I suppose it's possible that Ford could have provided new and crucial information that she hadn't provided in her previous statements, her letter or during her testimony, so maybe the FBI should have interviewed her. Or she might have changed parts of her story again. Outside of those possibilities she would have only said what she had already said, so maybe it was right that they didn't.

Oddly, she refused to provide a whole lot of other supporting evidence to the Senate, like the actual therapy records.

:roll:

What do you reckon would have happened had they interviewed her, eugenics? New information or just a reiteration if what was already known.

If new, why do you think she didn't bring it out earlier, like during the testimony?

If the FBI had subjected her to a full investigation, the same people whining about the FBI being hamstrung would be going ape-shit.

She should be investigated by the police. Period.

For?

For?

I seriously have not been following the details of this. I really don't know why the FBI didn't interview the credible witnesses. It seems very remiss and shocking that they didn't. And I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, as it is, it seems as if he will be forever tainted in many people's eyes. You cannot prove a negative.

They managed to interview a total of 9 people, and that didn't include the Kav. CBF or anyone pertaining to the Ramirez allegations. They were given only a week, and were held to an even more restrictive witness list for the first few days. The interview notes, related memoes etc... are all being kept highly classified, and the Senators responsible for assessing the results of the interviews (1000 pages) were given 1 hour each, within a SCIF to go through and make their minds up. As this was not a criminal investigation, the FBI could not include any conclusions or assessments of the investigation, they had to leave that to the politically motivated Senators who had a whole hour to read all that.

Now, I've been pretty careful about not saying the Kav is guilty, deserves to go to prison or anything else quite so judgemental, I've really been in favour of a non-partisan investigation early on, as it's been clear that the Senate really aren't up to the task - Feinstein sitting on info, Male GOP senators outsourcing their questioning after insisting that they are the only ones who can be allowed to do it etc... I'm certainly not insisting the Kav be found guilty, just that these credible (yes, even Trump said so) allegations be assessed to the best of their ability.

We may never know the reasons why the FBI investigation shaped up the way it did, thanks to the confidentiality slapped onto it, despite that they've done so in other politically related investigations in the past:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... estigation

which leads to a few more questions the US public may have about open government or there being a separate set of rules for the privileged I guess.

I've said so a few times, that the investigation could well have been beneficial for the Kav if done correctly. You say you can't prove a negative, but that isn't really what they needed to do. They may have uncovered some exculpatory evidence (thanks to his calendar maybe???) that may have cleared him, if they'd been able to conduct interviews and re-interviews with both of the main parties or others. And this is what they needed to do.

Anyone thinking the televised circus of them testifying on front of the Senate Judicial Committee was sufficient is an idiot. They had their say, got upset, cried, shouted, waved calendars and showed choir boy appointments, and then had Senators grandstand for their own satisfaction. Yes, the Female Assistant did a half decent job of attempting to question.... one of them. Maybe if actual investigative pros had had a chance, they would've done a whole lot better, not have the witnesses avoid answering the question or posture for the cameras etc... a re-interview would've done a world of good as they'd have the chance inbetween to crosscheck claims, assess statements etc... and see what other leads may crop up.
The Committee aren't investigators, Jeff Flake isn't even a lawyer (although his time in South Africa as a Mormon missionary will no doubt have come in handy) for example. Lawyers don't exactly investigate either, especially not in such a setting. They never want to ask a question they don't already know the answer to, and they're much more interested in making the person they're questioning appear one way or another, rather than actually extract any new information from them at the time. It's quite impressive what a professional investigator can actually do, especially when there aren't 5 minute breaks, TV cameras on them, or political appointees sermonizing in their ears.

Maybe once Mueller finally wraps up his investigation we'll see just what dedicated investigative professionals can do. (Yeah, that'll be tainted by politics too, I'm not that optimistic)

The measured response to all that baloney from the GOP is:

Get fucked.

You don't lob a grenade in at the 13th hour and get to dictate terms on these things.

If she had been as inconsistent with the FBI as she has been with the Senate she could have been up for 5 years in the pokey for lying to the Feds. So could Kav according to some on here.

The measured response to all that baloney from the GOP is:

Get fucked.

You don't lob a grenade in at the 13th hour and get to dictate terms on these things.

There's already potential liability for lying to the Committee.

Also her incosistencies are with earlier versions of her story. It is not w/in her final version.

They managed to interview a total of 9 people, and that didn't include the Kav. CBF or anyone pertaining to the Ramirez allegations. They were given only a week, and were held to an even more restrictive witness list for the first few days. The interview notes, related memoes etc... are all being kept highly classified, and the Senators responsible for assessing the results of the interviews (1000 pages) were given 1 hour each, within a SCIF to go through and make their minds up. As this was not a criminal investigation, the FBI could not include any conclusions or assessments of the investigation, they had to leave that to the politically motivated Senators who had a whole hour to read all that.

