Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys to FBI: 'It is inconceivable' to investigate without speaking to h

[EnigmaO01]

Ask your wife if she would prefer to be raped or suffer an attempted rape buttercup. :roll:

What an absolutely stupid comment.

 

[Ikari]

What "different questions" do you think they want to be asked? They're the ones upset she's not being interviewed again.

I'm not the FBI, so I don't know. But it's completely plausible that an FBI investigation conducts itself differently from a political one. And in the course of any actual investigation, it's completely normal to interview the victim.

 

[VanceMack]

The repressed memory thing is the common answer for why she didn't bring this incident up earlier. Whether it's her take or not isn't a question I can answer but I've definitely seen it tossed around in discussions.

Its not a question of 'repressed memory'. Its a question of convenient memory. She only 'remembers' that which best suits her purpose. She conveniently cant remember ANY of the details that could actually be verified or validated.

 

[Parrish]

The reason they haven't interviewed Ford is because the WH didn't authorize them to. If they interviewed her then they'd have to interview Kav. Too risky for the WH.

 

[Taylor]

I'm not the FBI, so I don't know. But it's completely plausible that an FBI investigation conducts itself differently from a political one. And in the course of any actual investigation, it's completely normal to interview the victim.

She certainly still has the option to file a complaint in MD and start an actual investigation.

 

[SLC]

Dr. Ford used her therapist's notes, but did not produce them, to say in 2012 she described the party but did not identify Bret Kavanaugh in the notes. She will not release the therapist's note.

1. Is she on some psych drug that could alter her mental state?
2. Does she have a diagnosis of a disorder that can cause delusions?
3. Did the therapist use hypnosis to regress Dr. Ford to discover this repressed memory. If so the court system does not recognize testimony arrived by hypnosis because it can implant false memories.
4. Is this a syndrome known as "false memory"?

If she wants to use the notes to add credence to her testimony its only fair she release them to the committee. What is she trying to hide? Is it exculpatory?

 

[jimbo]

She gave sworn testimony to Congress. More sworn testimony to the FBI is a waste of tax dollars, and nothing but a delay tactic. She had her chance.

There's another avenue for her if she has more to tell the FBI and the public. All she has to do is give CNN a call and request an hour or so. They will give her all the time she needs with a sympathetic interviewer reading prepared questions.

The FBI will hear about it soon enough.

 

[SLC]

It was a farse to begin with. They will get their judge on the SC but he will always have a hashtag attached to his name.

Only in the minds of those who drank the Kool Aid

 

[Big Ed]

What term would you prefer to use to explain her inability to remember how she got to the part, how she left the party, anything resembling an approximate date of the event, where it happened, ect….you know, any detail that would give someone something to go off of?

Lies! or Liar! (your choice)

 

[Big Ed]

I don't know, I think any person with any sense of ****ing humanity would think it's kinda ****ed to not interview the accuser or the victim. It would be like... no I really can't think of anything more deplorable than hamstringing an investigation into rape.

How about fabricating a false sex-assault charge against an innocent man; publicly defame him, his wife and children. Seems she has no sense of morality, although its becoming more and more difficult to find any liberal with morals. The whole sex assault claim was a LIE! Most decent people wanted to believe that she suffered a terrible event, even with the obvious gaps. Now, from more and more reports are coming in that blow away any doubt she's a liar and perjurer. For example, the whole two front door issue that supposedly sparked the need to seek counselling - was a lie as well. The "second door" was part of an addition from 2007/2008 that added rental space to the front of their house, can't even get to the "second" door from the main house! What was it "Stolen Valor" Blumenthal said (paraphrasing) "Lie about one thing, you'll lie about everything" - he should know!!

 

[Fishking]

Lies! or Liar! (your choice)

Well...I'm just being charitable and assuming there is some kind of truth somewhere, it just may not have anything to do with Kavanaugh.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'll help you out. Using publicly using a rape victim, on the national stage, for partisan purposes is much more deplorable.

calling someone who was never raped a rape victim to accentuate the level of their smear is even worse

 

[VanceMack]

Well now THIS is interesting...



