Alright, who screwed up,

[J.Mencalice]

At least this guy has a sense of humor about the whole circus.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/merrick-garland-says-hes-still-available

Frankly, I don't believe that Grassley gets enough fiber.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

Maybe a little unfair? Rob has been clear about his thoughts on the accusation. But like a dog with a bone he’s not throwing in the towel until a pound of flesh is extracted. He has a least left the door open that maybe the story is questionable? But it does help that an investigation would take months doesn’t it.

When the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas scandal came up, the FBI conducted the investigation in 2 weeks.

[The emperor has no clothes]

At least this guy has a sense of humor about the whole circus.

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/merrick-garland-says-hes-still-available

Frankly, I don't believe that Grassley gets enough fiber.

[The emperor has no clothes]

It’s not a case of investigating for criminal action, the statute of limitations is long gone. It’s a background check investigation.

Thats very disingenuous statement.  How would anyone investigate an allegation that has no date for the allegation?  Even the place of the purported event is unknown.

Definition of a background check -

A background check or background investigation is the process of looking up and compiling criminal records, commercial records, and financial records of an individual or an organization.

 How would a "background" check be performed?  There are no criminal records because it was never reported.  There are no commercial records because the time and date of the event can not be determined.  There are no financial records it investigate for the same reasons. 

Honestly, I have no idea how investigations are conducted. I guess maybe start with interviewing the 3 people. Then maybe talk to their friends of the time. I’m sure this isn’t the FBI’s first rodeo at something about this.

[f6john]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

Maybe a little unfair? Rob has been clear about his thoughts on the accusation. But like a dog with a bone he’s not throwing in the towel until a pound of flesh is extracted. He has a least left the door open that maybe the story is questionable? But it does help that an investigation would take months doesn’t it.

When the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas scandal came up, the FBI conducted the investigation in 2 weeks.

Anita Hill could at least remember times and places. This lady doesn’t even know where she was! They wouldn’t be able to nail down who was around to corroborate her story in two weeks, unless by some miracle someone else has an epiphany and comes out of the woodwork.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

Maybe a little unfair? Rob has been clear about his thoughts on the accusation. But like a dog with a bone he’s not throwing in the towel until a pound of flesh is extracted. He has a least left the door open that maybe the story is questionable? But it does help that an investigation would take months doesn’t it.

When the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas scandal came up, the FBI conducted the investigation in 2 weeks.

Anita Hill could at least remember times and places. This lady doesn’t even know where she was! They wouldn’t be able to nail down who was around to corroborate her story in two weeks, unless by some miracle someone else has an epiphany and comes out of the woodwork.

Maybe not. But what could it hurt for the FBI to interview the 3 people ?

[f6john]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

Maybe a little unfair? Rob has been clear about his thoughts on the accusation. But like a dog with a bone he’s not throwing in the towel until a pound of flesh is extracted. He has a least left the door open that maybe the story is questionable? But it does help that an investigation would take months doesn’t it.

When the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas scandal came up, the FBI conducted the investigation in 2 weeks.

Anita Hill could at least remember times and places. This lady doesn’t even know where she was! They wouldn’t be able to nail down who was around to corroborate her story in two weeks, unless by some miracle someone else has an epiphany and comes out of the woodwork.

Maybe not. But what could it hurt for the FBI to interview the 3 people ?

Nothing, but how many Democrats will accept that as an “investigation”.  I imagine once they open Pandora’s box they would find a few Russians scurrying around. 

[Tx Bohemian]

Nothing, but how many Democrats will accept that as an “investigation”.  I imagine once they open Pandora’s box they would find a few Russians scurrying around. 

Ha! that's funny!

Or,

Instead of Kavanaugh they may find out it was Bill Clinton...

Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants!!

[..]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/pj-smyth-brett-kavanaugh/index.html

"I understand that I have been identified by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford as the person she remembers as 'PJ' who supposedly was present at the party she described in her statements to the Washington Post," Smyth says in his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."

[..]

What's good for the goose......................... cold be bad for the gander

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/broaddrick-fbi-probe-ford-allegation-then-investigate-my-rape

"If you want the FBI to go back that far @HillaryClinton @MSNBC to investigate Ford's allegations .... let's investigate my RAPE allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Seems only fair," Broaddrick tweeted on Sept. 18.

