Kavanaugh Hearing

30-44 aren't young people to me. 18-29 are young people to me.

 

Former FBI agent:


If this is a real investigation, they need to be able to interview the three accusers, Kavanaugh, and any other relevant witnesses.

 

@CaptUSMCNole
Opinion | James Comey: The F.B.I. Can Do This
Is James Comey wrong about the FBI's capabilities?

 

They were upset with the children who were acting like brats, kicking and screaming....

Ruining a man and his family's life because, "politics..."

Stay classy...

 

Family tends to get upset when they find out the patricarch is a rapist. He probably should have stayed out of politics.

 

The children throwing temper tantrums were upset with the other children throwing temper tantrums? Good to know.

 

I wouldn’t trust James Comey today if he said the sun was going to rise in the east.

I would say he didn’t learn his lesson about what happens when you throw the FBI in the middle of a political knife fight.

 

It’s not an investigation, it a background check. There is a difference.

 

Just to get it straight, you know better than the former Director of the FBI and a former FBI agent?

 

this “investigation” is purely for saving face before midterms.

Won’t matter. American women know that the GOP pushed through a gang rapist because they know their time is limited. Disgusting.

 

Ah, but it's a background check where they are expected to get to the bottom of a particular allegation.

In that sense, it is an investigation. Plus even in the normal course of these, I've seen them referred to as "background investigations". So I think you are playing semantics in trying to excuse what the WH is trying to do here. If the principals aren't re-interviewed, Judge isn't a "priority", and none of the people raising their hands saying "hey, that guy is lying", WHO exactly is being interviewed? Just the people who vouched for him? That's not much of a legitimate background check nor is it any kind of an investigation.

They're going to have some 'splainin to do if come Tuesday or Wednesday and there are still a bunch of people claiming they haven't been interviewed.

 

The difference is that the former concerns potential criminal activity; the later concerns the suitability of a nominee for a position. In terms the need for thoroughness there is no difference, especially considering that the nomination is for a life time appointment.

 

What about if Trump said it would rise in the West? Oh, never mind. I know the answer.

 

Oh snap...another page, and again, my questions have slipped through the cracks. I understand....busy wathing nolie football, and SNL... No worries--here she is 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?

****Oh, and I remembered ANOTHER ONE, that you musta' got away from you:

You said: "...a sworn statement is PROOF that [thing sworn about] happened."

Erika Kinsman gave multipe sworn statements that Rapeis Winston raped her.

JW OTOH, hid behind the 5th Amendment, and his lawyers...

...while Kav came right out and gave his own sworn statements categorically denying Doc Ford's allegations against him.

So again I ask, other than your nolie allegiance, and your lefty politics...


...HOW THE HELL DO YOU PRETEND THAT DOC FORD IS PREACHING GOSPEL TRUTH, WHILS CATERGORICALLY DISMISSING KINSMAN AS A BOLD FACED PERJURING LIAR????***

 

^^^C'mon man? That's all you got??

LMAO!

 

I was very clear of my opinion of Comey and not understanding why the FBI should stay out of political knife fights.

NRO has a podcast with a former assistant US DA. He covered the difference between what this is and an FBI investigation. There is no subpoena power here, so not really an investigation.

 

Yale Classmate Accuses Kavanaugh of ‘Blatant Mischaracterization’ of His Drinking
The classmate, Chad Ludington, who said he frequently socialized with Judge Kavanaugh as a student, said in a statement that the judge had been untruthful in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he had denied any possibility that he had ever blacked out from drinking.

Mr. Ludington said that Judge Kavanaugh had played down “the degree and frequency” of his drinking, and that the judge had often become “belligerent and aggressive” while intoxicated.

“It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges,” Mr. Ludington said, adding that he planned to “take my information to the F.B.I.”

 

That has nothing to do with what either said. Comey said that the FBI has the resources to conduct a full background investigation. Rangappa said that they need to interview Kavanaugh to have a baseline narrative to compare with other narratives.

 

As I said, Kavanaugh's buddy, Don McGahn, is running interference for him: