Kavanaugh Accuser Won't Testify

[AzogtheDefiler]

They don't perform miracles. Did you think Strzok and Page were super human? They have more resources, can cross state lines and are generally better trained but they are not deities. There are 1000s of cases they cannot resolve.

Who said they perform miracles and why would they need to? I thought Strzok and Page knew a hell of a lot more than the random civillian about the FBI's procedures for investigating something.

Their emails showed that to you? They seemed juvenile and unprofessional to me.

Play Devil's Advocate you are FBI Agent Assfaceias. You get the case. The only witness cannot remember the place, time or her age. This allegedly happened 36 yrs. ago. The accused is a successful judge with a stellar record. He categorically denies it. The therapist notes do not corroborate the accusers story. What do you do? Answer as a logical person not an FBI trained agent.

Nope. the fact they were so high up in the FBI showed me that.

As a logical person I would question Ford in more detail to nail down her statement. Same with Judge and Kav.
Next I would get a list of people from each of them that was there or may have been there.
I then would locate those people and question them.
I would also locate any people that knew in common that may have overheard something about the party and question them too.

She cannot tell you the date and time of the party. What people could you possibly locate? If she had the date and time then it would be a case the FBI could investigate, I agree.

Maybe she has a month? Thats why you get the FBI to investigate.

Then she should go in front of Congress and testify under oath and see what is there. Why not do that? I

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You couldn’t teach a pet rock to stay. The FBI doesn’t investigate non-Federal crimes. They don’t investigate horseshit with no information to even start from and they aren’t going to investigate something the statute of limitations ran out on. The amount of evidence they have to start any investigation here is as empty as your head.

Youre ignorant of the facts. They investigated the Anita Hill case.

That was current and more fluid. She didn't accuse Thomas of something he allegedly did 30 yrs ago.

No it wasnt current. It was like 15 years old.

The case was in 1991. Hill was born in 1956. She was 35. So this happened when she was 20? Then explain why Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job?

Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.

Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.

Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.

Youre deflecting again. You do that alot when I catch you lying. Your claim was that it was a current case remember?

I am Questioning you if it was really 15 yrs back. Doesn’t make sense. She would have been 20 and then followed Thomas from job to job. Wtf!?

And it would not be lying. I thought it was fluid. It is called a mistake. Like your birth.

 

[Asclepias]

Who said they perform miracles and why would they need to? I thought Strzok and Page knew a hell of a lot more than the random civillian about the FBI's procedures for investigating something.

Their emails showed that to you? They seemed juvenile and unprofessional to me.

Play Devil's Advocate you are FBI Agent Assfaceias. You get the case. The only witness cannot remember the place, time or her age. This allegedly happened 36 yrs. ago. The accused is a successful judge with a stellar record. He categorically denies it. The therapist notes do not corroborate the accusers story. What do you do? Answer as a logical person not an FBI trained agent.

Nope. the fact they were so high up in the FBI showed me that.

As a logical person I would question Ford in more detail to nail down her statement. Same with Judge and Kav.
Next I would get a list of people from each of them that was there or may have been there.
I then would locate those people and question them.
I would also locate any people that knew in common that may have overheard something about the party and question them too.

She cannot tell you the date and time of the party. What people could you possibly locate? If she had the date and time then it would be a case the FBI could investigate, I agree.

Maybe she has a month? Thats why you get the FBI to investigate.

Then she should go in front of Congress and testify under oath and see what is there. Why not do that? I

We are going around in circles. Congress isnt the FBI nor are they objective.

 

[dave p]

Deflect all you want. She has major problems.

Prove it then. Have the FBI investigate for a week.

Maybe you don’t understand. It is up to the accuser to prove it. He is innocent until proven guilty, the accuser must file substantial proof. She hasn’t. She can open a case with the local authorities, she hasn’t. This is not an FBI matter. If she is so confident, she can supply evidence and start the investigation herself or her lawyer can. She has nothing.

Nope. Since its not a legal or civil matter its up to congress to get the most accurate information regarding this allegation and make a decision.

