying little creeps were screaming at him in the hallway. Poking at him and stuff. I don't know how they get away with it. When Jesse Waters was trying to ask Maxine Waters a question after one of those meetings, her guys shoved him out of the way.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cornczech
well, she said she was afraid of flying, yet flew for "pleasure".....I guess she's afraid of "boys" except for her pleasure......a reply to: OccamsRazor04



She also declined them coming to her, which she claims she didn't know was an offer on the table. Not to mention, when she was offered a flight, and a visit which were both declined, she was just 90 miles east in Delaware.



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Excellent summary by Mitchell

Many of us participating on the live thread picked a lot of this up

However, it won’t matter to the Dems or the media

They know Kavanaugh is guilty and we are monsters for even reading Mitchell’s report here


They will argue that this was never about kavanaugh being charged with crimes, so the prosecutor's assessment is irrelevant. For them the line for the public is and will be it was all about the character of a man who will sit for a lifetime on the supreme court.

That's why no one involved is interested in filing a complaint with the appropriate authorities, even though Maryland has again insisted they will investigate if someone files a complaint.

The FBI can't conclude anything in their investigation, so it doesn't matter what they find in their investigation, it will most likely confirm what everyone already knows. It was just another delay tactic.

No one involved will file any complaint in this case even though they can in the state because that could backfire in ways not possible in "committee hearings"

www.foxnews.com...
edit on 1-10-2018 by ausername because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: SPNoble
Awesome news but I'm not gonna celebrate till he's officially sworn in, the Democrats have another 5 days or so to pull some BS


Actually, it's really not awesome news--we have a federal judge being flayed in public for a very serious allegation that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't appear to be attributable to him. We also have suspicion of witness tampering by Democrat senators and attorneys, which is a crime that can be applied to congressional hearings and not just court proceedings.

We also have a woman who is truly seems very scarred by SOMETHING that happened back in the early '80s, but appears confused and has, IMO, been somehow coerced into being used as a political tool to dishonestly manipulate the confirmation hearing of a SCOTUS Justice.

So, no, I don't think that nay of this is "awesome news" at all, although I do like to see a professional make a level-headed assessment of the incident based on face-to-face questioning of the accuser, but I don't hold any sort of the false hope that it will sway anyone who is convinced of Kavanaugh's guilt, to include the senators who need to pay attention to Ms. Mitchell's assessment of the allegation and base their decisions on that.

My prediction is that the FBI come to the same conclusion--a lack of evidence to corroborate the claim. At that point, these Democrat senators will need to set this issue aside and vote solely on Kavanaugh's merits as a judge, or further expose themselves to be the obstructionist politicians that they prove themselves to be time and time again.

(and the Repubs would probably be doing this, too, if the shoe were on the other foot)







 
78
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join