So...its FEINSTEIN and the dems that want the results kept secret?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Well now THIS is interesting...

View attachment 67241548

So...its FEINSTEIN and the dems that want the results kept secret?

After her gross abuse of the process likely she is working on her serious person bonafides....."We have to do this right people".

 

[braindrain]

Who do you think is better at being a soldier? You or some conscript?

Don't you think a professional investigator as in the FBI should be better than a politician with a bias either way? And for the most part all they do is grandstand and pump themselves up anyway.

There could be a lot of questions the FBI could ask that the senators never even thought of. And I'll bet via experience they are a better judge of veracity.

And the really big thing that is missed by the senators is once the FBI has questioned other people, and come up a baseline of which the senators weren't interested in, they are better informed to ask the right questions. If you have't noticed the FBI likes to know answers ahead of time before interviews.

I think if the FBI had questions of her they would ask her them. Unless that is you have some evidence that they are not being allowed to. If you do I would love to see it.

Because at this point all you are doing is playing the pretend game. You are just making up the claim that the FBI has questions for her that weren't already answered as well as insinuating that the white house is stopping them.

And honestly you have displayed an extreme level of bias on this so I am not really surprised that you would make things up and then try and pad them off as facts.

 

[braindrain]

You're right sexual assault is no big deal. Suck it up buttercup. Would you tell that to your daughter or wife?

Sexual assault is a big deal but it's not rape. Why exactly do you have a problem with people actually caring about keeping the facts straight.

 

[braindrain]

The reason they haven't interviewed Ford is because the WH didn't authorize them to. If they interviewed her then they'd have to interview Kav. Too risky for the WH.

Do you have some proof of this or are you simply making things up.

 

[vesper]

Well now THIS is interesting...

View attachment 67241548

So...its FEINSTEIN and the dems that want the results kept secret?

It is my understanding they have NEVER released FBI investigation reports so this decision not to release them is just following protocol. What is being reported today is there will be just one copy of the report that all Senators can read in a secure room. They can not take notes or pictures of the documents. There are reports out there that the FBI did expand its investigation from just the 4 persons mentioned in Ms. Ford's letter to 8 people and another signed a sworn affidavit.

 

[ludin]

I spent days and countless posts defending Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez here (not the Avenatti gal, she is not credible and he is an opportunist) but even when I was arguing against people on Kavanaugh's side, I was listening to their arguments.

Since yesterday, I've changed my mind.

I feel now that there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever in the case of Dr. Ford's claims. There is some corroborating evidence in the case of Ms. Ramirez's claims but they are hearsay (a male classmate said he did hear comments that Kavanaugh did that to Debbie - he did not see Kavanaugh doing it to Debbie).

Anyway I think it's perfectly possible that a drunk Kavanaugh did things that he doesn't even remember. But without corroboration there is no way to consider him guilty. He's still innocent until proven guilty. I don't think the women willingly lied, but maybe they couldn't recall it right (at least one of them was heavily intoxicated; maybe the other one got assaulted but not by Kavanaugh although she mistakenly believes it was him - the bottom line is, I don't know).

If the FBI doesn't come up with anything, then I'd say, Trump has a right to nominate the guy, and the Republican majority has a right to confirm him, if they feel it's what they want to do. Elections have consequences. Trump did get elected POTUS, and these GOP senators did get elected to their seats, and they do constitute a majority. I'll have to endorse the legitimacy of the process (I just wish they had extended the same courtesy to Obama and Garland).

