Kavanaugh accuser wants a full FBI investigation before she testifies

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

The issue here is that there is no legal case. No police force or attorney would bring a case based on the accusations.

Vetting people for security clearances or for Federal Judgeships is not a criminal process.

No legal case need be brought.

Simple illegal drug use in High school is disqualifying.

So is Sexual Assault.

Neither must be criminally charged to be disqualifying.

Odd how often you seem conveniently unaware of basic facts.

He has already been vetted several times, including the FBI reviewing the letter, deciding to take no action and just passing it to the Whitehouse.

Background checks are at the direction of the WH.

they need direction in order to follow up.

See Anita Hill.

Since you are still spouting this bull crap and never even responded to my post on the last page about getting your facts straight...I will provide you the Link to make sure you didn't just miss my reply to you.

Edit add: to keep factual...this post rolled to a new page...my post was on page 40.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Checked your post on page 40.

Still unclear as to WTF you are trying to argue.

Pres. Bush directed the FBI to follow up on the Anita Hill allegations, as is required for the FBI to add to a background check.

Pres. Trump has decidedly chosen to NOT do that.

originally posted by: Outlier13
It's amazing we are 41 pages into this topic that is clearly nothing more than a stall tactic of the left to stall the inevitable confirmation of Kavanaugh until after the midterms.

Nothing more.

Kavenaugh is not getting confirmed.

Watch what happens.

a reply to: soberbacchus

He is welcome to remain silent.

That is the single most ignorant statement I have heard to date. There's nothing to defend, so he can just remain silent and be denied the right to confront his accuser when he is accused?

TheRedneck

a reply to: soberbacchus

Do you still not get the differences between Ford-Kavanaugh and Hill-Thomas?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Do you still not get the differences between Ford-Kavanaugh and Hill-Thomas?

TheRedneck

Good to see you back on the boards.

Build something interesting in the shop. Something that might not have been built before, in some way small or important.
Leave your mark. remember what Redneck is all about, young or old. You are still kicking for a reason.

Back on topic:

Please explain to me the relevant difference between Anita Hill and Ford. And I mean RELEVANT.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Sounds like you and AntiD live in the same delusion reality.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to get you through the day mate.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
Aside from nothing.

Kavenaugh is going down.

Next Up?

I base this on the level of desperation exhibited by right wing zealots before failure.

WATCH what happens next.

I wonder what the leftists will do when Trump nominates a woman for the next SC vacancy?

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: CynConcepts

Checked your post on page 40.

Still unclear as to WTF you are trying to argue.

Pres. Bush directed the FBI to follow up on the Anita Hill allegations, as is required for the FBI to add to a background check.

Pres. Trump has decidedly chosen to NOT do that.

So because Bush is a spineless worm that caved to bs and forced the FBI to do a job that is jo theirs to do Trump should do the same?

No. The relevant authority's can do the job. No more politicizing the FBI on the whims of a President or the public.

It's not in their purview. The FBI has enough to do without being forced to do things that aren't their job.

Great news ... just read Grassley's statement:

Despite the fact that the July 30th letter remains hidden, my committee has been investigating the allegations and has heard from multiple witnesses since Sunday,” Grassley said in a statement to reporters after Ford’s attorneys, led by Democratic activist Deborah Katz, failed to respond first to a 10:00 a.m. deadline to agree to testify Monday and then a concession offer of 5:00 p.m. to testify Wednesday.

Ms. Katz has discussed Dr. Ford’s allegations in numerous media interviews and said on TV Monday morning that Dr. Ford wants to share her account with the Senate Judiciary Committee. It’s Friday night and nothing’s been agreed to despite our extensive efforts to make testimony possible. I’m extending the deadline for response yet again to 10 o’clock this evening. I’m providing a notice of a vote to occur Monday in the event that Dr. Ford’s attorneys don’t respond or Dr. Ford decides not to testify. In the event that we can come to a reasonable resolution as I’ve been seeking all week, then I will postpone the committee vote to accommodate her testimony. We cannot continue to delay.

It is way past time for the Democrats to be ignored and for their utter BS to no longer be tolerated.

www.supremecourt.gov... these are the cases the scotus is going to hear starting in october which if not sworn in by then and on the bench he will not be able to rule on

web.archive.org...://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/21/trump-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-charges-834664 politico update on what terms were agreed to and what terms were not ,she is apprently suposed to be there Wednesday not Thursday like she wanted

