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.

 

Lie Detector Test for 3

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: butcherguy
There is a security camera that caught the brothers in the act, so yes, they did rough him up.
Jussie’s problem is that he reported that his attackers were white.
They are not white.
He knows them personally.
How do we get around that and why would we need a lie detector involved at that point?


He went on gma and admitted they had their identities hidden and he believed they were white because one of them was yelling mean stuff related to maga country and hate for gays.

That in no way equates to jussies guilt.

All that says is that jussie is subject to the msm daily feeding the hate between whites and blacks.

In the interview he admitted they could have been white or black but that he believed they were white based on what one of them said.


LOL the cops initially were on Jussie's side but when you throw in failure to disclose phone records unredacted, even though it would collaborate part of his story. #2 So we are supposed to believe 2 Nigerian men sound like caucasian men yelling MAGA. LOL Its Chicago a bastion of Democrats they'd love to stick it Trump but the evidence not only doesn't back it up, but it also supports fraud and hoax aspects.

but you know this and are just being contrarian, for some reason cause you are definitely smarter than this.


First off thanks.

The phone records are in consequential since the police have them now from the phone company. Only one of the two spoke during the attack and was yelling racial stuff while having his skin covered.

Yes chicago has alot of dems and the cpd had much to gain by putting this on jussie they avoided riots.



Give me a break, Chicago was never close to rioting over Jussie Smollett LOL.

He was trying to get a raise in salary by getting sympathy for the hoaxed attack, he paid $3500 check to the brothers for the attack. Chicago Police have more evidence that supports a hoax. Read this aticle

www.hollywoodreporter.com... -break-jussie-smollett-pressure-hollywood-fame-1190649

Even the leftist Hollywood Reporter is leaning towards hoax. Nice little snippet where he has lied to police before too.
Storyline pressure of fame and limelight broke him. As his tweet a few days before the attack "depression is a real thing." somewhat alludes too.



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

To be honest, unless YOU are Jussie Smollett YOU know nothing more than we do so when you state things like "his story is true" how could you possibly know that? You couldn't and the fact remains the Police and Prosecution and Grand Jury all believed there was enough evidence to indict. They wouldn't go to the trouble of creating what in effect your claiming would be a show trial with the eyes and ears of the world on it, if they didn't have enough evidence. Remember, if you can, that the Police were on Jussies' side until a week later and the media and celebs ALL ran with the "poor Jussie story" and yet no riots!



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Why are people still going on about this jussie idiot. It's got what, 16 felony counts against it, let a jury decide and be done with it.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: putnam6

Many others disagree with you on the riot issue.

The check had a valid purpose of training and nutritional supplements. Text messages show he was in training for such and work was being done for the payment that had nothing to do with an attack.



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

"he believed they were white because one of them was yelling mean stuff related to maga country and hate for gays."

That's racist!



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

To be honest, unless YOU are Jussie Smollett YOU know nothing more than we do so when you state things like "his story is true" how could you possibly know that? You couldn't and the fact remains the Police and Prosecution and Grand Jury all believed there was enough evidence to indict. They wouldn't go to the trouble of creating what in effect your claiming would be a show trial with the eyes and ears of the world on it, if they didn't have enough evidence. Remember, if you can, that the Police were on Jussies' side until a week later and the media and celebs ALL ran with the "poor Jussie story" and yet no riots!


If they have more evidence other than what they are being investigated for leaking then perhaps but all the rest of your post is just opinion.

Why not give them all lie test by the fbi?

If they had proper evidence then they would not have gone to a grand jury where there is no chance for the defense to present the story.

The police chief claimed the check was the best evidence. It is nothing of the sort.



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

So no rebuttal and no sources to back up any of your claims, still?

That’s all you had to say. Nice deflection, to borrow a phrase, though. Evidently you’re one of those that believes if you can getvthe last word in, it means you win. I understand how important that is for some people, so you can have that. Should you decide at some point that having your unsourced and unsubstantiated claims shot down isn’t a personal attack on you, do let us know. Till then, good luck with the whole “last comment makes me right” tactic



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SourGrapes
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

"he believed they were white because one of them was yelling mean stuff related to maga country and hate for gays."

That's racist!


I do not believe in racism.

I agree that him jumping to the conclusion of it had to be a white guy was short sided and born out of a bad attitude toward whites.



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

So no rebuttal and no sources to back up any of your claims, still?

That’s all you had to say. Nice deflection, to borrow a phrase, though. Evidently you’re one of those that believes if you can getvthe last word in, it means you win. I understand how important that is for some people, so you can have that. Should you decide at some point that having your unsourced and unsubstantiated claims shot down isn’t a personal attack on you, do let us know. Till then, good luck with the whole “last comment makes me right” tactic


Perhaps you can tell me what i need to rebut and what my claim is.

