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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

She'll have to prove him wrong then. Kavanaugh and Mitchell proved Ford wrong.




posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: NiNjABackflip


Ah, a litigious man. I bet if someone stole your cookie you’d need a jury to tell you who did it. Frightening.


That's awfully (and abruptly) dismissive of trial by jury.

And I think you're trying to have your cookie and eat it too. I bet if someone stole your cookie and you saw who did it, you wouldn't let the lack of bodycam footage stop you from telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that the nominee before them was a goddamn cookie thieving sonofawhore.


Concern trolling gets us nowhere. The point was that we do not need a jury to make every decision for us. We can decide reasonably and rationally depending on the evidence.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: NiNjABackflip

Bull#.

You have been arguing it.

Whatever

Bigly done with you


I have been arguing that we can each apply a process of discerning the truth of the matter before rushing to judgement. Bilgly run and cry about it, but I’m not trying to be offensive or even argumentative. I’m simply arguing that an accused man get a fair process, even from the layman.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: theantediluvian

She'll have to prove him wrong then. Kavanaugh and Mitchell proved Ford wrong.


Swearing Ford didn't coach her UNDER OATH might help bolster McLean's credibility.

Funny, she hasn't yet.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: xuenchen
Bwaaaaaaa😃😃

Of course she denies it.

What else is new?

👧


I wonder if McLean would be in trouble for admitting she manipulated her FBI polygraph test.


I would assume. It was supposed to be for a governmental job.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

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

What a massively subjective opinion to purport as fact.

Has it occurred to you that many of us, whether or not we support his confirmation (I personally have issues with his views on the 4th Amendment and would prefer someone else), actually have a sincere interest in due process? That maybe some of us have seen more than one person's life destroyed by incredible and, judging from evidence (or lack thereof), false accusations, and we don't appreciate when the court of public opinion doesn't have the intelligence nor decency to consider all of the evidence before rushing to judgment?

Serious questions, there.


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.

Then disregard these people and treat them as they should be--ideologically driven crazies.

Of course, that's not always the case, and some people might appear to "flit back and forth" because of evidence or lack thereof. With that being true, though, I know what you're talking about, and it is highly annoying.


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!

And, this is where your credibility begins to slide, because you're comparing someone's memory about a non-traumatic event to a victims extremely hole-ridden memory of a traumatic event. As Dr. Ford noted in her testimony, these events do not settle in the brain the same way, at all.


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

...


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.

Sooooooooo, what you're doing here is condemning one person's first-person account of something and replacing it with someone else's account? I mean, both are unreliable witnesses because one (being an ex-boyfriend) could have personal reason to make a claim against Dr. Ford, but McClean (being a friend of the accused) could have personal (and possibly professional) reasons to deny the ex-boyfriend's account.

It's yet another he-said-she-said account that cannot, at least foreseeably, be proven either way.

So, honestly, this whole issue with the false statement about coaching someone in prep for a polygraph is irrelevant because both claims are negated by the other's...something a practicing attorney would know to be the case.

The problem with my view on it is that I work directly with AUSAs and had professionally close relationships with federal attorneys when I was a paralegal, and I know how they are trained to think and act. I have a hard time taking any of their words at face value.

What you need to note is that Ms. McLean purposefully includes the phrase "in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime." What this does is leave her statement open to the reality that she was coached, but didn't end up taking a polygraph exam.

Remember what the boyfriend's actual statement was:

During that time, it was my understanding that McLean was interviewing for jobs with the FBI and the US Attorney's Office. I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam.

See, these words matter in the battle of the statements that inherently bring with them the thread of legal recourse if they are false. These are things that are generally only noticed if you know what to look for.

Unfortunately, I know...and unfortunately, I suspect I know what Ms. McLean is doing in her carefully worded statement.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 11:31 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.



Don’t you have to have charges filled against you to be accused?

A person should not be able to make unsubstantiated allegations for something like a job interview? With no legal recourse? How is that a fair system. It’s not. You are innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt as judged by a jury of peers.

If Ford wanted to file charges, then there would be an accused.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 11:44 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




Don’t you have to have charges filled against you to be accused?


I'm fairly certain Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault without charges filed.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You feel that way about all the allegations about Obama and Hillary?



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Has this been posted in this thread yet? (so many threads)
Anyway, it is worth repeating:

Christine Blasey-Ford Friend In Delaware Was Career FBI Agent and Likely Together During Accusation Letter Construct…



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Has this been posted in this thread yet? (so many threads)
Anyway, it is worth repeating:

Christine Blasey-Ford Friend In Delaware Was Career FBI Agent and Likely Together During Accusation Letter Construct…



Yeah that site is definitely legit.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Has this been posted in this thread yet? (so many threads)
Anyway, it is worth repeating:

Christine Blasey-Ford Friend In Delaware Was Career FBI Agent and Likely Together During Accusation Letter Construct…



Yeah that site is definitely legit.


And what about the claims it makes?



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Has this been posted in this thread yet? (so many threads)
Anyway, it is worth repeating:

Christine Blasey-Ford Friend In Delaware Was Career FBI Agent and Likely Together During Accusation Letter Construct…



Yeah that site is definitely legit.


And what about the claims it makes?


I think they should stop making claims without due process



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears




I think they should stop making claims without due process


You don't know whether what it says is legit or not because you willingly remain ignorant of it. Yeah, you're definitely legit.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Lobbyists are trying to confirm rumors that McDonalds is bringing back the McLean Burger

😁⚖😁



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: TinySickTears




I think they should stop making claims without due process


You don't know whether what it says is legit or not because you willingly remain ignorant of it. Yeah, you're definitely legit.


You don't know either.
None of us do

It's a claim and I think they should stop. Due process and all



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
You don’t need law to provide due process. One doesn’t need to sue or be litigious to receive due process.


So without the law how does one get it? Explain in detail if you are capable.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey


What a massively subjective opinion to purport as fact.


I didn't claim that it was anything other than an opinion, how could I?


Has it occurred to you that many of us, whether or not we support his confirmation (I personally have issues with his views on the 4th Amendment and would prefer someone else), actually have a sincere interest in due process? That maybe some of us have seen more than one person's life destroyed by incredible and, judging from evidence (or lack thereof), false accusations, and we don't appreciate when the court of public opinion doesn't have the intelligence nor decency to consider all of the evidence before rushing to judgment?

Serious questions, there.


Of course there are people who have a genuine concern for an individual's right to due process. Notice that I haven't so much as expressed an opinion about whether or not Ford's allegation is true. For example:


originally posted by: theantediluvianAs for evidence against Kavanaugh — I've seen no evidence in support of the allegation against Kavanaugh. If this was a criminal case and I was a juror, I would not be able to vote to convict Kavanaugh. There's just not enough there to decide either way and in a court of law, it's innocent until proven guilty.

Nor would I say that Kavanaugh is guilty of having done what was alleged. I have no idea. Her story had weaknesses but she seemed sincere. He was compelling in his denial but then I felt like he was bull#ting and trying way too hard to downplay his partying in high school/college.


I still have no idea whether Ford's allegation is true or not. And I believe you when you say that you have a genuine concern. That said, there are quite a few people who appear to have anything but and that's what I was speaking to.


Then disregard these people and treat them as they should be--ideologically driven crazies.

Of course, that's not always the case, and some people might appear to "flit back and forth" because of evidence or lack thereof. With that being true, though, I know what you're talking about, and it is highly annoying.


So you do know what I'm talking about.


And, this is where your credibility begins to slide, because you're comparing someone's memory about a non-traumatic event to a victims extremely hole-ridden memory of a traumatic event. As Dr. Ford noted in her testimony, these events do not settle in the brain the same way, at all.


I really don't think it's necessary to get into the weeds on this. I was drawing a loose comparison to make a point how conflicting accounts with exactly as much evidence in support of them are treated differently, subject to confirmation bias.


Sooooooooo, what you're doing here is condemning one person's first-person account of something and replacing it with someone else's account? I mean, both are unreliable witnesses because one (being an ex-boyfriend) could have personal reason to make a claim against Dr. Ford, but McClean (being a friend of the accused) could have personal (and possibly professional) reasons to deny the ex-boyfriend's account.


No, I'm neither condemning nor replacing anything. I think they reasonably carry about the same weight.


It's yet another he-said-she-said account that cannot, at least foreseeably, be proven either way.

So, honestly, this whole issue with the false statement about coaching someone in prep for a polygraph is irrelevant because both claims are negated by the other's...something a practicing attorney would know to be the case.


Yep.


What you need to note is that Ms. McLean purposefully includes the phrase "in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime." What this does is leave her statement open to the reality that she was coached, but didn't end up taking a polygraph exam.

Unfortunately, I know...and unfortunately, I suspect I know what Ms. McLean is doing in her carefully worded statement.


Or your suspicions are wrong. You're asserting that she basically framed her statement so that it would be technically true while remaining open to a favorable interpretation — which would imply a reluctance to lie in a public statement. We could therefore assume that if she were in fact reluctant to lie in a public statement, she would be even more adverse to lying to the FBI, lying to Congress or perjuring herself — which are all crimes.

Seems like this could be cleared up simply enough by having the FBI interview her, no?
edit on 2018-10-4 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: TinySickTears




I think they should stop making claims without due process


You don't know whether what it says is legit or not because you willingly remain ignorant of it. Yeah, you're definitely legit.


You don't know either.
None of us do

It's a claim and I think they should stop. Due process and all


I do know whether the claims of the article are valid or not. I read it.



posted on Oct, 4 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus




So without the law how does one get it? Explain in detail if you are capable.


Reforms to the process might be the best bet, like with the spate of campus assault cases and the absence of any due process when it comes to the accused.


Legal systems have standards of proof and complicated procedure
not to protect the guilty, but the innocent. Fighting injustice with a
method that puts innocents at risk is something all people should condemn.
The status quo is dangerous because the lowest standard of proof
is combined with procedures that do not afford respondents the same
rights and safeguards they would have in a civil case with similar stakes,
let alone a criminal case for the same offense. Further, the civil aspect of
campus adjudications allows the media and community at large to pass
judgment on a respondent’s guilt before the adjudicator or panel has
made the decision. If preponderance of the evidence is to remain the
DOE’s standard of choice, university procedures need to be dramatically
revamped to include guaranteed due process rights for respondents.


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




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join