Do you Believe Kavanaugh's Rape Accuser?

[Slade3200]

If she knows it’s true then it isn’t really disparaging, it’s her telling her truth.

Even if true, she knows she has absolutley no evidence, she knows she never reported the incident, she knows she never ever spoke of it to anyone for 30+ years, she knows the SoLs has passed and she knows she will destroy a man’s reputation, his career and possibly his family life on the basis of not being able to prove a thing whilst scrubbing all of her own social media in the process so no one can evaluate her.
Like I said, nice.
Not.

If true I don’t think she really cares about any of that shit. She’s been living with it for 30+ years.

living with an offense you just said isnt that bad.

My judgement on the criminality of an event have nothing to do with the psychological effects it may of had on a victim. I’m no where near qualified to pass judgement on that.

well my main point is 2 posts ago you said something to the effect of 2 drunks teens rolling around on a bed. your next post was this - she's had to live with it for 30 years.

quite a swap in just (2) posts.

Well you are acting like it is rude of her to disparage the man that assaulted her if the story is true, that just doesn’t make sense. I do think that if Kav would have survived if he admitted to drinking to much at the party when he was in high school and admitted to making a mistake. But now one of them is lying so there should be consequences for that

 

[iceberg]

Even if true, she knows she has absolutley no evidence, she knows she never reported the incident, she knows she never ever spoke of it to anyone for 30+ years, she knows the SoLs has passed and she knows she will destroy a man’s reputation, his career and possibly his family life on the basis of not being able to prove a thing whilst scrubbing all of her own social media in the process so no one can evaluate her.
Like I said, nice.
Not.

If true I don’t think she really cares about any of that shit. She’s been living with it for 30+ years.

living with an offense you just said isnt that bad.

My judgement on the criminality of an event have nothing to do with the psychological effects it may of had on a victim. I’m no where near qualified to pass judgement on that.

well my main point is 2 posts ago you said something to the effect of 2 drunks teens rolling around on a bed. your next post was this - she's had to live with it for 30 years.

quite a swap in just (2) posts.

Well you are acting like it is rude of her to disparage the man that assaulted her if the story is true, that just doesn’t make sense. I do think that if Kav would have survived if he admitted to drinking to much at the party when he was in high school and admitted to making a mistake. But now one of them is lying so there should be consequences for that

to me i'm acting like something to make sense from 1 step to the next w/o having to give a lot of "allowances" in only 1 direction. i simply can't take either side really in a "he said / she said" scenario, esp when all of the "well they saw it" from the she saids all say "no we didn't" and the dems have a track record of these for scotus nominations from the right.

i want things to add up in a logical manner w/o having to give a HUGE benefit of doubt in ONLY 1 direction. so far that really can't be done as near as i can tell.

so - how do we tell who is lying at this point when no one can vouch for the accusation who was there?

 

[Slade3200]

If true I don’t think she really cares about any of that shit. She’s been living with it for 30+ years.

living with an offense you just said isnt that bad.

My judgement on the criminality of an event have nothing to do with the psychological effects it may of had on a victim. I’m no where near qualified to pass judgement on that.

well my main point is 2 posts ago you said something to the effect of 2 drunks teens rolling around on a bed. your next post was this - she's had to live with it for 30 years.

quite a swap in just (2) posts.

Well you are acting like it is rude of her to disparage the man that assaulted her if the story is true, that just doesn’t make sense. I do think that if Kav would have survived if he admitted to drinking to much at the party when he was in high school and admitted to making a mistake. But now one of them is lying so there should be consequences for that

to me i'm acting like something to make sense from 1 step to the next w/o having to give a lot of "allowances" in only 1 direction. i simply can't take either side really in a "he said / she said" scenario, esp when all of the "well they saw it" from the she saids all say "no we didn't" and the dems have a track record of these for scotus nominations from the right.

i want things to add up in a logical manner w/o having to give a HUGE benefit of doubt in ONLY 1 direction. so far that really can't be done as near as i can tell.

so - how do we tell who is lying at this point when no one can vouch for the accusation who was there?

Apparently she has 4 people who she had told about the incident over the past couple years that are now on record. It’s not a nail in the coffin but it gives her claim weight. I think the best way to find the truth is for professional investigators in the FBI to interview her, get her story and then vet it by following up on the things they can follow up on. I’d trust their findings much more than the political spin that is swirling around this thing. Since that doesn’t look like it will happen then I guess I can only base my judgement on who is more believable at the hearing.

 

[BigTruck]

living with an offense you just said isnt that bad.

