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 Friend McClean Refutes Polygraph Claim of Ford's Ex-Boyfriend

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
If you were accused of wrong doing, should you have the opportunity to present your side without being automatically condemned based solely off of the words of the accuser?


Yeah, that's what a trial is for.

Say I was Brent Krybaby and none of the things about me were true, like me trying to choke-eff some drunk minor or being in Phi Date-a Rape-a fraternity, I would hire an attorney, and being that I was nominated to the Supreme Court I would most likely know at least one or two half way decent ones, and sue her friggin ass for slander until it bled.


But this isn't a trial. Do you think Kavanaugh should have the opportunity to present his side without being automatically condemned based solely off of the words of the accuser? Do you think he should be presumed guilty or innocent? Do you think he should lose employment, his job, based on allegations alone?




posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
But this isn't a trial.


Exactly what I have been saying, therefore, no due process. Thanks for agreeing.


Do you think Kavanaugh should have the opportunity to present his side without being automatically condemned based solely off of the words of the accuser? Do you think he should be presumed guilty or innocent? Do you think he should lose employment, his job, based on allegations alone?


Tell me when he; hasn't said his piece, gone to jail or lost his job. This is a he said/she said and I don't believe either one of them. They've both lied and are both full of s*** in my opinion. And before you ask me to get into detail on either, I'm not, I don't have the interest to dissect this moronic soap opera.






edit on 3-10-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

now i know lying under oath comes with a penalty but imo if you are in that position, the risk is probably worth it

^^^^^^^^



Not sure if you know this or not, but perjury is a crime, where as lying is not. So when someone swears under penalty of perjury, they understand that if they are found to be lying, they will face punishment. Where as if they just bull# randomly, they are a typical liar. No penalty. Make sense?


pretty sure i know that which is why i said it comes with a penalty.

so if they are found to be lying they will face punishment.... ok.
so that means people dont lie under oath every day? is that what you think?

so you live in a world where there is no crime?
you know, crime?
those things people do every day that land them in jail.

jails are pretty full.

i see what you are getting at but i think you need to come down here to reality land

for a lot of people they take it really really serious and would not could not sam i am lie under oath

then there are the other people. the real people. the piece of # people....
people like me that would not think twice about it



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




Exactly what I have bene saying, therefore, no due process. Thanks for agreeing.



So no, you do not believe Kavanaugh should have the opportunity to present his side without being automatically condemned based solely off of the words of the accuser. You do you think he should be presumed innocent. You do not care whether he should loses employment, his job, based on allegations alone. Because, afterall, due process in trials only.

I don't agree.

edit on 3-10-2018 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
They've both lied





no way bro
not possible bro

they were under oath

lying under oath is a crime

people dont commit crimes

thats why jails are so empty, there are no cops and lawyers are cheap

oh wait



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe


Odd that this was all she said. She didnt deny knowing the guy or that he lived with Ford and most importantly that the timeline fits.


What is that odd? Why would she deny knowing who the guy was or that he'd been in a relationship with Ford, etc if it's true?


So...how would this guy know she was going to have to take a polygraph for a job that she apparently was starting while he and Ford were together?


You're assuming that he knew at the time based on what he says now. She was an FBI agent. All FBI applicants must take and pass a polygraph. I don't know her at all and I know that she took a polygraph. In fact, she's probably taken quite a few. He may also have simply recalled her talking about how she was expecting to take one or had taken one.


He sure knows a lot of facts about someone that just puts out a simple statement that she got now help.


AFAIK, nobody is disputing that he was acquainted with McLean and exactly how many "facts" do you consider "a lot?" And knowing things about her doesn't make his claim true/accurate.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I knew she would deny it she was FBI. She could never admit seeking advice on polygraphs because that implied she was trying to scam the test.

As former FBI she could still be tried in court for violations of national security. I will say the fact she had to do a polygraph means there was a problem. They do that during investigations such as leaks etc.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

it sure makes the lie a bit of a challenge, when faced with a punishment, rather than nothing. or do you disagree?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Yes, it would be great if there was some way to actually know when people were telling the truth. Well, right up until you needed to lie about something.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Yeah, but watching the Democrats and Republicans fall over each other to act like the bigger bunch of assholes makes my popcorn taste even more scrumptious.

March to that paradigm, bitches.


Alleged popcorn.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
So no, you do not believe Kavanaugh should have the opportunity to present his side...


