Kavanaugh Accuser Won't Testify

[AzogtheDefiler]

Do you guys realize that the only evidence Congress has is from newspapers / websites? They have not spoken to one witness. Crazy.

Its a dog and pony show. Congress is split down party lines. No real investigation could possibly happen in that circus. Thats why the FBI needs to investigate.

How can the FBI investigate when it is a local case? Never croseds state lines. It is a local PD case but there is no chance Kavanaugh would be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The FBI had investigated Kavanaugh on six separate instances. Has the accuser even filed a police report? Doesn't Kavanaugh have a right to face his accuser? This is to your point and I agree with you a stupid dog and pony show. Why did Feinstein sit on this for so long. She is part of the reason so many people dislike my people, the Jews. Find us dishonest. She is case in point. Thanks, Diane.

You seem to be another person that is clueless about the fact that it wouldnt be a criminal case. It would be just like the FBI investigation during the Anita Hill drama or when they did the background check 6 times prior without this new information.

Explain how this is an FBI case? LOL. It is local PD and it happened allegedly 36 years ago. The Anita Hill case was proven to be BS and actually the approval ratings for Thomas skyrocketted post case when compared to pre case. If you had to bet your life would you bet she is being honest.

Easy. The POTUS says..."investigate FBI" Just like he did in the Anita Hill case.

How would the FBI investigate a 36-year old case? Anita Hill was fresh and crossed state lines.

You're an FBI agent. What do you do? There is a reason for statutes of limitations.

 

[boedicca]

You should google what the FBI does vs what Congress does. I dont have time to teach you the basic job of each group if you dont already know.

Since the only thing left is he said/she said, Congress can easily investigate this, and unless she has more compelling evidence, put it to bed immediately.

Thats the problem with Congress doing it. It would never be an objective investigation due to all the bullshit.

Do you guys realize that the only evidence Congress has is from newspapers / websites? They have not spoken to one witness. Crazy.

There is no evidence. There is only the recovered memory from a professional therapist-patient. Repressed memory therapy is highly suspect and is not Evidence.

It has, in many cases been highly suspect, except for the Little Green Men and their anal probing, that I am sure is real.

The alien probe thing is totally TWOO!

 

[Asclepias]

Thats the problem with Congress doing it. It would never be an objective investigation due to all the bullshit.

Do you guys realize that the only evidence Congress has is from newspapers / websites? They have not spoken to one witness. Crazy.

There is no evidence. There is only the recovered memory from a professional therapist-patient. Repressed memory therapy is highly suspect and is not Evidence.

The notes from her therapist don't match her testimony. A lot of holes. Doesn't mean she is lying but it seems fishy.

Not really. The only thing is that the therapist said different was that 4 males were in the room instead of 2 in the room and 2 outside the room.

Ohhhhhh, that's all! Well then, they are disputing THE KEY FACT IN THE EVIDENCE.

You can't make this shit up, you really can't

Yep thats all. Would you correct someone if they got something you said wrong?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Since the only thing left is he said/she said, Congress can easily investigate this, and unless she has more compelling evidence, put it to bed immediately.

Thats the problem with Congress doing it. It would never be an objective investigation due to all the bullshit.

Do you guys realize that the only evidence Congress has is from newspapers / websites? They have not spoken to one witness. Crazy.

There is no evidence. There is only the recovered memory from a professional therapist-patient. Repressed memory therapy is highly suspect and is not Evidence.

The notes from her therapist don't match her testimony. A lot of holes. Doesn't mean she is lying but it seems fishy.

Very fishy. From my observations, many people who are professional therapists or psychology experts have emotional problems themselves. She may very well believe that something happened. Without witnesses or other corroborative, contemporaneous evidence (i.e. telling friends or parents), it's just an accusation. Not Proof!

Correct

 

[hadit]

That doesn't address my question. You accuse Kavenaugh of being a sexual predator as if it was a fact. Predators, like Bubba Clinton, leave a trail of incidents behind them. Kavenaugh has no such trail. So I ask you again, what evidence, beyond sheer partisan spite, do you have that Kavenaugh is in fact a sexual predator? Anything beyond a vague accusation of something that may or may not have happened when he was a teenager, never to be repeated again?