[f6gal]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

Maybe a little unfair? Rob has been clear about his thoughts on the accusation. But like a dog with a bone he’s not throwing in the towel until a pound of flesh is extracted. He has a least left the door open that maybe the story is questionable? But it does help that an investigation would take months doesn’t it.

When the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas scandal came up, the FBI conducted the investigation in 2 weeks.

Anita Hill could at least remember times and places. This lady doesn’t even know where she was! They wouldn’t be able to nail down who was around to corroborate her story in two weeks, unless by some miracle someone else has an epiphany and comes out of the woodwork.

Maybe not. But what could it hurt for the FBI to interview the 3 people ?

The FBI does not determine guilt or innocence, nor do they determine credibility.  They merely investigate and report their findings.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

Maybe a little unfair? Rob has been clear about his thoughts on the accusation. But like a dog with a bone he’s not throwing in the towel until a pound of flesh is extracted. He has a least left the door open that maybe the story is questionable? But it does help that an investigation would take months doesn’t it.

When the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas scandal came up, the FBI conducted the investigation in 2 weeks.

Anita Hill could at least remember times and places. This lady doesn’t even know where she was! They wouldn’t be able to nail down who was around to corroborate her story in two weeks, unless by some miracle someone else has an epiphany and comes out of the woodwork.

Maybe not. But what could it hurt for the FBI to interview the 3 people ?

The FBI does not determine guilt or innocence, nor do they determine credibility.  They merely investigate and report their findings.

And if they interviewed the 3 under oath and any of their stories changed, would that not be pertinent ?

[Pete]

No liberal progressive will ever stop riding and beating this dead horse. They just cannot help it, they know it is a he-said/she-said and they do not care. They are suffering from terminal TDS, and no cure is possible. They do not really care about him or her or the US. it is just a way to "resist".

VOTE and VOTE NOW, lets get this over with, no matter which way it goes. As that is where it is headed anyway.

[Jess from VA]

There is nothing more to investigate.  Nothing.

The complainant has an old memory; maybe she even believes the memory, and maybe it's a true memory with the wrong guy.

No one else can confirm or corroborate that memory (or any other single relevant fact).

The two others allegedly present do not confirm the memory (they deny it).

The FBI (and others) are good, but all an investigation accomplishes is delay.

Even if the facts as alleged are true, you cannot make out (or prove) an attempted rape, only a simple unwanted touching.  

Get on with the vote.  

[Oss]

In this case, I agree with the distinguished retired attorney from Virginia   


Call a Vote and move the country forward

We have stuff to do after all

[The emperor has no clothes]

Even if the fats as alleged are true, you cannot make out (or prove) an attempted rape, only a simple unwanted touching.  

I assume you meant facts. It’s not about proving a crime. Even if Kavanaugh confessed to groping, forcibly holding her could they charge him. It’s about what kind of person should be given a lifetime appointment with power over us all.

Let me pose this question. If Obama had appointed a justice and someone accused him of molesting little boys 30 years ago, would you feel the same way ?

[f6john]

Even if the fats as alleged are true, you cannot make out (or prove) an attempted rape, only a simple unwanted touching.  

I assume you meant facts. It’s not about proving a crime. Even if Kavanaugh confessed to groping, forcibly holding her could they charge him. It’s about what kind of person should be given a lifetime appointment with power over us all.

Let me pose this question. If Obama had appointed a justice and someone accused him of molesting little boys 30 years ago, would you feel the same way ?

If the person couldn’t provided more info than Ford, I would feel exactly the same way, even if it had been Sotomayor!

[Willow]

When I was a teenager I shoplifted.  I behaved improperly with underaged girls and with prostitutes, but none against their alleged will.  I stole faucet handles from the junior high school restrooms.  I smoked and consumed alcoholic beverages long before I reached legal age.  I may have possessed a city traffic sign.

I hope no one really believes any of that holds any indication of my character today.

George Washington may have chopped down his father's cherry tree.        

[The emperor has no clothes]

When I was a teenager I shoplifted.  I behaved improperly with underaged girls and with prostitutes, but none against their alleged will.  I stole faucet handles from the junior high school restrooms.  I smoked and consumed alcoholic beverages long before I reached legal age.  I may have possessed a city traffic sign.

I hope no one really believes any of that holds any indication of my character today.

George Washington may have chopped down his father's cherry tree.        

It may not indicate your character today, but should it preclude you from becoming a Supreme Court Justice ?

[Willow]

It may not indicate your character today, but should it preclude you from becoming a Supreme Court Justice ?

I can only conclude that a Supreme Court Justice will function based upon his current character rather than his adolescent character.  Do we need to go back to whether he kept his mother up crying as an infant?

It's a rhetorical question.  Please don't answer.

[Cracker Jack]

If the resistance movement could get the FBI involved, then we could have another perpetual never ending investigation similar to the Mueller witch hunt!! Bingo, Kavanaugh appointment derailed!!

[f6john]

When I was a teenager I shoplifted.  I behaved improperly with underaged girls and with prostitutes, but none against their alleged will.  I stole faucet handles from the junior high school restrooms.  I smoked and consumed alcoholic beverages long before I reached legal age.  I may have possessed a city traffic sign.

I hope no one really believes any of that holds any indication of my character today.

George Washington may have chopped down his father's cherry tree.        

I’m shocked! A traffic sign! Your out!

[f6gal]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

Maybe a little unfair? Rob has been clear about his thoughts on the accusation. But like a dog with a bone he’s not throwing in the towel until a pound of flesh is extracted. He has a least left the door open that maybe the story is questionable? But it does help that an investigation would take months doesn’t it.

When the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas scandal came up, the FBI conducted the investigation in 2 weeks.

Anita Hill could at least remember times and places. This lady doesn’t even know where she was! They wouldn’t be able to nail down who was around to corroborate her story in two weeks, unless by some miracle someone else has an epiphany and comes out of the woodwork.

Maybe not. But what could it hurt for the FBI to interview the 3 people ?

The FBI does not determine guilt or innocence, nor do they determine credibility.  They merely investigate and report their findings.

And if they interviewed the 3 under oath and any of their stories changed, would that not be pertinent ?

The FBI doesn’t have the power to put anyone under oath.  Oaths are taken during testimony in court, before a Grand Jury, or before congress.  Wouldn't that make a congressional interview more pertinent?

[Jess from VA]

Let me pose this question. If Obama had appointed a justice and someone accused him of molesting little boys 30 years ago, would you feel the same way ?

I would (and did) vehemently oppose ANY person 0 nominated for the SCOTUS, even if they never molested boys.  Had they molested boys, my vehemence could not have been any stronger.  

This is not right wing vs left wing.  This is accurate constitutional scholarship vs making sh!t up.

I will concede (now) that 0's two appointments have come down on the right side of many of the cases they have so far decided.  More than I thought they would (and maybe even better than Ginsburg).  But I hold out no confidence whatsoever in either of them on the 2d Amendment (which is why he chose them, and Garland).

With Kavanaugh on the court, they can safely begin to grant certiorari in 2d Amendment cases again, and move forward in advancing the Heller and McDonald line of cases guaranteeing the individual right to keep and bear arms the founders absolutely intended.

A number of very good (pro 2d A. test) cases have been (very wisely) refused certiorari with the current 8 man court.

AND it's true the FBI and police cannot put people under oath.  But the offense of making false official statements to them is a felony, and other charges like misprison of felony, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice can add up to quite a charge sheet.... so it's not like lying to them is a freebie.

It's a rhetorical question.  Please don't answer.     

[The emperor has no clothes]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

Maybe a little unfair? Rob has been clear about his thoughts on the accusation. But like a dog with a bone he’s not throwing in the towel until a pound of flesh is extracted. He has a least left the door open that maybe the story is questionable? But it does help that an investigation would take months doesn’t it.

When the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas scandal came up, the FBI conducted the investigation in 2 weeks.

Anita Hill could at least remember times and places. This lady doesn’t even know where she was! They wouldn’t be able to nail down who was around to corroborate her story in two weeks, unless by some miracle someone else has an epiphany and comes out of the woodwork.

Maybe not. But what could it hurt for the FBI to interview the 3 people ?

The FBI does not determine guilt or innocence, nor do they determine credibility.  They merely investigate and report their findings.

And if they interviewed the 3 under oath and any of their stories changed, would that not be pertinent ?

