Kavanaugh Accuser Won't Testify

[Pop23]

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.

OK, because this little hissy fit has gone far enough, lets break this down:

There is a single piece of evidence that can be used in court. It is the note from the therapist.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford attempts to place this into a trial hearing in a redacted form.

Judge Kav's attorney objects, states that the evidence must be placed in it's original form, or not at all

The Judge then has a hearing on the evidence and calls in the Therapist to testify

The Therapist testifies that those are indeed his notes, and maybe he made a mistake on that key point.

The Judge asks the Therapist how he can be sure

The Therapist: I can't be absolutely sure, that was six years ago.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford: You're honor, Dr. Fords husband was also present at the session and will verify the mistake.

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your Honor, this is highly questionable. The two are married and the husband's testimony is unreliable due to their Marital Status.

Judge to Therapist: Do you have any other ways to validate the mistake, audio or video recordings?

The Therapist: No your honor

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your honor, we move that the notes be thrown out due to their unreliability. In the best case for Dr. Ford, the witness has just admitted that he possibly made one mistake on the notes, how do we know that he was paying attention at all and didn't make more mistakes?

Judge to Dr. Ford's Attorney: Looks to me that you will have to either accept the notes as written, or withdraw them as evidence.

Get it now?

Is this a dream or a daytime fantasy? I'm not clear on why you gave me this.

Because you keep whining about why the FBI won't investigate. What I took the time to break down for you IS THE REASON. There simply nothing left TOO investigate.

 

[Asclepias]

Pretty easy. You want me to believe you have some insider information so you win the internet. Lots of guys that think like you do this all the time.

I don't have any insider info. I have not discussed this case with them. It would make me look stupid. Have you never met an FBI agent? Or a police officer? Or a fireman? Did they look any different to you than an average Joe? WTF are you talking about? You have gone insane.

I know you dont have insider info. Thats why I am laughing at you. Ive met people from most LE angencies. I know they get training that enables them to do their jobs where most people would have no clue. You claimed that you trained LEOs. Are you saying everything you train them on they already know? Contradicting yourself again huh?

I don't train them in investigative duties. I train in H2H combat.

Lets say I believe you. Why would you have to train them in H2H combat if all regular people already know this?

Certain people get into leveraged situations and need specific training. Disarming persons while not always causing massive harm, also how to leverage larger persons when helping them (fire fighters and EMTs), and women. It is not all about punches, kicks and throws. A lot of it is pressure points, positioning, leverage, etc. A 130 pound woman can take down a 300 pound untrained man if she understands leverage.

I am not an expert on criminal investigations. I just have commons sense. But these persons are regular Joes.

Youre deflecting. Would you say a random group of civilians have to take your course...

... in order to know what they know?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

OK, because this little hissy fit has gone far enough, lets break this down:

There is a single piece of evidence that can be used in court. It is the note from the therapist.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford attempts to place this into a trial hearing in a redacted form.

Judge Kav's attorney objects, states that the evidence must be placed in it's original form, or not at all

The Judge then has a hearing on the evidence and calls in the Therapist to testify

The Therapist testifies that those are indeed his notes, and maybe he made a mistake on that key point.

The Judge asks the Therapist how he can be sure

The Therapist: I can't be absolutely sure, that was six years ago.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford: You're honor, Dr. Fords husband was also present at the session and will verify the mistake.

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your Honor, this is highly questionable. The two are married and the husband's testimony is unreliable due to their Marital Status.

Judge to Therapist: Do you have any other ways to validate the mistake, audio or video recordings?

The Therapist: No your honor

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your honor, we move that the notes be thrown out due to their unreliability. In the best case for Dr. Ford, the witness has just admitted that he possibly made one mistake on the notes, how do we know that he was paying attention at all and didn't make more mistakes?

Judge to Dr. Ford's Attorney: Looks to me that you will have to either accept the notes as written, or withdraw them as evidence.

Get it now?

Is this a dream or a daytime fantasy? I'm not clear on why you gave me this.

Because you keep whining about why the FBI won't investigate. What I took the time to break down for you IS THE REASON. There simply nothing left TOO investigate.

