Kav's FBI "thorough" investigation = Lame Coverup

[_EAllusion]

But the Democrats said that the FBI could handle the 10,000+ emails from Anthony Weiner's computer over the weekend, no problem!
So, im cofused why 1 week to do a SUPPLEMENTAL investigation on 1 guy would be a challenge.

The emails were copies of emails the FBI already had. So you'd just need to compare existing copies to see if the new copies were the same, which they were. You do understand how computers work, right?

[_subgenius]

[_subgenius]

SENATORS CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY) and DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “It will not take a ‘tremendous amount of time.’” (Release, 9/23/18)

SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): “We’re not going to say, 'Why isn’t this a month-long investigation?' but we’re going to at least say let’s give this one week.” (John Croman, “Klobuchar pivotal in Kavanaugh drama.’” KARE, 9/29/18)

SENATOR CHRIS COONS (D-DE): “I wish you would join us in calling for an FBI investigation for one week when you clear or confirm some of these allegations.” (Hearing, 9/27/18)

SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): “The thing is that every Senate vote matters and there is – there is time to get to the bottom of it, even if it’s seven days.” (ABC This Week, 9/30/18)

SENATORS KLOBUCHAR, HARRIS, LEAHY, WHITEHOUSE, BLUMENTHAL, JONES, UDALL, CORTEZ MASTO: “Declining to have the FBI take action under these circumstances also abandons the precedent that President George H.W. Bush set when he asked the FBI to investigate... the FBI finished its work in three days.” (Release, 9/20/18)

These comments were made in reference to a real investigation..

Do you have any evidence that there wasn't a real investigation this week? (other than "it didn't end up the way i wanted)...or are you guys still in the "believe theuncorroborated, no evidence, no wittnesses business"?

[_DoubtingThomas]

But the Democrats said that the FBI could handle the 10,000+ emails from Anthony Weiner's computer over the weekend, no problem!
So, im cofused why 1 week to do a SUPPLEMENTAL investigation on 1 guy would be a challenge.

When is Hillary getting arrested? Or was Hillary falsely accused of mishandling classified information?

[_cinepro]

But Senate Republicans refused to allow a real investigation and ignore all the sworn statements that corroborate Ramirez and Ford, proving Kavanaugh is unfit to sit on the bench.

What sworn statements are you talking about?

Obviously, this investigation wasn't being done for any of us. It was being done for Jeff Flake. The only question is whether it was enough for him. And it appears it was. So it accomplished what it was supposed to.

Was there any investigation that was going to convince firm believers in Ford's story that Kavanaugh is innocent? I'd guess...no. So complaining about the investigation or arguing over how it should have been done is pointless.

In the end, Ford claimed there were three people at the gathering who could corroborate her story (or that the gathering even happened). The FBI went and interviewed them. That's what an investigation is. And apparently they all said they were never at any gathering like that.

We didn't need an investigation into everyone Ford told her story to. No one doubts Ford believes she was assaulted and shared the story with others. The real question is whether it was Kavanaugh.

Frankly, naming three people who were supposed to be there and having all three of them say they don't know what she's talking about should be devastating to her story. I believe something happened to her, but I don't believe that her memory of it being Kavanaugh is reliable enough to convict him. Sorry.

[_Chap]

I believe something happened to her, but I don't believe that her memory of it being Kavanaugh is reliable enough to convict him.

For the 98th time: this is not a criminal trial. The appropriate test is not whether the evidence is sufficient to convict Kavanaugh of a criminal offence 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' (which it isn't)

The test is whether there is sufficient evidence against Kavanaugh (not just of sexual assault but of outright lying to Congress) to suggest a major risk he may not be an entirely fit person to be given the immense powers of a Supreme Court Justice for the rest of his life.

If the answer is 'yes', Kavanaugh suffers no penalty apart from continuing in his present job. And the President gets to suggest a less dubious candidate.

[_subgenius]

I believe something happened to her, but I don't believe that her memory of it being Kavanaugh is reliable enough to convict him.

For the 98th time: this is not a criminal trial. The appropriate test is not whether the evidence is sufficient to convict Kavanaugh of a criminal offence 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' (which it isn't)

The test is whether there is sufficient evidence against Kavanaugh (not just of sexual assault but of outright lying to Congress) to suggest a major risk he may not be an entirely fit person to be given the immense powers of a Supreme Court Justice for the rest of his life.

If the answer is 'yes', Kavanaugh suffers no penalty apart from continuing in his present job. And the President gets to suggest a less dubious candidate.

The answer was 'No'.

[_Maksutov]

I believe something happened to her, but I don't believe that her memory of it being Kavanaugh is reliable enough to convict him.

For the 98th time: this is not a criminal trial. The appropriate test is not whether the evidence is sufficient to convict Kavanaugh of a criminal offence 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' (which it isn't)

The test is whether there is sufficient evidence against Kavanaugh (not just of sexual assault but of outright lying to Congress) to suggest a major risk he may not be an entirely fit person to be given the immense powers of a Supreme Court Justice for the rest of his life.

If the answer is 'yes', Kavanaugh suffers no penalty apart from continuing in his present job. And the President gets to suggest a less dubious candidate.

Right you are, Chap. But the GOP wants a weapon on the court. Trump doesn't really care, his horizon doesn't extend that far. He only knows it gives him access to even more power and that's all he was ever about.

[_Kevin Graham]

Do you have any evidence that there wasn't a real investigation this week?

They interview Ramirez to find out what they already knew, but then they do not vet her corroborating sources because Trump didn't allow it. It really is that simple. The FBI is only going to do what the Senate asks the White House to ask of them.

[_Kevin Graham]

But Senate Republicans refused to allow a real investigation and ignore all the sworn statements that corroborate Ramirez and Ford, proving Kavanaugh is unfit to sit on the bench.

What sworn statements are you talking about?

Obviously, this investigation wasn't being done for any of us. It was being done for Jeff Flake. The only question is whether it was enough for him. And it appears it was. So it accomplished what it was supposed to.

Was there any investigation that was going to convince firm believers in Ford's story that Kavanaugh is innocent? I'd guess...no. So complaining about the investigation or arguing over how it should have been done is pointless.

In the end, Ford claimed there were three people at the gathering who could corroborate her story (or that the gathering even happened). The FBI went and interviewed them. That's what an investigation is. And apparently they all said they were never at any gathering like that.

We didn't need an investigation into everyone Ford told her story to. No one doubts Ford believes she was assaulted and shared the story with others. The real question is whether it was Kavanaugh.

Frankly, naming three people who were supposed to be there and having all three of them say they don't know what she's talking about should be devastating to her story. I believe something happened to her, but I don't believe that her memory of it being Kavanaugh is reliable enough to convict him. Sorry.

You're basically proving the point that this wasn't a real investigation. Why say we're going to investigate this for a whole week if what they're really saying is we're just going to go talk to the same exact people who have already told us what we want to hear?

And my how easily you skipped over Ramirez's accusations. The FBI interviewed her, but none of the people she named.