Trump announces Brett Kavanaugh as his 2nd SCOTUS nominee.

[Ibanez]

And this lady won’t be bothered to go before Congress. That further proves to me she is either lying or this is truly some ploy to extend all of this the 7 weeks until the midterms are over.

Or she's legitimately scared-as-hell. Her reluctance up to this point, and the fact that she only told a handful of people before Kavanaugh became a household name, seems to point that way.

I don’t buy that. Most of those threats are empty and she had to have known that coming forward with this allegation would bring out the crazies.

It doesn’t matter much that she told a couple of people before Kavanaugh was nominated. She brought it up and now that she has a forum to discuss it, she’s refusing. 30+ years later she wants the FBI to investigate. Is that even in their purview??? Do we really expect the FBI to investigate a 30 yr old case of drunk and horny teenagers? All victims should be heard however I have to wonder about s victim that speaks up and then refuses to talk when given such a powerful forum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

BTW, that's the biggest thing that there might be legitimacy to this. A few people from HS are saying the story was known, she named Kavanaugh in 2012 to both her husband and therapist, and she wrote the letter before he became the nominee (when his named showed up as a finalist).

Mark Judge's memoirs don't paint a pretty picture either.

But yeah, she's clearly lying about the accusation to get what she wants - every successful woman dreams of one day being forced out of her own home, fearing for her life. And yet we still question why some women want to remain anonymous when making accusations against powerful people...

I didn’t say she’s lying. She’s named 2 people as witnesses and they both deny it.

Her timing (rather Sen. Feinstein’s) is extremely suspect.

Brett wasn’t a powerful judge or anything when this first occurred.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

At what point, EVER, has the FBI had any jurisdiction in this? They wouldn't have been involved even if she reported it the day it happened

Come on, Columbo... tell us you aren't this dumb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, he's that dumb.

[CID1990]

Speaking of parroting crap off of Facebook (which has been retracted btw)

Good job AZHoundawg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

She doesn't want the FBI to investigate?

Completely not the subject, Sherlock

focus

What you referenced was a Facebook post of a 3rd party alleging hearsay




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

She doesn't want the FBI to investigate?

Completely not the subject, Sherlock

focus

What you referenced was a Facebook post of a 3rd party alleging hearsay

[CID1990]

Completely not the subject, Sherlock

focus

What you referenced was a Facebook post of a 3rd party alleging hearsay

Actually, I was wrong

It was a tweet

Which said “this DID happen”

And then the tweet was taken down

And now she’s saying she doesn’t know if it happened or not

She said she felt “empowered” to inject herself into this affair with hearsay (translation: made up)

Good job, HD

[Winterborn]

Looking more and more that somebody was just after their 30 seconds of fame and Sen. Feinstein was desperate for a sound bite.

[GannonFan]

Feinstein is the one who's really looking bad in all of this. She was already being looked at as an old person who's probably had enough terms in the Senate, and was already being pressured by the progressive wing, but did she do right by Ford here? - Ford was apparently clear that she didn't want this going forward and didn't want to be involved, so Feinstein sat on the letter for 2 months. At the 11th hour, Feinstein decides to force Ford's hand by publicly announcing the letter, so it was only a matter of time before the author was revealed. And without at least a second witness/accuser, this thing was never going to have legs. And now it does look more like a delay attempt than anything else. There's a reason why we should stop electing folks when they're in their 80's (and she'll be in her 90's if she's elected here and serves her full term).

[89Hen]

The kid is a weasel and has no business sitting on the Supreme Court. Surely they can find another cleaner candidate than this punk, one who believes that the President is above the law too.

And the truth comes out at the end of your post. You are a piece of work.

[Skjellyfetti]

At what point, EVER, has the FBI had any jurisdiction in this? They wouldn't have been involved even if she reported it the day it happened

Come on, Columbo... tell us you aren't this dumb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Background investigation. It wouldn't be a criminal investigation.

The White House has to request it.

GHW Bush's WH requested the FBI investigate Anita Hill's allegation re: Clarence Thomas... and, they did. Took 3 days.

[GannonFan]

At what point, EVER, has the FBI had any jurisdiction in this? They wouldn't have been involved even if she reported it the day it happened

Come on, Columbo... tell us you aren't this dumb


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Background investigation. It wouldn't be a criminal investigation.