See the post you replied to for clarification. I dont know what to tell you other than that. Why is it so hard for you to understand that it doesnt matter if he never repeated it again? The point is that he did it and got away with it.

No, the point is, he is ACCUSED of doing it. That's what you seem incapable of dealing with.

If he is accused of doing it then he should be investigated with this new information in tow. This should be done prior to giving him a lifetime appointment to the SC or is it that you have no problem with a sexual predator on the SC?

She has a number of obstacles to overcome.

1. The timing stinks to high heaven.
2. She's offered zero evidence beyond her simple accusation that anything happened. The witnesses she's named say nothing happened.
3. When given the opportunity to testify under oath, she backed away.

These things lead inevitably to political hit job, not substantive accusation.

She has zero obstacles to overcome. This is on congress and Drumpf to do or not do something.

1. Timing doesnt matter.
2. No the witness said he "couldnt recollect" which is a legal way of protecting your ass in the event you end up in court.
3. Not a problem. The FBI wasnt asking her to testify. Congress was.

Actually the timing does matter. Feinstein had the letter since a few days after the nominee was known. She sat in it. We had hearings devoted to grilling the nominee on all manner of potential issues. She sat in it. Only when it came down to the last few days before the vote did she release it, and yes I believe she released it. Her witness would not back her story. That's the critical point. In our system, the accuser doesn't get to pick who is going to investigate. Congress gave her a golden opportunity to tell her story to the world under oath and she didn't want to do it.

None of those things inspires confidence in her story.

 

[Asclepias]

Its a dog and pony show. Congress is split down party lines. No real investigation could possibly happen in that circus. Thats why the FBI needs to investigate.

How can the FBI investigate when it is a local case? Never croseds state lines. It is a local PD case but there is no chance Kavanaugh would be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The FBI had investigated Kavanaugh on six separate instances. Has the accuser even filed a police report? Doesn't Kavanaugh have a right to face his accuser? This is to your point and I agree with you a stupid dog and pony show. Why did Feinstein sit on this for so long. She is part of the reason so many people dislike my people, the Jews. Find us dishonest. She is case in point. Thanks, Diane.

You seem to be another person that is clueless about the fact that it wouldnt be a criminal case. It would be just like the FBI investigation during the Anita Hill drama or when they did the background check 6 times prior without this new information.

Explain how this is an FBI case? LOL. It is local PD and it happened allegedly 36 years ago. The Anita Hill case was proven to be BS and actually the approval ratings for Thomas skyrocketted post case when compared to pre case. If you had to bet your life would you bet she is being honest.

Easy. The POTUS says..."investigate FBI" Just like he did in the Anita Hill case.

How would the FBI investigate a 36-year old case? Anita Hill was fresh and crossed state lines.

You're an FBI agent. What do you do? There is a reason for statutes of limitations.

The same way I would investigate any case I was told to investigate.

I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion.

Since this isnt a criminal case statutes of limitations dont apply which is another reason I am wondering why Kav is not welcoming an FBI investigation and his drunkard buddy is spouting the broiler plate legal defense response of "I dont recollect". What are they hiding if they are innocent?

 

[Asclepias]

See the post you replied to for clarification. I dont know what to tell you other than that. Why is it so hard for you to understand that it doesnt matter if he never repeated it again? The point is that he did it and got away with it.

No, the point is, he is ACCUSED of doing it. That's what you seem incapable of dealing with.

If he is accused of doing it then he should be investigated with this new information in tow. This should be done prior to giving him a lifetime appointment to the SC or is it that you have no problem with a sexual predator on the SC?

She has a number of obstacles to overcome.

1. The timing stinks to high heaven.
2. She's offered zero evidence beyond her simple accusation that anything happened. The witnesses she's named say nothing happened.
3. When given the opportunity to testify under oath, she backed away.

These things lead inevitably to political hit job, not substantive accusation.

She has zero obstacles to overcome. This is on congress and Drumpf to do or not do something.

1. Timing doesnt matter.
2. No the witness said he "couldnt recollect" which is a legal way of protecting your ass in the event you end up in court.
3. Not a problem. The FBI wasnt asking her to testify. Congress was.

