Ever notice how much stock people put into a “OPINION” piece they read out of a newspaper?
Are you honestly naive enough to think that the FBI is going uncover the “truth” about a nearly 40 year old allegation?
Stock? What stock? This is a discussion board, but you are not obligated to participate if you don’t want to.
1 Like
First hear from the accused and the accuser. Decide from there. If she isn’t credible (as in can’t remember over half the details of the night) and he is, then nothing more would be needed.
It’s amusing watching you guys talk about everything else EXCEPT the article.
So again: It seems that the republicans don’t want Judge to testify. Given the responses I’ve seen in this thread, neither do the rest of you.
Even if the FBI were ordered to look into this do they even have any power to make him come and give his statement under oath?
It’s all fluff, the bottom line to it all is he’s getting confirmed one way or the other, here’s a suggestion everybody learn to deal with it.
What is your concern? You think increasing it from 2 to 3 people will be a problem of some sort?
I don’t know. But I’m interested in what people say under oath (and to the FBI) vs. what they say from afar. That may not matter to you.
You seem bothered. Hope you work it out.
Can they subpoena him? If there is no criminal investigation how could they force someone to come and testify? What is he testifying too? What exactly was the crime?
let me type it slowly
if
not
credible (accuser)
and
credible (accused)
no
need
for
witnesses
And if he or she or BK lied to the FBI how could they prove it?
Exactly, and there would be nothing the FBI could do about it since there is no prove it.
It would have been better and more appropriate for him to have to talk to the local police 36 years ago, wouldn’t you agree?
There’s where your wrong, I’m not a republican or a democrat. Here’s a shocker for you being retired from the military I’ve been watching and reading this freak show from both parties and see a bunch of people who think they’re freedom is a right, listen cupcake it’s a previledge and you can lose it just like your drivers license. The only thing I’m concerned with is if you morons screw around and get rid of the constitution is my pension, I put my skin in this game now it’s your turn.
It’s clear why you would want to limit the people testifying. Carry on.
Turn back the clock and we can revisit it. What do you say?
Here’s the stupidity of it, everybody knows what FBI stands for? Obviously this gals lawyer doesn’t & Feinstein is playing her selective memory card again.
How does this fall under FEDERAL jurisdiction?
Only in your mind
