Kavanaugh accuser wants FBI investigation before hearing

5bb59333260000360082b5b8.jpeg


KAVANAUGH PROTESTS ERUPT ACROSS THE NATION

Americans Protest Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court Nomination, Support Assault Victims

Go, ladies, go!
 
McDonnell was not the only one that said they would not be released. The Democrats don't want them released either. So is that still a banana republic?

What Democrats have said that? Proof? Link?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...in_does_not_want_the_fbi_report_released.html

For crying out loud.

Dianne Feinstein is not "Democrats".

Moreover, researching the alleged statement gives me a tsunami of links to the rightwing-nutcase blabbosphere, and not a link to a legit news source, and all seemingly with the same or very similar wording. So, we have a one-phrase statement without context: "It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified, this ought to be held very close."

There is no way of knowing what "people identified" or "this" refers to. The inference, "Democrats don't want them released," is exhibiting a serious lack of reading comprehension, along with a propensity to jump to unwarranted conclusions. After all, replacing names with the likes of "witness 1" (etc.) would remove the reason to hold "this" close, whatever "this" is.

Be that as it may, the Honorable Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to read the FBI report, curtailed as the investigation was (who'd a thunk?), and it's probably a good bet the statements thereafter will widely diverge, and they're going fall along party lines. That all means, the cloud hanging over the Supreme Court will not be going away, should Kavanaugh be confirmed, shameful as that is.
 
Last edited:
McDonnell was not the only one that said they would not be released. The Democrats don't want them released either. So is that still a banana republic?

What Democrats have said that? Proof? Link?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...in_does_not_want_the_fbi_report_released.html

For crying out loud.

Dianne Feinstein is not "Democrats".

Moreover, researching the alleged statement gives me a tsunami of links to the rightwing-nutcase blabbosphere, and not a link to a legit news source, and all seemingly with the same or very similar wording. So, we have a one-phrase statement without context: "It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified, this ought to be held very close."

There is no way of knowing what "people identified" or "this" refers to. The inference, "Democrats don't want them released," is exhibiting a serious lack of reading comprehension, along with a propensity to jump to unwarranted conclusions. After all, replacing names with the likes of "witness 1" (etc.) would remove the reason to hold "this" close, whatever "this" is.

Be that as it may, the Honorable Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to read the FBI report, curtailed as the investigation was (who'd a thunk?), and it's probably a good bet the statements thereafter will widely diverge, and they're going fall along party lines. That all means, the cloud hanging over the Supreme Court will not be going away, should Kavanaugh be confirmed, shameful as that is.

That was a foregone conclusion. Once the democrat smear machine is started, it crafts a narrative and never, ever lets it go.
 
Not sure what tomorrow [or even this afternoon] holds but it looks like Kavanaugh has been cleared of any and all wrong doing for the umpteenth time and that Ford either lied or was lead by the nose through a lie by some real pros
 
Not sure what tomorrow [or even this afternoon] holds but it looks like Kavanaugh has been cleared of any and all wrong doing for the umpteenth time and that Ford either lied or was lead by the nose through a lie by some real pros

And, quite frankly, that should remove the last barrier to confirmation.
 
McDonnell was not the only one that said they would not be released. The Democrats don't want them released either. So is that still a banana republic?

What Democrats have said that? Proof? Link?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...in_does_not_want_the_fbi_report_released.html

For crying out loud.

Dianne Feinstein is not "Democrats".

Moreover, researching the alleged statement gives me a tsunami of links to the rightwing-nutcase blabbosphere, and not a link to a legit news source, and all seemingly with the same or very similar wording. So, we have a one-phrase statement without context: "It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified, this ought to be held very close."

There is no way of knowing what "people identified" or "this" refers to. The inference, "Democrats don't want them released," is exhibiting a serious lack of reading comprehension, along with a propensity to jump to unwarranted conclusions. After all, replacing names with the likes of "witness 1" (etc.) would remove the reason to hold "this" close, whatever "this" is.

Be that as it may, the Honorable Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to read the FBI report, curtailed as the investigation was (who'd a thunk?), and it's probably a good bet the statements thereafter will widely diverge, and they're going fall along party lines. That all means, the cloud hanging over the Supreme Court will not be going away, should Kavanaugh be confirmed, shameful as that is.

