This background check was known to be limited in scope when Flake asked for it and the White House agreed. It was never going to be about chasing down stories of JBK throwing water on someone or what happened at Beach Week in ‘82. It was going to be about interviewing witnesses of the first two accusers and that was it.
Nowhere in your article does it say that the sources are from within the FBI so the headline doesn't match the story. If they were, then the story should have said so. Maybe just poor journalism which is possible. I would have no problem either way. She has already given 100% of the information she has unless there is reason to believe she is withholding relevant information.
You can say they had four hours of interviews of BK, but a lot of it was deflective tantrums and clearly deceptive/disingenuous statements. Question for you then... how would the FBI address taking a statement from somebody where they were clearly not answering the questions being asked, and/or giving disingenuous answers? Would they not press those issues to force more clarity from the interviewee? And then look to find people who can confirm or impeach the questionable statements? Aside from that, the scope of the accusations goes beyond Dr Ford, and the scope of the witnesses with relevant information to what was claimed in the hearings goes far beyond who she claimed was at the party. There are HS and college classmates and roommates who tried to come forward with relevant information that apparently clearly refuted some of BK's claims in both HS and college. If an FBI agent asked a person whether they could confirm some event, and they said no, but some other person can, wouldn't they go interview that other person? Especially if that person was somebody who would reasonably be expected to have that relevant information?
Why didn't they do that then? They didn't interview the accused, first accuser, the first accuser's witnesses, or the second accuser's witnesses. That should speak volumes, but I imagine you're going to try and justify it now. If you wonder why people think this thing is a sham, ask yourself why Kavanaugh's best buddy and biggest supporter in the WH was the one pulling the strings on the investigation.
But she hasn't. Neither has Kavanaugh. Any person who has conducted a cross or seen one done knows that hearing was an ineffective way of developing testimony. You can't develop a cross in five minutes. In order to get a baseline narrative, you need to take as much time as it takes to develop the testimony with follow-up questions and push back when you see somebody is being evasive or dishonest. Plus, we now have information that came out AFTER the testimony that could be used against both parties. Simply put, the hearing was political theater. If they wanted to actually get to the bottom of this, they needed to talk to both people. But this was never about getting to the bottom of it. It was always about political cover. Hat's off to Jeff Flake for being the sanctimonious poser he has always been.
Just remember when they claim that the FBI report found nothing to corroborate Debbie Ramirez's accusation that the FBI wasn't permitted to interview a single one of her corroborating witnesses: We already have three witnesses on the record providing corroboration. They are a theologian from Princeton, an architect, and a physician. Obviously, they have nothing to lose if they lie. *eyeroll* This "investigation" was a sham. They made no effort to corroborate the accusations. I know what's coming next, and it's not good for any of us. Kavanaugh will be voted onto SCOTUS. The Dems will win back the House in November. And then the Dems in the House will use their power to open up a legitimate investigation into Kavanaugh. I fear what that investigation will reveal.
The only reason the game wasn't called to begin with, is because ONE pub (flake) sided with the dems--to have the ref's put some ticks back on the clock--or rather, to have 'the last play', 'reviewed'. The Hail Mary I referred to, was the Doc Ford hearing. Doc ford had her say. It simply wasn't enough, and the more anyone looks into it, the more SHE comes off as FOS. Y'all want the FBI (review booth) to reset the clock back to the 3rd quarter. Sorry, that's beyond the RP booth's jurisdiction. They review the last play-i.e. the Doc Ford Hail Mary. Not every tom, dick n harry who figures they can get in on some of Doc ford's lime light action, write a book, and cash in... No confirmation process would ever come to an end, if the Senate entertained, and had the FBI vet, every hair brained conspiracy theory, and freak show with a yarn to spin... Game's over. Ain't noth'n left but more lefty tears, whining, and orchestrated bully tactics to intimidate anyone not singing in perfect harmony with their sheet music, more protests, more childish antics, and whatever else the lefty losers want to do to show their asses, and stake their claim to victim-loserhood. C'est la vie.
