Avenatti releases name and account of accuser

Police and FBI also cant investigate unless there is a sworn statement taken....it gives more credibility to an accuser and allows for law enforcement to hold them accountable.

Go ahead....walk into a police station and ask for an investigation on anything. The first thing they will do is make you give a sworn statement. Without it they wont do anything.

None of these women have done that, therefore nobody will investigate.

It is so obvious people....smear campaign.....

a reply to: soberbacchus

If an FBI investigation is conducted and the results are favorable for judge Kavanaugh, Democrats will say that it was Trump's FBI, it cannot be trusted just as the president has said on several occasions.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Fortunately, I don't see how that is NOT the plan. These are felony charges sworn to under oath. That is FBI territory, as there are Federal laws that may have been broken.

As I said, this just got real.

TheRedneck

This falls under FBI Background Checks for Judicial Nominees.

They don't do those investigations of their own initiative.

They need an official request from the Executive Branch to investigate.

That has not been done.

They also need a sworn statement....which they dont have and wont get.

a reply to: soberbacchus

If these statements are made under oath (Vasa Croe brought up an interesting perspective on that), then this is no longer a background investigation. A Federal crime has been indicated and the FBI needs no explicit authorization to investigate.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Grassley has offered them to testify under oath and penalty of felony. Neither has responded. Kavanaugh did yesterday.

Oh look.... we have a new accuser!!!!

We need to delay the confirmation until we get to the bottom of this!!

We should be able to wrap it up after the mid term elections!!!


Exactly according to Brian Fallon's playbook.






What a crock of bull manure.


Hold the vote.....if he is confirmed, then investigate and if warranted, then remove the man.

a reply to: carewemust

Exactly.

They are playing this 'trump card' precisely because they know it is nearly impossible to defeat under these conditions.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: TheRedneck

Grassley has offered them to testify under oath and penalty of felony. Neither has responded. Kavanaugh did yesterday.

Yep...they are calling their bluff in a huge way. Kav has already made an actual sworn statement. Not a single accuser has and none of them will.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: TheRedneck


We are witnessing a coup!


Mark my words,, these women will disappear forever just like the ones the that were rolled out accusing Trump before he was elected.

Nope.

For example Summer Zervos continues to make progress in the courts.
www.vox.com...

a reply to: RickinVa

Hold the vote.....if he is confirmed, then investigate and if warranted, then remove the man.

Agreed, 100%.

TheRedneck

a reply to: soberbacchus

It's not up to Kavanaugh, or the GOP supporters of, to disprove anything.

It's up to the accusers to provide incontrovertible evidence of a crime taking place. Y'know proving guilt, not proving innocence.

It has, however, reached the point where she said/he said simply isn't enough. So, that much the Democrats have accomplished, they've delayed the confirmation--perhaps even permanently, though that remains to be seen. If Kavanaughs actions are to be believed, this ain't even remotely over.

Now that they've accomplished their goal, which makes them no better than the Republicans who delayed a vote on a SC nominee for reasons political, though by less than savory means. Now, I wonder what the voters are thinking right now?? I wonder if this tactic is going to look so good come Nov. 5th?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: TheRedneck


We are witnessing a coup!


Mark my words,, these women will disappear forever just like the ones the that were rolled out accusing Trump before he was elected.

Nope.

For example Summer Zervos continues to make progress in the courts.
www.vox.com...

Well let's see where it goes! That's how the legal system works right? Not this circus we are witnessing now?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

If these statements are made under oath (Vasa Croe brought up an interesting perspective on that), then this is no longer a background investigation. A Federal crime has been indicated and the FBI needs no explicit authorization to investigate.

TheRedneck

If one of them makes these statements under oath...you'll see the $hit really hit the fan.

The reason Kav doesnt haemve anything to worry about is because he knows this....hes been a judge for years.

He sees right through this charade. That's why he so publicly announced that HE would make a statement under oath....he was calling them out. And their attorneys know it too.

a reply to: network dude

The timeline is also problematic for her - based on when she graduated (1980) and Kavenaugh graduated (1983) she is admitting to being an adult around minors that were allegedly drinking, drugging, assaulting, and raping minors, and she never filed any kind of police reports??

If she did indeed graduate in 1980, and claims she was at these parties from 1981 - 1983, that seems bizarre on the face of it. Who goes to high school parties for 2-3 years after graduating??

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: network dude

The timeline is also problematic for her - based on when she graduated (1980) and Kavenaugh graduated (1983) she is admitting to being an adult around minors that were allegedly drinking, drugging, assaulting, and raping minors, and she never filed any kind of police reports??

If she did indeed graduate in 1980, and claims she was at these parties from 1981 - 1983, that seems bizarre on the face of it. Who goes to high school parties for 2-3 years after graduating??

Not to mention that she claims she was gangraped at one in 1982, but continued to go to the parties through 1983...how that make any sense?

I do not trust the creepy porn lawyer one bit. So I start with this very skeptical of the charges. I am at work so just had time to glance at it, is this person planning on testifying? If not, that is a huge red flag imo.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

If these statements are made under oath (Vasa Croe brought up an interesting perspective on that), then this is no longer a background investigation. A Federal crime has been indicated and the FBI needs no explicit authorization to investigate.

TheRedneck

Their needs to be a plaintiff in that scenario, like the Senate. The Senate would create a referral for investigation to the FBI to investigate if any of the women are lying. Or Kavenaugh himself could issue multiple legal complaints that the FBI could move on for investigative purposes.

I am of the opinion now, as before, that a legit aggressive investigation would dampen the media circus and politics surrounding this.

Unfortunately, Grassley, Trump, Kavenaugh? None have asked the FBI jump in and validate or knock down the claims.

Why is that?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

You're right, they do. Mea culpa.

Irregardless, though no charges can be filed by all appearances of a criminal nature, I'd still have the investigation, as best as possible.

If he's innocent, as many of us suspect...then his character has been wrongfully impugned, and someone(s) need to be sued into the poor house, or go to jail, if they've perjured themselves by law.

If he's not innocent, as some suspect...then he shouldn't be on the bench at all, much less the highest court in the land.

MHO, of course. Your mileage may vary.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Fortunately, I don't see how that is NOT the plan. These are felony charges sworn to under oath. That is FBI territory, as there are Federal laws that may have been broken.

As I said, this just got real.

TheRedneck

This falls under FBI Background Checks for Judicial Nominees.

They don't do those investigations of their own initiative.

They need an official request from the Executive Branch to investigate.

That has not been done.

Was Kav not a judge? So wouldn't previous background checks fall under Background Checks for Judicial Nominees?

Good lord you are flailing so hard today you are dsstroying your own arguments.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I have to admit, your explanations do make a lot of sense. As a federal judge, Kavanaugh surely knows the law, quite probably better than Avernatti. However, I think an easy way to establish this would be for the Senate to demand that Swetnick swear out an oath with the FBI. If she refuses, then she gets swept to the side. If she agrees, then and only then could I see another delay in the confirmation.

In other words, she needs to put up or shut up.

TheRedneck