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

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/flake-kavanaughs-tone-amid-acrimonious-confirmation-court/story?id=58233490

Attorneys for California professor Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault when they were in high school, say they are demanding to speak with the FBI agent in charge of the background investigation.

"It has been five days since the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary and the White House announced that the FBI had been directed to conduct a supplemental investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to investigate credible allegations of sexual assault made by our client, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford," the letter to FBI Director Chris Wray and FBI General Counsel Dana Boente read before criticizing what her attorneys say is a lack of outreach.

Click to expand...

Seriously, these lawyers are nuts. Their client just spent half a day in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She was given the opportunity to provide an opening statement without a time limit. She was given the opportunity to tell her story to anyone willing to listen. What could she possibly have left to tell the FBI? In the 3 months since she first decided to start telling people her story did she STILL have something she left out? Did all the trauma finally cause another repressed memory to leak out of her head? If that's the case then why does she have to give that information to the FBI? She's obviously got Diane Feinstein's number and Jeff Flake is actively looking for a reason to vote against Kavanaugh so witholding information that could possibly help her serves no good purpose.

Except for one possible thing.

If her real goal is to delay the confirmation then it makes perfect sense.

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.

CMPancake said:

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.

Click to expand...

What do you think she wants them to ask her?

CMPancake said:

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.

Click to expand...

They are not investigating a crime they are doing a background check..... Currently there is NO crime to investigate because there has NONE that has BEEN FILED.

So to "RE-OPEN" the same 6 background checks the FBI has done already. is to validate is Kavannaugh is qualified to be on the supreme court. You guys missed that boat huh.


THERE IS NO CRMINAL INVESTIGATION BECAUS THERE IS NO CRIMINAL CHARGES So they have Ford's Committee Hearing Testimony as WELL as Kavannaugh's NOW they just check the other people and send their findings to the Comittee and the senate

1) Is Kavannaugh a sexual predator, none while he was in a federal capacity
2) Did Kavannaugh sexually assualt Ford. NO evidence to edify the accusation
3) Is Kavannaugh an alcoholic? I have no Idea
4) Is there any more Skeletons in his closet that 6 prior investigations could NOT find...


you guys are nuts....

CMPancake said:

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.

Click to expand...

She was interviewed. It was all over TV and the interview is still up there on C-Span.

Again, if she's got more information to give she's got the means to do it. There is no need for the FBI to get more involved than it already is.

Taylor said:

What do you think she wants them to ask her?

Click to expand...

Well.. Obviously she's thought of some new witnesses and evidence... Isn't that what her attorney indicated?

She couldn't remember any of this prior to the 36 years between the incident and just the other day and (i'm sure) spending 6 more hours with her attorney.

Lutherf said:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/flake-kavanaughs-tone-amid-acrimonious-confirmation-court/story?id=58233490



Seriously, these lawyers are nuts. Their client just spent half a day in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. She was given the opportunity to provide an opening statement without a time limit. She was given the opportunity to tell her story to anyone willing to listen. What could she possibly have left to tell the FBI? In the 3 months since she first decided to start telling people her story did she STILL have something she left out? Did all the trauma finally cause another repressed memory to leak out of her head? If that's the case then why does she have to give that information to the FBI? She's obviously got Diane Feinstein's number and Jeff Flake is actively looking for a reason to vote against Kavanaugh so witholding information that could possibly help her serves no good purpose.

Except for one possible thing.

If her real goal is to delay the confirmation then it makes perfect sense.

Click to expand...

Where did her or her therapist ever say that this is a repressed memory? I keep seeing this repeated and repeated and still haven't had anyone point out where they got it from.

roughdraft274 said:

Where did her or her therapist ever say that this is a repressed memory? I keep seeing this repeated and repeated and still haven't had anyone point out where they got it from.

Click to expand...

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.

Lutherf said:

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.

Click to expand...

Did you see her testimony? Read the letter? She's never mentioned "repressed memory" a single time. She stated under oath that the memory of the actual attempted assault/rape was burned in to her head and caused anxiety in the days/weeks and months directly after. We know that it's extremely common for women not to talk about incidents like this. And they aren't all "repressed memories". It's embarrassment, shame, social stigma, fear of not being believed etc. etc.

It's fine if you don't believe her. But don't make **** up. It says alot about a person if they just make **** up about a serious topic just so that they can attack that made up POS. Hopefully you've just heard the bull**** argument from your buddies and assumed it to be true and will hence forth accurately depict the accusation. However you'll be 4th or 5th person I've corrected on this subject and all of them see to not give a **** about truth or facts and either pretend that it's a "repressed memory" because they say so or because it's convenient. Please surprise me.

Taylor said:

What do you think she wants them to ask her?

Click to expand...

I don't think that it's about what she wants them to ask. Rather it's important to interview the victim and that the FBI, as part of an investigation, may ask different questions than politicians during a confirmation hearing.

roughdraft274 said:

Did you see her testimony? Read the letter? She's never mentioned "repressed memory" a single time. She stated under oath that the memory of the actual attempted assault/rape was burned in to her head and caused anxiety in the days/weeks and months directly after. We know that it's extremely common for women not to talk about incidents like this. And they aren't all "repressed memories". It's embarrassment, shame, social stigma, fear of not being believed etc. etc.