Of course they know this, they just try to ratchet up enough noise to hope ppl. lose sight of the issue, and seek to lynch Kav just based on so much innuendo.
Before they even started this investigation I said it should have been over. And it's not about Ford. Kavanaugh repeatedly lied in the hearing, likely lied in his 2004 and 2006 hearings, acted inappropriately for the position he is interviewing for, and went off on a wild paranoid partisan rant, which is obviously completely inappropriate for an objective arbiter of the law. His nomination should have been pulled, or he should be voted down on those issues in the full Senate. Either outcome is appropriate to his behavior. But if they were going to do a background investigation relevant to the charges against him, they should do a real background investigation. Obviously the White House and Senate Pubs, are not willing to risk what a real investigation would find, so they restricted it. It's not surprising given the partisan climate we have, but let's not pretend that investigation was anything other than a sham... and window dressing to try to placate women voters.
See, that would be your opinion, your take. That's fine and dandy, as everyone is entitled to theirs--it just doesn't align very well with what's what's actually going on (i.e. reality). C'est la vie.
The minute I see a liberal endorse removing Ginsburg from the bench for wading into partisan politics that have nothing to do with the Court, I'll take much more seriously the complaint that it was inappropriate for Kavanaugh to comment on the blatantly obvious role partisan politics have played in his own confirmation hearings. Here's the thing: his "wild paranoid partisan rant" was largely true. Here's what he said that seems to have gotten liberals' dander up: "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups." Now let us break that down. You really think that the opposition to him isn't motivated, at least in part, by his position in the Starr independent counsel's office? That liberals weren't having a stroke over a guy that any Republican (including folks like Romney and McCain) likely would have nominated, in large part simply because he happened to be nominated by Trump? Want to dispute that, as of mid-August, liberal groups had already run at least $1.3 million in TV ads advocating against his confirmation (which have only ramped up from there)? His "partisan rant" doesn't seem to have been incorrect in any appreciable way. Liberals just now want to insist that he should have pretended that there hasn't been a blatantly political opposition to him.
right or wrong, he will get voted in...this pick is too important for Republicans/Conservatives Democrats have never been as driven by judicial politics as Republicans they were ok with Mitch delaying Garland, they voted for Trump despite his obvious flaws because of it...a reliable conservative USSC is their holy grail..
Why would they interview Ford and Kavanaugh? They both spent hours in front of the committee answering questions. Are you saying that there is something they want to know that they didn't ask them themselves when they had the chance.
I am saying that anyone who has seen a cross knows that wasn't a cross. If you want to actually develop their testimony, you need a legitimate cross. Kavanaugh evaded questions he didn't want to answer and rambled on to run the clock out on the Dems (and appears to have been dishonest at certain points). Ford provided a few answers that now appear to be dishonest. You press them on those details, you don't allow them to evade questions they don't want to answer, and you keep pushing until you get a legitimate answer. There is a lot we could have learned from FBI interviews of both. Anyone who says otherwise is talking out of their rear end.
Ben, you're so much better than this. His words are right there. Don't try to spin them. He called Dr. Ford's allegation a political hit ("two-week effort"). Don't try to paint it as him referring just to generic opposition. And he used the words "revenge on behalf of the Clintons." Are we really going to pretend that a textualist doesn't care about language? "On behalf of" has a clear meaning. That meaning isn't, "You're getting revenge because you're angry about how I treated the Clintons." That meaning is, "You're getting revenge as the Clinton's proxy." His partisan rant was incorrect in every appreciable way if you don't ignore the language he used in order to give it a wholly different meaning. Problem for Republicans is that this is no longer about judicial politics. It's now a referendum on whether you believe women who were assaulted. They took the wrong side.
new article about Kenneth Appold helps corroborates Ramirez story...why didn't they follow up? oh never mind...fix was in from beginning
the only silver lining ( maybe ) because he will get nominated is the fact he showed political bias , etc he may have to recuse himself a lot
