Current Events > Lol FBI provides 1 physical report for senate to share

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-oct-18/h_98b8a07af41b3c7892b9ba93df46f714

Country is a joke

It should be released to the public.

Thus far, though, the only people I've seen rejecting that idea were Dem senators - the same ones who made this a show trial to begin with.
---

They could pull a George W and release a fully redacted report.
---

The turtley one is going to eat it if there's something in there he doesn't like.
---

did they interview ANYONE? or was this another trump era snow job?
---

monkmith posted...

did they interview ANYONE? or was this another trump era snow job?

9 people IIRC
---

s0nicfan posted...

monkmith posted...

did they interview ANYONE? or was this another trump era snow job?

9 people IIRC

And not Kavanaugh or Ford lol

Feinstein had the gall to say the FBI fucked up when she sat on the original complaint when it was brought to her months before.

What a hypocrite.
---

Many Of Brett Kavanaughs Ex-Classmates Wanted To Talk But FBI Reportedly Ignored Them
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-classmates_us_5bb5c505e4b0876eda9b42fb

I think the 1 copy thing is McConnell/Grassley, not the FBI.
---

And each side gets one hour to go over it. lmao.
---

VipaGTS posted...

And each side gets one hour to go over it. lmao.

PER Senator, not total. If everyone wanted to view it it could take up to 100 hours.
---

Apparently, it has to do with the fact that there are several interviews with people who do not wish to have their views made public. But let's not inject context into this.

Some of them apparently are afraid that if their name is tied to their statements, they'll be viewed as targets by people angry with the outcome.
---

Da Rushunz must have stolen the other copies somehow.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Apparently, it has to do with the fact that there are several interviews with people who do not wish to have their views made public. But let's not inject context into this.

still seems weird to only have one physical copy but I guess I can see it
---

Maybe it's a small report too.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Apparently, it has to do with the fact that there are several interviews with people who do not wish to have their views made public. But let's not inject context into this.

still seems weird to only have one physical copy but I guess I can see it

My guess is it's to prevent leaks. If there are only one or two documents, and they're only available in a specific room that you can't bring any kind of equipment to, that makes it pretty secure.
---

So now libs are ok with destroying the environment and wasting paper.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Apparently, it has to do with the fact that there are several interviews with people who do not wish to have their views made public. But let's not inject context into this.

still seems weird to only have one physical copy but I guess I can see it

To be fair, DC has been pretty bad with leaks the past few years, and even a second physical copy will with almost 100% certainty get leaked to the press if it's allowed to circulate. It's probably in a SCIF in part because cameras aren't allowed.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Apparently, it has to do with the fact that there are several interviews with people who do not wish to have their views made public. But let's not inject context into this.

still seems weird to only have one physical copy but I guess I can see it

To be fair, DC has been pretty bad with leaks the past few years, and even a second physical copy will with almost 100% certainty get leaked to the press if it's allowed to circulate. It's probably in a SCIF in part because cameras aren't allowed.

I mean, just yesterday there was that one intern of a senator who was arrested for doxxing and leaking information.
---

I suspect the most likely scenario is that one of them, or more, is afraid that their testimony will be viewed as being critical of a potential rape victim. In the toxic political environment we're in right now, I wouldn't want to be associated with either side too strongly.
---

Seems to have been a mistake to use the hearing to push for an FBI investigation as the be-all and end all
---

Antifar posted...

Seems to have been a mistake to use the hearing to push for an FBI investigation as the be-all and end all

Honestly, it seems like a pretty bad outcome for both sides. If there's information that definitively clears Kavanaugh, the Republicans won't be able to directly state it. Likewise, the Democrats don't get the satisfaction of a damning report.

So what we're left with is what will likely be a confirmation that will always remain very controversial. Whether or not it actually should be.
---

So is the FBI corrupt or not now? I can never keep up with the narrative.
---

Antifar posted...