And by “legitimate” you mean the MSM. The MSM avoids reporting on things that may make their party look bad. Furthermore Feinstein does speak for the Democrats like McConnell speaks for the Republicans.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
 
McDonnell was not the only one that said they would not be released. The Democrats don't want them released either. So is that still a banana republic?

What Democrats have said that? Proof? Link?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...in_does_not_want_the_fbi_report_released.html

For crying out loud.

Dianne Feinstein is not "Democrats".

Moreover, researching the alleged statement gives me a tsunami of links to the rightwing-nutcase blabbosphere, and not a link to a legit news source, and all seemingly with the same or very similar wording. So, we have a one-phrase statement without context: "It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified, this ought to be held very close."

There is no way of knowing what "people identified" or "this" refers to. The inference, "Democrats don't want them released," is exhibiting a serious lack of reading comprehension, along with a propensity to jump to unwarranted conclusions. After all, replacing names with the likes of "witness 1" (etc.) would remove the reason to hold "this" close, whatever "this" is.

Be that as it may, the Honorable Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to read the FBI report, curtailed as the investigation was (who'd a thunk?), and it's probably a good bet the statements thereafter will widely diverge, and they're going fall along party lines. That all means, the cloud hanging over the Supreme Court will not be going away, should Kavanaugh be confirmed, shameful as that is.

And by “legitimate” you mean the MSM. The MSM avoids reporting on things that may make their party look bad. Furthermore Feinstein does speak for the Democrats like McConnell speaks for the Republicans.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

It amazes me that these two-faced hypocrites will latch onto any and every fringe weirdo they can find as representative of Republicans/conservatives, but then about-face and insist that everyone on the left is ONLY an individual, speaking and acting strictly for themselves and totally non-representative of Democrats/leftists in general, even when the person in question is - as Dianne Feinstein happens to be - a member of the Democrat leadership in the Senate and the ranking Democrat on the Committee in question. If she doesn't speak for Democrats in general, who in the hell DOES?!
 
McDonnell was not the only one that said they would not be released. The Democrats don't want them released either. So is that still a banana republic?

What Democrats have said that? Proof? Link?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...in_does_not_want_the_fbi_report_released.html

For crying out loud.

Dianne Feinstein is not "Democrats".

Moreover, researching the alleged statement gives me a tsunami of links to the rightwing-nutcase blabbosphere, and not a link to a legit news source, and all seemingly with the same or very similar wording. So, we have a one-phrase statement without context: "It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified, this ought to be held very close."

There is no way of knowing what "people identified" or "this" refers to. The inference, "Democrats don't want them released," is exhibiting a serious lack of reading comprehension, along with a propensity to jump to unwarranted conclusions. After all, replacing names with the likes of "witness 1" (etc.) would remove the reason to hold "this" close, whatever "this" is.

Be that as it may, the Honorable Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to read the FBI report, curtailed as the investigation was (who'd a thunk?), and it's probably a good bet the statements thereafter will widely diverge, and they're going fall along party lines. That all means, the cloud hanging over the Supreme Court will not be going away, should Kavanaugh be confirmed, shameful as that is.

And by “legitimate” you mean the MSM. The MSM avoids reporting on things that may make their party look bad. Furthermore Feinstein does speak for the Democrats like McConnell speaks for the Republicans.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

It amazes me that these two-faced hypocrites will latch onto any and every fringe weirdo they can find as representative of Republicans/conservatives, but then about-face and insist that everyone on the left is ONLY an individual, speaking and acting strictly for themselves and totally non-representative of Democrats/leftists in general, even when the person in question is - as Dianne Feinstein happens to be - a member of the Democrat leadership in the Senate and the ranking Democrat on the Committee in question. If she doesn't speak for Democrats in general, who in the hell DOES?!

And now we’re going to be treated to a week of hearing how the FBI investigation was rigged by Trump. I understand SnowFlake said something about how satisfied with the report he is. It’s smooth sailing from here.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
 

For crying out loud.

Dianne Feinstein is not "Democrats".

Moreover, researching the alleged statement gives me a tsunami of links to the rightwing-nutcase blabbosphere, and not a link to a legit news source, and all seemingly with the same or very similar wording. So, we have a one-phrase statement without context: "It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified, this ought to be held very close."

There is no way of knowing what "people identified" or "this" refers to. The inference, "Democrats don't want them released," is exhibiting a serious lack of reading comprehension, along with a propensity to jump to unwarranted conclusions. After all, replacing names with the likes of "witness 1" (etc.) would remove the reason to hold "this" close, whatever "this" is.