And they have asked her to testify. Regardless, it is still up to the accuser to put up substantial proof. Otherwise we would be obligated to investigate every moon beam accusation ever made. She has of yet supplied any information to substantiate her claims.

They have asked her to testify to congress. They haven't demanded the FBI get all the information it can and present it to congress.

They don’t have to demand that of the FBI. Her lawyer even said that they don’t need the FBI. Again, until there is substantial evidence why do it. The next thing you know some clown will come forward and say they saw him steal a slurpee but they can’t say which 7-11 or when. I guess that should be investigated as well. She needs at least enough proof to errant an investigation. She doesn’t have that.

 

[Asclepias]

Youre ignorant of the facts. They investigated the Anita Hill case.

That was current and more fluid. She didn't accuse Thomas of something he allegedly did 30 yrs ago.

No it wasnt current. It was like 15 years old.

The case was in 1991. Hill was born in 1956. She was 35. So this happened when she was 20? Then explain why Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job?

Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.

Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.

Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.

Youre deflecting again. You do that alot when I catch you lying. Your claim was that it was a current case remember?

I am Questioning you if it was really 15 yrs back. Doesn’t make sense. She would have been 20 and then followed Thomas from job to job. Wtf!?

You call it questioning I call it deflecting. Youre claim was that it was a current case. Why did you lie?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Their emails showed that to you? They seemed juvenile and unprofessional to me.

Play Devil's Advocate you are FBI Agent Assfaceias. You get the case. The only witness cannot remember the place, time or her age. This allegedly happened 36 yrs. ago. The accused is a successful judge with a stellar record. He categorically denies it. The therapist notes do not corroborate the accusers story. What do you do? Answer as a logical person not an FBI trained agent.

Nope. the fact they were so high up in the FBI showed me that.

As a logical person I would question Ford in more detail to nail down her statement. Same with Judge and Kav.
Next I would get a list of people from each of them that was there or may have been there.
I then would locate those people and question them.
I would also locate any people that knew in common that may have overheard something about the party and question them too.

She cannot tell you the date and time of the party. What people could you possibly locate? If she had the date and time then it would be a case the FBI could investigate, I agree.

Maybe she has a month? Thats why you get the FBI to investigate.

Then she should go in front of Congress and testify under oath and see what is there. Why not do that? I

We are going around in circles. Congress isnt the FBI nor are they objective.

Neither is the FBI...see Strozk and Page.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That was current and more fluid. She didn't accuse Thomas of something he allegedly did 30 yrs ago.

No it wasnt current. It was like 15 years old.

The case was in 1991. Hill was born in 1956. She was 35. So this happened when she was 20? Then explain why Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job?

Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.

Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.

Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.

Youre deflecting again. You do that alot when I catch you lying. Your claim was that it was a current case remember?

I am Questioning you if it was really 15 yrs back. Doesn’t make sense. She would have been 20 and then followed Thomas from job to job. Wtf!?

You call it questioning I call it deflecting. Youre claim was that it was a current case. Why did you lie?

I believe it was current. I think You are mistaken

 

[Asclepias]

Prove it then. Have the FBI investigate for a week.

Maybe you don’t understand. It is up to the accuser to prove it. He is innocent until proven guilty, the accuser must file substantial proof. She hasn’t. She can open a case with the local authorities, she hasn’t. This is not an FBI matter. If she is so confident, she can supply evidence and start the investigation herself or her lawyer can. She has nothing.

Nope. Since its not a legal or civil matter its up to congress to get the most accurate information regarding this allegation and make a decision.

And they have asked her to testify. Regardless, it is still up to the accuser to put up substantial proof. Otherwise we would be obligated to investigate every moon beam accusation ever made. She has of yet supplied any information to substantiate her claims.

They have asked her to testify to congress. They haven't demanded the FBI get all the information it can and present it to congress.

They don’t have to demand that of the FBI. Her lawyer even said that they don’t need the FBI. Again, until there is substantial evidence why do it. The next thing you know some clown will come forward and say they saw him steal a slurpee but they can’t say which 7-11 or when. I guess that should be investigated as well. She needs at least enough proof to errant an investigation. She doesn’t have that.