My judgement on the criminality of an event have nothing to do with the psychological effects it may of had on a victim. I’m no where near qualified to pass judgement on that.

well my main point is 2 posts ago you said something to the effect of 2 drunks teens rolling around on a bed. your next post was this - she's had to live with it for 30 years.

quite a swap in just (2) posts.

Well you are acting like it is rude of her to disparage the man that assaulted her if the story is true, that just doesn’t make sense. I do think that if Kav would have survived if he admitted to drinking to much at the party when he was in high school and admitted to making a mistake. But now one of them is lying so there should be consequences for that

to me i'm acting like something to make sense from 1 step to the next w/o having to give a lot of "allowances" in only 1 direction. i simply can't take either side really in a "he said / she said" scenario, esp when all of the "well they saw it" from the she saids all say "no we didn't" and the dems have a track record of these for scotus nominations from the right.

i want things to add up in a logical manner w/o having to give a HUGE benefit of doubt in ONLY 1 direction. so far that really can't be done as near as i can tell.

so - how do we tell who is lying at this point when no one can vouch for the accusation who was there?

Apparently she has 4 people who she had told about the incident over the past couple years that are now on record. It’s not a nail in the coffin but it gives her claim weight. I think the best way to find the truth is for professional investigators in the FBI to interview her, get her story and then vet it by following up on the things they can follow up on. I’d trust their findings much more than the political spin that is swirling around this thing. Since that doesn’t look like it will happen then I guess I can only base my judgement on who is more believable at the hearing.

Her claim has zero weight because the alleged eye witnesses at the time this fake assault didn’t actually happen all refute her claim.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Even if true, she knows she has absolutley no evidence, she knows she never reported the incident, she knows she never ever spoke of it to anyone for 30+ years, she knows the SoLs has passed and she knows she will destroy a man’s reputation, his career and possibly his family life on the basis of not being able to prove a thing whilst scrubbing all of her own social media in the process so no one can evaluate her.
Like I said, nice.
Not.

If true I don’t think she really cares about any of that shit. She’s been living with it for 30+ years.

living with an offense you just said isnt that bad.

My judgement on the criminality of an event have nothing to do with the psychological effects it may of had on a victim. I’m no where near qualified to pass judgement on that.

well my main point is 2 posts ago you said something to the effect of 2 drunks teens rolling around on a bed. your next post was this - she's had to live with it for 30 years.

quite a swap in just (2) posts.

Well you are acting like it is rude of her to disparage the man that assaulted her if the story is true, that just doesn’t make sense. I do think that if Kav would have survived if he admitted to drinking to much at the party when he was in high school and admitted to making a mistake. But now one of them is lying so there should be consequences for that

Agreed. If he had said that he did party quite a bit in HS and doesn't remember, but straightened up when he got to college and has had a stellar record since, he could have had this all blow over.

 

[hadit]

If true I don’t think she really cares about any of that shit. She’s been living with it for 30+ years.

living with an offense you just said isnt that bad.

My judgement on the criminality of an event have nothing to do with the psychological effects it may of had on a victim. I’m no where near qualified to pass judgement on that.

well my main point is 2 posts ago you said something to the effect of 2 drunks teens rolling around on a bed. your next post was this - she's had to live with it for 30 years.

quite a swap in just (2) posts.

Well you are acting like it is rude of her to disparage the man that assaulted her if the story is true, that just doesn’t make sense. I do think that if Kav would have survived if he admitted to drinking to much at the party when he was in high school and admitted to making a mistake. But now one of them is lying so there should be consequences for that

Agreed. If he had said that he did party quite a bit in HS and doesn't remember, but straightened up when he got to college and has had a stellar record since, he could have had this all blow over.

A truly innocent person, however, would realize that would only lend legitimacy to a false accusation. It may be politically expedient to let you get in the SC, but then you have to live with the certainty that people view you as an admitted sex abuser. I believe he's thinking like a judge and relying on the rules of justice and evidence and thinks that if she can't prove her case, it goes away.

What he's not realizing is the opposition doesn't care if she can prove her case or not, they just want the accusations to hang out there as long as possible to cause as much damage as possible. When this is over, one way or another, we hear nothing more from her.

 

[iceberg]

If true I don’t think she really cares about any of that shit. She’s been living with it for 30+ years.

living with an offense you just said isnt that bad.

