Could certainly happen. But I suspect that Collins and Murkowski went to him and said no harm comes from investigating, and it takes us all off the hook eventually because we can simply rely on the fbi. It also saves folks like Manchin, Heidkamp etc.
You start with that presumption, and then it can be modified based on new data. You've found some new data in these inconsistencies, just as the other side has found some in the odd yearbook terms. Sure, if you think it's more likely that Ford is lying than Kavanaugh, that's reasonable. But you just flat out said she's concocting the story. That's a conclusion, not a starting place. We need evidence collection before we make a conclusion. And if we are using motives as evidence, don't you think that your points #2 and #3 are even stronger with Kavanaugh, the person that has far more to gain/lose? I'm not trying to say that Kavanaugh is lying, but I just don't think we are ready to conclude that Ford is either.
My bad...I am doing a few things here at once and shouldn't have lumped you in with "them guys". I still don't see how any reasonable person can take away their conclusions from the actual statements no matter how many people copy/paste that narrative. He never said he personally was legally of drinking age. He said the seniors were and noted that that age changed while he was in high school.
That was the vote to favorably report the nomination to the floor, accompanied by Jeff Flake making a speech saying that they should conduct a brief FBI investigation if they want his floor vote. It doesn't bind anyone to do anything, but it means that if the GOP ultimately needs Flake's vote to pass the nomination they will presumably request that the FBI do something.
I think conservatives have mostly been saying Ford's testimony was "believable". And libs are just yelling dumb stuff like he perjured himself. I wasn't speaking about you specifically. Liberals in general and I tend to avoid generalizations, but generally, that is what I have been observing the past few days.
I have. I’ve said for almost 230 pages now that the process should stopped and an investigation occur without once saying I thought he was guilty But while we are playing the “other side is biased“ game, Is no one on the right troubled by Kavanaugh’s apparent lies under oath at both of his committee hearings? I’ll repeat for clarity my consistent position on this entire fiasco: One. Ford was sexually assaulted by someone Two. It may or may not have been by him. Three. He’s an outright liar whether he assaulted her or not. Query-If you need to lie to clear your good name, is your name really that good in the first place?
I salute Arizona Senator Jeff Flake for trying to bring the Senate, and the country, together on this. Republican Senator Flake is asking -- requesting -- that the FBI conduct an investigation before the full Senate votes on Judge Kavanaugh. That FBI investigation to be limited in scope and not longer than one week. The decision on whether to delay the full Senate vote will be up to Senator Mitch McConnell.
Aww, what a rip, now all this popcorn and beer is going to go to waste. . Oh well, there's a Gator game tomorrow, I'll manage.
It's extremely unlikely he changes his story on the party question since he would then be implicated. The likely outcome is they get him up there and trash his life to create guilt by association because Kavanaugh was his friend.
As I said above, this was always the fair compromise because it gives everyone in the senate cover, shows the appearance of taking the allegation seriously, and keeps it on a decent timeline. And this shouldnt take that long to investigate. It will come back with: “although we find the alleged victim credible, the passage of time both in the witnesses’ memories and for any physical evidence makes it impossible to determine whether a crime took place.” And then everyone will be back at square one
QUESTION TO ALL: If McConnell grants Flake's request and the FBI does a one-week investigation (longer than Clarence Thomas's) and they come back with an "inconclusive" (as they did in Thomas's case) or "he didn't do it", will that be enough for all of you who are calling for an investigation now?
We use words to communicate and thus generally settle on accepted definitions of words. Slang is a bit looser, but there still are generally accepted definitions. I would actually be okay with the argument that they didn't know one of those slang terms and randomly stumbled into it when they were searching for a different slang word. But all of them? Occam's razor at some point here. BTW, Occam's razor is supported by his classmates' recollection of their usage of the terms.
It will come back with "here are summaries of the interviews that we have conducted," and then everyone will conclude on their own that they are inconclusive. An FBI background investigation does not make conclusions or reach credibility determinations.
Oh and the downside for republicans here is that the FBI can now talk to the other 2 women too unless they limit scope. But it also gives another week or more for more people to come out of the woodwork.
The next accuser the left buys, errrr, I mean finds, will probably be an altar server from his elementary school, 42 years ago.
