for starters, they can investigate the other guy in the room, he's refusing to make statements under oath.

but more to your point: they shouldn't investigate because it's difficult to investigate isn't a valid reason not to investigate.

fortunately, I've kept my heart as I've grown older.

How can the congressional committee ask appropriate questions and such if they don't know what's going on due to no investigation?

that's her point. I tend to agree.

Another great piece by McCarthy

First, in no case does even the most sympathetic, convincing victim of a crime get to dictate the terms of the investigation.

Second, in any sexual-assault investigation, an interview of the alleged victim is among the first things that must be done. Here, moreover, it would be the first thing, since after 36 years a forensic investigation is not possible. Because the alleged victim’s version of events would dictate the course of the rest of the investigation, it would be absurd to delay an interview.

Third, as long as Ford’s counsel want to talk about regular, independent investigations, we should note that there is not a police organization in America that would entertain her allegation, in light of the lapse of time and the long-ago exhaustion of the statute of limitations. Professional investigators understand only too well the inherent unreliability of allegations raised in the manner Ford’s have been raised. The only relevance of this alleged incident is to a Senate function, so it is for the Senate committee to decide how to proceed.

Fourth, as Ford’s lawyers well know, in our adversary system, we do not submit disputes to a team of independent expert investigators. We have advocates for each side — partisans — make the case as well as it can be made from their side’s perspective, and we let the other side attack with all its partisan might. We allow each side to examine the other’s witnesses. Based on this often heated clash, we expect that members of the public will be able to figure out what information is reliable, what is nonsense, and what the truth is. That is the process we use for deciding life-and-death criminal sentences, as well as civil judgments that can be financially ruinous. We have used it for centuries because it works.

It is fashionable throat-clearing at this point to offer some vertiginous, ostentatiously sympathetic twaddle about how Professor Ford is credible in the sense that she truly believes what she has claimed, yet mistaken about . . . well . . . everything that matters. Sorry, I’m a simple man. What’s happening here is pure BS.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...-must-testify/

1. So is the accuser. She is refusing to appear before Congress under oath or make any statement under oath so far.

2. The valid reason to "not investigate" is that the FBI is for Federal Crimes. Not teenagers fucking around 36 years ago (if that even happened in the first place)

I agree that there should be an investigation. I would be completely fine if she wanted to do a private committee meeting where she just reads a statement demanding an investigation and explaining her side of the story.

After the horseshit the Republicans pulled with Garland I don't mind the political tactics, but I do believe a person has the right to face their accuser. He and the committee at least deserve to hear her speak and give her side of the story even if there are no follow up questions asked.

they want her to testify on live television about attempted rape. that's not OK.

the FBI is tasked with investigating SC nominees at the request of the potus. standard protocol.

Well...they have HER saying what happened.
And if other people were there (which she says there were only Kavanaugh and one other guy in the room) then they are saying what happened as well.

Not sure if there's anything left to "investigate". It's a 36 year old "he said, she said"

Literally impossible to "investigate" anything under those circumstances.

No matter what happens...people like us will make up our minds. But we don't count.

As for the Senate...the Dems will be "outraged" and the Republicans will vote him in.

And I still don't think that anything like this as a drunken teenager would be something that should disqualify a person from the Supreme Court...or anything in life for that matter.

Now IF he had beat a girl down and flat out raped her? Hell yes. He should be put out of the picture immediately.
But drunken stupidity as a teen that may or may not have even happened?
No.

"Third, as long as Ford’s counsel want to talk about regular, independent investigations, we should note that there is not a police organization in America that would entertain her allegation, in light of the lapse of time and the long-ago exhaustion of the statute of limitations. Professional investigators understand only too well the inherent unreliability of allegations raised in the manner Ford’s have been raised. The only relevance of this alleged incident is to a Senate function, so it is for the Senate committee to decide how to proceed."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...-must-testify/


Andrew McCarthy isn't just any journalist


Andrew C. McCarthy III (born 1959)[1] is an American columnist for National Review. He served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.[2][3][4] A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[5] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy

He's also a Never Trump'er

This guy could sit on the Supreme Court for 30+ years and make rulings that could effect millions of lives. There should be an investigation and we should be 100% sure about him before he is confirmed. I understand there is not going to be any kind of criminal prosecution. But when it comes to a position this important, everything should be looked into.

Wrong.
I'll say it again...they have offered her to do it in open testimony (on live television like she originally wanted to do), and they have offered in CLOSED testimony, and they have offered to send staff members to her home to take her testimony in private.

How much further can they bend over backwards for a woman who originally claimed she couldn't WAIT to tell her "story"?

You see what I'm saying? This is looking worse and worse for HER. And that is a bad thing for women who have actually been sexually attacked and/or raped.

If she has suddenly changed her mind (as it appears) and doesn't want to do it in public...she has been given every option to do it out of the public eye.

It's all political delay shenanigans at this point.
But it's not going to make any difference. Even if Kavanaugh was somehow stopped in his nomination...Trump will just nominate another guy.

Hell, maybe he ought to throw Kavanaugh under the bus so the Democrats and media can crow about a "victory" and possibly get the next nominee voted in on whether or not he is qualified as a legal expert on the Constitution to sit on the Supreme Court. (which is what it's SUPPOSED to be about)

EDIT: Also the FBI is NOT "tasked" with doing investigations on Supreme Court Nominees. Hell, the FBI didn't even EXIST until a few decades ago.
And what they do now...for ALL govt. officials and employees are Background Checks to make sure they aren't crazed monsters.

Such brilliance.

Formed‎: ‎July 26, 1908; 110 years ago


:1orglaugh

"there is not a police organization in America that would entertain her allegation, in light of the lapse of time and the long-ago exhaustion of the statute of limitations."

No Robbie. I don't at all see what you're saying. You're not even aware of the protocols in how SC judges are appointed, you really don't know about FBI background checks?

Bill Cosby knows otherwise.

If she doesn't cause a delay until after the mid terms she might have to refund the Soros money.

Democratic Senator receives letter during SCOTUS confirmation alleging he committed sexual assault 36 years ago when they were both minors at a party - Senator leaks it to the press, sits on it, goes on a PR tour... but does not alert the authorities that a crime was committed and then the witness does not even want to be interviewed by the FBI as part of a standard crime investigation.

Sounds legit.

Why you guys cling to kavanaugh is beyond me. Just like you claim this woman isnt to be believed because this is a political conspiracy bit oh no, an investigation is out of the question.

This is for a Supreme Court appointment. There should be an investigation. Special circumstances call for special measures.

Because they DON'T CARE whether it happened or not. They would support Charles Manson if Trump nominated him.

You could say the same about Catholic Priests.. Know what the difference is? 1 allegation with obvious political motives and zero ways to back it up.. As opposed to multiple allegations....

got it. so attempted rape is a concern for you only when it's institutionalized by the church. but it's completely irrelevant with SC judges.

again, if this is so obviously a democrat hatchet job, then why the complaining about an investigation that would blow the lid right off that.

I JUST SAID they do background checks.

And I also pointed out that NO...they aren't "tasked" with INVESTIGATIONS of Supreme Court Justices as "standard protocol".

They did ONE investigation on Clarence Thomas in a highly heated political atmosphere.

There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that says any of that has to be done. Not even the "background checks" (which our founding fathers would have found repulsive as the govt. invading a person's privacy).

And as I further pointed out...the FBI didn't even EXIST until a few decades ago.

You're kind of implying that one of the FBI's duties as standard operating procedure is that a Supreme Court Justice MUST BE INVESTIGATED (not background check...which Kavanaugh has already had SIX of those done by the FBI).
And to that I would say...how in the world did we have Supreme Court Justices for the first 100 plus years of the nation...since there was NO FBI? lol

I get what you are saying...there is exactly ONE precedent (Clarence Thomas) in which the FBI did an INVESTIGATION. It took THREE DAYS and they found Anita Hill's accusations to be false.
And yes, they now do BACKGROUND CHECKS (which are completely different than an investigation) on every govt. employee.