My judgement on the criminality of an event have nothing to do with the psychological effects it may of had on a victim. I’m no where near qualified to pass judgement on that.

well my main point is 2 posts ago you said something to the effect of 2 drunks teens rolling around on a bed. your next post was this - she's had to live with it for 30 years.

quite a swap in just (2) posts.

Well you are acting like it is rude of her to disparage the man that assaulted her if the story is true, that just doesn’t make sense. I do think that if Kav would have survived if he admitted to drinking to much at the party when he was in high school and admitted to making a mistake. But now one of them is lying so there should be consequences for that

Agreed. If he had said that he did party quite a bit in HS and doesn't remember, but straightened up when he got to college and has had a stellar record since, he could have had this all blow over.

you keep assuming shes not lying.

 

[ABikerSailor]

living with an offense you just said isnt that bad.

My judgement on the criminality of an event have nothing to do with the psychological effects it may of had on a victim. I’m no where near qualified to pass judgement on that.

well my main point is 2 posts ago you said something to the effect of 2 drunks teens rolling around on a bed. your next post was this - she's had to live with it for 30 years.

quite a swap in just (2) posts.

Well you are acting like it is rude of her to disparage the man that assaulted her if the story is true, that just doesn’t make sense. I do think that if Kav would have survived if he admitted to drinking to much at the party when he was in high school and admitted to making a mistake. But now one of them is lying so there should be consequences for that

Agreed. If he had said that he did party quite a bit in HS and doesn't remember, but straightened up when he got to college and has had a stellar record since, he could have had this all blow over.

A truly innocent person, however, would realize that would only lend legitimacy to a false accusation. It may be politically expedient to let you get in the SC, but then you have to live with the certainty that people view you as an admitted sex abuser. I believe he's thinking like a judge and relying on the rules of justice and evidence and thinks that if she can't prove her case, it goes away.

What he's not realizing is the opposition doesn't care if she can prove her case or not, they just want the accusations to hang out there as long as possible to cause as much damage as possible. When this is over, one way or another, we hear nothing more from her.

If he had said he was a party animal in HS from the jump, and he couldn't remember all the parties he went to, most people would hear that and say "yeah, I did stupid stuff when I was younger too", but then when they saw that he straightened up in college and became a stellar individual, they would say that he learned from his mistakes and is a much better person today because of it.

If he had simply done that, then Ford's accusation would have gone away, and anything that came after it wouldn't have the same impact, because he could chalk it up to being young and dumb, and people would forgive him.

But trying to portray himself as a virtuous virgin, even through college? I don't buy it for a minute. He was popular, he was a varsity football player and he was rich. I seriously doubt he was a virgin for as long as he claims. I mean, I graduated HS in '82, and I remember what the kids were like in school.

 

[ABikerSailor]

living with an offense you just said isnt that bad.

My judgement on the criminality of an event have nothing to do with the psychological effects it may of had on a victim. I’m no where near qualified to pass judgement on that.

well my main point is 2 posts ago you said something to the effect of 2 drunks teens rolling around on a bed. your next post was this - she's had to live with it for 30 years.

quite a swap in just (2) posts.

Well you are acting like it is rude of her to disparage the man that assaulted her if the story is true, that just doesn’t make sense. I do think that if Kav would have survived if he admitted to drinking to much at the party when he was in high school and admitted to making a mistake. But now one of them is lying so there should be consequences for that

Agreed. If he had said that he did party quite a bit in HS and doesn't remember, but straightened up when he got to college and has had a stellar record since, he could have had this all blow over.

you keep assuming shes not lying.

Not assuming anything. I think that an investigation should be done to find out who is telling the truth, and it should be done before he's confirmed.

You keep assuming Kavanaugh isn't lying. Me personally? His best friend (Judge) was a party animal in HS and college, he even wrote a book called "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk", where one of the characters was named Bart O'Kavanaugh, he was popular, played varsity football, yet claims he was a virgin well into college.

 

[Slade3200]

My judgement on the criminality of an event have nothing to do with the psychological effects it may of had on a victim. I’m no where near qualified to pass judgement on that.

well my main point is 2 posts ago you said something to the effect of 2 drunks teens rolling around on a bed. your next post was this - she's had to live with it for 30 years.

quite a swap in just (2) posts.