Be that as it may, the Honorable Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee will have the opportunity to read the FBI report, curtailed as the investigation was (who'd a thunk?), and it's probably a good bet the statements thereafter will widely diverge, and they're going fall along party lines. That all means, the cloud hanging over the Supreme Court will not be going away, should Kavanaugh be confirmed, shameful as that is.

And by “legitimate” you mean the MSM. The MSM avoids reporting on things that may make their party look bad. Furthermore Feinstein does speak for the Democrats like McConnell speaks for the Republicans.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

It amazes me that these two-faced hypocrites will latch onto any and every fringe weirdo they can find as representative of Republicans/conservatives, but then about-face and insist that everyone on the left is ONLY an individual, speaking and acting strictly for themselves and totally non-representative of Democrats/leftists in general, even when the person in question is - as Dianne Feinstein happens to be - a member of the Democrat leadership in the Senate and the ranking Democrat on the Committee in question. If she doesn't speak for Democrats in general, who in the hell DOES?!

And now we’re going to be treated to a week of hearing how the FBI investigation was rigged by Trump. I understand SnowFlake said something about how satisfied with the report he is. It’s smooth sailing from here.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Well, I haven't given a crap about anything else they've said, so I guess I can manage to not give a crap about this, as well.
 
And by “legitimate” you mean the MSM. The MSM avoids reporting on things that may make their party look bad. Furthermore Feinstein does speak for the Democrats like McConnell speaks for the Republicans.

Nope. By "legit news source" I mean a legit news source. If I need a translator from English to right-wing-nutcase paranoid gibberish, I'll have you on top of my contact list.

Yes, Feinstein speaks for Democrats in a similar way McConnell does, that is, barely, if at all, since neither is the head of their respective party.

But then, I am happy to see you haven't bothered to follow my argument, you wouldn't reverse your false, unwarranted conclusion, and neither would you even bother to research the matter so as to discover that the FBI background research is privileged, and thus kept under wraps by the White House. So, whatever Feinstein may (or may not) think about transparency / secrecy is immaterial. The Trumpy could make the document public, with appropriate redactions, but so far it seems he won't. Hence your whataboutery (Look, suirrel! Feinstein!) is just the kind of nonsense that seeps out of the right-wing-nutcase circles these days.
 
And by “legitimate” you mean the MSM. The MSM avoids reporting on things that may make their party look bad. Furthermore Feinstein does speak for the Democrats like McConnell speaks for the Republicans.

Nope. By "legit news source" I mean a legit news source. If I need a translator from English to right-wing-nutcase paranoid gibberish, I'll have you on top of my contact list.

Yes, Feinstein speaks for Democrats in a similar way McConnell does, that is, barely, if at all, since neither is the head of their respective party.

But then, I am happy to see you haven't bothered to follow my argument, you wouldn't reverse your false, unwarranted conclusion, and neither would you even bother to research the matter so as to discover that the FBI background research is privileged, and thus kept under wraps by the White House. So, whatever Feinstein may (or may not) think about transparency / secrecy is immaterial. The Trumpy could make the document public, with appropriate redactions, but so far it seems he won't. Hence your whataboutery (Look, suirrel! Feinstein!) is just the kind of nonsense that seeps out of the right-wing-nutcase circles these days.

I always love the automatic assumption of leftists that if their positions are being spat on and derided, it MUST be because we "didn't follow their argument". It genuinely never occurs to them that following their argument is EXACTLY why we think it's garbage.
 
And by “legitimate” you mean the MSM. The MSM avoids reporting on things that may make their party look bad. Furthermore Feinstein does speak for the Democrats like McConnell speaks for the Republicans.

Nope. By "legit news source" I mean a legit news source. If I need a translator from English to right-wing-nutcase paranoid gibberish, I'll have you on top of my contact list.

Yes, Feinstein speaks for Democrats in a similar way McConnell does, that is, barely, if at all, since neither is the head of their respective party.

But then, I am happy to see you haven't bothered to follow my argument, you wouldn't reverse your false, unwarranted conclusion, and neither would you even bother to research the matter so as to discover that the FBI background research is privileged, and thus kept under wraps by the White House. So, whatever Feinstein may (or may not) think about transparency / secrecy is immaterial. The Trumpy could make the document public, with appropriate redactions, but so far it seems he won't. Hence your whataboutery (Look, suirrel! Feinstein!) is just the kind of nonsense that seeps out of the right-wing-nutcase circles these days.

This isn't the entertainment hour, it's an investigation. The investigation was not conducted for the public, the investigation was conducted to prove there were no corroborating witnesses to the Senate Committee. And so much as I heard, that's exactly what they found.
 
This isn't the entertainment hour, it's an investigation. The investigation was not conducted for the public, the investigation was conducted to prove there were no corroborating witnesses to the Senate Committee. And so much as I heard, that's exactly what they found.

I guess, you got that right. The investigation was indeed "conducted to prove there were no corroborating witnesses", and the Trumpy still keeps it all secret (Look, Feinstein!), and thus makes sure you you depend on what you "heard". Heard, that is, from those who made sure the investigation finds "no corroborating witnesses".
 
This isn't the entertainment hour, it's an investigation. The investigation was not conducted for the public, the investigation was conducted to prove there were no corroborating witnesses to the Senate Committee. And so much as I heard, that's exactly what they found.

I guess, you got that right. The investigation was indeed "conducted to prove there were no corroborating witnesses", and the Trumpy still keeps it all secret (Look, Feinstein!), and thus makes sure you you depend on what you "heard". Heard, that is, from those who made sure the investigation finds "no corroborating witnesses".

It was all a sham.
 
It was all a sham.

Still, in a way you have to admire - though grudgingly - the chutzpah.

Dr. Ford demanded an FBI investigation to be conducted before her hearing, so as to establish as many of the facts and as much evidence as possible. The Goobers in the Senate Judiciary Committee would have none of it. After the hearing, the Goobers turned around complaining there were mere allegations, without corroborating evidence.

Now the FBI apparently was instructed to talk to Ramirez, but not to any of the 20 or so potential witnesses named by Ramirez to corroborate her allegations. So, quite obviously, the good, Honorable Senator Grassley, right after having read the FBI report, thorough as the investigation was, proclaimed that they found no corroborating evidence.

A sham? Yes, and a joke, a hoax, a fraud, a betrayal of the public, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and a charade the size of Texass.
 
This isn't the entertainment hour, it's an investigation. The investigation was not conducted for the public, the investigation was conducted to prove there were no corroborating witnesses to the Senate Committee. And so much as I heard, that's exactly what they found.

I guess, you got that right. The investigation was indeed "conducted to prove there were no corroborating witnesses", and the Trumpy still keeps it all secret (Look, Feinstein!), and thus makes sure you you depend on what you "heard". Heard, that is, from those who made sure the investigation finds "no corroborating witnesses".

It was all a sham.

You demanded it, you got it, now you don't want it.
 
It was all a sham.

Still, in a way you have to admire - though grudgingly - the chutzpah.

Dr. Ford demanded an FBI investigation to be conducted before her hearing, so as to establish as many of the facts and as much evidence as possible. The Goobers in the Senate Judiciary Committee would have none of it. After the hearing, the Goobers turned around complaining there were mere allegations, without corroborating evidence.

Now the FBI apparently was instructed to talk to Ramirez, but not to any of the 20 or so potential witnesses named by Ramirez to corroborate her allegations. So, quite obviously, the good, Honorable Senator Grassley, right after having read the FBI report, thorough as the investigation was, proclaimed that they found no corroborating evidence.

A sham? Yes, and a joke, a hoax, a fraud, a betrayal of the public, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and a charade the size of Texass.

All they would have testified to was, that in college he drank more than stated. But the allegations had nothing to do with how much he drank in college (good God, it’s embarrassing even having to remind people of this.)

Obama wrote about drinking to excess and taking drugs enthusiastically. So does that make Obama a him a rapist?
 
This isn't the entertainment hour, it's an investigation. The investigation was not conducted for the public, the investigation was conducted to prove there were no corroborating witnesses to the Senate Committee. And so much as I heard, that's exactly what they found.

I guess, you got that right. The investigation was indeed "conducted to prove there were no corroborating witnesses", and the Trumpy still keeps it all secret (Look, Feinstein!), and thus makes sure you you depend on what you "heard". Heard, that is, from those who made sure the investigation finds "no corroborating witnesses".

Your Senators got the same report as ours. There is only one report. And a member from each of our parties stated they wanted to keep it out of the eyes of the public. It's not like SC judges get voted on by the people, so it doesn't matter what you or I think about the choice.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top