DiscussMormonism.com

So after a couple weeks of babble from the Right about how there is "no corroboration" for any of these claims of sexual assault, now we have multiple witnesses willing to speak up, but the FBI won't listen to them because the White House told the Senate to keep a narrow focus on who to interview. Kavanaugh exposing his genitals to Debbie Ramirez was just corroborated. But the FBI doesn't listen.

Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”

The F.B.I. Probe Ignored Testimonies from Former Classmates of Kavanaugh

FBI has not contacted dozens of potential sources in Kavanaugh investigation

Women are marching in Washington in protest according to footage provided by CNN and MSNBC, but of course at FOX News it is the greatest day in America and they have one journalist on an empty lawn at the White House reporting on how the "thorough and comprehensive' investigation has come to a close. The closest thing they did to report on the fact that dozens of potentially corroborating witnesses have been ignored is to say the Left Wing media is complaining that it wasn't comprehensive, but Sarah Sanders has this to say - cue to Sanders - "That's ridiculous, we have faith in the FBI to do their job and they investigated exactly what the Senate asked of them."

Well no crap, but watching FOX News you'd never know there were testimonies on record now that corroborate Kavanaugh sticking his pecker in a woman's face. That's not news, but idiots like waterdog will be upset if CNN doesn't do a segment on a letter from an anonymous ex-boyfriend who says Ford lied.

One week is ridiculously short. According CNN the FBI investigation of Clinton's emails took 12 months and Republicans say it was incomplete. Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics ... index.html

Well one FBI guy on MSNBC just said it was never an investigation and never should have been called that. It was instead just an "inquiry" which is very different and limited in scope. Basically we were lied to by the Senate Republicans.

What I don't understand is why they even bothered to interview Ramirez. We already knew her story, so when Republicans say the investigation uncovered nothing new, they're right. But we were always under the illusion that they were going to actually expand the inquiry to cover potentially corroborating witnesses. I mean why interview Ramirez at all just to report, "Yeah, she's saying the same thing as before"? Why not try to corroborate her story? Because that could have easily been done, and the Republicans likely knew it, and wanted it shut down immediately.

Maybe if Deborah Ramirez had said her full name was "Deborah Benghazi Ramirez," they would have unleashed all the dogs.

Mitch McConnell went to the Senate floor and argued, ""No back up from any witnesses including those specifically named as eye witnesses by people who brought these allegations."

Forget for a moment that there are witnesses who say they weren't contacted by the FBI and had their efforts to reach out ignored. We also know they have corroborating testimony because they went to the press with it. Like, we can read it with our own eyes.

It's easy to become numb to this level of unethical behavior from our leaders, but this is really unethical.

EAllusion wrote:Mitch McConnell went to the Senate floor and argued, ""No back up from any witnesses including those specifically named as eye witnesses by people who brought these allegations."

Forget for a moment that there are witnesses who say they weren't contacted by the FBI and had their efforts to reach out ignored. We also know they have corroborating testimony because they went to the press with it. Like, we can read it with our own eyes.

It's easy to become numb to this level of unethical behavior from our leaders, but this is really unethical.

EA, given the emergence of such damning testimony from people who were there, how do you think this plays out when Kavanaugh is confirmed? I mean, good or bad for Republicans come November. I can't imagine how this doesn't backfire big time.

Kevin Graham wrote:

EAllusion wrote:Mitch McConnell went to the Senate floor and argued, ""No back up from any witnesses including those specifically named as eye witnesses by people who brought these allegations."

Forget for a moment that there are witnesses who say they weren't contacted by the FBI and had their efforts to reach out ignored. We also know they have corroborating testimony because they went to the press with it. Like, we can read it with our own eyes.

It's easy to become numb to this level of unethical behavior from our leaders, but this is really unethical.

EAllusion, given the emergence of such damning testimony from people who were there, how do you think this plays out when Kavanaugh is confirmed? I mean, good or bad for Republicans come November. I can't imagine how this doesn't backfire big time.

My guess? If he gets confirmed, it helps Democrats a little. If he doesn't, it helps Republicans a little. Emphasis on "little."

It's no surprise it's a sham. What will be interesting is how Flake, Collins and Murkowski (and the 2 red state Democrats) react to it.

DoubtingThomas wrote:One week is ridiculously short. According CNN the FBI investigation of Clinton's emails took 12 months and Republicans say it was incomplete. Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/14/politics ... index.html

But the Democrats said that the FBI could handle the 10,000+ emails from Anthony Weiner's computer over the weekend, no problem!
So, im cofused why 1 week to do a SUPPLEMENTAL investigation on 1 guy would be a challenge.

subgenius wrote:SENATORS CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY) and DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “It will not take a ‘tremendous amount of time.’” (Release, 9/23/18)

SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): “We’re not going to say, 'Why isn’t this a month-long investigation?' but we’re going to at least say let’s give this one week.” (John Croman, “Klobuchar pivotal in Kavanaugh drama.’” KARE, 9/29/18)

SENATOR CHRIS COONS (D-DE): “I wish you would join us in calling for an FBI investigation for one week when you clear or confirm some of these allegations.” (Hearing, 9/27/18)

SENATOR MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): “The thing is that every Senate vote matters and there is – there is time to get to the bottom of it, even if it’s seven days.” (ABC This Week, 9/30/18)

SENATORS KLOBUCHAR, HARRIS, LEAHY, WHITEHOUSE, BLUMENTHAL, JONES, UDALL, CORTEZ MASTO: “Declining to have the FBI take action under these circumstances also abandons the precedent that President George H.W. Bush set when he asked the FBI to investigate... the FBI finished its work in three days.” (Release, 9/20/18)

These comments were made in reference to a real investigation. The FBI can interview 400 people in just a few days. They have that kind of man power. But Senate Republicans refused to allow a real investigation and ignore all the sworn statements that corroborate Ramirez and Ford, proving Kavanaugh is unfit to sit on the bench. They wanted the appearance of an investigation by claiming one was happening while calling it thorough. They only interviewed people who said things they already knew would be said or things they had already said.

Hell, even former justice John Paul Stevens said he should not be a judge based on his performance the other day.