Time To Smear Kavanaugh's Good Name...

[One Bad Pig]

Excellent questions here.


Why Did Media And Democrats Abandon Their Investigation Into Brett Kavanaugh?

If Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is really a rapist and sexual assailant, as Democrats and media claimed, shouldn't the story continue to be covered?

...

If the Kavanaugh confirmation circus were about justice for his alleged victims, instead of about killing his nomination by any means, we’d still be getting updates on this story, wouldn’t we?

So what does it mean that we’re not getting updates? What does it mean that Democrats are not being asked by mainstream journalists about whether they support Kavanaugh’s impeachment? Why have the media given up on investigating this story that they obsessed over for a few weeks in September and October?

Any reporter who was able to verify the claims against Kavanaugh would be an instant hero and awarded all the journalism prizes. Is anyone even attempting to do so? Democrats took the claims so seriously that they charged Kavanaugh with the crimes in Senate hearings. Did they mean what they said? If they’re telling the truth, he should be impeached and imprisoned.

Conversely, if Kavanaugh was falsely accused, had his reputation obliterated, and nearly had his life destroyed in the process, his accusers should be held accountable. If the Justice Department responds to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s criminal referral of Avenatti and Swetnick, some will be. But what about the rest? What’s going on with this story?

Indeed. Even our buddy JimL has moved on to repeating accusations of lying.

[Starlight]

Indeed. Even our buddy JimL has moved on to repeating accusations of lying.

Presumably once Dems take the House in the midterms they will launch 100 investigations into different things, and Kavanaugh will be one of them, with a view to eventually impeaching the guy and removing him from the court for his various crimes.

Until then, what exactly is there that's new to talk about?

[Tassman]

What's your proof that the WH prevented "investigation in full"?

The “proof” lies in virtually all the media, including the Washington Examiner: “FBI chief confirms investigation into Brett Kavanaugh was ‘limited in scope’ by the White House”. “Trump orders a 'limited scope' FBI investigation into Kavanaugh allegations”.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...he-white-house

"The special background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh involved nine witnesses and bypassed dozens of others named by the accusers Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez". "The limited scope of Kavanaugh’s seventh and final background investigation, ordered by President Donald Trump last week under pressure from Flake, was freely acknowledged by the White House deputy press secretary, Raj Shah, on Thursday morning".

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-house/572236/

[Cow Poke]

The “proof” lies in virtually all the media, including the Washington Examiner: “FBI chief confirms investigation into Brett Kavanaugh was ‘limited in scope’ by the White House”. “Trump orders a 'limited scope' FBI investigation into Kavanaugh allegations”.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...he-white-house

"The special background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh involved nine witnesses and bypassed dozens of others named by the accusers Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez". "The limited scope of Kavanaugh’s seventh and final background investigation, ordered by President Donald Trump last week under pressure from Flake, was freely acknowledged by the White House deputy press secretary, Raj Shah, on Thursday morning".

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-house/572236/

Did you actually READ your cites? Here, lemme help you --- I'll bold some of it for your benefit...

“Our supplemental update to the previous background investigation was limited in scope and that is consistent with the standard process for such investigations going back quite a long ways,” Wray said, explaining that background check investigations are not like criminal ones.

....

“As is standard, the investigation was very specific in scope, limited in scope and that is the usual process,” Wray said, adding, “And my folks have assured me that the usual process was followed.” [/quote]

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

The ignorant "hang em high" crowd takes those statements and perverts them into "the White House limited us"!

[oxmixmudd]

Did you actually READ your cites? Here, lemme help you --- I'll bold some of it for your benefit...

“Our supplemental update to the previous background investigation was limited in scope and that is consistent with the standard process for such investigations going back quite a long ways,” Wray said, explaining that background check investigations are not like criminal ones.

....

“As is standard, the investigation was very specific in scope, limited in scope and that is the usual process,” Wray said, adding, “And my folks have assured me that the usual process was followed.”

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

The ignorant "hang em high" crowd takes those statements and perverts them into "the White House limited us"!

People wishing to justify an action can paint it however they want. The fact is witnesses that claimed to have relevant information were 'passed over'. Given that all potentially relevant testimony was not part of the investigation, it is possible the conclusion of the investigation would have been different had the investigators been allowed to interview those people. Given the Trump administration would want to be assured nothing interfered with the Kavanaugh nomination, them directing the FBI to limit the investigation and ignore testimony from people that claimed to have meaningful information is a clear conflict of interest - at best.

Jim

[seer]

Given the Trump administration would want to be assured nothing interfered with the Kavanaugh nomination, them directing the FBI to limit the investigation and ignore testimony from people that claimed to have meaningful information is a clear conflict of interest - at best.

Jim

Are you saying that Trump told the FBI who to interview or not? Do you have any evidence of this?