Nope. You guys are whining about why the FBI shouldnt investigate.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

OK, because this little hissy fit has gone far enough, lets break this down:

There is a single piece of evidence that can be used in court. It is the note from the therapist.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford attempts to place this into a trial hearing in a redacted form.

Judge Kav's attorney objects, states that the evidence must be placed in it's original form, or not at all

The Judge then has a hearing on the evidence and calls in the Therapist to testify

The Therapist testifies that those are indeed his notes, and maybe he made a mistake on that key point.

The Judge asks the Therapist how he can be sure

The Therapist: I can't be absolutely sure, that was six years ago.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford: You're honor, Dr. Fords husband was also present at the session and will verify the mistake.

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your Honor, this is highly questionable. The two are married and the husband's testimony is unreliable due to their Marital Status.

Judge to Therapist: Do you have any other ways to validate the mistake, audio or video recordings?

The Therapist: No your honor

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your honor, we move that the notes be thrown out due to their unreliability. In the best case for Dr. Ford, the witness has just admitted that he possibly made one mistake on the notes, how do we know that he was paying attention at all and didn't make more mistakes?

Judge to Dr. Ford's Attorney: Looks to me that you will have to either accept the notes as written, or withdraw them as evidence.

Get it now?

There is no case here. Assfaceias is claiming she can win in terms of public opinion. But that didn't work for Anita Hill.

Nope. I'm claiming there should be an FBI investigation just like what happened in the Anita Hill case. I can always tell when youre getting frustrated. You start lying about what I said.

Anita Hill was different as it was fluid. If this took place in 2010. OK. This took place in 1982 allegedly. If that were the case with AH. I'd say the same thing.

Fluid? Is this your opinion or is this something thats spelled out in some rule book?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

My job impresses you? LOL. I just asked for one famous African American with naturally straight hair and you got all defensive. I run my own business. Glad that impresses you. Wait. Are you hitting on me? Weird.

No your job doesnt impress me. I said you were trying your best to impress me.

I cannot impress you. I am white, remember. You do PC shit for work right? I would not argue with you about PC programming. I don't know enough about it. Not sure why you would argue with me about FBI agents being just regular people. Weird.

Just because you cant impress me doesnt mean youre not trying. Its a well known fact that the FBI is the gold standard for LEOs in the US. If they were regular people skill wise all PD's would be at their level.

They don't perform miracles. Did you think Strzok and Page were super human? They have more resources, can cross state lines and are generally better trained but they are not deities. There are 1000s of cases they cannot resolve.

Who said they perform miracles and why would they need to? I thought Strzok and Page knew a hell of a lot more than the random civillian about the FBI's procedures for investigating something.

Their emails showed that to you? They seemed juvenile and unprofessional to me.

Play Devil's Advocate you are FBI Agent Assfaceias. You get the case. The only witness cannot remember the place, time or her age. This allegedly happened 36 yrs. ago. The accused is a successful judge with a stellar record. He categorically denies it. The therapist notes do not corroborate the accusers story. What do you do? Answer as a logical person not an FBI trained agent.

 

[Pop23]

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.

OK, because this little hissy fit has gone far enough, lets break this down:

There is a single piece of evidence that can be used in court. It is the note from the therapist.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford attempts to place this into a trial hearing in a redacted form.

Judge Kav's attorney objects, states that the evidence must be placed in it's original form, or not at all

The Judge then has a hearing on the evidence and calls in the Therapist to testify

The Therapist testifies that those are indeed his notes, and maybe he made a mistake on that key point.

The Judge asks the Therapist how he can be sure

The Therapist: I can't be absolutely sure, that was six years ago.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford: You're honor, Dr. Fords husband was also present at the session and will verify the mistake.

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your Honor, this is highly questionable. The two are married and the husband's testimony is unreliable due to their Marital Status.

Judge to Therapist: Do you have any other ways to validate the mistake, audio or video recordings?

The Therapist: No your honor

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your honor, we move that the notes be thrown out due to their unreliability. In the best case for Dr. Ford, the witness has just admitted that he possibly made one mistake on the notes, how do we know that he was paying attention at all and didn't make more mistakes?

