Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before she will testify - lawyer

[brucec64]

Steven Dennis (@StevenTDennis)
9/19/18, 8:31 AM
Seeing a curious line from some Republican accounts -- that the FBI doesn't investigate charges like the one leveled against Kavanaugh. 

This is from ***Clarence Thomas's*** opening statement in 1991: pic.twitter.com/F0TeaZ7puW

The FBI is involved because the White House is a client that requested that Kavanaugh be vetted. Any further FBI investigation would be at the request of the White House, as was the case in the Anita Hill matter. The FBI would not get involved independently because this is not a federal crime. This would be a case for Maryland police.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[neeray]

12 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

If I was Trump I wouldn't ask the FBI for the time of day.

If I was the FBI, I wouldn't give him the time of day.

[metisdead]

Posts using ALL CAPS have been removed, using ALL CAPS is considered as shouting and in violation of forum netiquette:

 

1. Please do not post in all capital letters, bold, unusual fonts, sizes, colors or use unusually large emoticons. It can be difficult to read.
 

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, Trouble said:

Agreed.  Since she (Ford) is the only person with knowledge of the alleged event what will the FBI do but take a statement from Ford. Ford is being afforded the opportunity to tell her story to the body responsible for the processing Kavanaugh's confirmation. Apparently she can't even recall the place or date of the event.  Since she hasn't really made a credible complaint, it's going to be pretty difficult for the FBI to investigate the matter.  It would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.  Unfortunately we are in a place now where any accusation made by a women against a man must be seen as true, even it it isn't.  Seems like in the workplace, school, etc. any man who conducts an interview/conversation or is with a woman alone can have his career ruined by some lunatic woman with a grudge.  

Ford is not the only person with knowledge of the alleged attempted rape.

 

From the start she stated Kavanaugh had an accomplice helping to restrain her, his name is Mark Judge (look him up).

 

In addition a former classmate of Ford has made statements that the attack was a matter of classroom gossip at the time. This third hand statement does not provide evidence of what happened but it does corroborate that something happened in the timeframe alleged by Ford.

 

You drift off into ranting your feelings of insecurity around women. Forgive me if I skip addressing those, they areperhaps matters to discuss with a professional.

[Chomper Higgot]

12 hours ago, hugocnx said:

That's just how you look at it. You say I make up something, okay, you come with the real story.

When you make stuff up it’s not my job or anyone else’s job to come up with the real story.

 

Quite clearly if your whole story is fabricated there is no truth.

 

Stop making stuff up and/or repeating stuff others made up for you.

 

You might then fix your problem yourself.

[Thakkar]

3 hours ago, brucec64 said:

The FBI is involved because the White House is a client that requested that Kavanaugh be vetted. Any further FBI investigation would be at the request of the White House, as was the case in the Anita Hill matter. The FBI would not get involved independently because this is not a federal crime. This would be a case for Maryland police.

 

...or if the WH requested a reopening of the background check in light of this accusation. They are happy to let her testify, but not have an investigation. In a case of he said/she said, what is the point of testimony without first conducting an investigation?

[Silurian]

Here is a mirror held up to the old Sen. Chuck Grassley mentioning how the Anita Hill hearings were handled. It is pretty much opposite to what he believes today. I guess Grassley was just blowing smoke back then or is just a hypocrite now.

 

Senator Grassley on FBI and Anita Hill

 

Oh, and clip of Orrin Hatch on the Clarence Thomas hearing about ordering an FBI investigation into the Anita Hill accusations. Listen to around the 4 minute mark. He talks about getting non-Senate personnel to investigate as the position of Supreme Court is a very serious position. Where is this Orrin Hatch today?

 

 

 

 

The Republicans of old were all for full investigations and not rushing a Supreme Court nomination. Why are these two Senators no longer of the same mind? What happened to the proper processes and procedures in which they spoke of?

Edited September 20, 2018 by Silurian

[pmarlin]

some facts

[brucec64]

36 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

...or if the WH requested a reopening of the background check in light of this accusation. They are happy to let her testify, but not have an investigation. In a case of he said/she said, what is the point of testimony without first conducting an investigation?

 

Let's be realistic. This has nothing to do about justice. Both Republicans and Democrats do not care about what really happened. It is all false indignation and faux outrage. This is just about politics. The Republicans want their guy on the bench, and the Dems do not. 

 

The Dems have been sitting on this for two months. They had a lot of time to do an investigation if they really wanted to. It is all about delaying the process. The Republicans are in control of the process, so they won't allow this to go any further. Why would they?

 

Personally, I don't agree with a lot of Kavanaugh's views, and don't really want to see him on the SC, but I don't agree with these dirty politics.

 

[Silurian]

37 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

some facts

 

"I SMELL A BOOK DEAL"

 

There it is. The standard accusation towards sexual assault victims. There must be a ton of money to be made in book deals dealing with sexual assault. Enough money to overcome the public harassment and death threats.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Silurian

[Berkshire]

12 hours ago, Slip said:

Really?  The RWNJs are out in force humiliating themselves today. Infowars, Daily Caller anyone?

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/neon-nettle/

 

It's amazing how the far right can come up with crazy conspiracy theories for just about any occasion.  What's even more crazy are the idiots who believe this stuff.  These people should not be allowed to vote!

[neeray]

2 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

"I SMELL A BOOK DEAL"

 

There it is. The standard accusation towards sexual assault victims. There must be a ton of money to be made in book deals dealing with sexual assault. Enough money to overcome the public harassment and death threats.

There is always a Presidential Library built in the name of the former president. The Trump Presidential Library should probably have a special wing dedicated to books written about him or books spawned by his unique leadership (hmm).

[Thakkar]

13 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

 

Let's be realistic. This has nothing to do about justice. Both Republicans and Democrats do not care about what really happened. It is all false indignation and faux outrage. This is just about politics. The Republicans want their guy on the bench, and the Dems do not. 

 

The Dems have been sitting on this for two months. They had a lot of time to do an investigation if they really wanted to. It is all about delaying the process. The Republicans are in control of the process, so they won't allow this to go any further. Why would they?

 

Personally, I don't agree with a lot of Kavanaugh's views, and don't really want to see him on the SC, but I don't agree with these dirty politics.

 

 

You are shifting the argument, but I’ll bite.

 

Of course politics is involved. The process is political, and even, by extension, political theater—always has been because the Supreme Court will decide on issues that touch on politics, like campaign finance. Hence, the more fractured the politics, the more fractured the nomination process.

 

That doesn’t take away from the increasingly convincing possibility that he committed this alleged violent sexual assault at 17 and is now lying about it. Now that the allegation is out there, the truth (as far as is possible) needs to be determined. At the end of an investigation, there can be congressional testimony from both sides and senators who support Kavanaugh can still vote for him. Those who don’t can still reject him. Nothing to stop them doing so. The public, armed with the facts of the investigation and the respective testimonies can make their own judgement and show their pleasure/displeasure of the senators at the ballot box. What can be more democratic?

[brucec64]

6 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

You are shifting the argument, but I’ll bite.



 

Of course politics is involved. The process is political, and even, by extension, political theater—always has been because the Supreme Court will decide on issues that touch on politics, like campaign finance. Hence, the more fractured the politics, the more fractured the nomination process.



 

That doesn’t take away from the increasingly convincing possibility that he committed this alleged violent sexual assault at 17 and is now lying about it. Now that the allegation is out there, the truth (as far as is possible) needs to be determined. At the end of an investigation, there can be congressional testimony from both sides and senators who support Kavanaugh can still vote for him. Those who don’t can still reject him. Nothing to stop them doing so. The public, armed with the facts of the investigation and the respective testimonies can make their own judgement and show their pleasure/displeasure of the senators at the ballot box. What can be more democratic? 



You make a good case about what should happen in the perfect world, but again, let's be realistic about what will happen. Not sure how this is increasingly convincing - there is no new evidence. The truth will never be determined. There is no smoking gun here, no physical evidence, no surprise witnesses, and an FBI investigation is just a delaying tactic. The police won't bite because this is a dead case.  The Senate will question both parties (if they even turn up) and make a determination if further investigation is warranted. This is the actual process that is defined in the Constitution. What could be more democratic than that?

 

As I said, if anyone really cared about an investigation, they would have brought this forward two months ago. This is just a Hail Mary by the Dems, and I don't think they even expect it to work.

[neeray]

2 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

 

As I said, if anyone really cared about an investigation, they would have brought this forward two months ago. This is just a Hail Mary by the Dems, and I don't think they even expect it to work.

But they will sway some undecided voters in the process.

[Thakkar]

34 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

You make a good case about what should happen in the perfect world, but again, let's be realistic about what will happen. Not sure how this is increasingly convincing - there is no new evidence. The truth will never be determined. There is no smoking gun here, no physical evidence, no surprise witnesses, and an FBI investigation is just a delaying tactic. The police won't bite because this is a dead case.  The Senate will question both parties (if they even turn up) and make a determination if further investigation is warranted. This is the actual process that is defined in the Constitution. What could be more democratic than that?

 

As I said, if anyone really cared about an investigation, they would have brought this forward two months ago. This is just a Hail Mary by the Dems, and I don't think they even expect it to work.

 

First, you argued that the FBI *cannot* investigate.

I countered that, in fact, they can—at the WH’s request.

 

Then you changed tack and said, and I paraphrase: “it’s all politics”.

I agreed and explained why that is, by necessity, so. And why the accusation is now part of the process that needs to be allowed to play out.

 

You now say “if anyone really cared about an investigation, they would have brought this forward two months ago”

 

even though we’ve already agreed that this is a political process. And this delay may be a political maneuver (I personally don’t believe so, but for the sake of brevity and to advance the more pertinent part of the argument, I will run with your contention). That doesn’t mean the accusation doesn’t warrant investigation.

 

As to why the accusation is increasingly believable:

The GOP were already prepared with a letter from 65 women who knew Kavanaugh at the time and vouched for his character. However, when contacted by reporters, many of them (most?) demurred.

 

It has emerged that the other boy Dr Ford put in the room has written a book about how wasted he and Kavanaugh used to get. He simply says he “doesn’t recall” and refuses to testify.

 

Two Hundred women have now come forward to say they believe this happened because it was talked about at the time. 

 

Even while comfortably ensconced each in our own tribal corners, it is surely difficult to see how such an important lifetime appointment does not warrant a more thorough investigation of such a serious accusation. Tribal politics means that it may not change the final vote tally. But a clearer semblance of the truth will be in the public record for historians and future generations; the public (at least those that care about facts) will have clearer facts to base their future voting decisions on.

 

The only downside would be if any clarity or revelations serve to embarrass the nominee and his Senate and WH supporters. But, if he is innocent as claimed, there *is* no downside to an investigation.

 

[hugocnx]

1 hour ago, pmarlin said:

some facts

Did you read this Chomper? 

[brucec64]

27 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

First, you argued that the FBI *cannot* investigate.

I countered that, in fact, they can—at the WH’s request.

 

Then you changed tack and said, and I paraphrase: “it’s all politics”.

I agreed and explained why that is, by necessity, so. And why the accusation is now part of the process that needs to be allowed to play out.

 

You now say “if anyone really cared about an investigation, they would have brought this forward two months ago”

 

even though we’ve already agreed that this is a political process. And this delay may be a political maneuver (I personally don’t believe so, but for the sake of brevity and to advance the more pertinent part of the argument, I will run with your contention). That doesn’t mean the accusation doesn’t warrant investigation.

 

As to why the accusation is increasingly believable:

The GOP were already prepared with a letter from 65 women who knew Kavanaugh at the time and vouched for his character. However, when contacted by reporters, many of them (most?) demurred.

 

It has emerged that the other boy Dr Ford put in the room has written a book about how wasted he and Kavanaugh used to get. He simply says he “doesn’t recall” and refuses to testify.

 

Two Hundred women have now come forward to say they believe this happened because it was talked about at the time. 

 

Even while comfortably ensconced each in our own tribal corners, it is surely difficult to see how such an important lifetime appointment does not warrant a more thorough investigation of such a serious accusation. Tribal politics means that it may not change the final vote tally. But a clearer semblance of the truth will be in the public record for historians and future generations; the public (at least those that care about facts) will have clearer facts to base their future voting decisions on.

