Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A good investigator would test both their testimonies. Iāve heard you all bitch for the past couple days about the questions Ford was not asked at the hearing that would test the inconsistencies of her story. Thatās exactly what the FBI should have done. Blows my mind that they didnāt question to two key players in this thing.No dummy. Its a background investigation where allegations of sexual assault are in hand. Dont you think the two people involved should be questioned?Its very strange you cant question Kav or Ford on a case involving them. Are you retarded or something?She said it all during the testimony, they got all they need from her to verify if she's telling the truth.
Nothing strange there.
Why they should? Is FBI conducting criminal investigation?
No dunce.
They already gave testimony in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath with penalty of perjury. What do you think, if FBI question them again they're gonna say something different? Of course not. What FBI is doing, or have done, is to use their sworn testimonies to verify who was telling the truth, and who hasn't.
You are an idiot. It doesnt matter they gave testimony in front of the judiciary committee. The FBI is a separate body from the judiciary. They dont decline to question someone because they were already questioned by another organization.No dummy. Its a background investigation where allegations of sexual assault are in hand. Dont you think the two people involved should be questioned?Its very strange you cant question Kav or Ford on a case involving them. Are you retarded or something?She said it all during the testimony, they got all they need from her to verify if she's telling the truth.
Nothing strange there.
Why they should? Is FBI conducting criminal investigation?
No dunce.
They already gave testimony in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath with penalty of perjury. What do you think, if FBI question them again they're gonna say something different? Of course not. What FBI is doing, or have done, is to use their sworn testimonies to verify who was telling the truth, and who hasn't.
No dummy. Cant you read? I said the FBI doesnt care who questioned or who the principals testified in front of. They still conduct their own questioning.You are an idiot. It doesnt matter they gave testimony in front of the judiciary committee. The FBI is a separate body from the judiciary. They dont decline to question someone because they were already questioned by another organization.No dummy. Its a background investigation where allegations of sexual assault are in hand. Dont you think the two people involved should be questioned?Its very strange you cant question Kav or Ford on a case involving them. Are you retarded or something?
Why they should? Is FBI conducting criminal investigation?
No dunce.
They already gave testimony in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath with penalty of perjury. What do you think, if FBI question them again they're gonna say something different? Of course not. What FBI is doing, or have done, is to use their sworn testimonies to verify who was telling the truth, and who hasn't.
Testimony given under oath is valid regardless of what body is doing investigation. Are you saying it isn't?
Iām using common sense about how a situation should be investigated and not questioning the primary characters is sloppy work. I want to get the facts out and when I see key members and witnesses excluded from questioning it doesnāt give me confidence in the process they took. But Iāll reserve judgement till after I see what they found.A good investigator would test both their testimonies. Iāve heard you all bitch for the past couple days about the questions Ford was not asked at the hearing that would test the inconsistencies of her story. Thatās exactly what the FBI should have done. Blows my mind that they didnāt question to two key players in this thing.No dummy. Its a background investigation where allegations of sexual assault are in hand. Dont you think the two people involved should be questioned?Its very strange you cant question Kav or Ford on a case involving them. Are you retarded or something?
Why they should? Is FBI conducting criminal investigation?
No dunce.
They already gave testimony in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath with penalty of perjury. What do you think, if FBI question them again they're gonna say something different? Of course not. What FBI is doing, or have done, is to use their sworn testimonies to verify who was telling the truth, and who hasn't.
It seems you know better than the FBI what their job is. You're also forgetting that this is not criminal investigation.
After Senate testimony, FBI have enough to check if their stories adds up. If, or when they find out that someone lied, I hope they will be asking that person many questions.
No dummy. Cant you read? I said the FBI doesnt care who questioned or who the principals testified in front of. They still conduct their own questioning.You are an idiot. It doesnt matter they gave testimony in front of the judiciary committee. The FBI is a separate body from the judiciary. They dont decline to question someone because they were already questioned by another organization.No dummy. Its a background investigation where allegations of sexual assault are in hand. Dont you think the two people involved should be questioned?Why they should? Is FBI conducting criminal investigation?
No dunce.