Actually the timing does matter. Feinstein had the letter since a few days after the nominee was known. She sat in it. We had hearings devoted to grilling the nominee on all manner of potential issues. She sat in it. Only when it came down to the last few days before the vote did she release it, and yes I believe she released it. Her witness would not back her story. That's the critical point. In our system, the accuser doesn't get to pick who is going to investigate. Congress gave her a golden opportunity to tell her story to the world under oath and she didn't want to do it.

None of those things inspires confidence in her story.

Yeah you sit on things when the witness says to sit on it. Not sure why that bothers you.

 

[Pop23]

Do you guys realize that the only evidence Congress has is from newspapers / websites? They have not spoken to one witness. Crazy.

There is no evidence. There is only the recovered memory from a professional therapist-patient. Repressed memory therapy is highly suspect and is not Evidence.

The notes from her therapist don't match her testimony. A lot of holes. Doesn't mean she is lying but it seems fishy.

Not really. The only thing is that the therapist said different was that 4 males were in the room instead of 2 in the room and 2 outside the room.

Ohhhhhh, that's all! Well then, they are disputing THE KEY FACT IN THE EVIDENCE.

You can't make this shit up, you really can't

Yep thats all. Would you correct someone if they got something you said wrong?

Forgetting a couple of key things aintcha. The therapist is trained in this. There would have to be recorded evidence of the mistake (audio) for the change in the document to be considered as correct. If they exist (highly doubt that after six years), then you have something, if they don't, then hell, why can't the therapist simply write up new notes today, SIX YEARS AFTER THE SESSION and submit them. They would have equal validity.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How can the FBI investigate when it is a local case? Never croseds state lines. It is a local PD case but there is no chance Kavanaugh would be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The FBI had investigated Kavanaugh on six separate instances. Has the accuser even filed a police report? Doesn't Kavanaugh have a right to face his accuser? This is to your point and I agree with you a stupid dog and pony show. Why did Feinstein sit on this for so long. She is part of the reason so many people dislike my people, the Jews. Find us dishonest. She is case in point. Thanks, Diane.

You seem to be another person that is clueless about the fact that it wouldnt be a criminal case. It would be just like the FBI investigation during the Anita Hill drama or when they did the background check 6 times prior without this new information.

Explain how this is an FBI case? LOL. It is local PD and it happened allegedly 36 years ago. The Anita Hill case was proven to be BS and actually the approval ratings for Thomas skyrocketted post case when compared to pre case. If you had to bet your life would you bet she is being honest.

Easy. The POTUS says..."investigate FBI" Just like he did in the Anita Hill case.

How would the FBI investigate a 36-year old case? Anita Hill was fresh and crossed state lines.

You're an FBI agent. What do you do? There is a reason for statutes of limitations.

The same way I would investigate any case I was told to investigate.

I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion.

Since this isnt a criminal case statutes of limitations dont apply which is another reason I am wondering why Kav is not welcoming an FBI investigation and his drunkard buddy is spouting the broiler plate legal defense response of "I dont recollect". What are they hiding if they are innocent?

LMAO I mean specifically. You have 3 persons. Two say they don't recall anything. The accuser cannot recall the exact day or time. What procedure is left? The person never filed a police report or mention this again until 2012 and the therapist notes don't corroborate the accusation. The FBI are not mind readers.

 

[Pop23]

How can the FBI investigate when it is a local case? Never croseds state lines. It is a local PD case but there is no chance Kavanaugh would be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The FBI had investigated Kavanaugh on six separate instances. Has the accuser even filed a police report? Doesn't Kavanaugh have a right to face his accuser? This is to your point and I agree with you a stupid dog and pony show. Why did Feinstein sit on this for so long. She is part of the reason so many people dislike my people, the Jews. Find us dishonest. She is case in point. Thanks, Diane.

You seem to be another person that is clueless about the fact that it wouldnt be a criminal case. It would be just like the FBI investigation during the Anita Hill drama or when they did the background check 6 times prior without this new information.

Explain how this is an FBI case? LOL. It is local PD and it happened allegedly 36 years ago. The Anita Hill case was proven to be BS and actually the approval ratings for Thomas skyrocketted post case when compared to pre case. If you had to bet your life would you bet she is being honest.

Easy. The POTUS says..."investigate FBI" Just like he did in the Anita Hill case.

