Senator Grassley Sends Criminal Referral to FBI - Investigate This Brett Kavanaugh Accuser.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust


So, this isn't about Christine Ford's allegations, or Ramirez' allegations or Swetnik's allegations. This is about the guys who said they went to the boat to beat up Brett and Mark for raping their friend. The guy recanted and apologized. I guess that wasn't good enough.

Yup, lying to the Senate major criminal violation. Many need to take notice. Guess you are right apologizing is not good enough, and it should not be. This was no accident it was a vile and miserable attempt to harm someone. I hope the punishment is comparable to the heinous act.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Gazrok
Yes, we'll see. It's a reading of the room to be sure.

Right. If this was an investigation and the cops call in the prosecutor to talk to a witness, Mitchell made the right call. "I wouldn't take this to trial". She would also tell the cops they need to actually investigate the claim first.
That is what is happening this week.
After the FBI investigates is when the evidence and testimony should be evaluated.
Cops present full evidence to a prosecutor asking if it warrants going to trial.
Not just the first statement or allegation.
We will see where it lands by the end of this week.

But your analogy is off

There was an investigation down by the senate

There would have been an investigation done by the Maryland police if ford would just file a report

So what this is really like is the cops investigated, found no evidence, and got statements on all reported witnesses, who had no knowledge of it

The accuser does not then get to demand that other agencies investigate, and then refuse to file a police report with the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust


So, this isn't about Christine Ford's allegations, or Ramirez' allegations or Swetnik's allegations. This is about the guys who said they went to the boat to beat up Brett and Mark for raping their friend. The guy recanted and apologized. I guess that wasn't good enough.

Yup, lying to the Senate major criminal violation. Many need to take notice. Guess you are right apologizing is not good enough, and it should not be. This was no accident it was a vile and miserable attempt to harm someone. I hope the punishment is comparable to the heinous act.

Sen. Whitehouse is part of the chain of custody of that accusation too.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

Moreover, if someone sexually assaulted me up to 8 miles from my house and I'd run out into the street and had to find a way home - I'd remember it.

My hypothesis is she walked across the street to the Woodley Gardens Pool in Rockland where she had swimming with Friend Leyland before the party. She was likely picked up by her parents as would have been pre-arranged.

which comports with
Dr. Ford's Testimony of not remembering exactly where she was swimming (only estimating) based on where she usually went swimming that summer.
Those in attendance that Dr. Ford claims and Kavenaugh cites same on his Calendar. (PJ, Mark Judge, Kavenaugh)
"Timmy's" house, which was a one-bathroom, two story townhouse, modest as Dr. Ford described it.

No drama of getting home, just a walk across the street back to her friends public pool where her parents would pick her up.

Is all you do is just make sh👇T up?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Gazrok
Yes, we'll see. It's a reading of the room to be sure.

Right. If this was an investigation and the cops call in the prosecutor to talk to a witness, Mitchell made the right call. "I wouldn't take this to trial". She would also tell the cops they need to actually investigate the claim first.
That is what is happening this week.
After the FBI investigates is when the evidence and testimony should be evaluated.
Cops present full evidence to a prosecutor asking if it warrants going to trial.
Not just the first statement or allegation.
We will see where it lands by the end of this week.

But your analogy is off

There was an investigation down by the senate

The senate sucks at investigating stuff.

Mitchell's conclusion was not based on any investigation.
It was based on stuttered 5 minute interval questioning of only one of the people of 5 or 6 people named.

Still unclear why the GOP didn't let her question Kavenaugh as they said she would.
They suddenly pulled her right after the question about July 1st and Timmy's house?

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

Moreover, if someone sexually assaulted me up to 8 miles from my house and I'd run out into the street and had to find a way home - I'd remember it.

My hypothesis is she walked across the street to the Woodley Gardens Pool in Rockland where she had swimming with Friend Leyland before the party. She was likely picked up by her parents as would have been pre-arranged.

which comports with
Dr. Ford's Testimony of not remembering exactly where she was swimming (only estimating) based on where she usually went swimming that summer.
Those in attendance that Dr. Ford claims and Kavenaugh cites same on his Calendar. (PJ, Mark Judge, Kavenaugh)
"Timmy's" house, which was a one-bathroom, two story townhouse, modest as Dr. Ford described it.

No drama of getting home, just a walk across the street back to her friends public pool where her parents would pick her up.

Is all you do is just make sh👇T up?

Lazy man's response, more so on ATS and given your posting history.