Judge to Dr. Ford's Attorney: Looks to me that you will have to either accept the notes as written, or withdraw them as evidence.

Get it now?

Is this a dream or a daytime fantasy? I'm not clear on why you gave me this.

Because you keep whining about why the FBI won't investigate. What I took the time to break down for you IS THE REASON. There simply nothing left TOO investigate.

Nope. You guys are whining about why the FBI shouldnt investigate.

And I illustrated it for you.

Come back when you have something other than hot air.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

OK, because this little hissy fit has gone far enough, lets break this down:

There is a single piece of evidence that can be used in court. It is the note from the therapist.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford attempts to place this into a trial hearing in a redacted form.

Judge Kav's attorney objects, states that the evidence must be placed in it's original form, or not at all

The Judge then has a hearing on the evidence and calls in the Therapist to testify

The Therapist testifies that those are indeed his notes, and maybe he made a mistake on that key point.

The Judge asks the Therapist how he can be sure

The Therapist: I can't be absolutely sure, that was six years ago.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford: You're honor, Dr. Fords husband was also present at the session and will verify the mistake.

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your Honor, this is highly questionable. The two are married and the husband's testimony is unreliable due to their Marital Status.

Judge to Therapist: Do you have any other ways to validate the mistake, audio or video recordings?

The Therapist: No your honor

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your honor, we move that the notes be thrown out due to their unreliability. In the best case for Dr. Ford, the witness has just admitted that he possibly made one mistake on the notes, how do we know that he was paying attention at all and didn't make more mistakes?

Judge to Dr. Ford's Attorney: Looks to me that you will have to either accept the notes as written, or withdraw them as evidence.

Get it now?

Is this a dream or a daytime fantasy? I'm not clear on why you gave me this.

Because you keep whining about why the FBI won't investigate. What I took the time to break down for you IS THE REASON. There simply nothing left TOO investigate.

Nope. You guys are whining about why the FBI shouldnt investigate.

And I illustrated it for you.

Come back when you have something other than hot air.

No you just whined

I havent left yet.

 

[Pop23]

OK, because this little hissy fit has gone far enough, lets break this down:

There is a single piece of evidence that can be used in court. It is the note from the therapist.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford attempts to place this into a trial hearing in a redacted form.

Judge Kav's attorney objects, states that the evidence must be placed in it's original form, or not at all

The Judge then has a hearing on the evidence and calls in the Therapist to testify

The Therapist testifies that those are indeed his notes, and maybe he made a mistake on that key point.

The Judge asks the Therapist how he can be sure

The Therapist: I can't be absolutely sure, that was six years ago.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford: You're honor, Dr. Fords husband was also present at the session and will verify the mistake.

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your Honor, this is highly questionable. The two are married and the husband's testimony is unreliable due to their Marital Status.

Judge to Therapist: Do you have any other ways to validate the mistake, audio or video recordings?

The Therapist: No your honor

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your honor, we move that the notes be thrown out due to their unreliability. In the best case for Dr. Ford, the witness has just admitted that he possibly made one mistake on the notes, how do we know that he was paying attention at all and didn't make more mistakes?

Judge to Dr. Ford's Attorney: Looks to me that you will have to either accept the notes as written, or withdraw them as evidence.

Get it now?

Is this a dream or a daytime fantasy? I'm not clear on why you gave me this.

Because you keep whining about why the FBI won't investigate. What I took the time to break down for you IS THE REASON. There simply nothing left TOO investigate.

Nope. You guys are whining about why the FBI shouldnt investigate.

And I illustrated it for you.

Come back when you have something other than hot air.

No you just whined

I havent left yet.

Yeah, like a bad case of diarrhea. Difference is, diarrhea is far more productive.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I don't have any insider info. I have not discussed this case with them. It would make me look stupid. Have you never met an FBI agent? Or a police officer? Or a fireman? Did they look any different to you than an average Joe? WTF are you talking about? You have gone insane.

