Is it relevant what someone did as a teenager 35 years ago?

[atpollard]

And what's with that thing about giving a letter about the alleged incident to the FBI? Even if a crime occurred, (1) it would be local and not federal; (2) it was just a letter, not evidence; (3) any statute of limitations would be long over. Grandstanding!

I think the FBI ran a background check and reported to the Senate on any findings of criminal past for the Senate to question the Candidate about. So handing the letter to the FBI in June would have given the FBI time to investigate, fact check and the Senators to ask the Candidate directly about it when he was being questioned by the Senate. By withholding the letter until now, there was no opportunity for the FBI to confirm or disprove allegations before the candidate spoke to the Senate.

Had the letter been presented to the FBI immediately, the investigation would be over already instead of the Senate discussing a postponement on the vote. It cannot be charged as a crime at this point (35 years after the fact), but if asked at the Senate hearing, then lying to the Senate would have been a crime. So the withholding of the letter from the FBI turned a possible legal matter into a 100% political matter.

 

[John of Japan]

I think the FBI ran a background check and reported to the Senate on any findings of criminal past for the Senate to question the Candidate about. So handing the letter to the FBI in June would have given the FBI time to investigate, fact check and the Senators to ask the Candidate directly about it when he was being questioned by the Senate. By withholding the letter until now, there was no opportunity for the FBI to confirm or disprove allegations before the candidate spoke to the Senate.

Had the letter been presented to the FBI immediately, the investigation would be over already instead of the Senate discussing a postponement on the vote. It cannot be charged as a crime at this point (35 years after the fact), but if asked at the Senate hearing, then lying to the Senate would have been a crime. So the withholding of the letter from the FBI turned a possible legal matter into a 100% political matter.

Thank you. That makes sense.

 

[HankD]

Seems like that would be the very first bit of corroborating evidence: someone not involved who remembered that he was there. But all we have right now is "He said, she said."

And what's with that thing about giving a letter about the alleged incident to the FBI? Even if a crime occurred, (1) it would be local and not federal; (2) it was just a letter, not evidence; (3) any statute of limitations would be long over. Grandstanding!

I remember watching a show starring Andrew Zimmern called Bizarre Foods. He goes to places and eats their local foods no matter what they are even insects and/or disgusting creepy crawlers. I really enjoy his show.

On this particular episode he went to a Scandinavian town where they prepared Cod fish by salting it, hanging it and letting nature take its course.

The stink of the fish is so great that the locals required the fishery to be OUT OF TOWN!

That's what the Feinstein letter is - so stinky and rotten she needs to take it OUT OF TOWN!

 

[InTheLight]

I think the FBI ran a background check and reported to the Senate on any findings of criminal past for the Senate to question the Candidate about. So handing the letter to the FBI in June would have given the FBI time to investigate, fact check and the Senators to ask the Candidate directly about it when he was being questioned by the Senate. By withholding the letter until now, there was no opportunity for the FBI to confirm or disprove allegations before the candidate spoke to the Senate.

Had the letter been presented to the FBI immediately, the investigation would be over already instead of the Senate discussing a postponement on the vote. It cannot be charged as a crime at this point (35 years after the fact), but if asked at the Senate hearing, then lying to the Senate would have been a crime. So the withholding of the letter from the FBI turned a possible legal matter into a 100% political matter.

Precisely.

And where is the media questions about the delay in turning over this letter? Where is Dianne Feinstein? Why isn't anyone asking why the letter was held for months before being turned over to the FBI.

 

[HankD]

Precisely.

And where is the media questions about the delay in turning over this letter? Where is Dianne Feinstein? Why isn't anyone asking why the letter was held for months before being turned over to the FBI.

I didn't even see the Feinstein fiasco on The Drudge Report today.

 

[InTheLight]

I didn't even see the Feinstein fiasco on The Drudge Report today.

Me neither. What is it?

 

[HankD]

Me neither. What is it?

Wake up and smell the proverbial covfefe!

 

[Reynolds]

Since when do Democrats care about women being sexually assaulted? They fought tooth and nail to protect Clinton and make sure he was not removed from office.

 

[rlvaughn]

Here are a couple of quotes from two people who cannot be accused of being overly conservative, but even they can see through the Feinstein charade (full disclosure, de León is a state senator running against Feinstein).