Well you are acting like it is rude of her to disparage the man that assaulted her if the story is true, that just doesn’t make sense. I do think that if Kav would have survived if he admitted to drinking to much at the party when he was in high school and admitted to making a mistake. But now one of them is lying so there should be consequences for that

to me i'm acting like something to make sense from 1 step to the next w/o having to give a lot of "allowances" in only 1 direction. i simply can't take either side really in a "he said / she said" scenario, esp when all of the "well they saw it" from the she saids all say "no we didn't" and the dems have a track record of these for scotus nominations from the right.

i want things to add up in a logical manner w/o having to give a HUGE benefit of doubt in ONLY 1 direction. so far that really can't be done as near as i can tell.

so - how do we tell who is lying at this point when no one can vouch for the accusation who was there?

Apparently she has 4 people who she had told about the incident over the past couple years that are now on record. It’s not a nail in the coffin but it gives her claim weight. I think the best way to find the truth is for professional investigators in the FBI to interview her, get her story and then vet it by following up on the things they can follow up on. I’d trust their findings much more than the political spin that is swirling around this thing. Since that doesn’t look like it will happen then I guess I can only base my judgement on who is more believable at the hearing.

Her claim has zero weight because the alleged eye witnesses at the time this fake assault didn’t actually happen all refute her claim.

Perhaps. I’d like to see what the testify to. Kav and Judge have reason to cover their ass but I’d be interested to hear the questioning of the other two

 

[Slade3200]

Damn! Avanates girl just dropped the hammer. Shits about to get crazy. This is a tragedy of massive proportions if all these women are lying and it’s a disgusting and dispicable past with disqualifying recent cover up lies by Kav if the women are telling the truth.

How can there not be an investigation at this point to determine what really happened? Somebody or somebodies need to go down either way.

Third woman makes sexual misconduct allegations about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

 

[EverCurious]

Ah, clearly I've misjudged your intelligence, my apologies. Let's try again, this time I'll explain for ya, and what the hell I'll even give ya a little more to chew on:

Q: "Who coordinates all of that and how do they do it?!"

A: Political groups would coordinate these kinds of opposition attacks. They often pay for buses to get voters to the booths, or even to get protesters on the streets. Protesters have also been paid by such organizations for their participation on numerous occasions - advertisements looking for protesters have been found as well (I believe the last one I saw was paying $15/hour.) Some have argued that the protesters are not "being paid" but rather that the organizations are paying their fees and bails - this supposedly was the case when the Kavanaugh protesters were arrested in the hearing just a few weeks ago. Considering this, it is not at all unfathomable that political organizations would be paying for "victims" to come forward in the same manner - be that paying them outright, or "just" paying their fees to do so. Not that it even requires payment for some folks, in other sexual assault and rape accusations we've had cases where women simply wanted attention.

As for the organization part; one could look at the political groups that were organizing and funding the violence of ANTIFA. It's not very hard to troll social media for folks willing to say something bad about Kavanaugh - especially when the far left not only absolutely hates Kavanaugh because of the lies the MSM has told them (aka he'll overturn Roe vs Wade!!!) but has also completely lost their grip on reality the past couple years; to the point of silencing any conservative views in colleges, mob reporting conservative YouTube and Twitters to get those folks banned, enacting violence upon folks attending Trump rally's, mobbing and harassing anyone that works for Trump in public (I hear they harassed Cruz at a public restaurant just yesterday,) a teacher brought a gun into their school and shot themselves in the foot to protest the 2nd, a lefty shot up a baseball game trying to kill republicans. You cannot tell me that you don't see that some of these folks are unhinged and acting stupid because of the MSM's bullshit riling them up... Given all that, how is it at all difficult to believe that some folks might lie for "the political cause"?

Well I do thank you for giving a real answer and explaining yourself. I respect that. I do feel that organizing protests and marketing campaigns is quite different than coordinating a conspiratorial lie to discredit a SCOTUS nominee that includes 6 year old records and Swiss cheese accounts, and calls for FBI investigations. If they made this thing up I’d assume they would cook up a more solid story, wouldn’t you? Accuse just Kavanaugh and put them in a one on one situation so it was truly he said she said. Why push so hard for the FBI to investigate if it’s a lie? That puts criminal charges into play. If I was cooking a lie I’d just play this thing out in the media and try to sway public opinion. Can you acknowledge that it is difficult to make sense out of the story and actions of this were all made up?! It would be the worst fabrication ever right above the dog ate my homework!

Q: "Why push so hard for the FBI to investigate if it's a lie?"

