I think the bigger problem for Dems in 2016 was apathy wrt HRC (I couldn't believe how few signs and bumper stickers there were for HRC in the SF Bay Area before that election), and outright hostility from a segment of Sanders supporters and independents. HRC received far fewer votes than Obama. And Trump got fewer than Romney for that matter. The key for Dems is voter enthusiasm/turnout, just as that was the key for Trump's victory the swing / rust belt states in 2016. And for the Senate, I think there are more red states than blue states so they have to win both seats in some of the more moderate states to win the Senate.
It was just a matter of time before the Party of the Criminal villified the very Bureau they said should investigate these claims all along.
Is the FBI being villified by the Dems (who I assume you mean to be the party of the Criminal)? Or is it the White House being villified for restricting the FBI from doing the investigation?
You tell me. Did the White House decree that the FBI could not interview Ford this past week? Yes or no?
Seemed to me that they laid out their basis for the alleged inaccuracy right there in the letter, to wit: doc Ford, whom i believe, has been effectively discredited. ...and WTH are they referring to with "...the majority has not shared theze statements with the minority"? What statements? Seems to me they held a pretty public hearing thst included all of doc Ford s statements, AND her [claimed] witnesses.
TBL, the Dems threw up a hail Mary pass, it was swatted down to harmlessly fall to the ground....and have since been appealing for review to the replay booth--of plays that happened in the 1st quarter....of other games.
You're sidestepping the point I made in yet another post. Is the FBI being villified as you claim or the White House for restricting the investigation? But to your point... FBI Says It Lacks White House Approval to Talk to Kavanaugh and Ford
This would be an example of the headline not matching the story. The FBI didn’t say it doesn’t have approval. Two anonymous sources said it and there is no indication that they are part of the FBI.
Well, the Pubs controlled the rules of the game. And graciously allowed the Dems to throw a "hail Mary"... where none of their players were allowed to move past the LOS, or they'd be flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct (FBI wasn't allowed to interview dozens of witnesses who tried to come forward, but weren't allowed beyond the "LOS"). The Pubs are now claiming victory because none of the players moved beyond the line of scrimmage. Funny how that works. Of course, Kavanaugh should still not be confirmed, just on the lies he told, his poor behavior and his paranoid partisanship.
They were reportedly anonymous sources from within the FBI. Right? Regardless, the FBI did not interview the accuser or the accused. Does that strike you as making any kind of sense in context of this case? Or any case?
There is no "case," the FBI is just compiling materials for the Senate. The function of the FBI is to conduct interviews and prepare interview summaries (302s) for the White House and the Senate to review. What would be the purpose of the FBI preparing for Senators interview summaries of people who those Senators have already interviewed themselves?
It’s likely a last gasp attempt to muddy the waters on Kavanaugh’s background after friends in the FBI or DOJ let the Democrats on the JC know that the FBI additional background investigation came up with nothing.
when FBI does background checks they look at a person's record from 18 years and forward...he was 17 when a lot of this crap went on...
The idea here was to interview people to determine the veracity of the claims made in the hearings. Right? As well as provide background on BK that allows for informed consent by the Senate. Interviewing the accuser and accused makes sense in terms of addressing inconsistencies, and misrepresentations in their statements, as well as to determine relevant follow up to pursue. They did neither here, nor did they respond to people trying to come forward with information relevant to the accusations. This does not sound at all like any investigation I have heard of or could imagine. It certainly is not doing fact finding to help the Senate understand the truth of this event or the backgrounds of these individuals. And for BK in particular, the goal is to present his background clearly, so the Senate can make a well informed consent decision.
You aren’t suggesting that there maybe some people within the FBI that are leaking to friends in the media about things that the shouldn’t to support one side or the other, are you? That would be absolutely shocking! Oh, wait...no it wouldn’t. The IG’s report on the FBI stated they had a horrible habit of doing just that.
Improper that the FBI leak confidential information - for sure. Improper that the FBI do a politically driven sham investigation - for sure. Shining light on a politically driven sham? Maybe not so bad. Although whomever leaked probably didn't need to as it's pretty obvious this background investigation was very selective in scope.
The JC makes the determination on the veracity of the claims, not the FBI. The FBI gathers statements and then submits them to the JC. What is the point of asking JBK and Dr. Ford questions when the JC question them both under oath for over 4 hours each? Any inconsistencies are up for Senators to make a judgement on, not the FBI. The FBI followed up with the witnesses that Dr. Ford named. This is what the Democrats were asking for before they got it.
He didn't wait. He corroborated it when it originally came out. He was anonymous in that story and wanted to give his information to the FBI. When the FBI refused to talk to him, he decided that he needed to come forward and put his name behind what he knows. It is quite clear what's happening. Kavanaugh's buddy in the WH made sure that no corroborating witness could be interviewed. The guy independently corroborated Ramirez's story before it became public. Ben, I have been absolutely amazed throughout this process at your willingness to act like you know far less than you do. You are a lawyer. I imagine you have either cross-examined people or have seen it done. The Senate did not effectively cross-examine either Ford or Kavanaugh because five minutes is insufficient time to develop a cross. Having the FBI speak with both and actually develop their testimony could have been quite useful. They also could have pushed both on certain points that have come into question since their Senate testimony. The fact that the WH would not let them do so is quite appalling. They finished the report two days early. Let's not pretend that they didn't have time. What axe does he have to grind? The Kavanaugh defenders seem to assume that every person who comes forward has some ulterior motive. Maybe they just give a crap about this country and don't think a guy should be able to lie his way onto the Supreme Court. There are still people out there who actually care.
