Robert Mueller Accused of Rape By Very Credible Witness

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

did you watch the conference, link is above in post made on yt.

What name did they say it was...if it was not Caroline Katz?


Kass not Katz is name later in this thread was determined in regards to above name mentioned

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo


There is no difference.
THREE accusations...with NO corroboration and/or evidence to support them.

Witnesses claimed by Ford don't even support her story.

Swetnick has been proven a hoax by Avenatti's own client disavowing him and refuting what he claimed in her name...Again, ZERO evidence.

originally posted by: dojozen
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

did you watch the conference, link is above in post made on yt.

What name did they say it was...if it was not Caroline Katz?

You watched the conference and seem to be in the know, you tell me.

If you watched the conference you would notice that neither Burkman or Wohl could agree on the spelling of the “accusers” name.

Carolyn-e (maybe and “e”, maybe not) Cass.

Edit to add: which is why it’s EXTREMELY funny that you can’t get the name right either.

a reply to: IAMTAT


Think some are jumping to conclusions, before even knowing the victim, trying to compare, a person that they know, to a person, they have no clue.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
Okay, Cass, not Katz... now we are getting somewhere...and spelling of Caroline, or Carolyn, is easy error to make on their part, not saying on my part about last name, will correct my posts above

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo


There is no difference.
THREE accusations...with NO corroboration and/or evidence to support them.

Witnesses claimed by Ford don't even support her story.

Swetnick has been proven a hoax by Avenatti's own client disavowing him and refuting what he claimed in her name...Again, ZERO evidence.

Ok fine, no difference.

originally posted by: dojozen
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo
Okay, Cass, not Katz... now we are getting somewhere...and special of Caroline, or Carolyn, is easy error to make on their part, not saying on my part about last name, will correct my posts above

Getting somewhere? There’s nowhere to go.

Easy error to make??? Burkman in the press conference claims to represent Cass. Wohl states they vetted this person extremely carefully. Yet they, in a press conference they call, can’t even spell the accusers name right?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha.

And you’re reasoning is it’s an easy error to make?

Some people just have no hope.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

okay, toss it out and discredit it ALL, because there is 2 ways to spell a name...still not seen the victim yet...have we?

Are you suggesting, they are fabricating the victim and she does not exist? lol

Since Mueller's witness, is not talking to reporters and not able to verify her position, as presented and when called the number of Lorraine Parsons, got response to stay out of it.

originally posted by: dojozen
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

okay, toss it out and discredit it ALL, because there is 2 ways to spell a name...still not seen the victim yet...have we?

Are you suggesting, they are fabricating the victim and she does not exist? lol

Since Mueller's witness, is not talking to reporters and not able to verify her position, as presented and when called the number of Lorraine Parsons, got response to stay out of it.

There’s plenty of reasons to discredit these 2 idiots, the name thing is just funny.

I only latched onto that with you because you couldn’t get her name right either. Hilarity ensued.

As I recall from the video...this accuser actually stated she called a friend after the alleged rape occurred and told her friend about it.

So, according to claims...there is apparently some corraboration of her story yet to be revealled.
THAT fact, alone, adds something the other two cases never produced--corraborating evidence.
There was a statement from the press conference that this additional evidence is still forthcoming...and will be presented at the next press conference.

Don't know why this has been moved to the HOAX bin at this stage...but, to be fair and consistant...the ATS Swetnick and Ford threads should ALSO be moved to the hoax bin...as there is not (and has never been) one single example of supporting evidence produced in those cases.

The Swetnick accusation should immediately be moved to hoax...as Avenatti's own client disavowed him and outright stated he misrepresented her.

Ford STILL has not been able to produce ANY supporting evidence of her claims...and her claimed witnesses won't even support her story.

What say you mods?

Does ATS want to be consistant?
Either move Swetnick and Ford threads to HOAX...or move THIS thread out of HOAX.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Nah, all the posts are exactly where they should be, despite your personal wishes.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
As I recall from the video...this accuser actually stated she called a friend after the alleged rape occurred and told her friend about it.

So, according to claims...there is apparently some corraboration of her story yet to be revealled.
THAT fact, alone, adds something the other two cases never produced--corraborating evidence.
There was a statement from the press conference that this additional evidence is still forthcoming...and will be presented at the next press conference.

Don't know why this has been moved to the HOAX bin at this stage...but, to be fair and consistant...the ATS Swetnick and Ford threads should ALSO be moved to the hoax bin...as there is not (and has never been) one single example of supporting evidence produced in those cases.

The Swetnick accusation should immediately be moved to hoax...as Avenatti's own client disavowed him and outright stated he misrepresented her.

Ford STILL has not been able to produce ANY supporting evidence of her claims...and her claimed witnesses won't even support her story.

What say you mods?

Does ATS want to be consistant?
Either move Swetnick and Ford threads to HOAX...or move THIS thread out of HOAX.

El oh el

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Don't know why this has been moved to the HOAX bin at this stage...but, to be fair and consistant...the ATS Swetnick and Ford threads should ALSO be moved to the hoax bin...as there is not (and has never been) one single example of supporting evidence produced in those cases.

The Swetnick accusation should immediately be moved to hoax...as Avenatti's own client disavowed him and outright stated he misrepresented her.

Ford STILL has not been able to produce ANY supporting evidence of her claims...and her claimed witnesses won't even support her story.

What say you mods?

Does ATS want to be consistant?
Either move Swetnick and Ford threads to HOAX...or move THIS thread out of HOAX.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Are you trying to justify this prank somehow?
Obviously something happened to Christine Ford.
Equally obvious this was a political stunt.

The woman in this story has set back the MeToo movement for sure. Now men will point to her and say Yes women do make these things up. Yes they do accuse falsely. Do not believe them.

How fortunate for the predators. How unfortunate for victims of abuse and harassment.

MeToo rest in peace you are dead now.

a reply to: IAMTAT

a reply to: IAMTAT

yes, she reported it to her friend after it happened, is correct, of what was reported at conference..,

and also was suggested, a smear campaign of the accusers, in an attempt to discredit, was launched by Mueller in advance, with orders to go after the accusers...

Not sure if the date changed or Mueller's alibi has a big hole in it.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Your actually saying this after the kavanaugh debacle? And because "something" happaned to christey, some random guy needs to pay the price?

Stay clsssy ATS. Your no better than twitter or fb.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: IAMTAT

Are you trying to justify this prank somehow?
Obviously something happened to Christine Ford.

What is her PROOF that her story is true?

Without proof...It's just an unproven allegation.
There is absolutely NO reason to believe an unproven accusation.
Evidence matters.

Nevertheless, she made over a million dollars from it...so it looks like she definitely profited from it.

a reply to: Sillyolme

how can you suggest it is a prank, without knowing the victim/accuser, first?

Would it matter to you, if victim passes a polygraph on what she claims and is shown to be telling the truth?

Or would you still claim it is hoax and prank?

Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman are claiming that the Lorraine Parsons hoax was created by their enemies

Satire: