I said a background investigation. Then if things come up that need further investigation it should go from there.
You all seem so scared of this being investigated - why? What are you afraid of?
Worried about what?
Nothing. He’s already had a background investigation. This allegation was added to it. What next? Up for a vote?
Investigate what Snow think is important? Why?
That’s what she said.
Background investigation on something that old would be the interview of the person making the allegation. The interview of the person alleged to have committed the crime. The interview of any knows witnesses willing to sit for an interview. If the witnesses refuse to be interviewed, they can’t be compelled. The statements to the FBI (remember it’s against the law to lie to the FBI) would be put into the background file for the white house (and committee members to read).
That would essentially be the extent of the background investigation on a 40 year old case.
May be what? Investigated?
I can’t speak for everyone, but I certainly don’t like the idea of having anyone on the bench who is guilty of sexually assaulting anyone.
I think those who are protesting so vehemently know the allegations are very likely true and that’s why they love the idea of a deadline and definitely don’t want it investigated.
And that will be my final word on this subject. You know where I stand on this issue and I know where everyone else stands.
Are you okay with a background investigation on Ford? She seems to be the one with things to hide, not Kavenaugh.
1 Like
That’s true. And many Dems were on record saying they were going to vote no anyway, long before we ever heard about this story.
Some Dems are already saying as well they will move to impeach him once they take over Congress, so all the more reason to defeat McKaskill, Donnelly, Heitkamp, Nelson, Tester and Manchin, and keep AZ and NV red.
Yeah, I figured given the son in law part. I was just confused where the beating figured into the whole thing and what lessons were learned.
What’s your point about that? No allegations of wrongdoing should be looked into if you’re going to vote “no” anyway?
Incorrect. What I see is a politically motivated, unsubstantiated allegation that can be used as the recipe for success to torpedo a nomination from either side.
For the sake of BOTH sides AND the American people, this needs to be resolved.
I would assume that any investigation will include investigating her also, to be able to determine the facts in this matter.
She has asked for an investigation into the matter.
Anyway - bye people. I’m done with this discussion so please don’t bother asking me anything else because I’m not going to respond.
False. You saw none of this with Gorsuch.
Have a great evening Lulubee. Was great to share points of view. I’m out for awhile as well. Duty calls, lol 
My preference is the BOTH appear to the committee under oath.
Their statement will be taken and compared. Committee members and the senate as a whole will consider who they find more credible.
An FBI background investigation wouldn’t be much more. Interview of the alleged victim. Interview of the alleged perp. Inquire if either witness that has been identified is willing to be interviewed (judge and PJ). If they can identify any other witnesses from the victim interview ask if they are willing to be interviewed. Remember the witnesses have a constitutional right to say no to being interviewed.
Then the statements would be put in the background file. Minor discrepencies would not be anything to worry about with 36 year old memories.
This is garbage? How about the fact the only “evidence” that we know about is she said/he said? Hhow about the fact DiFi sat on this for two months?
There are only two reasons why she did that. Either she didn’t take it seriously, or she did but held it until the 11th hour for maximum impact. She didn’t tell Grassley and still has not turned over the unredacted letter.
Everything Feinstein is doing is politcally calculated. If she really cared about the victim, she would have respected her right to remain anonymous instead of letting it leak.
Plus, Grassley has gone out of his way to allow her to testify with multiple options as to the setting,. Ford’s attorneys are all operatives for Democrats and have been for years.
I don’t know for certain if Ford is lying or not. But I do know the actions of her attorneys and the Dem party do not appear to be those of people who want justice. It’s all about revenge for Garland and denying a conservative from being seated on the SC.
1 Like
You keep saying this. You haven’t shown the source.
That’s because it was a conservative replacing a conservative. The appointment of Kavanaugh changes the court to majority conservative. That wasn’t at stake with Gorsuch.
But what Shumer did do was filibuster a very qualified nominee which led to McConnell nuking it. So because of that Kavanaugh and any future nominee can be seated with 50 votes and a tie breaker from the VP. That’s probably what we are looking at now… all nominees make it on a party line vote and nothing more.
Ginsberg was confirmed with 96 votes, which shows how much things have changed.
Because we don’t know who the leaker was. It was either Feinstein, someone on her staff or another D who found out about it.
Either way, Feinstein looks bad because Ford had wanted to remain anonymous. Either Feinstein leaked it herself, or was incompetent in allowing it to happen by someone else.