[Cow Poke]

People wishing to justify an action can paint it however they want. The fact is witnesses that claimed to have relevant information were 'passed over'. Given that all potentially relevant testimony was not part of the investigation, it is possible the conclusion of the investigation would have been different had the investigators been allowed to interview those people. Given the Trump administration would want to be assured nothing interfered with the Kavanaugh nomination, them directing the FBI to limit the investigation and ignore testimony from people that claimed to have meaningful information is a clear conflict of interest - at best.

Jim

In light of the porn star lawyer flat out LYING about his own client's testimony, it's no wonder the FBI didn't go chasing down every possible source of gossip and wild accusation.

Jeff Flake offered, and the Democrats accepted, a limited investigation - it's right there in the "proof" (cough, sputter) that Tass offered....

On Sept. 28, Trump agreed to a request from Senate Republicans and ordered the FBI open conduct a new background investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh.

In ordering the investigation, he said that it would be “supplemental” and would “be limited in scope and completed in less than a week,” as the Republican Senate leadership had requested.

It was Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who made the initial demand for the investigation, and that it would be “limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there.”

[One Bad Pig]

Presumably once Dems take the House in the midterms they will launch 100 investigations into different things, and Kavanaugh will be one of them, with a view to eventually impeaching the guy and removing him from the court for his various crimes.

Such investigations, like the earlier one, would be seen as primarily motivated by politics. There is no statute of limitations in Maryland for assault with intent to rape, so if this were truly a legitimate claim there's no reason to wait to press charges. Even a Supreme Court Justice is not above the law.

[Mountain Man]

Excellent questions here.


Why Did Media And Democrats Abandon Their Investigation Into Brett Kavanaugh?

If Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is really a rapist and sexual assailant, as Democrats and media claimed, shouldn't the story continue to be covered?

...

If the Kavanaugh confirmation circus were about justice for his alleged victims, instead of about killing his nomination by any means, we’d still be getting updates on this story, wouldn’t we?

So what does it mean that we’re not getting updates? What does it mean that Democrats are not being asked by mainstream journalists about whether they support Kavanaugh’s impeachment? Why have the media given up on investigating this story that they obsessed over for a few weeks in September and October?

Any reporter who was able to verify the claims against Kavanaugh would be an instant hero and awarded all the journalism prizes. Is anyone even attempting to do so? Democrats took the claims so seriously that they charged Kavanaugh with the crimes in Senate hearings. Did they mean what they said? If they’re telling the truth, he should be impeached and imprisoned.

Conversely, if Kavanaugh was falsely accused, had his reputation obliterated, and nearly had his life destroyed in the process, his accusers should be held accountable. If the Justice Department responds to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s criminal referral of Avenatti and Swetnick, some will be. But what about the rest? What’s going on with this story?

They realized that pressing the Kavanaugh witch-hunt was not playing well with midterm voters, so they dropped it like a hot potato.

[Mountain Man]

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is declining to accept the more than half a million dollars raised in a Go Fund Me campaign during his bruising confirmation hearings, citing ethical concerns. But the North Carolina man who started the effort said the money would go to three Catholic youth programs that Kavanaugh has supported in the past.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...outh-programs/

[Cow Poke]

And, once again, as liberals were rushing to believe any and all accusations against Kavanaugh....

Kavanaugh Accuser Admits She Fabricated Allegations as a ‘Ploy’ for ‘Attention’

...She admitted to investigators that her story was a “tactic” and “that was just a ploy.”

“No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention,” she told investigators. “I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.”

“I was angry, and I sent it out,” she said of her email to the committee describing the allegations.

“Oh, Lord no,” she responded on whether she has ever met Kavanaugh....

[seer]

And, once again, as liberals were rushing to believe any and all accusations against Kavanaugh....

Can't they be arrested?

[Cow Poke]

Can't they be arrested?

I believe there are criminal referrals in the works... hadn't heard much on that lately. I do believe there needs to be some consequences.

[KingsGambit]

I believe there are criminal referrals in the works... hadn't heard much on that lately. I do believe there needs to be some consequences.

Agreed.

There's of course a difference between an accusation that can't be proved and an accusation that is definitely false. I don't want women to be afraid to come forward to report actual incidents, but if there's indisputable evidence it was made up, that's a different story.

[rogue06]

And, once again, as liberals were rushing to believe any and all accusations against Kavanaugh....

Kavanaugh Accuser Admits She Fabricated Allegations as a ‘Ploy’ for ‘Attention’

...She admitted to investigators that her story was a “tactic” and “that was just a ploy.”

“No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention,” she told investigators. “I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.”

“I was angry, and I sent it out,” she said of her email to the committee describing the allegations.

“Oh, Lord no,” she responded on whether she has ever met Kavanaugh....

And how many times just in this thread were we solemnly informed that for all practical purposes this sort of stuff doesn't happen and we should always default to automatically believing the accuser?