The Senate Judiciary Committee is giving Christine Blasey Ford attorney’s until the end of the day Friday to work out terms of next week’s proposed hearing on Ford’s allegations that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, according to a Republican senator. The GOP is offering to hold the hearing on Wednesday after Ford sought Thursday and is meeting some of her requests but not others, the senator said. The senator added that Republicans are not inclined to agree with Ford’s lawyers that she should only be questioned by lawmakers – not an outside counsel. “We’ll do it on Wednesday, we expect the accuser before the accused, and we do intend to have the counsel do the questioning,” the senator said, summing up the Republicans’ stance. The party is assenting to two of the terms Ford’s lawyers laid out in a Thursday evening call with staff from both parties, the senator said: limiting the hearing to one camera and ensuring that Kavanaugh is not in the same room as her. GOP members of the Judiciary Committee held a conference call on Friday morning to discuss how to respond to the requests from Ford’s lawyers. But several elements of their offer appear to be nonstarters with Democrats and Ford’s camp, which had made clear that she could not be in the capital to testify before Thursday, according to a senior aide to the minority. “They’re making this disingenuous counter-offer knowing she won’t be here,” the Democratic aide said. The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington, according to the Republican senator, which means she may need to drive across the country to make the hearing. Republicans have discussed using an outside counsel to question Ford, potentially a woman, in order to avoid the potentially painful sight of their 11 male Judiciary Committee members grilling Kavanaugh’s accuser in an echo of the 1991 Anita Hill hearings. But one Judiciary panel Democrat, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, immediately dismissed the prospect that only outside counsel could question Ford at the hearing. “I have a constitutional duty to advise and consent,” he said in a statement. “That means asking questions of a nominee for the Supreme Court who has been credibly accused of sexual assault.” Barring new revelations at the potential Ford hearing, the party plans to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination in the Judiciary Committee shortly after hearing her testimony next week. And President Donald Trump joined many senior Republicans Friday in launching a heated defense of their Supreme Court nominee.

so it seems if she does not show the vote will go on shortly after the scheduled hearing

a reply to: soberbacchus

Please explain to me the relevant difference between Anita Hill and Ford. And I mean RELEVANT.

OK, again...

Anita Hill was employed as a US government employee under the supervision of Clarence Thomas when the alleged offenses were committed. That made it legal venue for the Federal government, via the FBI, to investigate. Anita Hill gave specific locations and dates and instances she felt were sexual harassment, allowing the FBI to concentrate their invesitgative efforts on those.

Neither Ford nor Kavanaugh were employed by any arm of the Federal government when the alleged incident occurred, and it violated no Federal statutes. The legal venue was therefore exclusively local/state law enforcement. In addition there is no date, only a two-year span, and no definite location, only a brief description of a house that is insufficient to determine location. Without a date and location, there can be no serious investigation, assuming the FBI holds any jurisdiction (which they do not).

The FBI is not all-powerful. They are charged with investigating Federal crimes. They do not write speeding tickets; they do not show up at domestic disturbances; they do not care about drunken parties. If it ain't Federal, it doesn't concern the FBI. Due to their employment, Hill-Thomas fell under Federal jurisdiction; Ford-Kavanaugh does not.

(Gonna be a while... I can't lift/push/pull over 5 pounds for two more weeks and only 10 after that. But I'll be back out there; you can count on that, )

TheRedneck

a reply to: soberbacchus

Kavenaugh is going down.

Just like Hillary was a shoe in!?? LOL!!!

a reply to: TheRedneck

You don't have to lift. Just pull the lever for Republicans come November.

www.commentarymagazine.com... Long article on why anita hill lost her case and its some what relvency to this situation

www.commentarymagazine.com... and covering borks failed nomination process which i feel is exactly what the democrats are trying to replicate over not getting their pick in under obama

a reply to: thepixelpusher

I can drive again in 4 weeks... just in time to mark the ballot!

TheRedneck

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

The full Senate vote should go ahead as soon as the Judiciary Committee vote is done.
Then Dr Ford can go to the police if she so wishes and aim to prove her case, which of course she can't.

a reply to: UKTruth

from what ive read she has until monday or there will be a vote

www.cnn.com...

A deadline for Ford's legal team to respond to Senate Republicans' proposal for the hearing has been extended from 5 p.m. ET Friday to 10 p.m., Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley said in a statement. If Ford's lawyers do not respond to the proposal or Ford decides not to testify by the deadline, Grassley said, the committee will vote on Kavanaugh's nomination Monday. "It's Friday night and nothing's been agreed to despite our extensive efforts to make testimony possible," the Iowa Republican said in the statement, later adding that the committee "cannot continue to delay."

so now the question seems to be if they will have the votes to confirm or not

www.cnn.com... cnn interviewing Florida women Republican voters on if they believe kavanaughs guilt or innocence its a video not an article so not exactly sure how to embedd a non youtube video

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Typical CNN smear. There is nothing to judge a case on, but yet there CNN is, smearing another person.

This whole thing is a lynch mob!

Was Kavanaugh Accusation An Orchestrated Hit Involving Fmr Anita Hill Adviser?