I know they dont have to. They dont want anything revealed so they wont. They are not asking to leverage an organization that can quickly put this to rest.

 

[Asclepias]

No it wasnt current. It was like 15 years old.

The case was in 1991. Hill was born in 1956. She was 35. So this happened when she was 20? Then explain why Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job?

Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.

Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.

Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.

Youre deflecting again. You do that alot when I catch you lying. Your claim was that it was a current case remember?

I am Questioning you if it was really 15 yrs back. Doesn’t make sense. She would have been 20 and then followed Thomas from job to job. Wtf!?

You call it questioning I call it deflecting. Youre claim was that it was a current case. Why did you lie?

I believe it was current. I think You are mistaken

Which is it? Do you believe it was current or do you know it was current?

 

[Asclepias]

Nope. the fact they were so high up in the FBI showed me that.

As a logical person I would question Ford in more detail to nail down her statement. Same with Judge and Kav.
Next I would get a list of people from each of them that was there or may have been there.
I then would locate those people and question them.
I would also locate any people that knew in common that may have overheard something about the party and question them too.

She cannot tell you the date and time of the party. What people could you possibly locate? If she had the date and time then it would be a case the FBI could investigate, I agree.

Maybe she has a month? Thats why you get the FBI to investigate.

Then she should go in front of Congress and testify under oath and see what is there. Why not do that? I

We are going around in circles. Congress isnt the FBI nor are they objective.

Neither is the FBI...see Strozk and Page.

So since two former FBI agents are not objective then the entire organization is not objective?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The case was in 1991. Hill was born in 1956. She was 35. So this happened when she was 20? Then explain why Hill followed Thomas, a man she accused of sexual harassment, from job to job?

Hill made numerous phone calls to her supposed sexual harasser after she stopped working for him.

Phone logs document numerous calls from Hill to Thomas after she stopped working for him, notes Thomas Sowell. It seems rather odd that a woman would consistently call a man who sexually harassed her.

Further, Hill initially denied that she made these calls — which doesn’t exactly boost her credibility either.

Youre deflecting again. You do that alot when I catch you lying. Your claim was that it was a current case remember?

I am Questioning you if it was really 15 yrs back. Doesn’t make sense. She would have been 20 and then followed Thomas from job to job. Wtf!?

You call it questioning I call it deflecting. Youre claim was that it was a current case. Why did you lie?

I believe it was current. I think You are mistaken

Which is it? Do you believe it was current or do you know it was current?

Current. She was not 20 when he allegedly harassed her as you assert. Do you think she was 20? Yes or No?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

She cannot tell you the date and time of the party. What people could you possibly locate? If she had the date and time then it would be a case the FBI could investigate, I agree.

Maybe she has a month? Thats why you get the FBI to investigate.

Then she should go in front of Congress and testify under oath and see what is there. Why not do that? I

We are going around in circles. Congress isnt the FBI nor are they objective.

Neither is the FBI...see Strozk and Page.

So since two former FBI agents are not objective then the entire organization is not objective?

You just said all of Congress is not objective?

 

[Asclepias]

Youre deflecting again. You do that alot when I catch you lying. Your claim was that it was a current case remember?

I am Questioning you if it was really 15 yrs back. Doesn’t make sense. She would have been 20 and then followed Thomas from job to job. Wtf!?

You call it questioning I call it deflecting. Youre claim was that it was a current case. Why did you lie?

I believe it was current. I think You are mistaken

Which is it? Do you believe it was current or do you know it was current?

Current. She was not 20 when he allegedly harassed her as you assert. Do you think she was 20? Yes or No?

So youre claiming that a 10 year old incident is current?

 

[Asclepias]

Maybe she has a month? Thats why you get the FBI to investigate.

Then she should go in front of Congress and testify under oath and see what is there. Why not do that? I

We are going around in circles. Congress isnt the FBI nor are they objective.

Neither is the FBI...see Strozk and Page.

So since two former FBI agents are not objective then the entire organization is not objective?

You just said all of Congress is not objective?

Correct. Its inherent in the make up of congress that they are not objective. Their jobs exist so they represent their constituents views.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I am Questioning you if it was really 15 yrs back. Doesn’t make sense. She would have been 20 and then followed Thomas from job to job. Wtf!?

You call it questioning I call it deflecting. Youre claim was that it was a current case. Why did you lie?

I believe it was current. I think You are mistaken

Which is it? Do you believe it was current or do you know it was current?

Current. She was not 20 when he allegedly harassed her as you assert. Do you think she was 20? Yes or No?

So youre claiming that a 10 year old incident is current?

It was not 10. I believe it was 4? And both were adults. You said 15. You are a liar. Lying Assfaceias.

 

[dave p]

Maybe you don’t understand. It is up to the accuser to prove it. He is innocent until proven guilty, the accuser must file substantial proof. She hasn’t. She can open a case with the local authorities, she hasn’t. This is not an FBI matter. If she is so confident, she can supply evidence and start the investigation herself or her lawyer can. She has nothing.

Nope. Since its not a legal or civil matter its up to congress to get the most accurate information regarding this allegation and make a decision.

And they have asked her to testify. Regardless, it is still up to the accuser to put up substantial proof. Otherwise we would be obligated to investigate every moon beam accusation ever made. She has of yet supplied any information to substantiate her claims.

They have asked her to testify to congress. They haven't demanded the FBI get all the information it can and present it to congress.

They don’t have to demand that of the FBI. Her lawyer even said that they don’t need the FBI. Again, until there is substantial evidence why do it. The next thing you know some clown will come forward and say they saw him steal a slurpee but they can’t say which 7-11 or when. I guess that should be investigated as well. She needs at least enough proof to errant an investigation. She doesn’t have that.

I know they dont have to. They dont want anything revealed so they wont. They are not asking to leverage an organization that can quickly put this to rest.

Stick to the salient points. She hasn’t presented enough evidence to warrant. It has nothing to do with them being afraid of what is revealed.

I’m going on record now that I saw diane Feinstein roll a homeless person taking a shit on the street in san Fransisco then shove a billy club up his ass. I want her investigated. Chuck Schumer has my letter so you know it’s true.

 

[B. Kidd]

Until the FBI investigates him again.

The FBI has investigated him 25× for his previous positions and 6× for this nomination.

Delay! Delay! Delay!

Despicable Dem vermin.

Delay, Delay....does Merick Garland ring a gotdamn bell bitch!!!! We can hurry this shit up yesterday, why not let the GOP saintly bastard take a fuckin LIE DETECTOR TEST IF HE'S SO GOT DAMN FBI INNOCENT!!!!
IF NOT, THAN SHUT THE FUCK UP, ALL OF YOUS!!

The messiah and his zealots learned an important lesson there lips; don't nominate someone when you're a lame duck.
You have still failed to grasp that.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Then she should go in front of Congress and testify under oath and see what is there. Why not do that? I

We are going around in circles. Congress isnt the FBI nor are they objective.

Neither is the FBI...see Strozk and Page.

So since two former FBI agents are not objective then the entire organization is not objective?

You just said all of Congress is not objective?

Correct. Its inherent in the make up of congress that they are not objective. Their jobs exist so they represent their constituents views.

Proof?

 

[Asclepias]

You call it questioning I call it deflecting. Youre claim was that it was a current case. Why did you lie?

I believe it was current. I think You are mistaken

Which is it? Do you believe it was current or do you know it was current?

Current. She was not 20 when he allegedly harassed her as you assert. Do you think she was 20? Yes or No?

So youre claiming that a 10 year old incident is current?

It was not 10. I believe it was 4? And both were adults. You said 15. You are a liar. Lying Assfaceias.

Yeah it was 10. You said it was current and got caught in a lie.

 

[Asclepias]

We are going around in circles. Congress isnt the FBI nor are they objective.

Neither is the FBI...see Strozk and Page.

So since two former FBI agents are not objective then the entire organization is not objective?

You just said all of Congress is not objective?

Correct. Its inherent in the make up of congress that they are not objective. Their jobs exist so they represent their constituents views.

Proof?

Proof of what? If youre talking about my post thats common knowledge.