A: Because the D senators already knew the FBI had refused to investigate it kido. It's a local matter, the politicians know how this shit works and they knew that the general public would fall for their little outrage game when the FBI said, again, that it wasn't their jurisdiction. Now they can twist all the folks who don't know any better into knots about it for the mid-terms. It's working since you and many others apparently think that bullshit request lends some lick of credibility to the story. It's the same with the lie detector thing, also bullshit and useless, but that's why the D's had her take one in... August wasn't it? D's aren't stupid, they know the story doesn't have to be air-tight. they know that their followers won't look into the story too much because the public in general doesn't particularly care about Kavanaugh's nomination, it's not a big thing to them (even the D's) - It's only the activist protester/radical types that are even paying attention to this shit-show. The 30some% who are paying attention hated Kavanaugh anyway so they don't really care about "all" the facts, they, like the D's, just want to push this nomination out until after midterms in the hopes that they can get the Senate and install more activist judges for themselves.

It's why the Kavanaugh nomination is even a problem for the left in the first place remember. The D's are the ones that got ya'll needlessly freaking out about Kavanaugh over-turning Roe vs Wade, it's settled law and he's said as much more than once. Even if he did though, abortion would go back to state decision - aka people would actually get to vote on it for their state, ya know, that democracy thing the left always /says/ they're for? Hell abortion was even legal up here in Alaska back in the 80s-90s, and we're /still/ to this day 70% Christian. The entire D uproar about Roe vs Wade is complete bullshit specifically designed to rile lefties up to vote in the mid-terms and retain D power and control over everyone's lives, via the SCOTUS in this case.

This is exactly the kind of shit that politicians do every single day of every single year; twist stories, cause outrage/anger/high emotions, and profit from it at the polls. They are very good at this game so its zero trouble for them to set something like this up even years in advance - recall they had a protest ready to go before Kavanaugh was even nominated <insert name here> and stuff?

Best wise up kido or they'll be leading you around by the nose for your entire life. Ya know, like Ms. Ford here, who's being used like a tampon and will be flushed very shortly; her life in shambles and none for the wiser of it...

That’s not true. Then FBI can certainly do background checks. They already done 6. This accusation brings new info to light that needs to be vetted. The FBI can easily conduct a couple of interviews and present their findings to congress. You are conflating a background check with a criminal investigation. The White House or congress can request for the FBI to do this at any time

Like I said before kido, you best wisen up and stop letting the media and politicians lead you around by the nose...

On Sunday evening, September 16th, Ford identified herself.

On Monday evening, September 17th, AP relayed the following statement from the DOJ regarding the FBI's involvement (specifically note the bold part and think about what it says):

The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.

The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."

The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.


In the case of Kavanaugh, the FBI received a letter Sept. 12 with allegations of misconduct in the 1980s, when both Kavanaugh and his accuser were teenagers.

The Justice Department says the FBI forwarded the letter to the White House counsel's office.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...kavanaugh-accuser-willing-to-talk-to-congress

I’m not letting anybody lead me around, I’m just using common sense and basic comprehension. You point to an FBI statement regarding a federal crime. I just wrote that you are dishonestly conflating a background check with a criminal investigation, then you post this and do the exact same thing again. It’s called doubling down on dishonesty. Don’t know who you think you’re fooling.

What part of the FBI received the letter on the 12th and forwarded it on do you not get kido?

 

[Skylar]

The polygraph results were just released. Ford passed, with an estimated 0.050% chance she was being deceptive.


Kavanaugh accuser Ford releases polygraph results showing 'no deception' in her account of assault

 

[Tilly]

Damn! Avanates girl just dropped the hammer. Shits about to get crazy. This is a tragedy of massive proportions if all these women are lying and it’s a disgusting and dispicable past with disqualifying recent cover up lies by Kav if the women are telling the truth.

How can there not be an investigation at this point to determine what really happened? Somebody or somebodies need to go down either way.

Third woman makes sexual misconduct allegations about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Strange story that.
20 year old regularly parties with high schoolers. Watches underage girls being drugged and gang raped.
Does she report these gang rapes to the police?
Nope. She simply continues to go to these parties and watch underage girls being drugged and gang raped.
Eventually, she apparently gets raped.
And who does she go after 36 years later?
Her rapist(s)?
No, of course not!
She goes after Kav - whom she can’t prove was there as she’s also a bit vague about dates!
Of course, like the others, if she provided a date Kav just might be able to prove he wasn’t there!

You buying this one too?

If so, maybe this woman needs investigating as she was an adult who turned up over and over to repeatedly observe sexual crimes against minors and reported nada.

How utterly perverted.