I know you dont have insider info. Thats why I am laughing at you. Ive met people from most LE angencies. I know they get training that enables them to do their jobs where most people would have no clue. You claimed that you trained LEOs. Are you saying everything you train them on they already know? Contradicting yourself again huh?

I don't train them in investigative duties. I train in H2H combat.

Lets say I believe you. Why would you have to train them in H2H combat if all regular people already know this?

Certain people get into leveraged situations and need specific training. Disarming persons while not always causing massive harm, also how to leverage larger persons when helping them (fire fighters and EMTs), and women. It is not all about punches, kicks and throws. A lot of it is pressure points, positioning, leverage, etc. A 130 pound woman can take down a 300 pound untrained man if she understands leverage.

I am not an expert on criminal investigations. I just have commons sense. But these persons are regular Joes.

Youre deflecting. Would you say a random group of civilians have to take your course...

... in order to know what they know?

It is not a course...and they are not random. It is done on a consultative basis and many take it to feel safer. There are many levels of training from beginner to advanced. I could teach someone to put someone else to sleep in 45 seconds. Imagine you are a computer consultant. Not every client wants the same thing, correct?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It would be smart to have this investigated....unless the repubs simply want a person that sexually assaulted a woman on the SCOTUS for political reasons.

There’s not a law enforcement agency in the country that would investigate this bullshit.

And why do you want him to not be confirmed? Oh yeah political reasons. Fuck off.

Drumpf can direct the FBI to investigate this.

I dont want him confirmed because he is a sexual predator.

Based on what evidence?

Drumpf doesnt need any evidence to have the FBI investigate him. Did they have evidence of anything when they did the other 6 background checks on him?

Did you shove a fork in your ear as a kid and damage something?

He was applying for a job, that requires a background check. There’s no crime dumbass, it’s a security clearance.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

OK, because this little hissy fit has gone far enough, lets break this down:

There is a single piece of evidence that can be used in court. It is the note from the therapist.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford attempts to place this into a trial hearing in a redacted form.

Judge Kav's attorney objects, states that the evidence must be placed in it's original form, or not at all

The Judge then has a hearing on the evidence and calls in the Therapist to testify

The Therapist testifies that those are indeed his notes, and maybe he made a mistake on that key point.

The Judge asks the Therapist how he can be sure

The Therapist: I can't be absolutely sure, that was six years ago.

The Attorney for Dr. Ford: You're honor, Dr. Fords husband was also present at the session and will verify the mistake.

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your Honor, this is highly questionable. The two are married and the husband's testimony is unreliable due to their Marital Status.

Judge to Therapist: Do you have any other ways to validate the mistake, audio or video recordings?

The Therapist: No your honor

The Attorney for Judge Kav: Your honor, we move that the notes be thrown out due to their unreliability. In the best case for Dr. Ford, the witness has just admitted that he possibly made one mistake on the notes, how do we know that he was paying attention at all and didn't make more mistakes?

Judge to Dr. Ford's Attorney: Looks to me that you will have to either accept the notes as written, or withdraw them as evidence.

Get it now?

There is no case here. Assfaceias is claiming she can win in terms of public opinion. But that didn't work for Anita Hill.

Nope. I'm claiming there should be an FBI investigation just like what happened in the Anita Hill case. I can always tell when youre getting frustrated. You start lying about what I said.

Anita Hill was different as it was fluid. If this took place in 2010. OK. This took place in 1982 allegedly. If that were the case with AH. I'd say the same thing.

Fluid? Is this your opinion or is this something thats spelled out in some rule book?

Fluid meaning it was happening or just stopped happening as AH alleged. She didn't allege that CT did this 30 years ago.

 

[Asclepias]

No your job doesnt impress me. I said you were trying your best to impress me.

I cannot impress you. I am white, remember. You do PC shit for work right? I would not argue with you about PC programming. I don't know enough about it. Not sure why you would argue with me about FBI agents being just regular people. Weird.

Just because you cant impress me doesnt mean youre not trying. Its a well known fact that the FBI is the gold standard for LEOs in the US. If they were regular people skill wise all PD's would be at their level.

