https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=4LWPcEo2gV0



https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=4LWPcEo2gV0

appropriate

But you expect bad behavior out of Dems. So why aren't
the Rebub. setting a good example and having the FBI investigate (like they did w/A. Hill)? If either she or he lies to the FBI, prosecute them. If the FBI finds that there credible evidence/belief that K may have done what she claims, then have a hearing w/any witnesses both parties want to present. If they find she is crazy, say that and the vote can proceed.

democrats are the perfect example of why you should never negotiate with terrorists

Jim can you stop bringing this up.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...iously-attack/

You dodged my question again, but I will show yo a courtesy you won't show me.

If I was Trump, I'd give 10 FBI agents a week to look into it, (which wouldn't be enough, they'd demand the investigation last until after the midterms) and that would be it, no more delays. If it turned up nothing, I'd be tempted to send the bill for the agents' time to the accuser, but wouldn't go that far.

Additional question, why in gods name didn't Feinstein ask the FBI to look into this, when she knew they were doing a background check on him? Spence has answered that question by saying they wanted to respect her privacy. Unfortunately for Spence, that weak argument is destroyed by the fact that the democrats are the ones who leaked her identity, to the press of all people. So they didn't want to share her identity with the FBI, but they gave it to the press? That makes all kinds of sense, I mean it's chock full of logic.

On national TV, she claimed that Bill hadn't done anything to these women (in other words, they were lying), but rather, he was framed by the vast right wing conspiracy, dun-dun-dun!!

Naturally, Maddow wasn't about to challenge Hilary on the hypocrisy.

How am I wrong? She didn't say they were all lying, when she blamed it all on the GOP? When did she say we needed to have empathy for them, listen to their stories, feel their pain?

or turn your back on a crazy person with a weapon....

and the fbi has explicitly addressed that the investugatedbthe anita hill case. the fbi said Hills allegation wasn’t 35 years old, wasn’t missing all the details that Fords accusation is missing, and that Hill was eager to testify under oath. take it for what it’s worth, that’s what they’re saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the fbi also said this is typical mo for democrats

How did I dodge your question when I don't think you asked me a question?

So your saying the FBI doesn't want to investigate? They easily could be ordered to by the Pres. or the committee.

But she did have Vince Foster and Seth Rich killed and belongs to a satanic cult. Never mind her participating in a child sex ring where they entice the kids w/free pizza.

The I stands for investigation, that’s what they do.
There’s enough people who went to Georgetown and Holton Arms at that time that you could ascertain if there is anything to the allegation.
A Senate confirmation hearing is not a court hearing or an election.
It is one of the duties of the Senate to determine the suitability of candidates submitted by the president for appointments based on their judgment as the most august body of elected citizens in this republic.
It has not and should not be a rubber stamp for the will of the president
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who in the FBI said this, and when and where?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you're (as usual) conflating events.

He made it up. All the FBI needs to investigate is a green light from POTUS.

President Donald Trump has said the FBI doesn't want to investigate Christine Blasey Ford's assertion that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her, and that it's "not what they do."

In fact, the FBI could certainly investigate Ford's claim, but only if the White House asks the bureau to do so. She has no authority to request it. Neither does the Senate.

When the FBI conducts a background investigation of a presidential nominee, it vacuums up all kinds of information about the nominee, including claims from people interviewed by agents, and dumps it into the file. It does not, however, investigate whether or not derogatory information is true — unless it's asked to follow up by the White House. Several current and former Justice Department and FBI officials say this has always been the practice, and there is actually a longstanding formal memorandum of understanding between DOJ and the White House that specifies these limits.

The Senate cannot ask the FBI to investigate Ford's allegations that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a high school party more than 30 years ago, because Kavanaugh is the president's nominee, not the Senate's.

Here's another way to think about it. In doing background investigations, the FBI is acting as an agent of the White House. That's a separate role from its responsibility to investigate crimes. The Senate can always ask the FBI to investigate a potential crime that it becomes aware of, but it can't direct the FBI to investigate the background of a presidential nominee.

And in this case, even assuming Ford's allegation to be true, there's no suggestion of a federal crime, quite apart from the statute of limitations issue. So the FBI has no independent authority to open a criminal investigation. Its only role here would be to re-open the Kavanaugh background investigation.

democrats like to kick you in the nuts and then demand civility

not like keeping a dress with a load on it . hasn't all ready happen :kewl:

she was a democrat :jester:

Said the pot calling the kettle black
In these times, however, it’s a joke to focus on incivility by Democrats even as the Republican president routinely says things that are as bad as or worse than the attacks of the most irresponsible Democratic no-name precinct chair. Nor is President Donald Trump as much of an outlier as one might imagine. After all, his crusade to declare President Barack Obama a non-citizen was taken up by many Republican politicians; his repeated ethnic slur against Senator Elizabeth Warren, repeated this past weekend, was adapted from one used against her by Massachusetts Republicans.

This strain of Republican rhetoric goes back to Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 1990s. The lawmaker from Georgia who became House speaker was not just prone to excessive rhetoric himself, but trained Republican politicians to use extreme wording.

Then there’s Republican-aligned media, a constant source of institutionalized incivility that encourages a politics of grievance by searching out any examples of Democratic rhetorical excess.


Basically, anyone who thinks the parties are even remotely equivalent on this score is treating Trump as if he doesn’t count. And anyone who thinks the parties are roughly equivalent if you remove Trump from the equation should take Kevin Drum’s advice and spend more time critically monitoring Republican-aligned media. And, as Norm Ornstein reminds us, critical monitoring is not the same as reacting to the problem of incivility with a “knee-jerk response” of trying to find equal fault on both sides. and using conservative outlets only as a source for finding examples of poor Democratic behavior.

yawn

I'm not saying that, the FBI said that. They have no interest in investigating a story this thin with so many holes. That's why they say they investigated the Anita Hill allegation, but took a pass on this. Now, Trump can order them to do it, which is why they asked for an FBI investigation (they can blame Trump for not ordering it), instead of asking the MD police to investigate, since it's their jurisdiction.

Sorry, here's my question...if a simple allegation is enough to disqualify Kavanaugh, why aren't all the liberals screaming for Keith Ellison to resign?

No I'm not.

They don't need Trump's permission. He can order them to do it if they choose to pass, which they did, and they explained why.

I never said that. But she did say that Bill's accusers were lying.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35848...ugh-ashe-schow

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...legations.html

I think you're (as usual) wrong, not man enough to admit it, so you say I'm taking something out of context, or conflating something.

Spence you also claimed multiple times, the Ford's allegation was not shared with the FBI during his background check, to protect her identity. If the democrats were concerned with her privacy, why did they leak her identity to the media? They wouldn't give her name to the FBI, but they gave it to the media?

democrats look dumber than ever,,,,this is great:D

Who and when
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device