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: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
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.


I gotcha, you like to change the well established definitions of words to suit your personal bias. It's cool.

And just a little FYI, that wouldn't make me a relativist, it makes me a literalist. The irony is you changing the defintion makes you the relativist.




posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

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.


Didn't they also backtrack on that when Trump said the FBI should investigate?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




I gotcha, you like to change the well established definitions of words to suit your personal bias. It's cool.

And just a little FYI, that wouldn't make me a relativist, it makes me a literalist. The irony is you changing the defintion makes you the relativist.


I haven't changed any definition. The notion of due process has been around since the magna carta. It is you who is appealing to the dictionary to argue a point, while at the same saying due process cannot occur anywhere outside of a legal court case. The only standards a relativist has is double-standards.
edit on 3-10-2018 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
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


it's cool. how much stock you put in the under oath thing is up to you. But like Avanatti, I deal in facts. And the fact is that if you lie under oath, you open yourself up to trouble, so you have skin in the game, were if you don't you don't.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.


Humor can be an acquired taste. dropping a squirrel in someone's underwear is hilarious to everyone, except the guy getting his junk bit all to pieces. he doesn't even seem to laugh as much.

BTW, have you healed up yet?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

What due process? for the sake of argument, he is not being charged or tried..he is applying for a job.

Just making a point, I don't know what to believe really.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: sine.nomine

What due process? for the sake of argument, he is not being charged or tried..he is applying for a job.

Just making a point, I don't know what to believe really.


The old "It's just a job interview" argument?

There is much more riding on this than a job.
A man's valued reputation and that of his family is also at stake.

Did the last job for which you interviewed, include the total vicious smearing of your reputation in 95% of the MSM, day after day for weeks?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

would you ever lie under oath?
serious question



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Look, I do get it..still, not sure what the context of due process is here?

If I was applying for a lifetime gravy train job I would expect my life to be examined through a microscope..right, wrong, or indifferent..unfortunately, it is what it is, and has happened to previous appointees.

If he is innocent, the full weight of the law should come down on any false accuser.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

The only things that should be relevant right now are the details of testimony given under oath.

With that said, if the refutation was not given under oath it can later be used as evidence of perjury or making false statements.

I'm not inclined to believe that she would put herself in this kind of risk without some thought as to the 2nd and 3rd order of effects. But you never know.

Her statement not being under oath is a dangerous road she's walking. In order to reconcile the two divergent stories, both witnesses would have to be called in.

If she is lying and does so under oath, that's dangerous. If she is issuing a non-binding statement, and later on testifies under oath and gives a different story, that could be used against her.

If she's telling the truth nothing happens to her, but now this dude might be charged with perjury since his statement IS under oath.

This is obviously not a simple matter, and at the end of the day doesn't actually help us deal with the real issue at hand: Did Judge Kavanaugh commit a crime in the State of Maryland in 1982 or not? If he did, where's the evidence?


edit on 3 10 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod



Look, I do get it..still, not sure what the context of due process is here?

If I was applying for a lifetime gravy train job I would expect my life to be examined through a microscope..right, wrong, or indifferent..unfortunately, it is what it is, and has happened to previous appointees.

If he is innocent, the full weight of the law should come down on any false accuser.


I think we can agree that false accusations, especially for the purpose of altering public opinion or damaging a reputation, is heinous act, at least as far as lying is concerned. Due process in this context, at least colloquially, refers to a fair hearing and just treatment of the accused. Instead the whole thing resembles what Clarence Thomas referred to as "a high-tech lynching".



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

How could the process be done different/better? honest question because I don't know.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Has anyone mentioned the fact that one does not technically PREPARE for a polygraph test.

Admitting you have done so is tantamount to admitting you had something you were worried about disclosing.

What do you think the FBI would think about this 'preparation'?

This denial was 100% predictable.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
Has anyone mentioned the fact that one does not technically PREPARE for a polygraph test.

Admitting you have done so is tantamount to admitting you had something you were worried about disclosing.

What do you think the FBI would think about this 'preparation'?

This denial was 100% predictable.


I said the same thing when she was asked by reporters she could only have one response. She could never admit she tried to beat a polygraph. The FBI will get you in trouble if they think you were trying to beat a polygraph. For example one simple technique is when your telling the truth take an extra breath. Another simple tip is before answering count in your head to any number between 5 and 15. Polygraphs are really easy to confuse as long as you know what your doing.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
The notion of due process has been around since the magna carta.


We aren't talking about a 'notion' and people's feelings, we're talking about the legal definition in the United States justice system and your definition aint it.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
BTW, have you healed up yet?


I still have to pee through a tube but it's getting better.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
BTW, have you healed up yet?


I still have to pee through a tube but it's getting better.


Ouch...catheters suck. Didnt know. Sorry you're having to do that...



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Ouch...catheters suck. Didnt know. Sorry you're having to do that...


Network's 'squirrel in the pants' joke is funny after the fact.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: loam


Has anyone mentioned the fact that one does not technically PREPARE for a polygraph test.

Admitting you have done so is tantamount to admitting you had something you were worried about disclosing.


"Prepare" was his word and the description in his claim doesn't actually suggest anything untoward.


What do you think the FBI would think about this 'preparation'?


She's retired.


This denial was 100% predictable.


OMG OMG OMG DUE PROCESS! THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED! WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE? YOU'RE DESTROYING AMERICA! THE CHILDREN! OMG THE CHILDREN! MY HAIR'S ON FIRE!

"Of course Kavanaugh denied assaulting her! What do you think the Senate would think about that 'assault'? His denial was 100% predictable."




posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


If she is lying and does so under oath, that's dangerous. If she is issuing a non-binding statement, and later on testifies under oath and gives a different story, that could be used against her.

If she's telling the truth nothing happens to her, but now this dude might be charged with perjury since his statement IS under oath.


I have a hard time imagining either one of these people being in any serious risk of a perjury charge regardless. There's no evidence to be had either way unless one of them were to be busted admitting to having lied.


This is obviously not a simple matter, and at the end of the day doesn't actually help us deal with the real issue at hand: Did Judge Kavanaugh commit a crime in the State of Maryland in 1982 or not?


Nope.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join