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: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TinySickTears
Baking cookies with squi?


You know it son.


Beer batter?
I would think




posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: network dude

would you ever lie under oath?
serious question


no.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Politics is a dirty business and as much as we'd all like to think we're above it, our impassioned engagement sometimes makes hypocrites of us all. It's difficult to be objective.

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. In post after post, thread after thread, Kavanaugh's supporters have shaken their virtual fists in the air proclaiming the demise of due process.

Not that this is a new thing either. We're all given to bouts of self-righteous indignation, myself included. Whenever it's "your guy" that is alleged to have done something, it's always "unfair" and the accusers are always political shills and attention whoring liars. What really strikes me as unusual is just how easily people flit back and forth — in the span of minutes — between ranting about how no allegation by anyone should be taken seriously if it can't be backed up with hard evidence to holding up unprovable allegations and declaring that it's something that needs to be considered.

Case in point — yesterday Fox News published a letter from a man purporting to be the ex-boyfriend of Ford in which he claimed that 20 years ago, he witnessed Ford prepping a friend for a polygraph. If true, the claim contradicts a response given by Ford which could suggest that she'd perjured herself. Though, it should be noted that it's common when people are accused of being misleading, to blame a lack of recollection or comprehension about the specific nature of the question itself.

Had this been an accusation against Kavanaugh, it would have been immediately picked apart by many of the same people giddily treating it as a real mic dropper. Why did they redact his name? WHAT IS THIS PERSON HIDING!? Why would he recall something so trivial from two decades earlier!? Why can't he remember the exact year then?!? Why did he just come forward now? JILTED EX? OMG THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE! TOTAL HIT JOB!

Well... now the person who was named has provided a statement refuting the claim in the letter.

Monica McLean Says Christine Ford Never Coached Her on Polygraph


McLean released the statement to ABC News on Wednesday morning. It said, simply, “I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime.” McLean made the statement after an ex-boyfriend of Ford’s told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had seen Ford preparing McLean to take a polygraph.


Now as it turns out, my friend Grambler broke the story of the ex's letter on ATS and being a smart guy and one who is concerned with not being a hypocrite, he was careful to leave open the possibility that the claim wasn't true.

Others... well, not so much.


So what you are saying is that a serious but unsubstantiated claim was made, then refuted.

That simply won't fly. We need a full FBI investigation, but only after Ford testifies again under oath to defend her innocence.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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?


Only after it became clear the FBI Investigation has been hamstrung by the White House.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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?


Only after it became clear the FBI Investigation has been hamstrung by the White House.


Would you care to define “hamstrung” concerning an investigation that was originally advertised as limited in scope?

Or all you have is innuendo?



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
“We”? That’s strange because is sounds like only yourself and other “literalists”...


When I say 'we' I am referring to people who understand the Constitution as opposed to emotional hysterics who don't.

'Someone said sumptin bout mah boi! We needs due process!'

'He should take them to court and get his due process.'

'Wah?'



Uh, there is very little about the process of appointing supreme court justices in the constitution:


He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.


Source

I guess this is the "Constitutional" "due process."
edit on 4-10-2018 by JasonBillung because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JasonBillung


Not seeing the relevance to the whiners complaining 'bout their boi not getting his due process because they don't understand the judicial system or the definition of 'due process'.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Ms. Ford's friend is kidding, right? I'm about the same age and it was big news in all the newspapers, magazines and news programs for years starting from that time that polygraphs should not be allowed as evidence in courts of law due to all the ways it could be cheated. It was a common topic. We all passed the word on about the methods used to cheat the test and if it should be allowed as evidence. I don't believe her.
edit on 4-10-2018 by seentoomuch because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

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?


Only after it became clear the FBI Investigation has been hamstrung by the White House.


Would you care to define “hamstrung” concerning an investigation that was originally advertised as limited in scope?

Or all you have is innuendo?


Prevented the FBI from interviewing Ford or Kavanaugh also not allowing the follow up any leads that may arise if they do not directly relate to ONLY a few white house directed areas.