Now, I've been pretty careful about not saying the Kav is guilty, deserves to go to prison or anything else quite so judgemental, I've really been in favour of a non-partisan investigation early on, as it's been clear that the Senate really aren't up to the task - Feinstein sitting on info, Male GOP senators outsourcing their questioning after insisting that they are the only ones who can be allowed to do it etc... I'm certainly not insisting the Kav be found guilty, just that these credible (yes, even Trump said so) allegations be assessed to the best of their ability.

We may never know the reasons why the FBI investigation shaped up the way it did, thanks to the confidentiality slapped onto it, despite that they've done so in other politically related investigations in the past:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... estigation

which leads to a few more questions the US public may have about open government or there being a separate set of rules for the privileged I guess.

I've said so a few times, that the investigation could well have been beneficial for the Kav if done correctly. You say you can't prove a negative, but that isn't really what they needed to do. They may have uncovered some exculpatory evidence (thanks to his calendar maybe???) that may have cleared him, if they'd been able to conduct interviews and re-interviews with both of the main parties or others. And this is what they needed to do.

Anyone thinking the televised circus of them testifying on front of the Senate Judicial Committee was sufficient is an idiot. They had their say, got upset, cried, shouted, waved calendars and showed choir boy appointments, and then had Senators grandstand for their own satisfaction. Yes, the Female Assistant did a half decent job of attempting to question.... one of them. Maybe if actual investigative pros had had a chance, they would've done a whole lot better, not have the witnesses avoid answering the question or posture for the cameras etc... a re-interview would've done a world of good as they'd have the chance inbetween to crosscheck claims, assess statements etc... and see what other leads may crop up.
The Committee aren't investigators, Jeff Flake isn't even a lawyer (although his time in South Africa as a Mormon missionary will no doubt have come in handy) for example. Lawyers don't exactly investigate either, especially not in such a setting. They never want to ask a question they don't already know the answer to, and they're much more interested in making the person they're questioning appear one way or another, rather than actually extract any new information from them at the time. It's quite impressive what a professional investigator can actually do, especially when there aren't 5 minute breaks, TV cameras on them, or political appointees sermonizing in their ears.

Maybe once Mueller finally wraps up his investigation we'll see just what dedicated investigative professionals can do. (Yeah, that'll be tainted by politics too, I'm not that optimistic)

For the umpteenth time - it's not an investigation.

The role of the Senate is to advise and consent on the apointment. The role of the committee is to gather information to help the full senate do that. The role of the FBI is to assist the Committee with information gathering. Neither the FBI nor the senate are there to determine the truth or accuracy of Fords claim. The FBI interviewed everyone identified by Ford as having first hand information of which the Senate should be aware.

If Ford had wants a law enforcement investigation, she only has to ask.

Actually, an 'investigation' is exactly what Jeff Flake called for. It's not a 'criminal investigation', but that's exactly what I said above.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/po ... 490465002/

For?

As for the criminal investigation, if she wants to go for it why doesn't she?

Also, those asking why the FBI didn't question her or Kav again....they had a bloody full day of answering questions and had the chance to say whatever they needed to already for goodness sake.

Having the temerity to accuse someone of sexual assault.

As we all know, the real victims in any sexual assault cases are the men and boys who have their reputations tarnished.

Women who "participate" in rape probably enjoy it.

Edit: I am being sarcastic.

The 'Lock her up' chants have resumed. Aimed at Feinstein at this point, but give it time.

The 'Lock her up' chants have resumed. Aimed at Feinstein at this point, but give it time.

She can join Hillary in the cell. I see Hillary is becoming more and more vocal lately.

Years ago I had gone home early with a terminal case of the man flu. I was sleeping when my phone rang. I woke up in a groggy state and answered the phone with my name. From it came "Hello Dad". A young man's voice. Then the thoughts raced through my groggy mind. I thought of the very few girls who I had bedded, but as I had seen them since then, I knew that none of them had had kids from me. Then, had some girl told a kid that I was his father?

Anyway, I could sort of understand what it is like to blamed for something from the distant past. There is no way I could prove that I didn't rape someone in the distant past.

If you ever need me to be a character witness, just let me know.

Years ago I had gone home early with a terminal case of the man flu. I was sleeping when my phone rang. I woke up in a groggy state and answered the phone with my name. From it came "Hello Dad". A young man's voice. Then the thoughts raced through my groggy mind. I thought of the very few girls who I had bedded, but as I had seen them since then, I knew that none of them had had kids from me. Then, had some girl told a kid that I was his father?

Anyway, I could sort of understand what it is like to blamed for something from the distant past. There is no way I could prove that I didn't rape someone in the distant past.

Of course.

What should happen is that these assaults are tried as soon after the occurrence as possible, while evidence is reasonably fresh, witnesses (if there are any) are interrogated before memory fades.

However, just because a rape victim didn't report the incident, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

They will keep on repeating their inanities. Round and round in a circle they will go ...

Thanks for your insight.

just because a rape victim didn't report the incident, doesn't mean it didn't happen

just because a rape victim didn't report the incident, doesn't mean it didn't happen