How would the FBI investigate a 36-year old case? Anita Hill was fresh and crossed state lines.

You're an FBI agent. What do you do? There is a reason for statutes of limitations.

The same way I would investigate any case I was told to investigate.

I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion.

Since this isnt a criminal case statutes of limitations dont apply which is another reason I am wondering why Kav is not welcoming an FBI investigation and his drunkard buddy is spouting the broiler plate legal defense response of "I dont recollect". What are they hiding if they are innocent?

"I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion."

Then you understand that the FBI did just that. When dealing with a 36 year old case they would demand evidence that a crime was committed, evidence beyond dispute, in enough volume to make delegating manhours to it.

So, where is it?

 

[boedicca]

There is no evidence. There is only the recovered memory from a professional therapist-patient. Repressed memory therapy is highly suspect and is not Evidence.

The notes from her therapist don't match her testimony. A lot of holes. Doesn't mean she is lying but it seems fishy.

Not really. The only thing is that the therapist said different was that 4 males were in the room instead of 2 in the room and 2 outside the room.

Ohhhhhh, that's all! Well then, they are disputing THE KEY FACT IN THE EVIDENCE.

You can't make this shit up, you really can't

Yep thats all. Would you correct someone if they got something you said wrong?

Forgetting a couple of key things aintcha. The therapist is trained in this. There would have to be recorded evidence of the mistake (audio) for the change in the document to be considered as correct. If they exist (highly doubt that after six years), then you have something, if they don't, then hell, why can't the therapist simply write up new notes today, SIX YEARS AFTER THE SESSION and submit them. They would have equal validity.

I'm not talking about her therapist. Ford has degrees in teaches in a psychology program. She is a professional patient, imo.

 

[Asclepias]

There is no evidence. There is only the recovered memory from a professional therapist-patient. Repressed memory therapy is highly suspect and is not Evidence.

The notes from her therapist don't match her testimony. A lot of holes. Doesn't mean she is lying but it seems fishy.

Not really. The only thing is that the therapist said different was that 4 males were in the room instead of 2 in the room and 2 outside the room.

Ohhhhhh, that's all! Well then, they are disputing THE KEY FACT IN THE EVIDENCE.

You can't make this shit up, you really can't

Yep thats all. Would you correct someone if they got something you said wrong?

Forgetting a couple of key things aintcha. The therapist is trained in this. There would have to be recorded evidence of the mistake (audio) for the change in the document to be considered as correct. If they exist (highly doubt that after six years), then you have something, if they don't, then hell, why can't the therapist simply write up new notes today, SIX YEARS AFTER THE SESSION and submit them. They would have equal validity.

If you keep talking you may answer more of your questions like you just did. Just because someone is trained doesnt mean they dont make mistakes. Lets not even debate that point.

 

[Asclepias]

You seem to be another person that is clueless about the fact that it wouldnt be a criminal case. It would be just like the FBI investigation during the Anita Hill drama or when they did the background check 6 times prior without this new information.

Explain how this is an FBI case? LOL. It is local PD and it happened allegedly 36 years ago. The Anita Hill case was proven to be BS and actually the approval ratings for Thomas skyrocketted post case when compared to pre case. If you had to bet your life would you bet she is being honest.

Easy. The POTUS says..."investigate FBI" Just like he did in the Anita Hill case.

How would the FBI investigate a 36-year old case? Anita Hill was fresh and crossed state lines.

You're an FBI agent. What do you do? There is a reason for statutes of limitations.

The same way I would investigate any case I was told to investigate.

I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion.

Since this isnt a criminal case statutes of limitations dont apply which is another reason I am wondering why Kav is not welcoming an FBI investigation and his drunkard buddy is spouting the broiler plate legal defense response of "I dont recollect". What are they hiding if they are innocent?

"I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion."

Then you understand that the FBI did just that. When dealing with a 36 year old case they would demand evidence that a crime was committed, evidence beyond dispute, in enough volume to make delegating manhours to it.

So, where is it?

No the FBI didnt do just that. They never have investigated this incident specifically because its out of their jurisdiction until Drumpf orders them to investigate it.

 

[hadit]

No, the point is, he is ACCUSED of doing it. That's what you seem incapable of dealing with.

