The FBI hasn’t agreed to anything, so I am correct.
So in your world does an accuser get to choose the Justice process now? Why not just put them all under oath on Monday?
Kavanaugh and #me too
- Thread starter donnie_baseball
- Start date
So in your world does an accuser get to choose the Justice process now? Why not just put them all under oath on Monday?
See what I said in regards to other nominations to SPK.
All Trump has to do is ask. Since he's the one who put the nomination forward he must ask the FBI.
Balls in Trump's court.
And yes, you are always correct 85. I forget that when I come on this board there are certain posters that are the be all and end all with opinions and news.
Why bother? She claims it happened and there was one other witness. That other witness denies it ever happened. The rest is just delaying noise. A real shit show, it's what we've come to expect from our political process, where there is a secret fund to pay off congressional sex accusations.
I mean... the FBI likely has the tools and expertise needed to see if her allegations are credible. Unlike a bunch of partisan politicians.
If you’re lying, I’m not sure lying to the FBI is the direction you would want to go.
Conversely, if this was just a stall tactic, it worked. I think a few republicans will kill the nomination of it lives forward.
Also, said it when the seat opened up. Democrats should not want a SC seat on the ballot in November. Conservatives are much more passionate about the court and of this was made up to block Trumps pick them it could backfire in the midterms.
Not saying that would be wrong, but the optics aren't good. If that’s the path they take, they will pay a price politically in November.
This whole show has just become a stall tactic/smear campaign to try to turn the tide of the nomination.
Dems knew since July but didn't say anything until last week.
Woman was going to stay anonymous
Woman reveals herself on Sunday
"Passed" a polygraph test
Her lawyer all over TV shows
Then says wants to testify
Now refusing to testify
Wants FBI investigation
Getting death threats / being hacked
What is the next?
I am sorry things just starting to smell fishy to me. Just seems to be playing out in too much of a choregraphed way.
Just FYI, I am not really against the FBI investigating, if it can be done in a quick and orderly manner.
It looks like what it comes down to is how good a performance Kav does on Monday. They are going to try to trip him up and make him look unsympathetic. If he does a credible job, he'll be confirmed and I don't see it having an impact on the midterms either way. If he looks bad, then it will likely finish him and the Reps will reload with Barrett.
It's becoming more obvious that Ford never had any intention of testifying. Interesting that they have kept her completely out of sight and everything has been communicated through her attorney. If she was the least bit credible or had a sympathetic look they would have taken advantage of that.
I think there is a good chance a few Repubs (Collins, Murkowsi or Flake) may abstain from the vote if she does not testify because of the optics and that could kill the nomination. You are clearly seeing a stall campaign and everyone knew that would happen in one way or another this whole time. It was the best defense for the Dems.
From the accuser, you may be seeing push back because she is realizing she is now a pawn of both parties and I don't think she expected that. She probably is not happy that she is being pushed pretty hard to testify and do it quickly and she might not be happy with how Feinstein handled this either and might be trying to take back control - notice she changed lawyers (or another lawyer was speaking for her yesterday vs the one the other day). This is big time politics with a lot at stake and most of the good Senators (that is sarcasm for the readers that don't notice it) could give a crap about her, but are using her for political gain.
What is interesting to me is that usually with #metoo, additional women usually come forward. I wonder if that was also the hope of Dems. To this point that has not occurred and before I get blasted by some folks on the board I am not saying that has anything to do with Ford's credibility or her story - I know nothing about it. It's just the pattern we have seen in the past and so far no additional accusers have come forward although there is still time if the Dems think they need it and are holding one more card in their hand.
I see his nomination odds at no better than about 30% yes and 70% no at this point. That is why Repubs need to get on with it and have a vote so this can move forward one way or another while they have a small majority in Senate.
From the accuser, you may be seeing push back because she is realizing she is now a pawn of both parties and I don't think she expected that. She probably is not happy that she is being pushed pretty hard to testify and do it quickly and she might not be happy with how Feinstein handled this either and might be trying to take back control - notice she changed lawyers (or another lawyer was speaking for her yesterday vs the one the other day). This is big time politics with a lot at stake and most of the good Senators (that is sarcasm for the readers that don't notice it) could give a crap about her, but are using her for political gain.
What is interesting to me is that usually with #metoo, additional women usually come forward. I wonder if that was also the hope of Dems. To this point that has not occurred and before I get blasted by some folks on the board I am not saying that has anything to do with Ford's credibility or her story - I know nothing about it. It's just the pattern we have seen in the past and so far no additional accusers have come forward although there is still time if the Dems think they need it and are holding one more card in their hand.
I see his nomination odds at no better than about 30% yes and 70% no at this point. That is why Repubs need to get on with it and have a vote so this can move forward one way or another while they have a small majority in Senate.
Last edited:
I think their statement was something to the effect that this was not a Federal crime so it was not part of their jurisdiction to investigate.
What a mess. What Dr. Blasey is accusing Kavanaugh of -- in it's 1983 context -- is drunken buffoonery. Playing dog-pile on a girl in high school, clothes on, was not sexual assault then. Clearly, looking askance at a woman in 2018 is. I suppose it's neither here nor there, but had she gone to the police the night it happened, it likely would never have seen the inside of a court room.
Jesus dude...
Debating if it is true or not is one thing but in no era is what she described ok.
and we wonder why victims of sexual assault don't come forward.
We've come full circle.
I’m not convinced of anything.
I’m just open to the possibility that the allegations are true.
We don’t get to decide the right time for her to confront it.