And as I said...Kavanaugh has had SIX of those FBI background checks performed over his years working with the govt.

Robbie, the FBI has been doing background investigations on SC nominees for decades.

the FBI has been around for over 100 years.

you're going to have a difficult time arguing that our founding fathers would have been repulsed by due diligence on SC nominees.

And once again, you are wrong on both accounts.

1) It's a bit unfair to ask someone to suddenly appear before Congressional board and testify under oath. Someone who is asked to testify in any court at any level needs to be briefed and prepped an attorney. Seriously Robbie, I went into traffic court better prepared this woman is.

2) The FBI can in fact investigate. Do no tell me this is a "Local crime" or that is not a federal crime, and thus the FBI isn't required to investigate this. Bullshit. Bull fucking shit. The FBI did an background check into Kavanaugh, as they do with anyone who is being considered for such a position. Obviously they need to re-open that background check - and thus investigate. The FBI investigated Anita Hill and her claims - why can't they do so now?

I'm calling bullshit on all of this. There is no doubt in my mind that this event happened. Kavanaugh has already stated he wasn't at that party.

Which party?

The woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh hasn't told anyone which party it was, and hasn't told anyone where it was. Kavanaugh is telling us he wasn't at this party. How does he know which party it was or where it was? There must have been dozens of parties over a two - four year period, but Kavanaugh is able to pin it to the exact party this event "might" have taken place. How can he know he wasn't there being as he doesn't know which party it was? Unless he was there, it did happen, and it remembers it well.

1. That is EXACTLY what I said in my postings above...for DECADES.

2. Again...that is EXACTLY what I said when I said there was no FBI for the first 100 plus years of our country. Are you even reading what I'm typing?

3. There was no FBI for the late 1700's when the founding fathers were in charge. Nor the 1800's.
And "due diligence" is NOT a background check. Background checks are so intrusive and such an invasion of privacy that the Supreme Court had to rule on it in 2011 over employers using background checks (they upheld that they can)
https://www.wired.com/2011/01/scotus-background-checks/

Anyway, either we are having a failure to communicate of maybe you're just fucking with me. lol

must be a failure to communicate because you clearly claim that the FBI is only a few decades old.

Robbie, you really think SC judges should be appointed without background investigations?

again, serious question, why not have an investigation? it would reveal the hatchet job you claim is going on here and it would get your guy approved and prove us all wrong.

seems legit.

The woman claims a friend took her there.. How is it she remembers these males names but can't remember her friends name? 4 other people, 3 males and 1 other female. Kav, Judge, Smyth and the mysterious female "friend"

Here's your investigation in it's entirety.. Find out who Smyth was dating when crazy cunt was 15 and you have the "friend" because Smyth wasn't in the room and apparently neither was the mystery female so that means they were together elsewhere for this story to work out.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DngWazgX4AEBUbW.jpg

"On Monday Sept. 17th, Christine Blasey Ford’s high school yearbooks suddenly disappeared from the web. I read them days before, knew they would be scrubbed, and saved them. Why did I know they would be scrubbed? Because if roles were reversed, and Christine Blasey Ford had been nominated for the Supreme Court by President Trump, the headline by the resistance would be this:

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND THE DRUNKEN WHITE PRIVILEGED RACIST PLAYGIRLS OF HOLTON-ARMS."
CULT OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT: WHY CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOKS WERE SCRUBBED: Faculty Approved Racism, Binge Drinking and Promiscuity

Now I can add Two-faced KKK Sorority member to Crazy Cunt Liberal

Then why so scared of an investigation? Blow the lid off the shit.

Investigation of what? She said, he said?

Answer the question Claire.

This is stunning. This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the law. The moment there is any hint of any wrong doing everything related to this nomination should stop until it is completely and thoroughly investigated. Not doing due diligence for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the law would be criminal.

Christine Ford has made the accusation and the burden of proof is on her. If she doesn't want to bring it then this is done imo.