It's fine if you don't believe her. But don't make **** up. It says alot about a person if they just make **** up about a serious topic just so that they can attack that made up POS. Hopefully you've just heard the bull**** argument from your buddies and assumed it to be true and will hence forth accurately depict the accusation. However you'll be 4th or 5th person I've corrected on this subject and all of them see to not give a **** about truth or facts and either pretend that it's a "repressed memory" because they say so or because it's convenient. Please surprise me.

Click to expand...

OK. You've obviously got a bug up your butt about this particular issue and I apologize for triggering you but I just told you where I got the idea.

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.

CMPancake said:

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.

Click to expand...

Interview the victim yes. Quietly, out of reach of the media or anybody who would leak to the media. Check out her allegations. If credible, look into it further. If not, thank her and close the file. Anybody who is honorable will take no chances of smearing and savaging a good man's name based on unsupportable allegations not to mention destroying his livelihood, his family, and any opportunity for the country to benefit.

Sounds like a late hour delay tactic to me. If the FBI bites, her lawyers will probably try to push it out.

Forget the party of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman — Democrats are now the Party of SWETNICK & Avenati

slick said:

Forget the party of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman — Democrats are now the Party of SWETNICK & Avenati

Click to expand...

Come on, the opportunist, sleazy Avenatti, and the con artist Swetnick do not represent the Democratic party. Avenatti is not a party official, and much less, Swetnick. I didn't even see any Democrat endorsing this part of the circus. Let's not get carried on, OK?

Lutherf said:

OK. You've obviously got a bug up your butt about this particular issue and I apologize for triggering you but I just told you where I got the idea.

Click to expand...

No problem. You're welcome for the correction. Glad to be of help.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Lutherf said:

She was interviewed. It was all over TV and the interview is still up there on C-Span.

Again, if she's got more information to give she's got the means to do it. There is no need for the FBI to get more involved than it already is.

Click to expand...

Not by the FBI- what is the problem= she only answered questions asked-

slick said:

Forget the party of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman — Democrats are now the Party of SWETNICK & Avenati

Click to expand...

If I was a Democrat, (oh wait, I am) I wouldn't (and don't) put any weight behind Avenati. The sooner he goes away, the better for everyone.

Doesn't the FBI have until Friday to complete the investigation? So, it's not like they completed the investigation without interviewing her or Brett. At least wait until the investigation is complete before howling.

Exactice said:

They are not investigating a crime they are doing a background check..... Currently there is NO crime to investigate because there has NONE that has BEEN FILED.

So to "RE-OPEN" the same 6 background checks the FBI has done already. is to validate is Kavannaugh is qualified to be on the supreme court. You guys missed that boat huh.


THERE IS NO CRMINAL INVESTIGATION BECAUS THERE IS NO CRIMINAL CHARGES So they have Ford's Committee Hearing Testimony as WELL as Kavannaugh's NOW they just check the other people and send their findings to the Comittee and the senate

1) Is Kavannaugh a sexual predator, none while he was in a federal capacity
2) Did Kavannaugh sexually assualt Ford. NO evidence to edify the accusation
3) Is Kavannaugh an alcoholic? I have no Idea
4) Is there any more Skeletons in his closet that 6 prior investigations could NOT find...


you guys are nuts....

Click to expand...

This background check is based upon her (Ford) and others allegations, and you think the FBI should not interview them

CMPancake said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nothing but a freaking coverup. Those that are now defending the FBI were for the most part consistent in their attacks on the FBI as corrupt.
Truth and facts are anathema when it comes to towing the Trump Cult Line
Anything that gets K confirmed is OK with them

The more her lawyers talk, the more they lose me. I was fully behind Dr. Ford before. Now I'm growing more and more doubtful. Now, this *is* looking like delay tactics. What exactly does she want to say to the FBI that she didn't have an opportunity to say to the Senate and to the American people??? Like others said here, she was given unlimited time to say her opening statement. If she thought that some sort of information was important to highlight, about something that allegedly happened 35 years ago, she had all the opportunity in the world to include it in her opening statement, or to insert into one of her answers. I mean, there are no new facts 35 years later, right?

Now, this is becoming too much. Let the FBI do their job. If they don't find anything and Dr. Ford can't name any corroborating witness, then it's over, and the GOP senators have all the right to confirm Kavanaugh (which I'll regret because he is not fit to serve, for many other reasons, but I won't dispute the legitimacy of the confirmation).

JANFU said:

Not by the FBI- what is the problem= she only answered questions asked-

Click to expand...

What questions need to be asked of her at this point? She testified, under oath, to every detail she remembers.

JANFU said:

Nothing but a freaking coverup. Those that are now defending the FBI were for the most part consistent in their attacks on the FBI as corrupt.
Truth and facts are anathema when it comes to towing the Trump Cult Line
Anything that gets K confirmed is OK with them

Click to expand...

Yes, even though I grew tired of Dr. Ford and her lawyers, it is interesting to see that right wingers here were up in arms against the FBI when it was a matter of Trump's possible obstruction of justice and Russian collusion, but now the FBI is tops, as long as they don't find anything incriminating regarding Kavanaugh. The double standard is incredible.