They already gave testimony in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath with penalty of perjury. What do you think, if FBI question them again they're gonna say something different? Of course not. What FBI is doing, or have done, is to use their sworn testimonies to verify who was telling the truth, and who hasn't.
Testimony given under oath is valid regardless of what body is doing investigation. Are you saying it isn't?
Both Ford and Kavanaugh had glaring inconsistencies between their congressional testimonies and outside statements. Do you really not think they should be questioned about those by the FBI?No dummy. Cant you read? I said the FBI doesnt care who questioned or who the principals testified in front of. They still conduct their own questioning.You are an idiot. It doesnt matter they gave testimony in front of the judiciary committee. The FBI is a separate body from the judiciary. They dont decline to question someone because they were already questioned by another organization.No dummy. Its a background investigation where allegations of sexual assault are in hand. Dont you think the two people involved should be questioned?
No dunce.
They already gave testimony in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath with penalty of perjury. What do you think, if FBI question them again they're gonna say something different? Of course not. What FBI is doing, or have done, is to use their sworn testimonies to verify who was telling the truth, and who hasn't.
Testimony given under oath is valid regardless of what body is doing investigation. Are you saying it isn't?
And you know that for a fact? How about you provide the proof of it, retard?
If they need to question, I believe they would. Since they were not questioning, most likely they had all they needed to check if it adds up.
Iām using common sense about how a situation should be investigated and not questioning the primary characters is sloppy work. I want to get the facts out and when I see key members and witnesses excluded from questioning it doesnāt give me confidence in the process they took. But Iāll reserve judgement till after I see what they found.A good investigator would test both their testimonies. Iāve heard you all bitch for the past couple days about the questions Ford was not asked at the hearing that would test the inconsistencies of her story. Thatās exactly what the FBI should have done. Blows my mind that they didnāt question to two key players in this thing.No dummy. Its a background investigation where allegations of sexual assault are in hand. Dont you think the two people involved should be questioned?Why they should? Is FBI conducting criminal investigation?
No dunce.
They already gave testimony in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath with penalty of perjury. What do you think, if FBI question them again they're gonna say something different? Of course not. What FBI is doing, or have done, is to use their sworn testimonies to verify who was telling the truth, and who hasn't.
It seems you know better than the FBI what their job is. You're also forgetting that this is not criminal investigation.
After Senate testimony, FBI have enough to check if their stories adds up. If, or when they find out that someone lied, I hope they will be asking that person many questions.
Yes I know that for a fact. Show me one case where the FBI didnt question the principals.No dummy. Cant you read? I said the FBI doesnt care who questioned or who the principals testified in front of. They still conduct their own questioning.You are an idiot. It doesnt matter they gave testimony in front of the judiciary committee. The FBI is a separate body from the judiciary. They dont decline to question someone because they were already questioned by another organization.No dummy. Its a background investigation where allegations of sexual assault are in hand. Dont you think the two people involved should be questioned?
No dunce.
They already gave testimony in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath with penalty of perjury. What do you think, if FBI question them again they're gonna say something different? Of course not. What FBI is doing, or have done, is to use their sworn testimonies to verify who was telling the truth, and who hasn't.
Testimony given under oath is valid regardless of what body is doing investigation. Are you saying it isn't?
And you know that for a fact? How about you provide the proof of it, retard?
If they need to question, I believe they would. Since they were not questioning, most likely they had all they needed to check if it adds up.
Yes I know that for a fact. Show me one case where the FBI didnt question the principals.No dummy. Cant you read? I said the FBI doesnt care who questioned or who the principals testified in front of. They still conduct their own questioning.You are an idiot. It doesnt matter they gave testimony in front of the judiciary committee. The FBI is a separate body from the judiciary. They dont decline to question someone because they were already questioned by another organization.No dunce.
They already gave testimony in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath with penalty of perjury. What do you think, if FBI question them again they're gonna say something different? Of course not. What FBI is doing, or have done, is to use their sworn testimonies to verify who was telling the truth, and who hasn't.
Testimony given under oath is valid regardless of what body is doing investigation. Are you saying it isn't?
And you know that for a fact? How about you provide the proof of it, retard?
If they need to question, I believe they would. Since they were not questioning, most likely they had all they needed to check if it adds up.