 

The only downside would be if any clarity or revelations serve to embarrass the nominee and his Senate and WH supporters. But, if he is innocent as claimed, there *is* no downside to an investigation.

 

You can make it as complicated as you want, but the reality is that if an extended investigation is held, and Dems get control of the Senate, he will not be appointed, regardless of the outcome of the investigation. That is the intent - everything else is smoke and mirrors. 

 

This is a dead case. It would never result in any criminal or civil conviction. The only purpose of an investigation is to delay until after the election. 

 

And I have stated earlier in this thread that the FBI would only investigate at the request of the White House.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by brucec64

[harrry]

As she says this happened when she was a high school student it cannot be true as she would have been under 21 and hence unable to drink.  She would not break laws.

[Thakkar]

3 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

You can make it as complicated as you want, but the reality is that if an extended investigation is held, and Dems get control of the Senate, he will not be appointed, regardless of the outcome of the investigation. That is the intent - everything else is smoke and mirrors. 

 

What is so complicated? There is a serious allegation that grows increasingly convincing by the day—investigate that allegation.

 

What’s complcated—and increasingly convoluted (as your own shifting arguments above shows)—are the reasons given to counter the allegation.

[Slip]

2 hours ago, pmarlin said:

some facts

<lies snipped>

Seeing as the 3rd point in your meme is demonstrably false (and it has been shown to be here), I don't see any reason to believe anything else in it.  Stop posting lies.

[brucec64]

3 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

What is so complicated? There is a serious allegation that grows increasingly convincing by the day—investigate that allegation.

 

What’s complcated—and increasingly convoluted (as your own shifting arguments above shows)—are the reasons given to counter the allegation.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I'm not as convinced that the allegation get's more serious by the day. But Friday will be interesting as that is the deadline given to Ford to indicate if she will testify on Monday, and she has an opportunity to make her case.

 

 

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, harrry said:

As she says this happened when she was a high school student it cannot be true as she would have been under 21 and hence unable to drink.  She would not break laws.

She could, she is a private citizen. But should a future member of the SC?

 

Personally I don't care about that, and on top of that, 21 is IMO ridiculously high.

[Thakkar]

10 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I'm not as convinced that the allegation get's more serious by the day. But Friday will be interesting as that is the deadline given to Ford to indicate if she will testify on Monday, and she has an opportunity to make her case.

 

I contend that I am disagreeing based on logical arguments while you seem to be disagreeing based on a partisan political stance that requires ever shifting goalposts. Bust, yes, I agree to disagree.

 

cheers.

[brucec64]

 
I contend that I am disagreeing based on logical arguments while you seem to be disagreeing based on a partisan political stance that requires ever shifting goalposts. Bust, yes, I agree to disagree.
 
cheers.

And I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that as well. If i thought your arguments were logical, I would agree with them. They are merely partisan arguments thinly veiled with the usual PC self righteous indignation.

And I already indicated that I would prefer to not see Kavanaugh on the SC, but dont buy into these political games.

Cheers!

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[watcharacters]

30 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

And I have stated earlier in this thread that the FBI would only investigate at the request of the White House.

 

 

Thanks goodness for the "checks and balances" process in place in the USA.    It is not up to the "WHITE HOUSE" to control everything

[Thakkar]

2 minutes ago, watcharacters said:

 

Thanks goodness for the "checks and balances" process in place in the USA.    It is not up to the "WHITE HOUSE" to control everything

Yet “controling” is exactly what the WH is doing by refusing to ask the FBI to investigate.

[Thakkar]

27 minutes ago, brucec64 said:

And I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that as well. If i thought your arguments were logical, I would agree with them. They are merely partisan arguments thinly veiled with the usual PC self righteous indignation.

And I already indicated that I would prefer to not see Kavanaugh on the SC, but dont buy into these political games.

Cheers!

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

Failing to convince you would not be the test of my logic. You successfully finding a hole in it, would.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, hugocnx said:

Did you read this Chomper? 

I did.

 

More hogwash straight out of the playbook that goes:

 

‘Woman makes accusation of sexual attack by powerful man - Attack the woman’.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, pmarlin said:

some facts

These facts of yours, wher did they come from?