The FBI doesn’t have the power to put anyone under oath.  Oaths are taken during testimony in court, before a Grand Jury, or before congress.  Wouldn't that make a congressional interview more pertinent?

I stand corrected. They are not under oath. But as Jess said it is a federal crime to lie to FBI agents. As we have seen recently, it is quite consequential. I would think twice about doing it. I know it is a crime to lie to Congress. I haven't heard of anyone ever doing jail time for doing it though.

[The emperor has no clothes]

It may not indicate your character today, but should it preclude you from becoming a Supreme Court Justice ?

I can only conclude that a Supreme Court Justice will function based upon his current character rather than his adolescent character.  Do we need to go back to whether he kept his mother up crying as an infant?

It's a rhetorical question.  Please don't answer.

Thank you for clarifying it as a rhetorical question. I had a paragraph dedicated to your question until I saw that. 
 I would imagine all of us have some limit to what we feel is appropriate absolving of past crimes or sins. I doubt you would be ok with a previous child molestor who has changed the error of his ways currently to become a Supreme Court Justice. But I could be wrong.

[Jess from VA]

In this case neither the complainant nor the judge could be convicted of perjury, or false statements because no prosecutor could ever prove they were lying (beyond any reasonable doubt).

And even when lying, it is nearly impossible to convict anyone who's answer is.. I don't remember.

[f6gal]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

Maybe a little unfair? Rob has been clear about his thoughts on the accusation. But like a dog with a bone he’s not throwing in the towel until a pound of flesh is extracted. He has a least left the door open that maybe the story is questionable? But it does help that an investigation would take months doesn’t it.

When the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas scandal came up, the FBI conducted the investigation in 2 weeks.

Anita Hill could at least remember times and places. This lady doesn’t even know where she was! They wouldn’t be able to nail down who was around to corroborate her story in two weeks, unless by some miracle someone else has an epiphany and comes out of the woodwork.

Maybe not. But what could it hurt for the FBI to interview the 3 people ?

The FBI does not determine guilt or innocence, nor do they determine credibility.  They merely investigate and report their findings.

And if they interviewed the 3 under oath and any of their stories changed, would that not be pertinent ?

The FBI doesn’t have the power to put anyone under oath.  Oaths are taken during testimony in court, before a Grand Jury, or before congress.  Wouldn't that make a congressional interview more pertinent?

I stand corrected. They are not under oath. But as Jess said it is a federal crime to lie to FBI agents. As we have seen recently, it is quite consequential. I would think twice about doing it. I know it is a crime to lie to Congress. I haven't heard of anyone ever doing jail time for doing it though.

I never said that lying to the FBI is without consequence.  However, I'm pretty sure that perjury is a higher crime than lying to the FBI.

[The emperor has no clothes]

And even when lying, it is nearly impossible to convict anyone who's answer is.. I don't remember.

Sounds familiar. "I have no recollection of this alleged incident " 

[The emperor has no clothes]

Oh My God stop. Rob will believe it until the start shoveling dirt. And will argue with any and all posts on the subject.

Maybe a little unfair? Rob has been clear about his thoughts on the accusation. But like a dog with a bone he’s not throwing in the towel until a pound of flesh is extracted. He has a least left the door open that maybe the story is questionable? But it does help that an investigation would take months doesn’t it.

When the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas scandal came up, the FBI conducted the investigation in 2 weeks.

Anita Hill could at least remember times and places. This lady doesn’t even know where she was! They wouldn’t be able to nail down who was around to corroborate her story in two weeks, unless by some miracle someone else has an epiphany and comes out of the woodwork.

Maybe not. But what could it hurt for the FBI to interview the 3 people ?

The FBI does not determine guilt or innocence, nor do they determine credibility.  They merely investigate and report their findings.

And if they interviewed the 3 under oath and any of their stories changed, would that not be pertinent ?

The FBI doesn’t have the power to put anyone under oath.  Oaths are taken during testimony in court, before a Grand Jury, or before congress.  Wouldn't that make a congressional interview more pertinent?

I stand corrected. They are not under oath. But as Jess said it is a federal crime to lie to FBI agents. As we have seen recently, it is quite consequential. I would think twice about doing it. I know it is a crime to lie to Congress. I haven't heard of anyone ever doing jail time for doing it though.

