How do you know they aren’t or haven’t?
Kavanaugh went for a deep screw shot but was called for a foul.
He doesn’t want to appear because he doesn’t want to be shot like the Republican congressman?
Come to think of it I can’t remember you condemning that shooting. Were you delighted a Republican got shot?
I think this is a pretty good indication.
Trump tries to use the FBI to go after his political enemies, like any corrupt, deranged authoritarian. This is a case where the FBI actually need to investigate, and what does he say?
I’m sticking with the ball game theory
You’re deflecting again because you’re losing.
Funny how I remember you lying that the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords was a “liberal”.
Facts have no place in your batshit worldview.
Do you approve of shooting Republicans?
Yes or no will do.
As a lifelong independent, I have no skin in the game.
The allegation letter from Prof Blasey Ward was sent to the FBI, it’s up to them to investigate or not and that shouldn’t be decided based on political bias. The FBI have stated they are not going to investigate Kavanaugh again, having already done so 6 times in the past decade. So let’s examine what the allegation is: a woman in her early 50s claims a fellow teenager grabbed her at a drinking party 35 years ago and tried to tear her clothes off. She doesn’t remember when it happened, where it happened, how she got to the party, how she got home, and who else was at the party. All she remembers is the identity of the guy who she says allegedly attacked her and the other guy who watched the alleged attack.
Do you think the FBI, who investigate federal crimes and not local crimes, would typically investigate this type of allegation? First of all they have no jurisdiction over a local allegation like this. Second, 36 years after the fact it’s doubtful that local law enforcement would investigate given the vagueness and lack of detail in the accusation.
So now she won’t testify. She now wants the FBI to now investigate an allegation she didn’t even make to local police 35 years ago. Surprise, surprise. This confirms what everyone with a brain already knows, this is simply a delaying tactic by the Democrats to stop Kavanaugh getting appointed to the Supreme court.
Let’s go through the timeline and people can decide for themselves:
1982ish. The alleged attack takes place and the accuser reports it to nobody, not to her parents, friends, etc.
- The liberal media go into meltdown at the thought of a Romney win in the election (he was leading in the polls) and appointing a conservative justice to the Supreme court. Several articles were written naming Kavanaugh as Romney’s preferred choice. Coincidentally, also in 2012, the accuser goes to couples therapy with her husband and recounts the alleged attack for the first time. Her husband specifically said she was worried about Kavanaugh being appointed to the Supreme court.
2012-2018. Nothing. Romney loses, no more heard from Ms Blasey Ford.
- Before the nomination hearings for Kavanaugh, Blasey Ford sends a letter to Sen Feinstein outlining what happened in 1982 allegedly involving Kavanaugh. Feinstein doesn’t forward the letter to the Senate committee (she could have kept the name confidential), or question Kavanaugh about it, but waits until after the hearings and the week of the vote to go public with it.
Republicans question how serious an anonymous allegation can be taken, and Blasey Ford immediately goes public via the Washington Post. The Judicial committee schedule a hearing to hear her testify on her allegation and hear Kavanaugh’s response, but now she won’t attend the hearing.
Of course it’s not political 
Now that she has gone public with her accusation, it’s time for Christine Blasey Ford to come forward and testify to the Senate committee. Sounds like she doesn’t want to do it, I wonder why?
My opinion based on the facts of the case so far and the behavior of both her and her attorneys is that she has been used and brought forward by Democrats just as Anita Hill was in 1991. During her testimony, after initially perjuring herself, Hill admitted that she was told by Democrats that Thomas would withdraw if she came forward. I would speculate that Blasey Ford has been told the same thing and is now getting cold feet about testifying.
Alleged sexual assault mate.Why do you always resort to libel with people you are ideologically opposed to, and defend those you are aligned with?
You spent months on here in 2017 defending a child groomer and actual rapist, and defending those who asked for a more lenient sentence for him (even though the sentence was already very low for the crimes committed).
So less of the moral outrage you asswipe.
It’s not my fault your comprehension is that of a six year old.
I never defended a rapist, Not once have you provided evidence otherwise, because you’ve no ability to debate, only to lie and shriek like the preening screaming Mary liar you are.
