You must have missed where he was the "chosen one" if Republican's won in 2012... And that's even if the 2012 BS is even real.. Could have been fabricated at any point...

i'm not an expert on investigations but I imagine they can start with the 3rd person in the room, you know the guy who refuses to testify under oath about what he remembers.

I'm sure you're going to stuff that into one of your black holes littered with tangled conspiracy theories that....just wait for it............will tie it all together any day now.

He's given a statement.. And apparently she has remembered a 3rd person now... That person has also denied the "party" happened.. They are probably going to "conjure up" who the 4th male was just by guilt of association.. IE going to school there that year.. But my bet is we never find out who her "friend" was that was apparently with her.. Why can't she remember her "friends" name? But she can remember these boys names?

Someone that is making it up wants the FBI to investigate.

Trump cultists are reaching a new level of retard.

We know.

Someone that is making it up who knows the FBI won't investigate.. There is no federal crime.. The objective isn't investigation.. It's smear, stall, hope he bows out and restart the clock.. Obstructionists..

It's my understanding that the original FBI investigation/ background check on kavanaugh can be reopened to investigate this, at the request of the potus.

Your understanding is incorrect... The FBI just compiles the data for his background file for everyone to review.. Which is why the letter was placed in the file.. Which means the FBI is done with it.. That's outside of the fact that it isn't a federal offense to begin with.

Tell that to the FBI guy who explained it that way exactly. And he he cited Anita Hill as an example.

So you also fail at history, the fbi launched a 3 day investigation into Clarence Thomas after Anita Hill accused him of being a sex creep in the middle of his confirmation.

Bush ordered an investigation..

And Grassley explains exactly what I said in his letter the the Clueless Obstructionist Dems

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnfTSC9VsAA9S8B.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DnfTSDAUYAAeQex.jpg

She worked for Thomas at the Dept. of Education. A federal job. He asked her out at work. He told her dirty stories. He bragged about fucking other women.
But he did it all on a federal job. Therefore the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation looked into it. Asked a few questions of other people who worked in the office and wrapped it all up in THREE days.

The Democrats are claiming that even if somehow teenagers doing something that the statute of limitations would have went out decades ago WERE a Federal Crime (which it isn't)...that it will take months of "investigation" to do it.

By the way...the FBI report cleared Thomas.

And as Clarence Thomas himself said on the Senate Floor...the whole thing amounted to a "High-Tech Lynching" of him.

I just posted that the investigation can be reopened by trump ordering so. You can't figure out which side of your mouth is talking you're so confused. No wonder you blame everything on black holes full of conspiracies.

Jtfc

None of which has to do with the fact that the FBI can investigate this, which was my point.

You said the FBI "opened an investigation" they dudn't... They were "ORDERED" to do so..

The Grassley letter says it all.. Well Hatch has a lot to say as well in his tweet. Simply put Democrats threw everyone involved in front of the bus to achieve the FUCKED in the head goal.



Senator Hatch Office
‏Verified account @senorrinhatch

Some are hung up on the issue of wanting an FBI investigation before proceeding to Monday's hearing for Judge Kavanaugh.

But here are some helpful facts.



Senator Hatch Office
‏Verified account @senorrinhatch
3h3 hours ago

Some are hung up on the issue of wanting an FBI investigation before proceeding to Monday's hearing for Judge Kavanaugh.

But here are some helpful facts.

(thread)
158 replies 481 retweets 705 likes

Senator Hatch Office
‏Verified account @senorrinhatch

The bottom line, first and foremost: there is a process to vet, investigate, and evaluate claims like these in an apolitical way, outside of the public eye

Democrats circumvented that process, risking damage to Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh, and public trust

https://twitter.com/senorrinhatch/st...07956099731462

And attempted rape is very much a crime.

it's like I'm talking to a child.

It's not a FEDERAL crime

I didn't read that part of that post.....

of course he said that, he's a lying sex predator who stalked women he worked with.

Read Hatch's tweet.. He lays it all out

“Dr Fords testimony would reflect her personal knowledge and memory of events. Nothing the FBI/ any other investigator does would have any bearing on what Dr Ford tells the committee, so there is no reason for any further delay”

Additionally, every letter/statement/interview made to @SenJudiciary carries a legal consequence for not telling the truth, just like with sworn testimony. (18 USC 1001) Letters like Mark Judge’s fulfill same need as sworn testimony or an FBI interview

Patrick J. Smyth’s letter to the @senjudiciary Committee— noting that while he was named in Ms. Ford’s account, he never witnessed the events she described— similarly serves the same purpose as sworn testimony and similarly carries legal consequences.



Everyone has agreed to cooperate except HER

You're playing with fire too btw, women voters are expected to be the difference in 2018 and 2020. Congrats on losing the women's vote just to cling to kavanaugh.

Liberal women maybe.. Conservative and independents make up that 71% polling you see above.. That 71% sees through yours and her BS games.

Just checked, you're losing ground by the hour.. Now 72%. I'd say that's pretty much all Conservatives and Inde's If it goes higher you're losing your own voters.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-po...ns-and-beyond/



Key Findings:
Expected to be a key voting group in the upcoming 2018 midterms, the poll finds twice as many women voters ages 18-44 saying they are Democrats as saying they are Republicans (43 percent compared to 21 percent). In addition, younger women voters (18-44 years old) are more likely to say they are “more enthusiastic” about voting this year than in previous midterm elections. Four in ten (39 percent) women voters, ages 18-44, say they are “more enthusiastic” about voting in this Congressional Election compared to previous years. In 2014, the last midterm election cycle, 14 percent of women voters ages 18-44 said they were “more enthusiastic” about voting.1
The poll also examines how 2018 candidates’ positions on key issues such as the international #MeToo movement, access to abortion services, and other reproductive health issues may influence women voters. A larger share of women voters, regardless of party identification or age, say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports work-related issues like paid parental leave and enacting harsher penalties for sexual harassment and assault in the workplace or is a proud supporter of the #MeToo movement, than vote for a candidate who does not support these issues or movements. However, considerable shares of Republican women voters say a candidate’s stance on these issues will not play a role in their vote choice.

You're at 28% in that poll.. There's your die hard Dem party peeps (I believe it "for the party" people).. Think it will hold?

Every news story I have seen says that she did NOT "concoct" anything "several years ago".

Matter of fact...she told nobody about anything in 1982.

And then she didn't go "on record" with a therapist.
She IS a therapist. (take that for what it's worth)

She went to a marriage counselor with her husband because they were trying to save her marriage...and THEN under "hypnosis" suddenly "remembered" being attacked.

The counselors notes do not show that she gave any name as to who did it.

But NOW...she suddenly knows it's Kavanaugh. And she still doesn't know WHERE the party was, or WHEN the party was. Or even what YEAR it was. But she knows for sure it's Brett Kavanaugh.

Now who knows if all this news is accurate or not. You really can't believe a damn thing the news says.

But one this is absolute fact: She said to the Washington Post that she had come out of anonymity in order to have the chance to "tell her story".
So now the Senate is offering her to come on Monday and testify in front of the Senate.

BUT...her lawyer in conjunction with the Democrat Party decided that a LOOONNNGGG FBI "investigation" will be required before she "tells her story".

Guess she didn't really want to tell it so badly after all. D

Again...I'm unsure WHAT the legal implications of a teenager trying to unsuccessfully fuck another teen while drunk would be. I guess if this had really happened...her dad would have went over to find Brett Kavanaugh and beat his ass.
Or it might have went before a juvenile court if the authorities had been called...MAYBE. Because teenagers have been getting drunk and trying to fuck since the beginning of time.

Anyway, Sen. Grassley has offered her to speak in open session, closed session, and even send staff to her home to get her story. But her lawyer has refused all of that now.

Weird how just three days ago she and the media were demanding that she get to go before Congress with her accusations. I guess they didn't think the Republicans would go for it.

But surprise! They did. And now she is backtracking hard.

And of course don't forget that Feinstein had this story for months and didn't bring it up until NOW. Even though she questioned Kavanaugh in open session, closed session, AND in private in her office.

This is purely political at this point.

What will they "investigate"? That a drunken teenage girl remembers 30 years later under hypnosis that a drunken teenage boy groped her?

So if they do the same 3 day "investigation" that they did on actual Federal employees in an incident that was fairly recent and all involved were adults...with this decades old accusation of teenage stupidity...then what will the Democrats and media do then?

Will they then accuse the FBI of being "political" after spending the last 2 years telling us that the FBI are sweet angels beyond reproach?

Hell man...even thinking that 2 teenage kids from 36 years ago could or should be "investigated" is fucking stupid to me.

What's next?

Did Kavanaugh finger a girl when he was 5 years old?
Or maybe play with one of his guy friends pee-pee when they were 7 years old?

And then what?
"CNN BREAKING NEWS: Brett Kavanaugh had his genitalia exposed in the hospital nursery to several other newborn infants...Democrats call for FBI investigation"
lol

I have no real interest in debating whether or not this is all some political scam or not because there is no point in that. That said, I do believe that if she refuses to speak to the committee then this matter should be dropped. If she wants to make accusations, that is fair, but when called upon to defend those accusations she has to be willing to do so.

There's an old saying in politics:
"If you aren't a Democrat when you're young...you have no heart.
If you aren't a Republican when you get older...you have no brain."

I think you're right on the money. I think that at this point she is being manipulated by the Dems and her attorney and making wrong choices.

If she has a story to tell...she should come before the Senate under oath and tell it.

for starters, they can investigate the other guy in the room, he's refusing to make statements under oath.

but more to your point: they shouldn't investigate because it's difficult to investigate isn't a valid reason not to investigate.

fortunately, I've kept my heart as I've grown older.

How can the congressional committee ask appropriate questions and such if they don't know what's going on due to no investigation?

that's her point. I tend to agree.

Another great piece by McCarthy

First, in no case does even the most sympathetic, convincing victim of a crime get to dictate the terms of the investigation.

Second, in any sexual-assault investigation, an interview of the alleged victim is among the first things that must be done. Here, moreover, it would be the first thing, since after 36 years a forensic investigation is not possible. Because the alleged victim’s version of events would dictate the course of the rest of the investigation, it would be absurd to delay an interview.

Third, as long as Ford’s counsel want to talk about regular, independent investigations, we should note that there is not a police organization in America that would entertain her allegation, in light of the lapse of time and the long-ago exhaustion of the statute of limitations. Professional investigators understand only too well the inherent unreliability of allegations raised in the manner Ford’s have been raised. The only relevance of this alleged incident is to a Senate function, so it is for the Senate committee to decide how to proceed.

Fourth, as Ford’s lawyers well know, in our adversary system, we do not submit disputes to a team of independent expert investigators. We have advocates for each side — partisans — make the case as well as it can be made from their side’s perspective, and we let the other side attack with all its partisan might. We allow each side to examine the other’s witnesses. Based on this often heated clash, we expect that members of the public will be able to figure out what information is reliable, what is nonsense, and what the truth is. That is the process we use for deciding life-and-death criminal sentences, as well as civil judgments that can be financially ruinous. We have used it for centuries because it works.

It is fashionable throat-clearing at this point to offer some vertiginous, ostentatiously sympathetic twaddle about how Professor Ford is credible in the sense that she truly believes what she has claimed, yet mistaken about . . . well . . . everything that matters. Sorry, I’m a simple man. What’s happening here is pure BS.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...-must-testify/

1. So is the accuser. She is refusing to appear before Congress under oath or make any statement under oath so far.

2. The valid reason to "not investigate" is that the FBI is for Federal Crimes. Not teenagers fucking around 36 years ago (if that even happened in the first place)

I agree that there should be an investigation. I would be completely fine if she wanted to do a private committee meeting where she just reads a statement demanding an investigation and explaining her side of the story.

After the horseshit the Republicans pulled with Garland I don't mind the political tactics, but I do believe a person has the right to face their accuser. He and the committee at least deserve to hear her speak and give her side of the story even if there are no follow up questions asked.

they want her to testify on live television about attempted rape. that's not OK.

the FBI is tasked with investigating SC nominees at the request of the potus. standard protocol.

Well...they have HER saying what happened.
And if other people were there (which she says there were only Kavanaugh and one other guy in the room) then they are saying what happened as well.

Not sure if there's anything left to "investigate". It's a 36 year old "he said, she said"

Literally impossible to "investigate" anything under those circumstances.

No matter what happens...people like us will make up our minds. But we don't count.

As for the Senate...the Dems will be "outraged" and the Republicans will vote him in.

And I still don't think that anything like this as a drunken teenager would be something that should disqualify a person from the Supreme Court...or anything in life for that matter.

Now IF he had beat a girl down and flat out raped her? Hell yes. He should be put out of the picture immediately.
But drunken stupidity as a teen that may or may not have even happened?
No.

"Third, as long as Ford’s counsel want to talk about regular, independent investigations, we should note that there is not a police organization in America that would entertain her allegation, in light of the lapse of time and the long-ago exhaustion of the statute of limitations. Professional investigators understand only too well the inherent unreliability of allegations raised in the manner Ford’s have been raised. The only relevance of this alleged incident is to a Senate function, so it is for the Senate committee to decide how to proceed."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...-must-testify/


Andrew McCarthy isn't just any journalist


Andrew C. McCarthy III (born 1959)[1] is an American columnist for National Review. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.[2][3][4] A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[5] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy

He's also a Never Trump'er

This guy could sit on the Supreme Court for 30+ years and make rulings that could effect millions of lives. There should be an investigation and we should be 100% sure about him before he is confirmed. I understand there is not going to be any kind of criminal prosecution. But when it comes to a position this important, everything should be looked into.