Just a few among others, if that is innuendo to you.... You have some major issues with facts and reality.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
I never said nor implied the court of opinion was a real court.


But your whining that Krybaby isn't getting his due process.


No your little Krybaby and whiner remarks are the superficial ones. Speaking of gymnastics you’ve twisted what I said at every turn.

You don’t need law to provide due process. One doesn’t need to sue or be litigious to receive due process. Sorry. Appealing to your dictionary, appealing to the law, both fallacies, are evidence ofmental gymnastics. Sorry, but name-calling and litigiousness are evidence of whiners and crybabies.



edit on 4-10-2018 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Due process only exists in law/legal proceedings.
What's hard to understand about that?



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Due process only exists in law/legal proceedings.
What's hard to understand about that?




We live in a country devoted to due process and the rule of law. That means taking allegations seriously, but if the mere allegation, the mere assertion of an allegation, a refuted allegation from 36 years ago, is enough to destroy a person’s life and career, we will have abandoned the basic principles of fairness and due process that define our legal system in our country. I ask you to judge me by the standard that you would want applied to your father. Your husband. Your brother. Or your son. My family and I intent no ill will toward Dr. Ford or her family, but I swear today under oath before the Senate and the nation, before my family and God, I am innocent of this charge.”

- Judge Brett Kavanaugh, nominee to the highest court in the land.

“Um, excuse me, but it says here in this dictionary you don’t get due process, whiner. Whatks hard to understand about that?”

- guy on the internet.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Cool

Due process exists in law and legal proceedings

Right or wrong there is a court of public opinion and that court passed judgement.

This is not a new thing.
You kind of have to deal with it.

Or not but I doubt it will change cause you don't seem to understand
edit on 4-10-2018 by TinySickTears because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Cool

Due process exists in law and legal proceedings


Thanks guy on the internet.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Can you show that is different than the original goals of the investigation that was billed as limited is scope?

I seem to remember a Thursday where they both extensively gave their testimonies. Is it false to say logic would dictate most of the FBI’s efforts would be verifying the testimony already given?

Do you have any more false arguments, or arguments not based on cited facts?



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Cool

Due process exists in law and legal proceedings


Thanks guy on the internet.


Guy on the internet is right.

Just how it is

Not my fault you don't bigly understand

You know I'm right. You know Augustus is right.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Cool

Due process exists in law and legal proceedings


Thanks guy on the internet.


Guy on the internet is right.

Just how it is

Not my fault you don't bigly understand

You know I'm right. You know Augustus is right.


I didn’t say due process doesn’t exist in law and legal proceedings. I’m merely saying anyone can apply due process.

The judge, a man being elected to the highest court in the land, was asking for due process. You, a guy on the internet, looked at the dictionary and said no.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Cool

Due process exists in law and legal proceedings


Thanks guy on the internet.


Guy on the internet is right.

Just how it is

Not my fault you don't bigly understand

You know I'm right. You know Augustus is right.


I didn’t say due process doesn’t exist in law and legal proceedings. I’m merely saying anyone can apply due process.

The judge, a man being elected to the highest court in the land, was asking for due process. You, a guy on the internet, looked at the dictionary and said no.



I did not say no

I am talking about public opinion

Anyone can apply due process. For sure.
They are not required to though.

Unless in court

Understand yet?



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Cool

Due process exists in law and legal proceedings


Thanks guy on the internet.


Guy on the internet is right.

Just how it is

Not my fault you don't bigly understand

You know I'm right. You know Augustus is right.


I didn’t say due process doesn’t exist in law and legal proceedings. I’m merely saying anyone can apply due process.

The judge, a man being elected to the highest court in the land, was asking for due process. You, a guy on the internet, looked at the dictionary and said no.



I did not say no

I am talking about public opinion

Anyone can apply due process. For sure.
They are not required to though.

Unless in court

Understand yet?


I’ve been saying that all along.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Bull#.

You have been arguing it.

Whatever

Bigly done with you







 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join