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican: “If they believed Professor Ford, why didn’t they surface this information earlier so that [Cavanaugh] could be questioned about it? And if they didn’t believe her and chose to withhold the information, why did they decide at the 11th hour to release it?”
Sen. Kevin de León, California Democrat: “The woman in question asked for anonymity; she didn’t ask for inaction.”

Politics is shady business, and for a long time Diane Feinstein has cast a dark shadow.

 

[HankD]

Politics is shady business, and for a long time Diane Feinstein has cast a dark shadow.

She has lost all credibility and should resign.

 

[John I Morris]

Since when do Democrats care about women being sexually assaulted? They fought tooth and nail to protect Clinton and make sure he was not removed from office.

I agree with you, it is bogus! For liberals it is keeping a good constitutionalist judge off the bench. They want activist judges at any cost to anyone who gets in the way. They want judges to rewrite the constitution! Don't allow it to happen!

 

[Aaron]

This is in the news with Brett Kavanaugh. He denies, and the woman looks to be a very unreliable witness. I tend to believe the story is not true. If it were, it would have come out earlier.

But the irony is, I would still support him, even if he groped a woman as a teenager. The idea that a man's life is disqualified for something he did drunk as a teen is just amazing to me.

Where did this thinking come from? Surely most Christians understand the foolishness of such an idea? Or do they.

Why are you assuming the accusation is true?

 

[Aaron]

Precisely.

And where is the media questions about the delay in turning over this letter? Where is Dianne Feinstein? Why isn't anyone asking why the letter was held for months before being turned over to the FBI.

It's asked repeatedly on conservative outlets.

 

[Aaron]

She has lost all credibility and should resign.

Practically every democrat should resign. She needs to be impeached and removed.

 

[John of Japan]

Why are you assuming the accusation is true?

But he said, "I tend to believe the story is not true."

 

[InTheLight]

Christine Blasey Ford's attorney calls the FBI...

Attorney: "Hello. I represent Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. I'd like the FBI to open an investigation into my client's allegation."

FBI: "OK. Before we proceed I'd like to ask some questions."

Attorney: "Of course."

FBI: "What is the nature of the allegation? What is your client alleging?"

Attorney: "That, as a teenager she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh."

FBI: "That sort of a crime is a local law enforcement issue. It does not fall under our jurisdiction."

Attorney: "Well the accused is up for the Supreme Court. Isn't that a federal issue?"

FBI: "Perhaps that is, but a sexual assault is not an FBI concern. It is a local police matter."

Attorney: "Still..."

FBI: "OK. When did the alleged incident occur?"

Attorney: "35 or 36 years ago."

FBI: "Could you be more specific?"

Attorney: "I think it was late summer of 1983."

FBI: "Do you have an actual date?"

Attorney: "No."

FBI: "Where did this occur? What was the address."

Attorney: "I don't know."

FBI: "Were there any witnesses?"

Attorney: "Besides the two involved there was one or two others."

FBI: "Which is it? One or two?"

Attorney: "I think it was one."

FBI: "And what does that witness say about the alleged incident?"

Attorney: "He says he never saw Kavanaugh act in the manner described by my client."

FBI: "Have a nice day."

<click>

 

[atpollard]

I just heard this morning on the news that Christine Blasey Ford wishes to decline the invitation to testify before the Senate until AFTER the FBI completes its investigation.

(I guess her attorney advises her not to perjure herself until she knows what facts the FBI can't prove to be false and then fill in the lies accordingly.)

 

[InTheLight]

I just heard this morning on the news that Christine Blasey Ford wishes to decline the invitation to testify before the Senate until AFTER the FBI completes its investigation.

What FBI investigation?

 

[just-want-peace]

We are witnessing FIRSTHAND what the dims meant when they said, “We will oppose any nominee by Trump to the fullest extent, no matter what it takes!!” , or words to that effect!!

This coming election SHOULD be the demise of the current dim party, saved only by a mega turnout of fradulent votes.

The fate of this country, IMHO, hangs on the outcome of this election.

 

[InTheLight]

.

The fate of this country, IMHO, hangs on the outcome of this election.

That's what people said in 2016.
And 2012.
And 2010.
And 2008.
And 2004.