 

[Slade3200]

Well I do thank you for giving a real answer and explaining yourself. I respect that. I do feel that organizing protests and marketing campaigns is quite different than coordinating a conspiratorial lie to discredit a SCOTUS nominee that includes 6 year old records and Swiss cheese accounts, and calls for FBI investigations. If they made this thing up I’d assume they would cook up a more solid story, wouldn’t you? Accuse just Kavanaugh and put them in a one on one situation so it was truly he said she said. Why push so hard for the FBI to investigate if it’s a lie? That puts criminal charges into play. If I was cooking a lie I’d just play this thing out in the media and try to sway public opinion. Can you acknowledge that it is difficult to make sense out of the story and actions of this were all made up?! It would be the worst fabrication ever right above the dog ate my homework!

Q: "Why push so hard for the FBI to investigate if it's a lie?"

A: Because the D senators already knew the FBI had refused to investigate it kido. It's a local matter, the politicians know how this shit works and they knew that the general public would fall for their little outrage game when the FBI said, again, that it wasn't their jurisdiction. Now they can twist all the folks who don't know any better into knots about it for the mid-terms. It's working since you and many others apparently think that bullshit request lends some lick of credibility to the story. It's the same with the lie detector thing, also bullshit and useless, but that's why the D's had her take one in... August wasn't it? D's aren't stupid, they know the story doesn't have to be air-tight. they know that their followers won't look into the story too much because the public in general doesn't particularly care about Kavanaugh's nomination, it's not a big thing to them (even the D's) - It's only the activist protester/radical types that are even paying attention to this shit-show. The 30some% who are paying attention hated Kavanaugh anyway so they don't really care about "all" the facts, they, like the D's, just want to push this nomination out until after midterms in the hopes that they can get the Senate and install more activist judges for themselves.

It's why the Kavanaugh nomination is even a problem for the left in the first place remember. The D's are the ones that got ya'll needlessly freaking out about Kavanaugh over-turning Roe vs Wade, it's settled law and he's said as much more than once. Even if he did though, abortion would go back to state decision - aka people would actually get to vote on it for their state, ya know, that democracy thing the left always /says/ they're for? Hell abortion was even legal up here in Alaska back in the 80s-90s, and we're /still/ to this day 70% Christian. The entire D uproar about Roe vs Wade is complete bullshit specifically designed to rile lefties up to vote in the mid-terms and retain D power and control over everyone's lives, via the SCOTUS in this case.

This is exactly the kind of shit that politicians do every single day of every single year; twist stories, cause outrage/anger/high emotions, and profit from it at the polls. They are very good at this game so its zero trouble for them to set something like this up even years in advance - recall they had a protest ready to go before Kavanaugh was even nominated <insert name here> and stuff?

Best wise up kido or they'll be leading you around by the nose for your entire life. Ya know, like Ms. Ford here, who's being used like a tampon and will be flushed very shortly; her life in shambles and none for the wiser of it...

That’s not true. Then FBI can certainly do background checks. They already done 6. This accusation brings new info to light that needs to be vetted. The FBI can easily conduct a couple of interviews and present their findings to congress. You are conflating a background check with a criminal investigation. The White House or congress can request for the FBI to do this at any time

Like I said before kido, you best wisen up and stop letting the media and politicians lead you around by the nose...

On Sunday evening, September 16th, Ford identified herself.

On Monday evening, September 17th, AP relayed the following statement from the DOJ regarding the FBI's involvement (specifically note the bold part and think about what it says):

The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.

The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."

The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.


In the case of Kavanaugh, the FBI received a letter Sept. 12 with allegations of misconduct in the 1980s, when both Kavanaugh and his accuser were teenagers.

The Justice Department says the FBI forwarded the letter to the White House counsel's office.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...kavanaugh-accuser-willing-to-talk-to-congress

I’m not letting anybody lead me around, I’m just using common sense and basic comprehension. You point to an FBI statement regarding a federal crime. I just wrote that you are dishonestly conflating a background check with a criminal investigation, then you post this and do the exact same thing again. It’s called doubling down on dishonesty. Don’t know who you think you’re fooling.

What part of the FBI received the letter on the 12th and forwarded it on do you not get kido?

Forwarding a letter and interviewing subjects as they do for bg checks are two different things.

 

[jillian]

For Christ's sake, why would she wait for 40+ years to do anything about it?

This kind of nonsense is unbelievable, IMO.

she DID tell people about it... including her husband and therapist.

and anyone who isn't a moron and who has even the slightest knowledge of victims of sexual assault and how they respond to those assaults.

and for the record, n you left something out now your pathetic little trumptard poll---- a choice saying there should be an investigation and like most normal people, I'm withholding judgment til then. the GOP refusal to order such an investigation only makes little "100 kegs or bust", brettie look guilty as anything.

now be quiet, hack.

