We’ve went round and round about an FBI investigation. Let’s say that the GOP caves (again) to your side and orders one. Let’s say that the result is as expected: Nobody can remember shit from a party in 19-fucking-82, so we are back where we started.
Do you then support a vote? Do you support Kavanaugh’s nomination? (Yes, I laughed) 
Will you say that the accusations were “unproven”? Would you still say that a rapist sits on the Supreme Court?
That’s what I’ve been saying… Background check, FBI. Criminal investigation, state police. iiandyiiii has made it quite clear that he is not talking about a background check.
The FBI would be able to turn up a lot of information, even if no one else definitively remembered this party. They could with minimal effort find out if there are many classmates who remember heavy drinking from Judge and Kavanaugh, they could get a statement under oath from Judge (as well as Ford and Kavanaugh), they could interview the others identified by Ford as at the party to see if they ever recalled partying with any of the others identified, and much more. They could also investigate the claim by Ramirez and any others that come forward. All of this information could be shared with the Senate to aid in their decision making, even if they didn’t have any new information about this specific alleged party.
“Instigating sexual assault” isn’t a partisan thing (I hope). If it is, then thank fuck I’m not a Republican.
I’ve made it quite clear I’m talking about a specific investigation into these allegations of sexual assault. I never said anything about a “criminal investigation”. The FBI can investigate these allegations to provide better information to the President and Senate for the confirmation process, as they have on other occasions at the direction of the President.
The FBI has not investigated these specific allegations, but they could if the President ordered them to, and the President should do that immediately.
Once again, speaking as someone who the FBI has conducted a background investigation on, it is entirely understood by everyone in the process – including the applicant himself – that the FBI will look into matters relating to your character and trustworthiness.
Had I flown to some foreign country to engage the services of prostitutes who I paid to pee on things while I watched; the FBI would have no jurisdiction over such a “non-crime” but you bet your sweet bippy that the FBI will look into it. The idea that the FBI is prevented – or that it is a horribly dangerous idea – for the FBI to look into matters of one’s character and background except when it comes to certain jurisdictional matters is totally fucking insane.
ETA: I’d like to know how the FBI looking into the background of people who have applied for positions of trust with the United States Government could backfire. Please, tell me.
To revisit this for a moment, the paragraph in which the statement I quoted appears is as follows:
The Post article is clearly trying to equate Kavanaugh’s alleged drunken attack with actual rape. Why the alleged fear of looking as if she’d been attacked if the attack was unsuccessful? Why the need to carry herself as though this alleged rape attempt hadn’t occurred? Why the mention of her carrying on through the remainder of her high school years? And why the mention of her wearing the “required” white dress (as though in her mind she didn’t deserve it, presumedly as a result of her lost virtue)? And why note that “She told no one”?
That ridiculous Washington Post article may not have said the word “virginity,” or “virginal”, as you put it, but the implication is about as subtle as a ton of bricks, and it’s intent was to convey the message that Ford’s experience was tantamount to rape, including her supposed feelings of lost virtue, which in turn required her to bravely soldier on silently through the remainder of her high school years revealing to no one what had happened.
Long story short, it was a blatant attempt to make it seem that what Kavanaugh allegedly did was virtually rape, and to provide emotional cover to Ford for having not said anything about it all those years.
Fortunately the article does state that she was able to recover after fleeing to the West Coast to continue her education, where she was bravely able to reinvent herself as a blue jeans wearing surfer. :rolleyes:
So…you think that the FBI can investigate these claims of sexual assault as part of a background check, without “investigating” these claims of sexual assault?
This thread is certainly an eductation.
The better question is, if they find the charges substantiated, will you then change your mind to oppose the nomination?
Wat?
Kavanaugh “successfully” sexually assaulted her, buddy.
And now I see that you admit the “virginal” insanity was only in your “remarkable” interpretation of the Washington Post article, and did not actually appear in the article itself. So that’s progress…
First, what does it prove that Kavanaugh drank a lot? I drank a lot when I was younger. I never raped anyone. That’s simple character assassination.
Nonetheless, let’s say that the investigation turns up what the media investigation has turned up so far. Are you in favor of Kavanaugh? Will you state on here that Kavanaugh has cleared his name?
For the 40th time in this thread, you have shown that you have prejudged the case. No investigation will assist you. You have continually called Kavanaugh a rapist despite only having allegations from people whom you do not know the veracity of. Your agenda is clear.
You’re welcome.
I would. Yes. However, I cannot think of evidence that can reasonably be discovered when there is definitely no physical evidence that would substantiate these allegations.
We already have all of the named witnesses at both events denying that such a thing happened. What more can we hope to find?
And you have repeatedly implied that Ford is a liar. Your agenda is clearer, kettle.
I’d be astonished if the FBI haven’t already looked carefully into Kavanaugh’s character and reported back to the relevant Presidents on it. I’m sure they’ll do so again if told to. It’s not his character that people are saying should be investigated by them though, it’s allegations of crimes. And for very good reasons, they need to be investigated in the right way, by the right people, to ensure the accused’s rights are protected.
This is not about Kavanaugh, it’s about everyone else who’s rights might be trampled on if you accept that those rules only sporadically apply.
More witnesses?
If the FBI concludes that there’s evidence that the assaults did occur, would you support a prosecution of Kavenaugh for perjury?
Who said anything about proof? It would provide more information to the Senate. Further, Kavanaugh is very likely to be asked about his drinking habits this Thursday. That information from the investigation could be compared to his testimony to evaluate his honesty and character (and this goes for everything else they find).
I already opposed Kavanaugh due to his history on the bench. But that’s not what this investigation would be about – it’s about making sure that our government and institutions are taking allegations of sexual assault very seriously, and investigating them to the fullest of their abilities, rather than refusing to investigate them due to partisan concerns. When serious allegations are made, nothing less should be acceptable.
It’s unsurprising to see how many of the people prejudging this case are the same people who repeatedly prejudge others guilty of alleged, but unproven, crimes. There’s a massive thread in the Pit mainly devoted to claiming cops who defend themselves are murderers, and let’s not get started on George Zimmerman…
Emphasis added. I wonder if they would, though. If they are instructed to investigate this particular incident, does that give them carte blanche to go digging for other stuff? And if they do dig into “heavy drinking”, they would dig into it for both Kavanaugh and Ford, you know. If it’s relevant to his state of mind during the alleged incident, it’s relevant to hers.
For all that is sacred and holy, let’s not, even though you obviously already did.