You say ……………."But we can't change the past." Yet …. you seemingly support without exception and any factual basis Dr Ford ….. who's been changing the past quite a bit. Actually … she seems to revise the past whenever it's convenient to evolve the allegations levelled by her and her handlers. Go figure.
There is a JC process for investigating accusations against SCOTUS nominees that is quiet and discrete. Sen. Feinstein choose not to utilize that process and instead leaked the letter publicly at the last minute causing this public circus. If Feinstein had use the normal JC process, we could have avoided all of this.
Katz is apparently imploring the FBI to interview Dr. Ford, so that they can get a list of witnesses who would corroborate. At this point, the FBI may just be doing Dr. Ford a “solid” by NOT interviewing her, because if she starts adding witnesses now that aren’t already very public information via her WaPo interview, Feinstein letter and Senate testimony, she’s going to end up getting herself into some trouble that the FBI won’t be able to ignore.
The FBI should probably question Blasey Ford to get to the truth but some reason they're not questioning her as part of the reopened background investigation. In fact their not interviewing either her or Kavanaugh although both should be interviewed. I wonder why? Edit: In fact the FBI apparently isn't questioning a number of individuals with relevant information. Two examples that immediately come to mind are potential witnesses named by Deborah Ramirez to corroborate her allegations and a former girlfriend of Mark Judge.
I totally agree with this. Of course, I would go one further and suggest that conservative-partisans shouldn’t engage in determining what is a political lynching without evidence.
Instead of floating tin foil hat conspiracy theories, just because you don’t like the way this is trending, how about we let the professional investigators YOUR SIDE BEGGED FOR to do their jobs the best way they know how?
Cute. While I have doubts regarding Swetnick's credibility it seems that the FBI should be interviewing her if they are really doing a comprehensive background review of Kavanaugh. As of yesterday she hasn't been interviewed and despite Trump's statements to the contrary, if media reports are accurate, the scope of the reopened FBI background investigation specifically limits the witnesses who may be interviewed and Swetnick isn't one of them.
That's a fine suggestion for all partisans, regardless of ideology. But demanding that women have no valid avenue to raise sexual assaults other than the CJ system which prosecutes only 4% of reported assaults is in no way supportive of your proposition. It is just punishment of women who've been assaulted, and assigning a wholly invalid assumption on them that they cannot be raising their assault without political motivations. You deny any valid avenue for justice to almost all sexual assault victims with your stance here.
Why does the FBI need to question Dr. Ford or Kavanaugh when they have over two hours of sworn testimony before the JC? Dr. Ford was able to provide her entire story. Kavanagh answered questions about both Dr. Ford's accusation and Ramirez's.
You are aware that the White House specifically defined the scope of the investigation by the professional investigators? Unlike a criminal investigation, in the background review they're not free to go where leads may take them. I assume that you're also aware that the investigation is specifically time-limited.
If the FBI spent the weekend checking Swetnick's background and determined that based on her legal record and/or other information in her security files for clearances, that she was not credible, why speak to her?
Seems that if her testimony is questionable, a follow-up would be appropriate. The testimony should either be accepted on its face or the possible inaccuracies and/or discrepancies should be resolved through further questioning. There is a reason for the additional investigation.
I agree with this. Feinstein is a primary culprit in how we got to this point. I thoroughly disagree with the White House preventing the FBI from doing a legitimate investigation now, though. There is no legitimate reason to do that. They're clearly scared of what might come out.
See my previous post. She also claimed in an interview that she reported the alleged incident to the Montgomery County Police. According to the Police Department it would take up to a month to verify her statement (I assume that their records from the early '80s were never put in a searchable database and are still in paper form packed in cardboard boxes). She Doesn't seem although that credible and maybe an interview would just confirm her lack of credibility. That being said, if the follow-up investigation can be considered comprehensive she should be interviewed. Based on limitations on the scope of the FBI investigation by the White House it's starting to look like a sham, not because the FBI is incompetent but because Trump and McGhan have restricted what the agency may do. FBI has not contacted dozens of potential sources in Kavanaugh investigation
No, I mean with college-educated white women as well as black and Hispanic women. Kavanaugh is unpopular with all of those groups according to the Quinnipiac polling. They expect a person who is taking a polygraph to not google how it works? What he says is consistent with what she already testified to with regard to flying. And she never testified to a fear of small spaces. I dismissed it as nothing? You sure about that? Did I ask for the FBI to investigate it? Isn't that consistent with my stance on Kavanaugh? I hope you aren't claiming that an anonymous letter from an ex should be given the same weight as a disinterested person who goes on the record with their name. Did I give the anonymous allegations against Kavanaugh any credence? However, you are correct that I believe Dr. Ford unless somebody comes forward with evidence that her story is false. I found her testimony more credible than Kavanaugh's. I think it's quite ironic that you are lecturing me on this when you never came in here and showed any doubts regarding Kavanaugh when all of the people have come forward and undermined his credibility. At least I practice what I preach. I didn't write it off. I said investigate it.
How does anyone actually know what the FBI is or isn't dong or who they are interviewing? If they're holding hourly press conferences, I have yet to see one.
No matter how badly you want to believe it, Trump, nor the GOP are going to risk pushing Kavanaugh in if there are any teeth to any of these allegations. Imagine the backlash they would receive if something more credible and more verifiable came out later about someone Kavanaugh had assaulted or harassed. That's why your theories are tin foil hat variety, because if you really think the GOP wants to stake their survival to someone who could bring them down overnight, just to get a certain person on the SCOTUS, you're crazy. It would be a lot less riskier for them simply to withdraw Kavanaugh and nominate someone else and vote on said nominee before the new Congress convenes in 2019. You do understand that the GOP wants due diligence here as well, right? Otherwise, they're playing Russian Roulette simply pushing Kavanaugh in and ignoring due diligence.