As i stated you rebutted yourself as far as the grand jury comments you made.

Funny stuff!




How about you tell us if you think the fbi should do a lie test.



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

Why are people still going on about this jussie idiot. It's got what, 16 felony counts against it, let a jury decide and be done with it.

Cheers - Dave


16 counts for the alleged crime is way out of proportion.

The police screwed up and leaked everything in the investigation and made jussie look guilty when he may not be.



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I did not say that the police present it. I said they present it.


The pronoun 'they' in the sentence you wrote refers to the police since you made them the participants in the discourse.


originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
If the police have proper evidence they...


If you really wanted to say it was the prosecutor then you need to actually mention the prosecutor. [snip]



edit on 10-3-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: [snip]

edit on 10-3-2019 by elevatedone because: removed statement that was directed at other member and not the subject of the thread



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I did not say that the police present it. I said they present it.


The pronoun 'they' in the sentence you wrote refers to the police since you made them the participants in the discourse.


originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
If the police have proper evidence they...


If you really wanted to say it was the prosecutor then you need to actually mention the prosecutor. Some of us here (me) actually use proper sentence structure and format.





BS

You are wrong.

Either interpretation of the word they in that sentence is acceptable and easily understood.

They can mean the police or the prosecutors. Simply because the police most certainly work for and with the prosecutors.

You have nothing at all to add so you try to create tension based on falsities.

You should be held to account for your underhanded tactics.





posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

To be honest, unless YOU are Jussie Smollett YOU know nothing more than we do so when you state things like "his story is true" how could you possibly know that? You couldn't and the fact remains the Police and Prosecution and Grand Jury all believed there was enough evidence to indict. They wouldn't go to the trouble of creating what in effect your claiming would be a show trial with the eyes and ears of the world on it, if they didn't have enough evidence. Remember, if you can, that the Police were on Jussies' side until a week later and the media and celebs ALL ran with the "poor Jussie story" and yet no riots!


Why not give them all lie test by the fbi?

If they had proper evidence then they would not have gone to a grand jury where there is no chance for the defense to present the story.


The defense presents their story at the trial. If there is insufficient evidence the jury or judge can find him not guilty. The FBI can't be compelled to do a "lie test" no matter how many times you say they should do it. Smollett is a well paid actor. He can hire somebody to do the test if he's inclined to. He wont, because he's guilty.



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

The police should have already done the test on the brothers and yes jussie should have the test even if he has to pay for it.

The fbi could test all three of them in relation to the letter.



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I did not say that the police present it. I said they present it.


The pronoun 'they' in the sentence you wrote refers to the police since you made them the participants in the discourse.


originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
If the police have proper evidence they...


If you really wanted to say it was the prosecutor then you need to actually mention the prosecutor. Some of us here (me) actually use proper sentence structure and format.





BS

You are wrong.

They can mean the police or the prosecutors. Simply because the police most certainly work for and with the prosecutors.

You should be held to account for your underhanded tactics.


Police do not work for a prosecutor. Period.

You should stop fabricating things to make up for your failure to research the topics you discuss.



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Ksihkehe

Nah, man.

Even though Chicago PD got put on blast a few years ago for the number of false confessions their polygraph examiners were getting and they drastically reduced their use of polygraph exams, we should still demand they do one now because it’ll totally solve everything.



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
I did not say that the police present it. I said they present it.


The pronoun 'they' in the sentence you wrote refers to the police since you made them the participants in the discourse.


originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
If the police have proper evidence they...


If you really wanted to say it was the prosecutor then you need to actually mention the prosecutor. Some of us here (me) actually use proper sentence structure and format.





BS

You are wrong.

They can mean the police or the prosecutors. Simply because the police most certainly work for and with the prosecutors.

You should be held to account for your underhanded tactics.


Police do not work for a prosecutor. Period.

You should stop fabricating things to make up for your failure to research the topics you discuss.


Sure they do.

They have to follow their orders.



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Who is the top law enforcement official in a county?

District Attorney

They oversee police procedures when collecting evidence and they are who the police present their evidence to.

Of coarse they all work for the public.
edit on 10-3-2019 by UncleTomahawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2019 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
a reply to: putnam6

Many others disagree with you on the riot issue.

The check had a valid purpose of training and nutritional supplements. Text messages show he was in training for such and work was being done for the payment that had nothing to do with an attack.





LOL I've got family, co-workers, friends, and clients that live all over the Chicagoland area. All persuasions nary a one has mentioned this is a riot worthy event or rumors of riots. LOL as one of them mentioned LOL Jussie ain't Chicago. Now you are just spouting platitudes.

So just for entertainment purposes why did the Nigerians beat him up again?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join