Kavanaugh Hearing

This isn't that significant, but still:

 

If you only have one week, you have to figure out how to slice the pie somehow. Immediately excluding claims from someone represented by Avenatti seems like a solid decision.

 

I would disagree. How did that end up? I was at church.

 

BS. The FBI has more than enough resources to handle a full investigation. Don't try to claim this is a time issue. The White House doesn't want a real investigation. They're going to get hammered for this. And I won't blame Trump. It's Don McGahn. He's covering for his friend, Brett Kavanaugh, and the Federalist Society.

 

FSU 28 - Louisville 24. Checked the score about 3 minutes ago.

 

Very logical article from a conservative voice:

 

...gosh darn it...must have slipped through the cracks again.

No worries--I bookmarked the page, so I'll be happy to re-post as necessary, in case it should...'slip through the cracks' again.

Good Lord...were YOU there???

...and btw, how the hell do you believe Erica Kinsman is a bold faced perjuring liar wrt Repeis Winston, while biting hook line and sinker into every syllable uttered by Doc Ford???

K'man went to authorities the night of the incident, and submitted to a rape kit, and ID'd JW as soon as she saw him in class, less than a month later...

Doc Ford sat on her laurels for 36 years, before deigning to even pretend to identify Kav to anyone (not to mention having a hard time even narrowing it down to what part of the decade its supposedly happened...).

So, Leftist politics and your garnet and gold allegiance aside, what could possibly make Doc Ford's allegation more believable than Erika Kinsman's?


​

Oh, and couldn't help but notice that you resumed posting...right after the nolie game. LOL!

Another coinkydinky, right?

 

Anyone that suggests that a Federal Agency has “enough” resources to do a Crisis Action Team (CAT) never worked in a Federal Agency. To do a crash investigation in a week means that they have to pull agents off other tasks, get them spun up on the knat’s ass details and then coordinate getting them in the same room with people who probably don’t want to be questioned, regardless of what their lawyers are saying. Also need to remember they don’t have subpoena power so people involved can easily try to run out the clock.

Avenatti’s client has already been fired for lying about her resume and has an ex-boyfriend who had to go to court for a restraining order. If I’m triaging who I have time to focus on, it’s the people who have already named witnesses that saves time trying to find them.

 

Have to focus on the credible accusers, who have already had some investigation done on their accusations in order to allow the agents to finish within a week.

Friday was already over by the time the started planning. No lawyer is going to allow their client to speak to the FBI without prep, so likely Tuesday at the earliest. Another day to analyze what they have learned, Wednesday. Another day to get follow up questions asked and answered, Thursday. Final day to type up reports and turn in final documents, Friday.

 

Bull to the shit. It's one week. The FBI has more than enough resources to investigate three allegations. I'll tell you who does want to be questioned . . . Avenatti's client. There will be no issues questioning her. This isn't the FBI making the call. This is Don McGahn, a friend of Kavanaugh's. Don't try to sell me that because I'm not buying. This isn't the FBI conducting their investigation in a certain manner. This is the White House placing limitations on what the FBI can investigate. As for people not cooperating, all the key players right now are saying that they're happy to cooperate.

You should look more into the restraining order story. It was poorly reported and very misleading. The story about that company is also unclear at this point because they're relying on the complaint for a lawsuit that wasn't pursued.

Regardless, even if true, victims are often imperfect. The idea that you should ignore credible allegations because the victim is imperfect is a farce. And yes, the allegation is credible because she submitted a sworn affidavit to the Committee. The reality of rape is that it often causes lasting issues. Demanding that a victim of sexual abuse be squeaky clean if they want justice is exactly what caused the current predicament we're now in.

This isn't the FBI making the call. This is the White House telling the FBI they can't even look into her story (among numerous other things). Don't make excuses. It smells like a bait and switch, and that's exactly what it is.

 

Yeah, over 10 years of working at Federal Agencies and I have no idea what I’m talking about. The FBI is not pulling agents off of CT missions, law enforcement cases, etc. FBI is not that large and they don’t have the manpower to chase every allegation in the space of a week. That means they have to pull staff officers from HQ and schoolhouse near DC to do this. They don’t have enough bodies to throw at this problem to have enough resources to follow every unsubstantiated accusation.

Avenatti client has had no corroboration of her story when compared to the two other accusations. So in a limited time period with limited man hours, who should the FBI focus on? The two stories the media has provided a lot of leads to follow or a fantastical story provided by someone who lacks the credibility of the other women?

 

On a side note - What does SNL do for the cold open?

 

Don't assume you're the only person who has relevant experience here. That's the extent of what I'll say on that topic.

If this is the FBI's call, why is the White House the one imposing the limitations? If the FBI doesn't believe it has the resources to do the work, why is the White House telling the FBI that it CANNOT pursue certain leads? Why are they not letting the FBI make that call? I'll tell you why, because it's not the FBI who needs this investigation limited.

Really? Avenatti claims otherwise. She claims otherwise in her affidavit. How would you know? Avenatti says he has multiple witnesses willing to talk. I guess his client has no corroboration if you refuse to investigate her story and talk to the people who could corroborate. Wouldn't it be nice for the FBI to talk to Avenatti's client, see what proof exists, and determine for themselves whether it's worth pursuing?

 

I hope Trump told Don McGahn this:

 

So you have experience at the federal agency level? It’s a yes or no.

Simply, the FBI asks we have X people with Y amount of man hours, what do you want us to focus on? The White House says A and B.

Avenatti claims that she does. No one besides Avenatti knows that for sure. Do you want to waste limited man hours going down a rabbit hole that turns out to be a dead end?

 

Senate Judiciary Committee has referred the Rhode Island allegation, that was initially made to Senator Whitehouse and subsequently publicly reported, to the DOJ for investigation into whether charges for making materially false statements in connection with a matter within the jurisdiction of the US Senate, or obstructing Senate proceedings, should potentially be filed.

 

That's not what's being reported.

Yes. She swore under oath. I'm going to interview her at minimum and see what witnesses they have to offer.

 

Exactly!

Afraid of what they might find, to include possible evidence he perjured himself.