Do I think Kavanaugh is fit to serve on the Supreme Court? Not at all. I'd be delighted to see his nomination not confirmed. He strikes me as a liar (with all his iffy dodges about his drinking) and his partisan rant accusing the Clintons of being behind this, is unbecoming of the impartiality that should guide one of the ultimate guarantors of the law and the Constitution. I also feel that Trump only nominated him (above other less controversial and even more qualified conservative judges) just because Kavanaugh is biased, partisan, and gives Trump the assurance that he'll not endorse the indictment of a sitting president.

But I don't dispute Trump's right to nominate him, and the GOP senators' right to confirm him.

If the reason to deny him his confirmation is the mere uncorroborated suspicion of sexual misconduct, I'll have to see some corroborating evidence before I can endorse that.

finally someone that is using logic and reason.

thanks for the post it is a breathe of fresh air.
the FBI handed in their report either this morning or last night.

There is no evidence to corroborate the claims that are being made.
they just cleared him of any misconduct and sexual assault.

 

[Parrish]

Do you have some proof of this or are you simply making things up.

Dr. Ford was not interviewed. Simple as that and obvious.

 

[VanceMack]

It is my understanding they have NEVER released FBI investigation reports so this decision not to release them is just following protocol. What is being reported today is there will be just one copy of the report that all Senators can read in a secure room. They can not take notes or pictures of the documents. There are reports out there that the FBI did expand its investigation from just the 4 persons mentioned in Ms. Ford's letter to 8 people and another signed a sworn affidavit.

Congress cant trust itself to not leak confidential reports. Such a statement on the state of both parties these days.

 

[roughdraft274]

I seriously doubt there was ever such an incident, certainly not with Kavanagh. What about the second front door that "sparked" the whole "memory?" Seems it's attached to a small rental unit attached to the front of the house - how would she escape from the main area if she cannot get to the "second door?" Per a former boy friend, she's not afraid of flying nor claustrophobic; her life-long friend and three others (or was four - no wait two - no wait five) could recall such an event. Her life-long friend said she never even met Kavanagh, let alone party with him. What about the statement that she could hear the boys laughing and bouncing off the walls on the way downstairs - how could she hear that if the music in the room was so loud nobady could hear her scream? Her whole lie was nothing more than the Dems ploy to resist Trump; so what if an innocent family get sacrificed - its for the better of the Democrats!!

Nothing you said had anything to do with my post. Did you mean to respond to someone else?

 

[vesper]

Christine Basley Ford was interviewed when she appeared before Congress under oath. No doubt the FBI analyzed her handwritten letter that she confirmed to Congress that she wrote. They analyzed her body language during her testimony. They most likely investigated her phone activities over the previous months of who she was in contact and her many places of travel by air that was revealed in her testimony even though she claimed she had a problem with flying. They reviewed the information the Judiciary committee investigators uncovered. They probably were able to retrieve her social media accounts that she deleted. That stuff never really goes away. Right now they know more about Basley Ford than she knows about herself.

 

[roughdraft274]

What term would you prefer to use to explain her inability to remember how she got to the part, how she left the party, anything resembling an approximate date of the event, where it happened, ect….you know, any detail that would give someone something to go off of?

Repressed memory has a very specific meaning. It means that you suffered sever trauma and that you unconsciously blocked it from your mind because of the high level of stress or trauma. It doesn't refer to simply forgetting details before and after an event. Using the term "repressed memory" is being done specifically by your side to insinuate that she has gone her whole life completely forgetting about this event and that at some therapists office many years later they dug it back out of her subconscious. This is not what anyone has claimed happened. She testified under oath to the exact opposite. She said the memory of the actual incident is burned in her head. All I'm asking is for the most base level of integrity from your side. It's fine if you don't believe her. But don't lie about the accusation. It's that simple. If it's your position that it's perfectly fine to misrepresent or lie about it then please let me know so I can save us both the trouble of responding to each other.

 

[Big Ed]

Nothing you said had anything to do with my post. Did you mean to respond to someone else?

In a round-about way - I did respond to your post. My point is that there can be no memory lapse, repressed memory, etc., no matter what term you chose to use, when the event was fabricated!