Seems to have been a mistake to use the hearing to push for an FBI investigation as the be-all and end all

Idk, we know he's a rapist. That's basically the only thing American citizens get these days.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Antifar posted...

Seems to have been a mistake to use the hearing to push for an FBI investigation as the be-all and end all

Idk, we know he's a rapist. That's basically the only thing American citizens get these days.

And how do we know he's a rapist?

He was never even accused of rape, so that is a bit of a leap...
---

darkjedilink posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Antifar posted...

Seems to have been a mistake to use the hearing to push for an FBI investigation as the be-all and end all

Idk, we know he's a rapist. That's basically the only thing American citizens get these days.

And how do we know he's a rapist?

He was never even accused of rape, so that is a bit of a leap...

Oh ok, sexual assaultist. I guess when you murder puppies on the daily you really gotta know where those fine lines are.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Antifar posted...

Seems to have been a mistake to use the hearing to push for an FBI investigation as the be-all and end all

Idk, we know he's a rapist. That's basically the only thing American citizens get these days.

And how do we know he's a rapist?

He was never even accused of rape, so that is a bit of a leap...

Oh ok, sexual assaultist. I guess when you murder puppies on the daily you really gotta know where those fine lines are.

And, again, how do we know this? No evidence has been presented, and it sounds like the FBI didn't find much to corroborate such a claim - if they had, the Dems wouldn't be bitching.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

So what we're left with is what will likely be a confirmation that will always remain very controversial. Whether or not it actually should be.

That was a valid strategy for the Dems tbh

Make what should've been a routine appointment controversial and toxic going in to midterms and if Kavanaugh is confirmed this makes any SCOTUS decisions he's part of controversial and gives the left the ability to cast doubt on them
---

Doom_Art posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

So what we're left with is what will likely be a confirmation that will always remain very controversial. Whether or not it actually should be.

That was a valid strategy for the Dems tbh

Make what should've been a routine appointment controversial and toxic going in to midterms and if Kavanaugh is confirmed this makes any SCOTUS decisions he's part of controversial and gives the left the ability to cast doubt on them

Sure but the real goal was to at least stall him out, if not get him replaced.
---

I mean if it comes to light there's actual issues he can still be impeached right?

Also we're still going to get leaks from this, no doubt about it.
---

X-Pac_Heat posted...

So is the FBI corrupt or not now? I can never keep up with the narrative.

They could only do what is directed...

darkjedilink posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Antifar posted...

Seems to have been a mistake to use the hearing to push for an FBI investigation as the be-all and end all

Idk, we know he's a rapist. That's basically the only thing American citizens get these days.

And how do we know he's a rapist?

He was never even accused of rape, so that is a bit of a leap...

Oh ok, sexual assaultist. I guess when you murder puppies on the daily you really gotta know where those fine lines are.

And, again, how do we know this? No evidence has been presented, and it sounds like the FBI didn't find much to corroborate such a claim - if they had, the Dems wouldn't be bitching.

Evidence has been submitted. Just because you didn't watch Ford's testimony doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because Kavanaugh won't be tried criminally doesn't mean he didn't do it. She had a pretty air tight testimony that sounded pretty similar to those of women I've talked to who have been assaulted, which is basically what the Democrats said as prosecuting attorneys and the republicans failed to comment on in the hearing.
---

Doom_Art posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

So what we're left with is what will likely be a confirmation that will always remain very controversial. Whether or not it actually should be.