If he is accused of doing it then he should be investigated with this new information in tow. This should be done prior to giving him a lifetime appointment to the SC or is it that you have no problem with a sexual predator on the SC?

She has a number of obstacles to overcome.

1. The timing stinks to high heaven.
2. She's offered zero evidence beyond her simple accusation that anything happened. The witnesses she's named say nothing happened.
3. When given the opportunity to testify under oath, she backed away.

These things lead inevitably to political hit job, not substantive accusation.

She has zero obstacles to overcome. This is on congress and Drumpf to do or not do something.

1. Timing doesnt matter.
2. No the witness said he "couldnt recollect" which is a legal way of protecting your ass in the event you end up in court.
3. Not a problem. The FBI wasnt asking her to testify. Congress was.

Actually the timing does matter. Feinstein had the letter since a few days after the nominee was known. She sat in it. We had hearings devoted to grilling the nominee on all manner of potential issues. She sat in it. Only when it came down to the last few days before the vote did she release it, and yes I believe she released it. Her witness would not back her story. That's the critical point. In our system, the accuser doesn't get to pick who is going to investigate. Congress gave her a golden opportunity to tell her story to the world under oath and she didn't want to do it.

None of those things inspires confidence in her story.

Yeah you sit on things when the witness says to sit on it. Not sure why that bothers you.

Because that's bogus. What purpose is served by a person accusing someone else on the verge of being placed on the SC, but insisting that the accusation not see the light of day?

What purpose?

 

[Pop23]

The notes from her therapist don't match her testimony. A lot of holes. Doesn't mean she is lying but it seems fishy.

Not really. The only thing is that the therapist said different was that 4 males were in the room instead of 2 in the room and 2 outside the room.

Ohhhhhh, that's all! Well then, they are disputing THE KEY FACT IN THE EVIDENCE.

You can't make this shit up, you really can't

Yep thats all. Would you correct someone if they got something you said wrong?

Forgetting a couple of key things aintcha. The therapist is trained in this. There would have to be recorded evidence of the mistake (audio) for the change in the document to be considered as correct. If they exist (highly doubt that after six years), then you have something, if they don't, then hell, why can't the therapist simply write up new notes today, SIX YEARS AFTER THE SESSION and submit them. They would have equal validity.

If you keep talking you may answer more of your questions like you just did. Just because someone is trained doesnt mean they dont make mistakes. Lets not even debate that point.

Ummmmm, you understand what Professional means, and what the designation PhD references, right? I am sure a good defense attorney sure as shit would.

Next

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The notes from her therapist don't match her testimony. A lot of holes. Doesn't mean she is lying but it seems fishy.

Not really. The only thing is that the therapist said different was that 4 males were in the room instead of 2 in the room and 2 outside the room.

Ohhhhhh, that's all! Well then, they are disputing THE KEY FACT IN THE EVIDENCE.

You can't make this shit up, you really can't

Yep thats all. Would you correct someone if they got something you said wrong?

Forgetting a couple of key things aintcha. The therapist is trained in this. There would have to be recorded evidence of the mistake (audio) for the change in the document to be considered as correct. If they exist (highly doubt that after six years), then you have something, if they don't, then hell, why can't the therapist simply write up new notes today, SIX YEARS AFTER THE SESSION and submit them. They would have equal validity.

If you keep talking you may answer more of your questions like you just did. Just because someone is trained doesnt mean they dont make mistakes. Lets not even debate that point.

Wow. Assfaceias is stupid in every which way.

• All real Jews are black;
• Black Lives Matter but only when it comes to white people. They can kill each other at will and no one cares;
• FBI agents are mind readers;
• Many African Americans have naturally straight hair (cannot name one famous one).

Did I miss anything? Holy stupidity, Bat Man.

 

[Pop23]

Explain how this is an FBI case? LOL. It is local PD and it happened allegedly 36 years ago. The Anita Hill case was proven to be BS and actually the approval ratings for Thomas skyrocketted post case when compared to pre case. If you had to bet your life would you bet she is being honest.

Easy. The POTUS says..."investigate FBI" Just like he did in the Anita Hill case.

How would the FBI investigate a 36-year old case? Anita Hill was fresh and crossed state lines.

You're an FBI agent. What do you do? There is a reason for statutes of limitations.

