Not trying to side one way or another...but did Feinstein obstruct hearings or potential investigations

By holding on to this letter since early this summer. Shouldn’t she have turned it over immediately…and let Kavanaugh be properly investigated and vetted?

I’m not trying to prove one side over another. I have a legal question I don’t know the answer to.

I’m not sure how withholding false information is “obstructing” an investigation.

Or does the OP hold that the assault did take place those many years ago and, therefore, withholding the letter damaged the investigation?

Doesn’t matter what I hold. One way or the other. My question is…if this letter holds water…DID Feinstein obstruct anything…a potential investigation?

She received the letter in confidence. It wasn’t exactly up to her, was it?

See that’s why I am asking. I work in a field where if one of my clients tells me they were abused…i have to report it to the prosecutors office for either child or adult protective services. Even if they do not want me too. I am obligated by law. If I don’t I have committed a misdemeanor.

Isn’t a Senator held to the same standards.


Im 99.99999% positive Feinstein wouldnt count as a mandatory reporter.

What are the limits of required reporting?

If you have an adult client who reports being abused when they were a child, is reporting that required?

If that was 40 years ago, does that change your obligation?

I believe for my job and obligations yes. I still have to report it. However in 20 years it has never come up.

What’s obvious is that Feinstein didn’t care about the woman, she cared about the political damage it could possibly cause and nothing more. That totally explains her actions.


How is that obvious?

Why would someone not immediately turn over information showing someone to have committed a heinous crime?

Because an anonymous accusation is meaningless? There was no crime, its just a bit of political theater and a hail mary to stop a judge they don’t like. Seems pretty obvious to everyone.


…not to mention the statute of limitations.

And the obvious lack of FBI jurisdiction.

Yes. There could be no criminal investigation because if it was all absolutely true there was no crime that could be prosecuted today.
I think Feinstein knew if she brought it up in the hearings, which would have been the proper time if there was one, it would have just been seen as a smear tactic.
Bringing it up after the hearing there was at least a chance that there would be a delay until after the elections…and always the hope that Democrats would take the Senate.
So it was a perfectly legal smear tactic.

It appears to have smeared her the most…which is as it should be.

It was amusing to see the lefts two favored front runners dribble drool on their shirts and totally beclown themselves though, so 10 points for entertainment. I am talking about Corey “Spartacus” Booker and Kamala “creative editing” Harris. Shame Biden didn’t weigh in on the stupid fest.

Perhaps because she was asked not to. Are you familiar with the situation?

As someone else said, the first 48 years after a crime is alleged to have been committed is a critical time in the investigation.

1 Like