If she testifies before any investigation is made, then it’s going to be simply word against word.
If her letter had been acted on sooner, do you have any doubt that it would have been part of the FBI’s background check to investigate the accusation, by the standard methods of interviewing the parties involved, witnesses, looking for any corroborating or contradictory evidence, and reporting those findings with analysis?
Ok, when was the trial, conviction, and jail time?
Just like what happened with Clarence Thomas…another back-ground check.
Yes, it is…
Women rarely are.
Doubt the FBI would have done much investigation.
Don’t have a house (she doesn’t know the owner)
Don’t have a specific date (MAYBE summer of '82)
Don’t have a reason for the party (She doesn’t remember the reason they were partying)
She can only name two people there (supposedly in the room) and one person only as PJ
She never told anyone from 1982 until 2012
She never documented it from 1982 until 2012
Not a whole lot for the FBI to go on. FBI may have interviewed her, Kavanaugh and Judge informally. Then put the note and findings in the file for the committee to review.
As opposed to refusing to hold hearings at all in 2015-16…The GOP opened this Pandora’s Box…how do they like it now?
No, no it’s not.
Then you are definitely in support of the FBI doing a full investigation…right?
So you too are for a full investigation. Ok.
So far he refuses to.
You must be referring to Garland. That actually took place in 2016, as Scalia passed away February 15, 2016. That has already been beat to death.
She should have went to local law enforcement 36 years ago, when the event allegedly occurred. That is how the legal system is set up. It’s nuts to try and litigate a crime 36 years later.
A full investigation into what? Was there crime reported?
Some of what you write are not facts in evidence (e.g., she never told anyone until 2012 - that’s not a certainty). Which is the point: little to go on, or not, the FBI would be tasked with doing as much investigation as could be done. There is absolutely no reason for standard FBI procedure to be short-circuited.
About what? The things I’m saying? Yes. The things you say I’m saying but I’m not? Not at all.
It seems like you’re not really paying attention to my words very well. You keep arguing things I’m not and you’re forcing me to point this out.
The judiciary committee is not a court.
I never said such a thing, it is blatantly dishonest to say I did, and on top of that you then targetted me with your false claim that I said the thing you made up to then assert “people like you”. You should correct this false claim and targeted post or delete it.
That is the accusers own words.
It’s SOP for an FBI background investigation: investigate any reports, accusations, and the like. (And yes, this accusation is an accusation of what would be a criminal act.) It’s like some people think this is all new territory, unprecedented, or something. Including the Clown King, who claimed that background investigations aren’t really the FBI’s thing.
Are they look to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt? What exactly would be the legal standard of this investigation?
No it’s not and it shouldn’t be treated as such with every alleged witness, cross examinations and the like.
But even in a hearing like this, the presumption should be on innocence.