They don't perform miracles. Did you think Strzok and Page were super human? They have more resources, can cross state lines and are generally better trained but they are not deities. There are 1000s of cases they cannot resolve.

Who said they perform miracles and why would they need to? I thought Strzok and Page knew a hell of a lot more than the random civillian about the FBI's procedures for investigating something.

Their emails showed that to you? They seemed juvenile and unprofessional to me.

Play Devil's Advocate you are FBI Agent Assfaceias. You get the case. The only witness cannot remember the place, time or her age. This allegedly happened 36 yrs. ago. The accused is a successful judge with a stellar record. He categorically denies it. The therapist notes do not corroborate the accusers story. What do you do? Answer as a logical person not an FBI trained agent.

Nope. the fact they were so high up in the FBI showed me that.

As a logical person I would question Ford in more detail to nail down her statement. Same with Judge and Kav.
Next I would get a list of people from each of them that was there or may have been there.
I then would locate those people and question them.
I would also locate any people that knew in common that may have overheard something about the party and question them too.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I cannot impress you. I am white, remember. You do PC shit for work right? I would not argue with you about PC programming. I don't know enough about it. Not sure why you would argue with me about FBI agents being just regular people. Weird.

Just because you cant impress me doesnt mean youre not trying. Its a well known fact that the FBI is the gold standard for LEOs in the US. If they were regular people skill wise all PD's would be at their level.

They don't perform miracles. Did you think Strzok and Page were super human? They have more resources, can cross state lines and are generally better trained but they are not deities. There are 1000s of cases they cannot resolve.

Who said they perform miracles and why would they need to? I thought Strzok and Page knew a hell of a lot more than the random civillian about the FBI's procedures for investigating something.

Their emails showed that to you? They seemed juvenile and unprofessional to me.

Play Devil's Advocate you are FBI Agent Assfaceias. You get the case. The only witness cannot remember the place, time or her age. This allegedly happened 36 yrs. ago. The accused is a successful judge with a stellar record. He categorically denies it. The therapist notes do not corroborate the accusers story. What do you do? Answer as a logical person not an FBI trained agent.

Nope. the fact they were so high up in the FBI showed me that.

As a logical person I would question Ford in more detail to nail down her statement. Same with Judge and Kav.
Next I would get a list of people from each of them that was there or may have been there.
I then would locate those people and question them.
I would also locate any people that knew in common that may have overheard something about the party and question them too.

She cannot tell you the date and time of the party. What people could you possibly locate? If she had the date and time then it would be a case the FBI could investigate, I agree.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I cannot impress you. I am white, remember. You do PC shit for work right? I would not argue with you about PC programming. I don't know enough about it. Not sure why you would argue with me about FBI agents being just regular people. Weird.

Just because you cant impress me doesnt mean youre not trying. Its a well known fact that the FBI is the gold standard for LEOs in the US. If they were regular people skill wise all PD's would be at their level.

They don't perform miracles. Did you think Strzok and Page were super human? They have more resources, can cross state lines and are generally better trained but they are not deities. There are 1000s of cases they cannot resolve.

Who said they perform miracles and why would they need to? I thought Strzok and Page knew a hell of a lot more than the random civillian about the FBI's procedures for investigating something.

Their emails showed that to you? They seemed juvenile and unprofessional to me.

Play Devil's Advocate you are FBI Agent Assfaceias. You get the case. The only witness cannot remember the place, time or her age. This allegedly happened 36 yrs. ago. The accused is a successful judge with a stellar record. He categorically denies it. The therapist notes do not corroborate the accusers story. What do you do? Answer as a logical person not an FBI trained agent.

Nope. the fact they were so high up in the FBI showed me that.

As a logical person I would question Ford in more detail to nail down her statement. Same with Judge and Kav.
Next I would get a list of people from each of them that was there or may have been there.
I then would locate those people and question them.
I would also locate any people that knew in common that may have overheard something about the party and question them too.

George Bush was the head of the CIA (senior Bush). He was a moron.

 

[Asclepias]

It would be smart to have this investigated....unless the repubs simply want a person that sexually assaulted a woman on the SCOTUS for political reasons.