I will when you show me just one time the FBI didnt question the principals.Yes I know that for a fact. Show me one case where the FBI didnt question the principals.No dummy. Cant you read? I said the FBI doesnt care who questioned or who the principals testified in front of. They still conduct their own questioning.You are an idiot. It doesnt matter they gave testimony in front of the judiciary committee. The FBI is a separate body from the judiciary. They dont decline to question someone because they were already questioned by another organization.
Testimony given under oath is valid regardless of what body is doing investigation. Are you saying it isn't?
And you know that for a fact? How about you provide the proof of it, retard?
If they need to question, I believe they would. Since they were not questioning, most likely they had all they needed to check if it adds up.
If you know that for a fact, how about you provide the proof.
I would hope that professional FBI investigators would be trained and qualified to give inquiry designed to expose lies and/or get to the truth. I would especially pay a visit tot he accuser if she was publicly asking to be interviewed by the FBI. Blows my mind that they didnāt do a sit down. Even from looking at it from your side as a Kavanaugh supporter Iād think youād want and expect her to be interviewed. If you think she is lying then donāt you want that exposed with evidence?Iām using common sense about how a situation should be investigated and not questioning the primary characters is sloppy work. I want to get the facts out and when I see key members and witnesses excluded from questioning it doesnāt give me confidence in the process they took. But Iāll reserve judgement till after I see what they found.A good investigator would test both their testimonies. Iāve heard you all bitch for the past couple days about the questions Ford was not asked at the hearing that would test the inconsistencies of her story. Thatās exactly what the FBI should have done. Blows my mind that they didnāt question to two key players in this thing.No dummy. Its a background investigation where allegations of sexual assault are in hand. Dont you think the two people involved should be questioned?
No dunce.
They already gave testimony in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath with penalty of perjury. What do you think, if FBI question them again they're gonna say something different? Of course not. What FBI is doing, or have done, is to use their sworn testimonies to verify who was telling the truth, and who hasn't.
It seems you know better than the FBI what their job is. You're also forgetting that this is not criminal investigation.
After Senate testimony, FBI have enough to check if their stories adds up. If, or when they find out that someone lied, I hope they will be asking that person many questions.
Didn't both, accuser and accused, already provided all the facts under oaths during their testimony?
What other facts you would need from them?
I will when you show me just one time the FBI didnt question the principals.Yes I know that for a fact. Show me one case where the FBI didnt question the principals.No dummy. Cant you read? I said the FBI doesnt care who questioned or who the principals testified in front of. They still conduct their own questioning.Testimony given under oath is valid regardless of what body is doing investigation. Are you saying it isn't?
And you know that for a fact? How about you provide the proof of it, retard?
If they need to question, I believe they would. Since they were not questioning, most likely they had all they needed to check if it adds up.
If you know that for a fact, how about you provide the proof.
Thats exactly how it works. Show me a time when the FBI didnt question the principals.I will when you show me just one time the FBI didnt question the principals.Yes I know that for a fact. Show me one case where the FBI didnt question the principals.No dummy. Cant you read? I said the FBI doesnt care who questioned or who the principals testified in front of. They still conduct their own questioning.
And you know that for a fact? How about you provide the proof of it, retard?
If they need to question, I believe they would. Since they were not questioning, most likely they had all they needed to check if it adds up.
If you know that for a fact, how about you provide the proof.
It's not how it works. I asked you first.
I would hope that professional FBI investigators would be trained and qualified to give inquiry designed to expose lies and/or get to the truth. I would especially pay a visit tot he accuser if she was publicly asking to be interviewed by the FBI. Blows my mind that they didnāt do a sit down. Even from looking at it from your side as a Kavanaugh supporter Iād think youād want and expect her to be interviewed. If you think she is lying then donāt you want that exposed with evidence?Iām using common sense about how a situation should be investigated and not questioning the primary characters is sloppy work. I want to get the facts out and when I see key members and witnesses excluded from questioning it doesnāt give me confidence in the process they took. But Iāll reserve judgement till after I see what they found.A good investigator would test both their testimonies. Iāve heard you all bitch for the past couple days about the questions Ford was not asked at the hearing that would test the inconsistencies of her story. Thatās exactly what the FBI should have done. Blows my mind that they didnāt question to two key players in this thing.No dunce.
