Kavanaugh accuser wants a full FBI investigation before she testifies

a reply to: Vasa Croe

why hasn't a therapist she supposedly told this to and somehow got the notes from come out yet? Odd right?

They might not want to come forward because their practice might suffer from it. Maybe their worried people might try and hurt them?

Who knows? Maybe they will come forward . If they do would that even change how you feel?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Do you question his integrity at all?

I assume he is a good person until proven otherwise.

Kavanaugh has had 6 FBI background checks and been a Judge for quite some time.

Christine not having been investigated does not make her a liar.

Plus if the fbi had no idea about this how could they have investigated it back during those 6?

What were each of those 6 investigations investigating specifically?

What reason do you have , beyond the fbi telling you kavanaugh is a good guy, do you have to not believe christine?

Just curious...
Why are you on a first name basis with Professor Ford...but not Judge Kavanaugh?

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Do you question his integrity at all?

I assume he is a good person until proven otherwise.

Kavanaugh has had 6 FBI background checks and been a Judge for quite some time.

Christine not having been investigated does not make her a liar.

Plus if the fbi had no idea about this how could they have investigated it back during those 6?

What were each of those 6 investigations investigating specifically?

What reason do you have , beyond the fbi telling you kavanaugh is a good guy, do you have to not believe christine?


By the way how do you feel about the fbi? Are they trustworthy in your opinion? If I go back into your thread history am I going to find that you don't trust the fbi ...except in this case?

I have had 2, 6 month long FBI background investigations done on myself. I put in and received the info from FOIA requests on both. I know exactly how deep they go and I firmly believe that with 6 they would have found this information easily based on what was in mine....and I am a complete nobody compared to Kavanaugh.

I believe in the FBI as a whole. There will always be elements of it that are corrupt. I highly doubt the ones that have been shown to be corrupt had anything to do with my own background checks, and like had nothing to do with them at all.

It's similar to everyone equating people that have some random association with Trump to Trump himself. As a whole it's great, but there are many many pieces to the whole and they are not all great.

You cant talk of the FBI as a singular entity.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

How does her original letter have anything to do with her therapy session?

Seems I got the letter and the therapy session mixed up.
but yes this :

If any investigator, FBI or PD, get involved then she should have to disclose everything relevant to the case.

For everyone bringing up the Anita Hill scenario and wanting the FBI to investigate like they did then, the difference there was that Hill alleged that she was harassed while she was working for the judge. That made it a federal matter, giving the FBI jurisdiction to investigate. They have no such jurisdiction here. They can't do a criminal investigation of this case. She could file charges in Maryland, where this supposedly happened, because there's no statute of limitations on felony sexual assault there. They would then have to investigate it. If she really wants an investigation, that's the route she needs to go. Then the FBI would update their background check report on him.

Her lawyer should know all this. Either her lawyer is giving her awful advice or there is some reason why she doesn't want an actual investigation. It's entirely possible her lawyer is just awful and doesn't know all of this. Her lawyer is basically an activist, so she's probably not a particularly good lawyer.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Vasa Croe

why hasn't a therapist she supposedly told this to and somehow got the notes from come out yet? Odd right?

They might not want to come forward because their practice might suffer from it. Maybe their worried people might try and hurt them?

Who knows? Maybe they will come forward . If they do would that even change how you feel?

I'm not talking about them personally coming forward. I'm talking about the fact it hasn't been found out.

Plenty of folks digging into this and yet none have found who her therapist was? But they can find a 3rd guy from a party that supposedly occurred 36 years ago?

a reply to: BlueAjah

senior White House official

Whenever you see this in an article chances are it's a lie and written for propaganda. Do you have a source that identifies the "official" ?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Vasa Croe


My guess is she (and attorney) will give a press conference immediately after the vote...stressing how victimized they were by all the mean old Republican men on the committee. Her attorney will probably announce more anonymous accusers have been found.

New info showing how fraudulent her accusation really was will be released shortly thereafter.

Similar thought here....

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: face23785

It's all done for optics. They can say they "accepted" and most media will portray it that way.
Then when they go ahead with the vote Monday, they will scream.

That's exactly what's going to happen.

Well played, I must say, though any lingering doubt that I had that this was all a political stunt intended to box in the GOP and give the Dems a campaign issue just completely evaporated.

Hatch sums it up pretty good here. Zero progress made in a week. They are stalling.

a reply to: BlueAjah

The Judicial Committee did their own investigation, including interviewing witnesses. They have their own professional investigators on staff for just this purpose.

You lost me. Are you referring to the 6 investigations into kavanaugh?

If so what were the specifics of the investigations? Why 6 of them if they were not for 6 different reasons?

originally posted by: face23785
For everyone bringing up the Anita Hill scenario and wanting the FBI to investigate like they did then, the difference there was that Hill alleged that she was harassed while she was working for the judge. That made it a federal matter, giving the FBI jurisdiction to investigate. They have no such jurisdiction here. They can't do a criminal investigation of this case. She could file charges in Maryland, where this supposedly happened, because there's no statute of limitations on felony sexual assault there. They would then have to investigate it. If she really wants an investigation, that's the route she needs to go. Then the FBI would update their background check report on him.

Her lawyer should know all this. Either her lawyer is giving her awful advice or there is some reason why she doesn't want an actual investigation. It's entirely possible her lawyer is just awful and doesn't know all of this. Her lawyer is basically an activist, so she's probably not a particularly good lawyer.

It's all optics and they know their majority base has no clue about how the law and federal cases work, nor will they research to understand.

a reply to: IAMTAT

I don't know his first name. Her first name is in the title of another thread I was in earlier.

I haven't been reading or watching the news . I only know about this because of ats.


Edit: Also I like typing his last name, its a funny name I like saying it in my head.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: BlueAjah

The Judicial Committee did their own investigation, including interviewing witnesses. They have their own professional investigators on staff for just this purpose.

You lost me. Are you referring to the 6 investigations into kavanaugh?

If so what were the specifics of the investigations? Why 6 of them if they were not for 6 different reasons?

No...the committee began an investigation and questioning the second this allegation came out. They invited the dems to question Kavanaugh during it. The dems refused to come. They spoke with everyone named by Ford and took statement under penalty of felony.

Search it a bit...there is plenty on it....just not on the typical lefty MSM.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: IAMTAT

I don't know his first name. Her first name is in the title of another thread I was in earlier.

I haven't been reading or watching the news . I only know about this because of ats.

Thanks.
His name is Brett.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: BlueAjah

The Judicial Committee did their own investigation, including interviewing witnesses. They have their own professional investigators on staff for just this purpose.

You lost me. Are you referring to the 6 investigations into kavanaugh?

If so what were the specifics of the investigations? Why 6 of them if they were not for 6 different reasons?

No...the committee began an investigation and questioning the second this allegation came out. They invited the dems to question Kavanaugh during it. The dems refused to come. They spoke with everyone named by Ford and took statement under penalty of felony.

Search it a bit...there is plenty on it....just not on the typical lefty MSM.

Yep, all this information is out there, but so many people just never hear about it. You've got to question their sources that intentionally leave those details out of their reporting.

a reply to: Vasa Croe


True.
The ONLY person whom hasn't sworn under oath...is Ford.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Judiciar y Committee Continues Effort to Accommodate Testimony from Dr. Ford Next Week

Chairman Grassley issued the following statement:
“Despite the fact that the July 30th letter remains hidden, my committee has been investigating the allegations and has heard from multiple witnesses since Sunday.

Moreover, the Senate has a constitutional obligation to conduct its own investigations. Chairman Grassley’s staff has tried to work with Democratic staff to conduct an investigation, but they have so far refused to participate. On Monday, September 17, Chairman Grassley’s staff interviewed Judge Kavanaugh under penalty of felony. Democratic staff was invited to participate, and they could have asked any question they wanted to, but they declined. Judge Kavanaugh was forthright and emphatic in his testimony. He fully answered all questions. Chairman Grassley’s staff also contacted three alleged witnesses named by Dr. Ford and obtained two statements under penalty of perjury. These witnesses directly contradict Professor Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

You cant talk of the FBI as a singular entity.

Agreed. And finding out that he was investigated 6 times does hold weight with me.

But like I said.

I will wait and let the courts decide. I have no judgement on ether of these people that I have never known.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I'm talking about the fact it hasn't been found out.

Yet.