Why not poke a hole in my theory?

a reply to: soberbacchus

They pulled her because it was obvious that they were going to lose the pr battle

The republicans were courteous to ford and tried to ask well balanced questions through their prosecutor to get to the truth

The democrats hi fived her

Then the republicans used this prosecutor to try to get to the truth with Kavanaugh

The democrats attacked him and demanded that he called for an fbi investigation into himself

So yes, after that, graham and republicans decided to fight back and point out the terrible behavior of the democrats

Why did the democrats not just let the prosecutor ask questions to ford in their time if they wanted the truth? Why didn’t they hardly ask any relevant questions to either Kavanaugh or ford?

I wonder what the statute of limitations on groping (while a minor) is....

Somehow, pretty sure it's less than 36 years. LOL.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Gazrok
Yes, we'll see. It's a reading of the room to be sure.

Right. If this was an investigation and the cops call in the prosecutor to talk to a witness, Mitchell made the right call. "I wouldn't take this to trial". She would also tell the cops they need to actually investigate the claim first.
That is what is happening this week.
After the FBI investigates is when the evidence and testimony should be evaluated.
Cops present full evidence to a prosecutor asking if it warrants going to trial.
Not just the first statement or allegation.
We will see where it lands by the end of this week.

But your analogy is off

There was an investigation down by the senate

The senate sucks at investigating stuff.

Mitchell's conclusion was not based on any investigation.
It was based on stuttered 5 minute interval questioning of only one of the people of 5 or 6 people named.

Still unclear why the GOP didn't let her question Kavenaugh as they said she would.
They suddenly pulled her right after the question about July 1st and Timmy's house?

To be fair, they had already detailed interviewed Kavanaugh twice on the 17th and 26th. Then had publicly released these transcripts before the hearing. Press Release of Kavanugh Interviews

Edit add: I can guarantee you that Mitchell read these before and after hearing...she certainly had enough to make her declaration.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Gazrok
Yes, we'll see. It's a reading of the room to be sure.

Right. If this was an investigation and the cops call in the prosecutor to talk to a witness, Mitchell made the right call. "I wouldn't take this to trial". She would also tell the cops they need to actually investigate the claim first.
That is what is happening this week.
After the FBI investigates is when the evidence and testimony should be evaluated.
Cops present full evidence to a prosecutor asking if it warrants going to trial.
Not just the first statement or allegation.
We will see where it lands by the end of this week.

But your analogy is off

There was an investigation down by the senate

The senate sucks at investigating stuff.

Mitchell's conclusion was not based on any investigation.
It was based on stuttered 5 minute interval questioning of only one of the people of 5 or 6 people named.

Still unclear why the GOP didn't let her question Kavenaugh as they said she would.
They suddenly pulled her right after the question about July 1st and Timmy's house?

Not correct - Mitchell's conclusion was based on the Senate investigation which had produced several documents for Ms Mitchell to review (including statements from all named witnesses) prior to the hearing and also the testimony of both Kavanaugh and Ford. Mitchell made it clear that as a prosecutor she could not even get a search warrant for this case never mind take it to a prosecution.

Not even a sex abuse prosecutor would touch this case.

That really is game set and match, but I am sure you'll come up with some other hypothesis to avoid you having to face the obvious conclusion that Kavanaugh deserves to be - and should be - confirmed.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

what lies about flying. Having a fear of something but doing it anyway is the epitome of courage.
Some people may let their fears get the better of them and some people concur them.
She obviously has some inner strength. Have you never heard of that?

Like the courage to fly to go on holidays all over the world, but somehow cant make it to the hearing till the end of the week because " I cant fly"

Was a blatant stall tactic to hold off as long as she could........thats supremely clear here.......she could have been on a plane long before that and everyone knows it......

You cant tell me she can fly for vacation when she wants, but she couldnt have been there earlier to get all this done.......

How can you NOT see this?

Thank you....so frustrating!!

I have suffered from panic and anxiety in the past and it is terrifying when it hits. You truly think you are going to die - you think you are having a heart attack, which of course brings on more anxiety. I would like to note that when anxiety or panic hits and your resting heart rate starts to climb above 120 for no apparent reason, the LAST think you want is caffeine!! She sucked down caffeine + sugar throughout her entire testimony, was the weirdest thing to me given her supposed issues.

a reply to: Grambler

That was the weirdest thing dems asked BK to do...Contact the FBI and have them investigate himself to also halt the hearing until dems say enough.

BK: Hello...FBI, please begin an investigation on me right away. I must be guilty of something.

