But what exactly are they supposed to do with a nearly 40 year old accusation no matter what is said?
Hillary taught everyone how to get around that…“I dont recall” followed by… “What difference does it make”
See…She was good for something after all!
Hillary
Hillary
Who are you without her
Even if she had filed a complaint back in 1982, or whenever this incident occurred, nothing would have happened. Underage kids drinking at a party, one kid gets fresh with a girl, she thinks he may have wanted to get her clothes off, she gets away and she leaves the party.
What would happen to the boy, even if he admitted to everything she says happened?
I read her letter to Fienstien, it sounded like nothing happened.
Check it out…ask questions follow leads…and then close it out.
Most that could be done is to question the person(s) alleged to have been there when the incident was alleged to have happened, but I think there is no legitimate reason or statute to allow for that.
My wife and I had an opposed discussion about that this morning. She thinks it is necessary for an “investigation” before Ford testifies and I was of the opinion that it would be wrong to even have Ford testify at all, with or without any investigation.
That certainly doesn’t mean I think it was impossible that Kavanaugh did such a thing, not by any means, it just means the time to have brought this to the light of day was back then, not now.
I want to know. I want to know if his denials are true or not. If he’s lying…i don’t want him to be a Justice on the SCOTUS. Shouldn’t they be beyond reproach.
No human being beyond reproach, which includes all the current members of the SC.
1 Like
Even if she pressed charges then it’s likely a prosecutor wouldn’t persue it.
If SCJ’s had to be beyond reproach the court would stand empty.
How would any investigation at this time determine the truth or no of his denials or the truth or no of her accusations?
Nobody has said otherwise.
Should be, but the accuser’s lawyers aren’t having any of it. Instead they send a letter to Chuck Grassley asking him to ask the FBI to investigate. 
It’s the seriousness of the charge, dammit!
1 Like
I wish these allegations happened in a perfect vacuum with a perfectly consistent process. But it’s a helter skelter response seemingly more informed by politics than principle. Trump, Franken, Conyers, Barton, Kihuen,Franks, et al.
I understand each episode must be treated individually, but do feel a need for consistency and clarity.
In DC? Surely you must be joking. Two things Congress is well known for. Coke and hookers.
I’ve kind of changed my mind on that. The more I read and see her reactions the more I think she may have been set-up by Feinstein & Ilk.
If anyone should go to jail or suffer repercussions it is Feinstein for withholding the information. Though, I’m sure she’s covered all of her bases while leaving Ford out to dry.
Plus Feinstein is one of the Congressional elite. They play by an entirely different set of rules than we do. Illegal? Nah. Just for the peasants.
Haha! I’m becoming more naive the older I get.
1 Like
Outside of asking anyone named to voluntarily give them a testimony under oath what else can they do? And if that is all that can be done do we really need the FBI to do that?
I’d say there are several reasons why, as in the case of Clarence Thomas, the FBI adds value.
Their reason for existence is investigation.
They have resources all around the country and are uniquely positioned to act on leads or to interview witnesses with relative ease anywhere in the country.
The also not have to put people under oath to prevent active false witness.
They are, or were considered to be until the shameful accusations of this President, neutral observers. I still put faith in their professionalism in such matters.