The White House has to request it.

GHW Bush's WH requested the FBI investigate Anita Hill's allegation re: Clarence Thomas... and, they did. Took 3 days.

Well, they were investigating time Thomas and Hill spent employed by the federal government and actions that may have occurred while on the job, again, in the federal government. I'm not sure how the same can be applied to a summer party during high school in early 1980's Maryland. I don't recall government being large enough then to encompass that, no?

[AZGrizFan]

Background investigation. It wouldn't be a criminal investigation.

The White House has to request it.

GHW Bush's WH requested the FBI investigate Anita Hill's allegation re: Clarence Thomas... and, they did. Took 3 days.

Well, they were investigating time Thomas and Hill spent employed by the federal government and actions that may have occurred while on the job, again, in the federal government. I'm not sure how the same can be applied to a summer party during high school in early 1980's Maryland. I don't recall government being large enough then to encompass that, no?

Give 'em time....

[∞∞∞]

Ford's lawyer sends a letter that she'll testify next week, but not on Monday.

Hopefully the committee is ok with that.

[GannonFan]

Ford's lawyer sends a letter that she'll testify next week, but not on Monday.

Hopefully the committee is ok with that.

Said that she'll do it as long as the "terms that are fair and which ensure her safety" are met. Not sure what that will be. Devil's in the details. Supreme Court opens on Monday, October 1. I doubt the GOP will let this stretch to a point, testimony withstanding, that gets in the way of voting him in with enough time to start with the Court in the new term. Not sure what the actual schedule is (i.e. when they hear arguments) but if he doesn't sit for an argument he can't be part of that case.

[Rob Iola]

Ford's lawyer sends a letter that she'll testify next week, but not on Monday.

Hopefully the committee is ok with that.

Why? They set the agenda, not Ford.

[GannonFan]

Ford's lawyer sends a letter that she'll testify next week, but not on Monday.

Hopefully the committee is ok with that.

Why? They set the agenda, not Ford.

Nothing is sacrosanct about hearing the testimony on Monday - I'm sure a difference of a couple of days can't be significant. I don't know how long the timing is to schedule a committee vote, have the vote, and then have the full Senate vote. That will be the critical path that determines how the GOP will respond.

[∞∞∞]

So a SCOTUS seat can be vacant for almost 300 days, but the GOP can't wait a few days for Ford to testify?

The courts will be fine.

[GannonFan]

So a SCOTUS seat can be vacant for almost 300 days, but the GOP can't wait a few days for Ford to testify?

The courts will be fine.

Of course the courts will be fine. But the GOP has the votes in the Senate and it's their nominee this time. Unless she's going to say something different or unless someone else comes forward he's going to be confirmed. Always room for something to change, but as of right now he's in.

[GannonFan]

Actually just looked at the SCOTUS docket for the upcoming session. Not any real hot topic cases until Wed, Oct 10th, when an illegal alien detention question comes up. They could probably have her testify any time next week, and then vote him in the following week, and only miss some minor cases (well, non-controversial cases).

[Baldy]

So a SCOTUS seat can be vacant for almost 300 days, but the GOP can't wait a few days for Ford to testify?

The courts will be fine.

Damn you Joe Biden.

[JohnStOnge]

Background investigation. It wouldn't be a criminal investigation.

The White House has to request it.

GHW Bush's WH requested the FBI investigate Anita Hill's allegation re: Clarence Thomas... and, they did. Took 3 days.

Well, they were investigating time Thomas and Hill spent employed by the federal government and actions that may have occurred while on the job, again, in the federal government. I'm not sure how the same can be applied to a summer party during high school in early 1980's Maryland. I don't recall government being large enough then to encompass that, no?

I honestly don't think that has anything to do with it. It's a background investigation. Not a standard one as I think they'd be going way farther back than they would ordinarily go. But if the "client" (Executive Branch) wanted to request that they do it, as I understand it, they'd do it.

And you have to ask yourself about why they wouldn't go ahead and ask for it. I mean, you have a woman making an allegation who is requesting that the FBI look into it. That kind of rings up a point for her. You have to ask yourself is someone who if lying would ask for that. Then on the other hand you have to ask yourself why the other side wouldn't just say "OK." There's not really a hurry here.