That was a valid strategy for the Dems tbh

Make what should've been a routine appointment controversial and toxic going in to midterms and if Kavanaugh is confirmed this makes any SCOTUS decisions he's part of controversial and gives the left the ability to cast doubt on them

And if all else fails, just threaten to pack the courts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/07/10/democrats-must-consider-
court-packing-when-they-regain-power-its-the-only-way-to-save-democracy/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hey-democrats-pack-the-court_us_5b33f7a8e4b0b5e692f3f3d4
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/07/what-is-court-packing-and-why-should-democrats-con.html
https://newrepublic.com/article/148358/democrats-prepare-pack-supreme-court
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/why-democrats-should-rig-the-senate-and-pack-the-supreme-court.html
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/2/17513520/court-packing-explained-fdr-roosevelt-new-deal-democrats-supreme-court
---

Honestly, I think the real losers of all of this are people like Stephen Colbert, who had these long, drawn-out grandstands essentially declaring Kavanaugh a rapist. I highly doubt they will ever have enough humility to actually admit that they might have been wrong. Nancy Grace still hasn't apologized for Duke lacrosse.
---

Bio1590 posted...

I mean if it comes to light there's actual issues he can still be impeached right?

Dems will absolutely move to impeach once they have Congress back.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Antifar posted...

Seems to have been a mistake to use the hearing to push for an FBI investigation as the be-all and end all

Idk, we know he's a rapist. That's basically the only thing American citizens get these days.

And how do we know he's a rapist?

He was never even accused of rape, so that is a bit of a leap...

Oh ok, sexual assaultist. I guess when you murder puppies on the daily you really gotta know where those fine lines are.

And, again, how do we know this? No evidence has been presented, and it sounds like the FBI didn't find much to corroborate such a claim - if they had, the Dems wouldn't be bitching.

Evidence has been submitted. Just because you didn't watch Ford's testimony doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because Kavanaugh won't be tried criminally doesn't mean he didn't do it. She had a pretty air tight testimony that sounded pretty similar to those of women I've talked to who have been assaulted, which is basically what the Democrats said as prosecuting attorneys and the republicans failed to comment on in the hearing.

Oh, you're one of those people who think that an uncorroborated accusation is evidence that someone is a criminal.

And her story wasn't 'airtight' in the least.
---

She had a pretty air tight testimony

She literally had four different versions of the story. She changed the location three times. She changed the date twice. She changed the number of people at the party multiple times. Your definition of airtight is very unusual.
---

CruelBuffalo posted...

s0nicfan posted...

monkmith posted...

did they interview ANYONE? or was this another trump era snow job?

9 people IIRC

And not Kavanaugh or Ford lol

hahhhahahaa

I'd not be surprised if those 9 people were:

- Kav's wife
- Kav's 2 daughters
- Lindsay Graham
- Mitch Mconnel
- 45
- Gee dubya
- whoever paid for the kavanaugh TV ads
- the_admiral
---

s0nicfan posted...

And if all else fails, just threaten to pack the courts:

I doubt you'll see them try unless the GOP gets extra fucky with the courts in the next few years tbh
---

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-changing-memories-not-credible-kavanaugh-column/1497661002/

First, Fords testimony that the assault occurred in the summer of 1982, when just 15, conflicted with both her therapists notes and the text message Ford sent to the Washington Post. According to reporter Emma Brown, Ford claimed she had been assaulted in the mid-1980s; and the therapists notes stated Ford had been the victim of an attempted rape in her late teens. But by that time, Kavanaugh was attending Yale, so Fords recasting of the attack to the summer of 1982 is suspect.

Ford's story changed in key ways

Fords retelling of the alleged sexual assault also included several conflicting accounts of the number of individuals at the gathering. The therapists notes stated that four boys had attempted to rape Ford. (Ford claims her therapist confused the total number of boys at the party with the number of boys who had attacked her.)

Later, in her July letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford again placed the number of individuals at the party at five, stating the gathering included her and four other individuals. But Ford then identified the four by name, and that group included three boys and one girl. And finally, during her Senate testimony, Ford unequivocally stated that there were four boys I remember specificallybeing there, in addition to her friend Leland Keyser.

Another significant change in the scenario came when Ford testified about the location of the party. She had originally told the Washington Post that the attack took place at a house not far from the country club. Yet, when Mitchell revealed a map of the relevant locations and reminded Ford that she had described the attack as having occurred near the country club, Ford backtracked: I would describe [the house] as it's somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity thats shown in your picture. Ford added that the country club was a 20-minute drive from her home.



So airtight.
---

darkjedilink posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Antifar posted...

Seems to have been a mistake to use the hearing to push for an FBI investigation as the be-all and end all

Idk, we know he's a rapist. That's basically the only thing American citizens get these days.

And how do we know he's a rapist?

He was never even accused of rape, so that is a bit of a leap...

Oh ok, sexual assaultist. I guess when you murder puppies on the daily you really gotta know where those fine lines are.

And, again, how do we know this? No evidence has been presented, and it sounds like the FBI didn't find much to corroborate such a claim - if they had, the Dems wouldn't be bitching.

Evidence has been submitted. Just because you didn't watch Ford's testimony doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because Kavanaugh won't be tried criminally doesn't mean he didn't do it. She had a pretty air tight testimony that sounded pretty similar to those of women I've talked to who have been assaulted, which is basically what the Democrats said as prosecuting attorneys and the republicans failed to comment on in the hearing.

Oh, you're one of those people who think that an uncorroborated accusation is evidence that someone is a criminal.

And her story wasn't 'airtight' in the least.

Eyewitness testimony is evidence in criminal court. Not surprising you wouldn't have picked up on that though. And frankly I'd be surprised if your own mother talks to you, let alone assault victims, so you'll have to excuse me if I dismiss your opinion on her story as garbage.
---

Doom_Art posted...

s0nicfan posted...

And if all else fails, just threaten to pack the courts:

I doubt you'll see them try unless the GOP gets extra fucky with the courts in the next few years tbh

nope. the dems have no balls.

They will nominate "moderate judges who reach out to both sides of the aisle" and they won't impeach 45 even if they get the house and senate. They will "govern in a bipartisan way" and get obstructed every step along the way and then get blasted once they lose power again
---

Who was expecting evidence to remain after all this time? It doesn't absolve him anything. Dude is a colossal jerk who shouldn't be a judge at all...let alone a supreme Court judge.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

So airtight.

Buddy, she went on record to correct things as she remembered them. But I guess this is coming from the wannabe doctor who sometimes spews out garbage and conveniently forgets, so that isn't surprising.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

So airtight.

Buddy, she went on record to correct things as she remembered them. But I guess this is coming from the wannabe doctor who sometimes spews out garbage and conveniently forgets, so that isn't surprising.

Ad hominem arguments. Nice.
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

She had a pretty air tight testimony

She literally had four different versions of the story. She changed the location three times. She changed the date twice. She changed the number of people at the party multiple times. Your definition of airtight is very unusual.

According to this anal version of memory you shouldn't even have a Ph.D since you literally have to be perfect to be credible, which you are far from.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

She had a pretty air tight testimony

She literally had four different versions of the story. She changed the location three times. She changed the date twice. She changed the number of people at the party multiple times. Your definition of airtight is very unusual.

According to this anal version of memory you shouldn't even have a Ph.D since you literally have to be perfect to be credible, which you are far from.

You seem like a real nice person to debate with.
---

To recap

"She told an airtight story"

"Actually she changed it quite a lot -posts source-"

"You're garbage and a wannabe doctor, and you're not credible"
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

She had a pretty air tight testimony

She literally had four different versions of the story. She changed the location three times. She changed the date twice. She changed the number of people at the party multiple times. Your definition of airtight is very unusual.

According to this anal version of memory you shouldn't even have a Ph.D since you literally have to be perfect to be credible, which you are far from.

You seem like a real nice person to debate with.

And you're never interested in sincere conversation. Hopefully you got my point. Nobody is perfect. I mean I could really lay into you here and explain why someone in the medical profession should understand how the brain memorizes traumas, not as a set of dates but as individual experiences, and use that to discredit you with your own argument. Why you'd say something so stupid is beyond me.
---