There’s not a law enforcement agency in the country that would investigate this bullshit.

And why do you want him to not be confirmed? Oh yeah political reasons. Fuck off.

Drumpf can direct the FBI to investigate this.

I dont want him confirmed because he is a sexual predator.

Based on what evidence?

Drumpf doesnt need any evidence to have the FBI investigate him. Did they have evidence of anything when they did the other 6 background checks on him?

Did you shove a fork in your ear as a kid and damage something?

He was applying for a job, that requires a background check. There’s no crime dumbass, it’s a security clearance.

Do you see the word "crime" in the post you responded to dummy? it cant be a crime now. Statute of limitation is up. Thanks for proving my point. Drumpf had them do a security check without this information. They can now do one with this new information.

 

[dave p]

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.

Deflect all you want. She has major problems.

 

[Asclepias]

Just because you cant impress me doesnt mean youre not trying. Its a well known fact that the FBI is the gold standard for LEOs in the US. If they were regular people skill wise all PD's would be at their level.

They don't perform miracles. Did you think Strzok and Page were super human? They have more resources, can cross state lines and are generally better trained but they are not deities. There are 1000s of cases they cannot resolve.

Who said they perform miracles and why would they need to? I thought Strzok and Page knew a hell of a lot more than the random civillian about the FBI's procedures for investigating something.

Their emails showed that to you? They seemed juvenile and unprofessional to me.

Play Devil's Advocate you are FBI Agent Assfaceias. You get the case. The only witness cannot remember the place, time or her age. This allegedly happened 36 yrs. ago. The accused is a successful judge with a stellar record. He categorically denies it. The therapist notes do not corroborate the accusers story. What do you do? Answer as a logical person not an FBI trained agent.

Nope. the fact they were so high up in the FBI showed me that.

As a logical person I would question Ford in more detail to nail down her statement. Same with Judge and Kav.
Next I would get a list of people from each of them that was there or may have been there.
I then would locate those people and question them.
I would also locate any people that knew in common that may have overheard something about the party and question them too.

George Bush was the head of the CIA (senior Bush). He was a moron.

I guarantee you Bush was smarter than you, Drumpf and all the Drumpfsexuals put together.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

She cannot recall time or place. No court would ever convict Kavanaugh.

Yeah being past the statute of limitations kind of makes it a no brainer. Makes you wonder why the repubs are so afraid of having the FBI investigate the claims though.

What can the FBI do that Congress can't?

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.

You couldn’t teach a pet rock to stay. The FBI doesn’t investigate non-Federal crimes. They don’t investigate horseshit with no information to even start from and they aren’t going to investigate something the statute of limitations ran out on. The amount of evidence they have to start any investigation here is as empty as your head.

 

[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.

Deflect all you want. She has major problems.

Prove it then. Have the FBI investigate for a week.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

They don't perform miracles. Did you think Strzok and Page were super human? They have more resources, can cross state lines and are generally better trained but they are not deities. There are 1000s of cases they cannot resolve.

Who said they perform miracles and why would they need to? I thought Strzok and Page knew a hell of a lot more than the random civillian about the FBI's procedures for investigating something.

Their emails showed that to you? They seemed juvenile and unprofessional to me.

Play Devil's Advocate you are FBI Agent Assfaceias. You get the case. The only witness cannot remember the place, time or her age. This allegedly happened 36 yrs. ago. The accused is a successful judge with a stellar record. He categorically denies it. The therapist notes do not corroborate the accusers story. What do you do? Answer as a logical person not an FBI trained agent.

Nope. the fact they were so high up in the FBI showed me that.

As a logical person I would question Ford in more detail to nail down her statement. Same with Judge and Kav.
Next I would get a list of people from each of them that was there or may have been there.
I then would locate those people and question them.
I would also locate any people that knew in common that may have overheard something about the party and question them too.

George Bush was the head of the CIA (senior Bush). He was a moron.

I guarantee you Bush was smarter than you, Drumpf and all the Drumpfsexuals put together.

You guaranty it? Prove it.