I totally agree with you Richard.

I personally don't give a shit if they have an investigation.. Because it would be nothing either way.... That's the point.. It can't be proven or disproven without evidence or corroborating witnesses.... If the mysterious female appears then maybe something would come of it.. She will never be named.. If she is named it will be a dead persons name. I wouldn't put it past these fucks to do that.

Feinstein could have revealed this in the proper manner and it would have been examined... Instead she withheld it until after everything was done.. "The moment there was any hint of wrong doing" was months go...

You're short sighted. An investigation can prove your crazy exclamation that this woman threw herself, her career, and her children under the bus in some elobarate democrat hatchet job to stop kavanaugh.

Why wouldn't you want to proof yourself?

How would that be proven? Put everyone involved under "marriage counseling hypnosis?" :1orglaugh:1orglaugh Use a psychic medium to speak to her "friend" in an out of body experience or maybe travel back to the rough date and the medium can spend a few months following her around? Invent a time machine?

She asked the FBI to investigate before its seen by Congress. She knows that in Congress it'll just be a bunch of softballs throw at Kavanaugh and poison arrows thrown at her with no gathered evidence or investigation. She seems to have less to hide than a Congres who looks to be ramming this SC pick through as fast as they can before someone finds out something they've been trying to hide with all of their document ommissions -- which oddly enough is old news now that the sexual allegations are here. But it's probably related.

It is. It wasn't even called the FBI until 1935. And it definitely wasn't doing background checks on Supreme Court Justices in any of those early years.

They only had a total of 34 agents in 1908, and they were "special agents of the Justice Dept.". It wasn't until J. Edgar Hoover racheted it up in the 1940's that it became much of anything.

And yeah. I'd say that 11 decades is a "few decades old" if you count the time that the agency was first started.

Anyway...sounds like you just want to argue for arguments sake for some reason.

My whole point was that "No"...the Constitution does NOT "task" the FBI with doing investigations into the Supreme Court nominees. It doesn't even "task" them with doing background checks...because there was no FBI in existence, and yet the Supreme Court somehow was filled for the majority of the country's life span (first Supreme Court was in 1789)

So the FBI has been around for 110 years. Only did background checks in recent times on Govt. employees (and please don't parse "recent" as meaning in the last couple of years...I'm speaking in relative terms).

But even if they came out of the gate in 1908 doing background checks (they didn't)...
That would be 119 years of Supreme Courts with NO FBI doing background checks. As opposed to the FBI only existing in any form at all for 110 years.

THAT was my point.

They have only done ONE INVESTIGATION of a Supreme Court nominee in history. And that was the Anita Hill accusations toward Clarence Thomas.
And her accusations were stating that he did things in a govt. office as govt. employees.

In THREE days they cleared it.

This situation is not even close to being anything like that at all.

And as I said already...Kavanaugh has had SIX FBI background checks done on him already.
Nothing ever came of them.

So again... a big fat "NO" to your statement that it is "standard protocol" to INVESTIGATE Supreme Court nominees.

You may have misspoken and meant BACKGROUND CHECKS...in which case I would say again...he's had SIX of them done already.

And hell no...it's not the FBI's job to investigate teenagers getting drunk and fucking around 36 years ago.
They have actual important things to do at the FBI (like framing the President). lol

Anyone who thinks a woman would subject herself to this for any other reason than to do what she considers her civic duty is ignorant as fuck. It's probably like going through hell, but since Kavanaugh has been dominating the news, Ford has probably been reliving the incident in her mind every time she sees his smug face on TV.

We all know this shit happened. And it is disqualifying for a SC judge, even if it did happen at 17. No one with enough character to be a Supreme Court Justice has ever been a person would attempt to rape a girl. You don't just go from raping to developing into a non-raping human. He just hides it well.

Robbie, are you advocating appointing SC justices without investigating their backgrounds?

You are definitely in a mood tonight. lol

No, when I SAY I'm advocating that...then you will know it. Because I actually say what I mean.