I’ll spell things out for you in simple terms, because they’re the only terms you understand.
What you are doing here is, you’re looking for any excuse to not investigate a highly credible claim of sexual assult, because a Republican is at the centre of those claims.
That’s what Donald Trump and the Republican party are doing. You, predictably, fall in line like the good little woman hating parrot you are.
So, to sum up, you literally don’t care a jot about sexual assault, as long as “your team” commit it, in which case it’s just fine.
@anon7035031, soft on sexual assult, soft on rape.
I believe in due process and the presumption of innocence for everyone, regardless of their political persuasion. I would support it for you if that girl you stalked to Australia made an accusation against you.
The allegation should be investigated, you lying sack of shit. The senate committee should subpoena and interview all the individuals she says were at the party where the alleged assault took place. It shouldn’t take very long, that’s four people. As she has no recollection of where the party was, when specifically it was, how she got there or got home, there’s not much more to investigate.
The accuser in this case has been invited to testify to the US Judicial committee, either in a public hearing or a a private hearing, and is refusing to do so. A week ago she didn’t want to go public with her accusation and now is demanding an FBI investigation? In the past 36 years she hasn’t even gone gone to Maryland local law enforcement with her accusation.
This is a Democratic stalling tactic and she is being played, just as Anita Hill was played. You know this of course but can’t admit it.
Predictably you led off with the bizarre little rape fantasy you have involving me. But it’s good to know I occupy your thoughts to such an extent.
You’re pretending you want the allegation investigated but you don’t.
Because you’re trying to pretend that a rigged senate investigation is good enough. It isn’t. It’s a PR whitewash forn the Republicans to pretend they’ve listened, with an inevitable outcome where they vote for Kavanaugh anyway.
Why are the Republicans not demanding an FBI investigation?
Why are they doing everything to suppress the possibility of this happening?
Of course Christime Blasey Ford wants an FBI investigation. She’s absolutely right to demand one.
FBI background checks are done on nomineees as a matter of course. Now when a highly credible allegation comes out, the Republicans say the FBI shouldn’t investigate it.
And we all know why that is. It’s because i) they’re scareD stiff it’s true, and ii) because they’re desperate to railroad Kavanauagh’s nomination through at any cost.
They don’t care if he has sexually assaulted a woman. Neither do you.
And there it is. Your default position is to disbelieve women, unless they’re accusing a Democrat.
Whatever happened to your old cliche “let’s not politicise this”?
As far as Republicans are concerned, sexual assault is inherently political. It goes like this: “our sex offenders are good, theirs are bad. And ours don’t resign (go Team Don, Team Roy and Team Brett), theirs do.”
“Go Team Rapeublicans!”
The allegation was made in writing to Sen Diane Feinstein in a letter sent July 30th, where the accuser outlined the alleged assault by Kavanaugh. If this was a credible allegation why didn’t Feinstein take it seriously and forward it immediately to the FBI for investigation? She forwarded the letter to the FBI last Wednesday, six weeks after receiving it and after the confirmation hearings had been held.
Why didn’t the Democratic leader take the allegation seriously? Why didn’t she forward it to the FBI for investigation? Why didn’t she question Kavanaugh about it when she had hours of individual interview with him or in the public hearings? All of this could have been done without disclosing the identity of the accuser.
Study the Anita Hill case, this is following the exact same playbook. Anita Hill testified (after first perjuring herself, read the transcripts) that she was told by Democrats that Thomas would step away from the nomination if she came forward. The allegation was kept secret until the last minute, just as in this case.
If you don’t think this is a stalling tactic played by Democrats, just as in the Anita Hill case, you are an even bigger idiot that I previously assumed.
Trump isn’t bringing the best people, he’s bringing child sex traffickers.
not available in EU???
You were already given the answer to that two nights ago. It’s not my problem if you didn’t read it.
Feinstein’s conduct has been by the book.
But again, nice attempt at defelction.
Why do you not want an FBI investigation?
The answer,of course, is that you don’t want the allegation to actually be investigated.
And that’s the indefensible truth about you that you can’t deflect.
It proves you don’t give a shit about sexual assault.