<<< In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, another former classmate of Brett Kavanaugh's denies attending a party like the one described in the allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused the Supreme Court nominee of sexually assaulting her three decades ago when they were teenagers.
Patrick J. Smyth attended Georgetown Prep -- an all-boys school in North Bethesda, Maryland -- alongside Kavanaugh. Both men graduated in 1983. Smyth signed a letter this summer, before the allegations against Kavanaugh were made public, testifying that Kavanaugh "is singularly qualified to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court," along with dozen other of the school's alumni.
Eric Bruce, who is representing Smyth, authored a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the committee. CNN has obtained a copy of the letter, which includes a quote from Smyth denying seeing any "improper conduct" from Kavanaugh.
"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh." >>>
May be time to stop wasting time and money on this charade.
Patrick J. Smyth attended Georgetown Prep -- an all-boys school in North Bethesda, Maryland -- alongside Kavanaugh. Both men graduated in 1983. Smyth signed a letter this summer, before the allegations against Kavanaugh were made public, testifying that Kavanaugh "is singularly qualified to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court," along with dozen other of the school's alumni.
Eric Bruce, who is representing Smyth, authored a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the committee. CNN has obtained a copy of the letter, which includes a quote from Smyth denying seeing any "improper conduct" from Kavanaugh.
"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh." >>>
May be time to stop wasting time and money on this charade.
Watched CBS this morning for an interview they did with Fran Townsen (former female bigwig at FBI and served in Bush Administration - very well respected by both sides of the aisle). I've seen her speak a number of times and she is very fair and really smart and gets it. She was trying to explain to the CBS anchors that the FBI doing an investigation would not take long (consist of interviewing the 3 parties alleged to be there) but that the FBI would only ask each witness to give a statement on their recollection of what occurred. That is all they would do (fill out forms 302) and submit those forms to the Senate. She said it would not help and it would be just as easy or effective for her to tell her story to the Senate Judiciary committee. She said the FBI would provide no opinion at all. The CBS hosts pushed back and tried to make the point of how important it is for the FBI to be involved and that is what happened with Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas. Townsen said it wouldn't matter because the FBIs role would be to simply take the statements. And Townsen said go back and look at the Anita Hill hearing - they tore Hill apart - that is not what we want to happen here and it's exactly what we do not want to do is shame the witness and that is what happened to Hill. She said the FBI simply took the statements and then the Senate tore her apart. That is a bad precedent to follow and Townsen wanted to protect Ford.
Townsen was very measured and made reasonable points and she knows the process. She said that there is no reason that Ford should not be heard next week - her story is her story. The CBS hosts ended the interview abruptly and said "lets move on." It didn't fit their narrative.
Townsen was very measured and made reasonable points and she knows the process. She said that there is no reason that Ford should not be heard next week - her story is her story. The CBS hosts ended the interview abruptly and said "lets move on." It didn't fit their narrative.
Last edited:
I would be okay with an FBI Investigation, especially if it can be done quickly as stated above, but I also believe that witnesses should not be dictating terms like this in general. It is just not a good thing. If she has information relevant to the situation, and she wants to share it (which seems she actually already did), not sure what an FBI investigation would do for her testimony, unless it is a stall tactic.
Funny how two people can watch the same interview and walk away from it with two different opinions of it.
I did not feel she was abruptly cutoff at all. It was a 4 minute interview and Townsend gave her opinion on the matter and addressed all of the questions from the hosts. It ended with "Fran Townsend, thank you very much Fran"
She did't say there is "no reason" Ford should not be heard. She believes she should tell her story and this will come down to credibility. I agree with Townsend that Ford should testify but there are plenty of reasons why shy might not want to do that.
If you watch CBS they always add a little snippet of opinion at the end of stories they do - they moved on quickly from this one and they certainly cut off the interview IMO. She did say Ford should be heard and that is what I was trying to communicate (agree with you) that Townsend said she should be heard but there was no benefit to the FBI being involved. They are bias Merge on that station in a big way and its the little things that show it. I watch it on occasion because to me its the least bias out of the big 3 but still very bias and always adding in their opinions after delivering the news - its very consistent IMO. In this one King tried to make the point the FBI should be involved but Townsend squashed that and then they ended the interview.
Bottom line is her points were valid and it shows that delay is the tactic here which most normal thinking people understand. And if Ford doesn't testify she just destroyed a man's reputation plain and simple. By coming forward she had to know she would eventually have to testify. Once you come forward you also have to put up with all that comes from that - either you testify or don't come forward.
Last edited:
Good point - meet her in the middle so to speak. They have offered her the opportunity to be interviewed in private or in public and they said they will send people to her as well. There is an undercurrent of "why the hell wasn't this brought up sooner when Feinstein knew" so because of that IMO the Repubs are not letting this play out much longer. And I think Ford's lawyers are trying to regain control of this too so she does not get slammed which makes sense but when will she be ready and why will it take so long for her to tell her story?
Delay is the only thing consistent with all of this and Ford' and Kavanaugh's reputation be damned by the politicians.
You called it drunken buffoonery and compared it to looking at a girl the wrong way.
I'll rephrase, In no era should what was alleged be brushed off as drunken buffoonery.
The nomination is dead IMO. The longer this goes on, the more people will believe he is guilty whether he is or not because they keep hearing the narrative in the press every day. Very tough to investigate something like this that happened 36 years ago as well. And Ford is doing everything she can to delay this whole thing. She and Kavanaugh will be losers in this whole situation in the end.
Innocent until proven guilty is dead in our society and that is a VERY dangerous precedent.
Innocent until proven guilty is dead in our society and that is a VERY dangerous precedent.
Similar threads