They already gave testimony in front of Senate Judiciary Committee, under oath with penalty of perjury. What do you think, if FBI question them again they're gonna say something different? Of course not. What FBI is doing, or have done, is to use their sworn testimonies to verify who was telling the truth, and who hasn't.
It seems you know better than the FBI what their job is. You're also forgetting that this is not criminal investigation.
After Senate testimony, FBI have enough to check if their stories adds up. If, or when they find out that someone lied, I hope they will be asking that person many questions.
Didn't both, accuser and accused, already provided all the facts under oaths during their testimony?
What other facts you would need from them?
Thats exactly how it works. Show me a time when the FBI didnt question the principals.I will when you show me just one time the FBI didnt question the principals.Yes I know that for a fact. Show me one case where the FBI didnt question the principals.And you know that for a fact? How about you provide the proof of it, retard?
If they need to question, I believe they would. Since they were not questioning, most likely they had all they needed to check if it adds up.
If you know that for a fact, how about you provide the proof.
It's not how it works. I asked you first.
Yes, my Brian is on the Wall right now. Iāve explained the advantages to having an investigator question an accuser but what I donāt get is why you are advocating for the none interview? Arenāt you interested in as much transparency as possible?I would hope that professional FBI investigators would be trained and qualified to give inquiry designed to expose lies and/or get to the truth. I would especially pay a visit tot he accuser if she was publicly asking to be interviewed by the FBI. Blows my mind that they didnāt do a sit down. Even from looking at it from your side as a Kavanaugh supporter Iād think youād want and expect her to be interviewed. If you think she is lying then donāt you want that exposed with evidence?Iām using common sense about how a situation should be investigated and not questioning the primary characters is sloppy work. I want to get the facts out and when I see key members and witnesses excluded from questioning it doesnāt give me confidence in the process they took. But Iāll reserve judgement till after I see what they found.A good investigator would test both their testimonies. Iāve heard you all bitch for the past couple days about the questions Ford was not asked at the hearing that would test the inconsistencies of her story. Thatās exactly what the FBI should have done. Blows my mind that they didnāt question to two key players in this thing.
It seems you know better than the FBI what their job is. You're also forgetting that this is not criminal investigation.
After Senate testimony, FBI have enough to check if their stories adds up. If, or when they find out that someone lied, I hope they will be asking that person many questions.
Didn't both, accuser and accused, already provided all the facts under oaths during their testimony?
What other facts you would need from them?
Your "mind" is getting blown in every post you write.
No, she asked for FBI investigation as one of the preconditions to testify. Then she testified without getting that.
In her letter to Senator Feinstein, and in her testimony under oath she made her accusation. There is no need to ask her any more questions in regards to her accusation. Their job is to investigate if what she wrote and what she said is true, and what Kavanaugh said in his testimony as well.
What else she can say that she hasn't said already? Or Kavanaugh?
Yes I know for a fact and I want you to show me one investigation the FBI has conducted prior to this where they didnt question the principals. This is simply a requirement you must fulfillThats exactly how it works. Show me a time when the FBI didnt question the principals.I will when you show me just one time the FBI didnt question the principals.Yes I know that for a fact. Show me one case where the FBI didnt question the principals.
If you know that for a fact, how about you provide the proof.
It's not how it works. I asked you first.
Nope.
I asked you do you know that for a fact, and to prove that is a fact.
You said you know that for a fact and "you will prove if IF"...
I didn't make any claim, you did. So prove it. I doubt you can.
Yes I know for a fact and I want you to show me one investigation the FBI has conducted prior to this where they didnt question the principals. This is simply a requirement you must fulfillThats exactly how it works. Show me a time when the FBI didnt question the principals.I will when you show me just one time the FBI didnt question the principals.If you know that for a fact, how about you provide the proof.
It's not how it works. I asked you first.
Nope.
I asked you do you know that for a fact, and to prove that is a fact.
You said you know that for a fact and "you will prove if IF"...
I didn't make any claim, you did. So prove it. I doubt you can.