The same way I would investigate any case I was told to investigate.

I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion.

Since this isnt a criminal case statutes of limitations dont apply which is another reason I am wondering why Kav is not welcoming an FBI investigation and his drunkard buddy is spouting the broiler plate legal defense response of "I dont recollect". What are they hiding if they are innocent?

"I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion."

Then you understand that the FBI did just that. When dealing with a 36 year old case they would demand evidence that a crime was committed, evidence beyond dispute, in enough volume to make delegating manhours to it.

So, where is it?

No the FBI didnt do just that. They never have investigated this incident specifically because its out of their jurisdiction until Drumpf orders them to investigate it.

They were handed the information and refused to investigate dork.

 

[Asclepias]

You seem to be another person that is clueless about the fact that it wouldnt be a criminal case. It would be just like the FBI investigation during the Anita Hill drama or when they did the background check 6 times prior without this new information.

Explain how this is an FBI case? LOL. It is local PD and it happened allegedly 36 years ago. The Anita Hill case was proven to be BS and actually the approval ratings for Thomas skyrocketted post case when compared to pre case. If you had to bet your life would you bet she is being honest.

Easy. The POTUS says..."investigate FBI" Just like he did in the Anita Hill case.

How would the FBI investigate a 36-year old case? Anita Hill was fresh and crossed state lines.

You're an FBI agent. What do you do? There is a reason for statutes of limitations.

The same way I would investigate any case I was told to investigate.

I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion.

Since this isnt a criminal case statutes of limitations dont apply which is another reason I am wondering why Kav is not welcoming an FBI investigation and his drunkard buddy is spouting the broiler plate legal defense response of "I dont recollect". What are they hiding if they are innocent?

LMAO I mean specifically. You have 3 persons. Two say they don't recall anything. The accuser cannot recall the exact day or time. What procedure is left? The person never filed a police report or mention this again until 2012 and the therapist notes don't corroborate the accusation. The FBI are not mind readers.

You mean specifically? I would need to specifically be an FBI agent to tell you that. You should speak with an FBI investigator. I can only tell you they have the resources to do it and way better than congress.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Easy. The POTUS says..."investigate FBI" Just like he did in the Anita Hill case.

How would the FBI investigate a 36-year old case? Anita Hill was fresh and crossed state lines.

You're an FBI agent. What do you do? There is a reason for statutes of limitations.

The same way I would investigate any case I was told to investigate.

I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion.

Since this isnt a criminal case statutes of limitations dont apply which is another reason I am wondering why Kav is not welcoming an FBI investigation and his drunkard buddy is spouting the broiler plate legal defense response of "I dont recollect". What are they hiding if they are innocent?

"I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion."

Then you understand that the FBI did just that. When dealing with a 36 year old case they would demand evidence that a crime was committed, evidence beyond dispute, in enough volume to make delegating manhours to it.

So, where is it?

No the FBI didnt do just that. They never have investigated this incident specifically because its out of their jurisdiction until Drumpf orders them to investigate it.

They were handed the information and refused to investigate dork.

That is actually true. They had no case. And he is a dork.

 

[Asclepias]

Easy. The POTUS says..."investigate FBI" Just like he did in the Anita Hill case.

How would the FBI investigate a 36-year old case? Anita Hill was fresh and crossed state lines.

You're an FBI agent. What do you do? There is a reason for statutes of limitations.

The same way I would investigate any case I was told to investigate.

I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion.

Since this isnt a criminal case statutes of limitations dont apply which is another reason I am wondering why Kav is not welcoming an FBI investigation and his drunkard buddy is spouting the broiler plate legal defense response of "I dont recollect". What are they hiding if they are innocent?

"I follow whatever policies and procedures I normally do for investiagtion."

Then you understand that the FBI did just that. When dealing with a 36 year old case they would demand evidence that a crime was committed, evidence beyond dispute, in enough volume to make delegating manhours to it.

So, where is it?

No the FBI didnt do just that. They never have investigated this incident specifically because its out of their jurisdiction until Drumpf orders them to investigate it.

They were handed the information and refused to investigate dork.

Correct. Not sure why your brain is refusing to connect the dots for you? Drumpf didnt order them to investigate it.