 

[EverCurious]

Q: "Why push so hard for the FBI to investigate if it's a lie?"

A: Because the D senators already knew the FBI had refused to investigate it kido. It's a local matter, the politicians know how this shit works and they knew that the general public would fall for their little outrage game when the FBI said, again, that it wasn't their jurisdiction. Now they can twist all the folks who don't know any better into knots about it for the mid-terms. It's working since you and many others apparently think that bullshit request lends some lick of credibility to the story. It's the same with the lie detector thing, also bullshit and useless, but that's why the D's had her take one in... August wasn't it? D's aren't stupid, they know the story doesn't have to be air-tight. they know that their followers won't look into the story too much because the public in general doesn't particularly care about Kavanaugh's nomination, it's not a big thing to them (even the D's) - It's only the activist protester/radical types that are even paying attention to this shit-show. The 30some% who are paying attention hated Kavanaugh anyway so they don't really care about "all" the facts, they, like the D's, just want to push this nomination out until after midterms in the hopes that they can get the Senate and install more activist judges for themselves.

It's why the Kavanaugh nomination is even a problem for the left in the first place remember. The D's are the ones that got ya'll needlessly freaking out about Kavanaugh over-turning Roe vs Wade, it's settled law and he's said as much more than once. Even if he did though, abortion would go back to state decision - aka people would actually get to vote on it for their state, ya know, that democracy thing the left always /says/ they're for? Hell abortion was even legal up here in Alaska back in the 80s-90s, and we're /still/ to this day 70% Christian. The entire D uproar about Roe vs Wade is complete bullshit specifically designed to rile lefties up to vote in the mid-terms and retain D power and control over everyone's lives, via the SCOTUS in this case.

This is exactly the kind of shit that politicians do every single day of every single year; twist stories, cause outrage/anger/high emotions, and profit from it at the polls. They are very good at this game so its zero trouble for them to set something like this up even years in advance - recall they had a protest ready to go before Kavanaugh was even nominated <insert name here> and stuff?

Best wise up kido or they'll be leading you around by the nose for your entire life. Ya know, like Ms. Ford here, who's being used like a tampon and will be flushed very shortly; her life in shambles and none for the wiser of it...

That’s not true. Then FBI can certainly do background checks. They already done 6. This accusation brings new info to light that needs to be vetted. The FBI can easily conduct a couple of interviews and present their findings to congress. You are conflating a background check with a criminal investigation. The White House or congress can request for the FBI to do this at any time

Like I said before kido, you best wisen up and stop letting the media and politicians lead you around by the nose...

On Sunday evening, September 16th, Ford identified herself.

On Monday evening, September 17th, AP relayed the following statement from the DOJ regarding the FBI's involvement (specifically note the bold part and think about what it says):

The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.

The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."

The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.


In the case of Kavanaugh, the FBI received a letter Sept. 12 with allegations of misconduct in the 1980s, when both Kavanaugh and his accuser were teenagers.

The Justice Department says the FBI forwarded the letter to the White House counsel's office.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...kavanaugh-accuser-willing-to-talk-to-congress

I’m not letting anybody lead me around, I’m just using common sense and basic comprehension. You point to an FBI statement regarding a federal crime. I just wrote that you are dishonestly conflating a background check with a criminal investigation, then you post this and do the exact same thing again. It’s called doubling down on dishonesty. Don’t know who you think you’re fooling.

What part of the FBI received the letter on the 12th and forwarded it on do you not get kido?

Forwarding a letter and interviewing subjects as they do for bg checks are two different things.

Again, I refer to the statement made on September 17th:

"The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate."

 

[Slade3200]

Damn! Avanates girl just dropped the hammer. Shits about to get crazy. This is a tragedy of massive proportions if all these women are lying and it’s a disgusting and dispicable past with disqualifying recent cover up lies by Kav if the women are telling the truth.

How can there not be an investigation at this point to determine what really happened? Somebody or somebodies need to go down either way.

Third woman makes sexual misconduct allegations about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh

Strange story that.
20 year old regularly parties with high schoolers. Watches underage girls being drugged and gang raped.
Does she report these gang rapes to the police?
Nope. She simply continues to go to these parties and watch underage girls being drugged and gang raped.
Eventually, she apparently gets raped.
And who does she go after 36 years later?
Her rapist(s)?
No, of course not!
She goes after Kav - whom she can’t prove was there as she’s also a bit vague about dates!
Of course, like the others, if she provided a date Kav just might be able to prove he wasn’t there!