I never said that lying to the FBI is without consequence.  However, I'm pretty sure that perjury is a higher crime than lying to the FBI.

I wasn't implying you did. I believe both carry sentences of "up to 5 years". But I'm a lowly butcher and will have to defer to our attorney friends. I know there are several cases brought to bear of people lying to the FBI. I'm not aware of any cases of lying to Congress being brought. I'm sure there have been some, but I suspect pretty minimal.

[carolinarider09]

The truth is this is all about keeping a person who would interpret law and the Constitution (not make law) from being on the Supreme Court. 

Elections have consequences.  Donald Trump was elected President.  He has the right, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint anyone of his choice to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. 

The left cannot stand that.  They are livid that their nominee was defeated.

This can be easily seen by any observer. 

Kavanaugh is extremely qualified.  The Senate (and the FB) went through millions of records and found nothing.  He is on his way to be appointed and confirmed to the Supreme Court and the left cannot let that happen. 

[Skinhead]

George Washington may have chopped down his father's cherry tree.        

That's not all Carl, I saw on facebook that he also grabbed Ruth Bater Ginsburg's back side!  (or maybe it was Abe Lincoln)

[Skinhead]

I stand corrected. They are not under oath. But as Jess said it is a federal crime to lie to FBI agents. As we have seen recently, it is quite consequential. I would think twice about doing it. I know it is a crime to lie to Congress. I haven't heard of anyone ever doing jail time for doing it though.

Hillary is certainly proof of that.

[Bighead]

I stand corrected. They are not under oath. But as Jess said it is a federal crime to lie to FBI agents. As we have seen recently, it is quite consequential. I would think twice about doing it. I know it is a crime to lie to Congress. I haven't heard of anyone ever doing jail time for doing it though.

Hillary is certainly proof of that.

nothing more true has ever been spoken.

[..]

I stand corrected. They are not under oath. But as Jess said it is a federal crime to lie to FBI agents. As we have seen recently, it is quite consequential. I would think twice about doing it. I know it is a crime to lie to Congress. I haven't heard of anyone ever doing jail time for doing it though.

Hillary is certainly proof of that.

nothing more true has ever been spoken.

 

[..]

They must have been using extra sooper dooper, double strength chem trails

https://deadline.com/2018/09/emmys-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-anita-hill-pins-times-up-movement-politics-1202466334/

[Willow]

...
 I would imagine all of us have some limit to what we feel is appropriate absolving of past crimes or sins. I doubt you would be ok with a previous child molestor who has changed the error of his ways currently to become a Supreme Court Justice. But I could be wrong.

Child molester?  We're talking about something that allegedly transpired between a 17 year old and a fifteen year old.  You and others have extrapolated the accusation into much more than the accuser described.

You would be wrong in  this case.

[The emperor has no clothes]

...
 I would imagine all of us have some limit to what we feel is appropriate absolving of past crimes or sins. I doubt you would be ok with a previous child molestor who has changed the error of his ways currently to become a Supreme Court Justice. But I could be wrong.

Child molester?  We're talking about something that allegedly transpired between a 17 year old and a fifteen year old.  You and others have extrapolated the accusation into much more than the accuser described.

You would be wrong in  this case.

It was an example of one's current character not being all that matters. A persons past matters also. It was not ascribed to the current nominee.

[DirtyDan]

DIRT ?...........

Shoveling ?..........

Go on

 

Dan

[Bighead]

...
 I would imagine all of us have some limit to what we feel is appropriate absolving of past crimes or sins. I doubt you would be ok with a previous child molestor who has changed the error of his ways currently to become a Supreme Court Justice. But I could be wrong.

Child molester?  We're talking about something that allegedly transpired between a 17 year old and a fifteen year old.  You and others have extrapolated the accusation into much more than the accuser described.

You would be wrong in  this case.

It was an example of one's current character not being all that matters. A persons past matters also. It was not ascribed to the current nominee.

Rob you sir are grasping at straws and just stirring the pot as usual. Give it up. Not one single thing can be proven. Same as the Russian collusion conspiracy.18 months and not one thing proven. Millions if not Billions of dollars spent for what? Not one damn thing. This accusation is way out there, if this had happ ned she would remember when and where it did happen. An investigation will do not one thing other than what you are doing,stalling just waiting for the mid terms. Just go ahead and admit it.