FBI: We found you didn't put the toilet seat back down in 1989 and we ask you remain in your home. We are coming to arrest you.

originally posted by: CADpro
a reply to: Grambler

That was the weirdest thing dems asked BK to do...Contact the FBI and have them investigate himself to also halt the hearing until dems say enough.

BK: Hello...FBI, please begin an investigation on me right away. I must be guilty of something.

FBI: We found you didn't put the toilet seat back down in 1989 and we ask you remain in your home. We are coming to arrest you.

Yeah, that was a crazy moment - it showed once again that the Democrats simply don't understand due process or people's rights. One should NEVER have to ask for an FBI investigation to clear their name. The fact that Senate Democrats don't understand that is the saddest - and most despicable - thing of all.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

Moreover, if someone sexually assaulted me up to 8 miles from my house and I'd run out into the street and had to find a way home - I'd remember it.

My hypothesis is she walked across the street to the Woodley Gardens Pool in Rockland where she had swimming with Friend Leyland before the party. She was likely picked up by her parents as would have been pre-arranged.

which comports with
Dr. Ford's Testimony of not remembering exactly where she was swimming (only estimating) based on where she usually went swimming that summer.
Those in attendance that Dr. Ford claims and Kavenaugh cites same on his Calendar. (PJ, Mark Judge, Kavenaugh)
"Timmy's" house, which was a one-bathroom, two story townhouse, modest as Dr. Ford described it.

No drama of getting home, just a walk across the street back to her friends public pool where her parents would pick her up.

Is all you do is just make sh👇T up?

Lazy man's response, more so on ATS and given your posting history.

Why not poke a hole in my theory?

How does one poke a hole in someone’s fantasyland make believe world?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Gazrok

That does not mean she never met him.

In the absence of other evidence, in regards to this case, yes it does. Anything else is just pure speculation that has no place in the investigation.

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

Kavenaugh's guilt has not been proved or disproved.

His innocence is "speculation" as much as his guilt.

We do not prove innocence.

tell that to the poster I was responding to?

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: soberbacchus

He's been proven not guilty on the basis of reasonable doubt.

I am telling you. He starts off innocent. They need to prove guilt. They are at about 5% of the way there in my opinion.

Right. But what I responded to was a poster that claimed Kavenaugh had been "PROVEN NOT GUILTY"

Which is just dumb.

He has a presumption of innocence. That presumption does not equate to him being PROVEN innocent.

'Not Guilty' and 'Innocent' are two very different things.

Please...go ahead and tell me the difference between:

"Proven innocent"
and
"Proven not guilty"

Note:
Being "found" not guilty by jury trial is different than "proven not guilty"
Being "presumed" innocent is different than being "proven innocent"

Go ahead and explain how he has been "Proven not guilty".

Until one of these SUPER CREDIBLE witnesses actually files a report....he IS innocent.

Have you figured out any reasons why they haven't?

a reply to: soberbacchus

See you on the Rachel Maddow show tonight !!!!!

You got em !!!

💥😁💥

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Gazrok
Yes, we'll see. It's a reading of the room to be sure.

Right. If this was an investigation and the cops call in the prosecutor to talk to a witness, Mitchell made the right call. "I wouldn't take this to trial". She would also tell the cops they need to actually investigate the claim first.
That is what is happening this week.
After the FBI investigates is when the evidence and testimony should be evaluated.
Cops present full evidence to a prosecutor asking if it warrants going to trial.
Not just the first statement or allegation.
We will see where it lands by the end of this week.

But your analogy is off

There was an investigation down by the senate

The senate sucks at investigating stuff.

Mitchell's conclusion was not based on any investigation.
It was based on stuttered 5 minute interval questioning of only one of the people of 5 or 6 people named.

Still unclear why the GOP didn't let her question Kavenaugh as they said she would.
They suddenly pulled her right after the question about July 1st and Timmy's house?

And Mitchell managed to get around 50 direct points of conflict in a total of about 1 hour.

Quick and decisive and all on the record nice and legal like too.

Now anybody else that lies is subject to prosecution including "Dr Ford".

💥Blistering💥Sun💥Burn💥

a reply to: xuenchen

Starting to think Ford has some mental issues that can be used as an escape goat excuse when confronted with all these conflicts.

a reply to: CADpro

Right now she's being used for two purposes. To derail the Kavanaugh nomination. And to raise over $1000000 for the attorneys and other people using her.

a reply to: carewemust

I bet there wont be. Grassley wants to obstruct justice in any way he can. Including putting a rapist on the supreme court.