I frankly don't care what Krybaby does, he could get word raped by her for all I care. He had him moment before the Senate just like that dimwit with the faulty memory. Did she stop him from saying what he wanted to between bouts of weepiness?

And it doesnt matter if you agree with me or not, what matters is due process, as I have shown you, concerns trials, not some random person on the internet's opinion of what it means. I'm still waiting on your revised defintion that fits your preconceptions, but only for another page, then I'll assume you couldnt find what doesnt exist.






edit on 3-10-2018 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
If you were accused of wrong doing, should you have the opportunity to present your side without being automatically condemned based solely off of the words of the accuser?


Yeah, that's what a trial is for.

Say I was Brent Krybaby and none of the things about me were true, like me trying to choke-eff some drunk minor or being in Phi Date-a Rape-a fraternity, I would hire an attorney, and being that I was nominated to the Supreme Court I would most likely know at least one or two half way decent ones, and sue her friggin ass for slander until it bled.


He has dummy. He hired one of the best defamation lawyers in the country. Why do you think that slag was so vague about everything? Much harder to get nailed on defamation if all your claims are vague and contradictory.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:39 PM
link   


One of the most absurd aspects of this Kavanaugh confirmation soap opera is how much virtue signaling has been going on by the Right in regards to the presumption of innocence.


So you think he's guilty?

I'd like to see your evidence.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Carcharadon
He has dummy. He hired one of the best defamation lawyers in the country. Why do you think that slag was so vague about everything? Much harder to get nailed on defamation if all your claims are vague and contradictory.


I like that you called me a dummy but didnt even comprehend my rather short post where I said I would hire an attorney AND SUE.

Did you miss that part? Has he sued her? That was rhetorical (which means I already know the answer).



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
They've both lied





no way bro
not possible bro

they were under oath

lying under oath is a crime

people dont commit crimes

thats why jails are so empty, there are no cops and lawyers are cheap

oh wait


I believe this is what your buttys call a strawman. See, lying isn't a crime, and (as you agreed) has no real punishment, where as perjury has a punishment. Sure people lie under oath often, and some get away with it, and some don't. But my argument here, is that if everyone tells their story under oath, then when the one or ones who were found to be full of #, they can be punished. And the reason is to dissuade others from doing the same thing. Like when you got your ass beat as a kid. You were supposed to learn that doing bad things has repercussions and you need to be willing to face those repercussions if you do bad things.

I think Beretta said it best, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". But if you never sear under oath, why would anyone give a rats ass what you said?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I wouldn't say it is average knowledge that FBI agents get polygraphs prior to working for the FBI.

That would be assuming way more intelligence and logic than should be given to most people....pretty sure you understand this.

Unless he is some great investigator, and happened upon Ford and McLean being great friends then what he says and the details he gives are a lot more in depth than the reply she gave.

As a prior FBI agent...she was being very calculated in her response.

I would not be surprised if a more lengthy response comes soon.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
So no, you do not believe Kavanaugh should have the opportunity to present his side...


Using a dictionary’s limited definition of a term as evidence that term cannot have another meaning, expanded meaning, or even conflicting meaning. This is a fallacy because dictionaries don’t reason; they simply are a reflection of an abbreviated version of the current accepted usage of a term, as determined by argumentation and eventual acceptance.


Appeal to Definition

I understand that you're unwilling to reason without the dictionary, or even why you wouldn't want to defend or uphold due process for someone you don't like. But in my opinion, relativist interpretations of the principles of a free society is wholly dangerous.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
Like when you got your ass beat as a kid. You were supposed to learn that doing bad things has repercussions...


Wait. That's what that was supposed to be about? I thought it was because my old man just didn't have a sense of humor about my jokes.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

cool story.
i understand the principles of it

my point is i dont think it is as sacred as you do

you admit that people lie under oath all the time

so not believing someone until they say a thing under oath is as silly as believing them just because they are under oath

all seems pretty stupid to me


i understand your point so no need to debate it further with you

you either understand mine or you dont. i really dont care



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: theantediluvian
One of the most absurd aspects of this Kavanaugh confirmation soap opera is how much virtue signaling has been going on by the Right in regards to the presumption of innocence.

One of the most absurd aspects of this Kavanaugh confirmation soap opera is how due process has been disregarded by the left. Especially in the face of zero evidence.

Of course McLean would deny purposefully fooling a lie detector test. Why would she admit to that?


Odd it was the GOP that forced it to be a she-said he-said affair by not allowing any other people to testify, while the DEMs were asking for a full investigation to keep it from being he-said she-said BS.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join