You buying this one too?

If so, maybe this woman needs investigating as she was an adult who turned up over and over to repeatedly observe sexual crimes against minors and reported nada.

How utterly perverted.

She did name a date and event. Beach Week.
She also named others who could corroborate. I’m not buying anything as of yet but I do think these accusations should be checked out. If she is found to be lying then she should be arrested. If not then Kav goes down.

 

[Slade3200]

That’s not true. Then FBI can certainly do background checks. They already done 6. This accusation brings new info to light that needs to be vetted. The FBI can easily conduct a couple of interviews and present their findings to congress. You are conflating a background check with a criminal investigation. The White House or congress can request for the FBI to do this at any time

Like I said before kido, you best wisen up and stop letting the media and politicians lead you around by the nose...

On Sunday evening, September 16th, Ford identified herself.

On Monday evening, September 17th, AP relayed the following statement from the DOJ regarding the FBI's involvement (specifically note the bold part and think about what it says):

The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.

The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."

The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.


In the case of Kavanaugh, the FBI received a letter Sept. 12 with allegations of misconduct in the 1980s, when both Kavanaugh and his accuser were teenagers.

The Justice Department says the FBI forwarded the letter to the White House counsel's office.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...kavanaugh-accuser-willing-to-talk-to-congress

I’m not letting anybody lead me around, I’m just using common sense and basic comprehension. You point to an FBI statement regarding a federal crime. I just wrote that you are dishonestly conflating a background check with a criminal investigation, then you post this and do the exact same thing again. It’s called doubling down on dishonesty. Don’t know who you think you’re fooling.

What part of the FBI received the letter on the 12th and forwarded it on do you not get kido?

Forwarding a letter and interviewing subjects as they do for bg checks are two different things.

Again, I refer to the statement made on September 17th:

"The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate."

What are you not understanding about the difference between a background check and a federal criminal investigation. I’m beginning to think you have a learning disability. How many times do I need to repeat myself?

 

[EverCurious]

Like I said before kido, you best wisen up and stop letting the media and politicians lead you around by the nose...

On Sunday evening, September 16th, Ford identified herself.

On Monday evening, September 17th, AP relayed the following statement from the DOJ regarding the FBI's involvement (specifically note the bold part and think about what it says):

The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate.

The department said in a statement Monday night that the FBI's role during background investigations is to evaluate whether the nominee could pose a national security risk and then provide that information "for the use of the decision makers."

The department says it's not the job of the FBI to judge the significance or the credibility of an accusation.


In the case of Kavanaugh, the FBI received a letter Sept. 12 with allegations of misconduct in the 1980s, when both Kavanaugh and his accuser were teenagers.

The Justice Department says the FBI forwarded the letter to the White House counsel's office.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...kavanaugh-accuser-willing-to-talk-to-congress

I’m not letting anybody lead me around, I’m just using common sense and basic comprehension. You point to an FBI statement regarding a federal crime. I just wrote that you are dishonestly conflating a background check with a criminal investigation, then you post this and do the exact same thing again. It’s called doubling down on dishonesty. Don’t know who you think you’re fooling.

What part of the FBI received the letter on the 12th and forwarded it on do you not get kido?

Forwarding a letter and interviewing subjects as they do for bg checks are two different things.

Again, I refer to the statement made on September 17th:

"The Justice Department says the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh "does not involve any potential federal crime" for the FBI to investigate."

What are you not understanding about the difference between a background check and a federal criminal investigation. I’m beginning to think you have a learning disability. How many times do I need to repeat myself?

Look kid, it's not my fault you don't get what's in black and ******* white here. Don't blame your apparent inability to put this together on me.

We'll try again:

1. The FBI has done SIX background checks on Kavanaugh over the years - came up with NOTHING.

2. The FBI received Ford's allegation letter on September 12th - they declined investigating it.

3. DOJ explained that the allegation does not involve any potential federal crime for the FBI to investigate on September 17th - telling everyone /why/ the FBI would not be investigating it.


All of this == The FBI is not going to investigate Ford's allegations. And this reality was put in the media and politicians lap the day /after/ Ford went public. This /reality/ has been known the entire time the media and politicians have been crying and demanding that the FBI /should/ investigate this - all the while they know full well that the FBI isn't going to investigate it.

One last time here, then I leave you to your stupidity. You had best wisen up kido and stop letting the MSM and politicians lead you around by the nose...