For one thing the FBI could probably at least look into the question of whether there was a story going on about this back in the day as that one woman claims. They might even be able to determine if there was some Party that might be the key one that Kavanaugh went to. And they could put Kavanaugh's pal under circumstances where he has to answer questions under possible penalty of lying to the FBI.

It all might turn out fine for Kavanaugh. If there is no concern about it the Republicans should have no issue with going ahead and crossing the "t" and having the FBI ask a few questions. If all goes well with it they could still ahve Kavanaugh seated prior to the start of the Supreme Court's next session.

[89Hen]

Well, they were investigating time Thomas and Hill spent employed by the federal government and actions that may have occurred while on the job, again, in the federal government. I'm not sure how the same can be applied to a summer party during high school in early 1980's Maryland. I don't recall government being large enough then to encompass that, no?

I honestly don't think that has anything to do with it. It's a background investigation. Not a standard one as I think they'd be going way farther back than they would ordinarily go. But if the "client" (Executive Branch) wanted to request that they do it, as I understand it, they'd do it.

And you have to ask yourself about why they wouldn't go ahead and ask for it. I mean, you have a woman making an allegation who is requesting that the FBI look into it. That kind of rings up a point for her. You have to ask yourself is someone who if lying would ask for that. Then on the other hand you have to ask yourself why the other side wouldn't just say "OK." There's not really a hurry here.

For one thing the FBI could probably at least look into the question of whether there was a story going on about this back in the day as that one woman claims. They might even be able to determine if there was some Party that might be the key one that Kavanaugh went to. And they could put Kavanaugh's pal under circumstances where he has to answer questions under possible penalty of lying to the FBI.

It all might turn out fine for Kavanaugh. If there is no concern about it the Republicans should have no issue with going ahead and crossing the "t" and having the FBI ask a few questions. If all goes well with it they could still ahve Kavanaugh seated prior to the start of the Supreme Court's next session.

What could they possibly find about a HS party from 36 years ago? This is a political stunt, nothing more.

Every day I run into more and more people around here that knew the interested parties and so far only one has sided with Blasey. That includes several liberal friends who knew Kavanaugh.

[houndawg]

She doesn't want the FBI to investigate?

Completely not the subject, Sherlock

focus

What you referenced was a Facebook post of a 3rd party alleging hearsay




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's nice, my bad. Changes nothing.

The alleged victim wants the FBI to investigate her allegations. Like they did with Anita Hill. BK has already lied, again, while being vetted, and the President has a disappointing number of his appointments/nominations turning out to be felons.

[JohnStOnge]

I honestly don't think that has anything to do with it. It's a background investigation. Not a standard one as I think they'd be going way farther back than they would ordinarily go. But if the "client" (Executive Branch) wanted to request that they do it, as I understand it, they'd do it.

And you have to ask yourself about why they wouldn't go ahead and ask for it. I mean, you have a woman making an allegation who is requesting that the FBI look into it. That kind of rings up a point for her. You have to ask yourself is someone who if lying would ask for that. Then on the other hand you have to ask yourself why the other side wouldn't just say "OK." There's not really a hurry here.

For one thing the FBI could probably at least look into the question of whether there was a story going on about this back in the day as that one woman claims. They might even be able to determine if there was some Party that might be the key one that Kavanaugh went to. And they could put Kavanaugh's pal under circumstances where he has to answer questions under possible penalty of lying to the FBI.

It all might turn out fine for Kavanaugh. If there is no concern about it the Republicans should have no issue with going ahead and crossing the "t" and having the FBI ask a few questions. If all goes well with it they could still ahve Kavanaugh seated prior to the start of the Supreme Court's next session.

What could they possibly find about a HS party from 36 years ago? This is a political stunt, nothing more.

Every day I run into more and more people around here that knew the interested parties and so far only one has sided with Blasey. That includes several liberal friends who knew Kavanaugh.

They might find out that Kavanaugh did indeed attend a party that could the the party in question. They might find out that the word in the two schools or maybe one of them was that something like this happened.

Or they might find nothing at all. But the question is: What is the harm in going ahead and letting the FBI check it out? Why refuse to do that?

What you have right now is an accuser saying she WANTS the FBI to investigate and the Republicans saying they don't. Can you not see how that doesn't look good?

[css75]

I hope they look at the home that school yearbook


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk