What a shame. The cloud may even be thicker after the investigation, with many people impeaching Kavanaugh’s testimony not being heard.
And this was also mentioned this on Morning Joe today by a former agent as well. On top of that, when the report is done, it must go through the White House first.
No witch hunt is needed, Dr. Ford is not credible, her lawyers could look at being disbarred for not telling her the committee was willing to meet with her.
The 2nd door at that house, now, per some investigation was built before 2012 and may have served a business in the house. Dr. Ford could end up being prosecuted as well.
That is why it is good to have seasoned investigators work on this.
This is not a civil trial, nor is it dealt like one by the FBI.
Wait, I thought this was just supposed to be a “background check” for a “job interview”, not an open-ended criminal investigation.
That’s true. In civil trials the plaintiff has the burden of proof, though to a lower standard than a criminal trial. Here, Kavanaugh is being called on to prove his innocence. That makes it more like an Inquisition.
That’s actually not true, which is why there’s an investigation that’s centered around the women’s allegations, not Kavanaugh’s.
If that were true, the complete lack of physical evidence and corroborating witnesses, and not being able to recall the specifics of the alleged crime wouldn’t be seen as proof of her allegations. Not to mention her unwillingness to file a criminal complaint…
Leading up to this, calls on here and from those in the Senate were for a limited, brief, investigation, similar to the 3 day vetting of the Anita hill investigation. Those posts are still here.
It is disappointing to see the goal posts moving and standards shifting.
As far as the report having to through the White House, is that not standard, since he ordered the investigation? Now if you dont trust the President, so be it, but why then call for a group that works for him to investigate all this time? And certainly Christopher Wray is honest enough to provide Congress with accurate findings.
Those who favored seating Kavanaugh have been told for weeks that we should let the process play out, to include an investigation, before rushing to judgment or a vote. Why isn’t that advice being followed now?
It appears that folks are preemptively hedging their bets and discrediting the investigation so that of the findings are not to their liking, they can cry foul. Either those earlier calls for a limited, swift investigation were sincere, or they belied and deeper purpose which isn’t altruistic.
I hope the FBI thoroughly investigates the latest allegations that Kavanaugh exposed himself to several nurses on his birthday and may have urinated on one or more…Now more than ever, we need to keep this sick, sick man off the levers of power…
Oh man, that’s funny
Please tell more… I have not seen this.
I know the date part.
It is more in the non-mainstream-press , but in this whole affair, the vaguest of accusations against Judge Kavanaugh are entertained, so why not this other? Anyway, here is one source that I think is fit enough to read for this forum. Sometimes, one doesn’t know what kind of website, one might walk into.
So, this article which seems to reference Gateway Pundit but there are a number of pieces related to this in the press, maybe I don’t want to say alternative press, but that might be the word we look for.
She also works for the CIA.
That doesn’t quite sound consistent with what she said when giving testimony.
I am only going from news stories, the hearing last week did have that contentious moment.
Recommending this be referred to the bar association of Washington DC was also mentioned in one of these article per Senator Cotton.
I watched all of the hearing. I haven’t read the various perspectives that people had on the hearing in the news.
In the hearing there was a section where she had an opportunity to clear some things up such as typographical errors or items on which she had misspoken. Among these she explained that she had not understood that one specific request would involve someone coming out to her. In other words the communication was received, but not understood. Because of the correction of her previous misunderstood interpretation of the request she made known that it was not the case that she wasn’t given the opportunity for a visit.
The assertion that her lawyers could be disbarred for not telling her about the invite just doesn’t fit into that.
I think it does. OR potentially could, we simply do not know the totality of factual information on this at the moment.
“Those lawyers are going to face a D.C. bar investigation into their misconduct. Dianne Feinstein and her staff is going to face an investigation for why they leaked that. All of this could have been done discreetly, it happens hundreds of times … hundreds of times every year in the Judiciary Committee,” the Arkansas Republican said during his exchange with Dickerson.
She has two masters and a Ph.D. Let’s give her a little more credit on what she is capable of understanding.