Trump ordered the FBI to not interview 25 witnesses who may have had evidence against Kavanaugh

Uh huh.

Sources, with names, of the people who say they saw Kavanaugh assault her while she was passed out please.

 

You have a problem with that. While I can't say if the story is accurate or embellished, I can say that if the democrats had their way those hearings would still be going on, and we would be hearing testimony from everyone regardless as to whether they had knowledge or not. It would never end so long as it was causing trouble.

The objective was to smear and to block Trump; it was obvious that being fair, honorable or legitimate was so far down the list nobody cared. This was a vendetta- part of a string of such things. They continue to look for things everyday to try and make into blockbuster claims. That says a great deal about the current democratic leadership, and it's all ugly. It also speaks to the democrats who are buying all that crap and supporting the circus while things really needing action go begging.

 

Why did the NYT fail to mention this?

NYT reporter behind Kavanaugh article was 'in his freshman year dorm' at Yale
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-in-college-and-was-in-his-freshman-year-dorm

 

What was he charged with?

 

Who told you that?

This was a part of the vetting process that the FBI conducts for every Supreme Court nominee. The vetting process is NOT a criminal investigation. This was in no way a criminal investigation, and for that matter, the statute of limitations if a crime actually had taken place had long since passed. If a crime actually took place, it would also be a state crime and NOT Federal. Calling this a criminal investigation is 100% false.

The FBI typically does not invesigate non criminal issues, but one very notable exception is the vetting process that they get involved with regarding Supreme Court nominees. This was one of those instances. Calling this a criminal investigation is nonsensical and inaccurate.

 

Yes. It is not from an unbiased source.

 

In the last 50 years the biggest majority was 64 and that's still not enough

 

Again, what was he charged with? What are the statutes of limitations?

 

That's ridiculous.

How better to rig an investigation than directing it towards "witnesses" that you know were witness to nothing

 

If he did these things...and lied about them to get a seat on the Highest Court in the nation...he needs to be kicked OFF that court

 

No one found it credible they only found he reported it someone
There are no known witnesses including the alleged victim and the only account of the incident indicates kavanaugh was another victim of sexual assault at the same time as her .

 

He has nothing least of all any evidence

 

According to the lady from the NYT article there was nothing to bare witness to, at least nothing she can remember.

 

The objective was to get to the truth as to whether Schlitz Kavanaugh was fit to serve on the SC. That effort was blocked by the Adulterer-in-Chief. The result..........Don was able to smear his shyte on the highest court in the land by getting a sexually abusing former alcoholic on the bench.

 

Let the hate flow through you.

 

Her lack of memory of the event is contradicted by witnesses who recall it clearly. So.......why did the WH block the FBI from doing a thorough investigation?

 

Does that insipid remark in any way refute what I wrote? No, it doesn't. How revealing.

 

You could save a lot of machinations if you would read the book Justice on Trial. It is completely researched with footnotes. It basically says and proves your OP is BS.
https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Trial-Kavanaugh-Confirmation-Supreme/dp/1621579832

 

Dude, the sort of lust for character assassination demonstrated in your post above is exactly the sort of unhinged, hate-fueled motivation that's driving the Democrats to self destruction. If I thought you, and those like you, had any ability to control yourselves, I wouldn't reveal this simple reality to you, for fear you'd alter your course, and save yourselves.

But you can't control it, so keep it up, and let the hate flow.

 

It's not that seeing a Trumpette ignore the facts surprises me. It is their stock and trade. I'm just amused by how you folks lamely rely on the childish meme of the left being angry when we point out the shameful behavior of a man unfit to serve on any bench, let alone the SC. Followed by the concerted efforts of a WH hell bent on limiting the scope of the investigation in to that behavior in order to put an ideologue in a position to protect Don. We know, even if you do not, that Schlitz was chosen for his views on the power of the executive branch. His lack of moral character was not a concern. Given Don's similar proclivities it may of even been a plus.

 

I'll have to do that. Thanks. I already did enough research way back when to conclude that Blasey Ford lied on more than one occasion, and that this whole thing goes back to the use of Kavanaugh's dissent words in I believe the Obamacare case when it was heard by the DC Court. His words were used almost verbatum in the SCOTUS opening statement. The timing of Blasey Ford's visit to a counselor lines up perfectly ,,, but at that time Kavanaugh was a potential Romney nominee.

My viewpoint that I also posted elsewhere:
This could have been predicted. Tigar being overturned for the 2nd time by the 9th Circuit (formerly Circus) was an in-your-face moment for Democrats. Imagine if, just a few short years ago, you were ecstatic over the fantasy of having a rubber stamp for the radical activist Tigar with a backstop in the Supreme Court with Garland. Imagine then having your hopes and dreams dashed with the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh appointments. Finally, the coup de gras. Trump and McConnell transform the 9th Circuit into a real court.

Wouldn't you go out and enlist the Clinton Attorney who fought Starr and Kavanaugh to make an unsubstantiated claim to destroy Kavanaugh and his family? If you were a Democrat, you certainly would. An objective observer like myself wouldn't put it past them. Even after the supposed victim denied recollection of any such act, our upstanding Democrat candidates are racing to the microphones to attack the guy who represents the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Out of respect for the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg should step down now while her replacement will take the heat off of Kavanaugh. Either that or Trump and McConnell should give Democrats what they want --- stack the SCOTUS with 2 more seats.

 

Keep it up.

 

You posted at least two major slurs against Brett Cavanaugh that you have no credible evidence of.

 

He doesn't need evidence, he's got the fire of righteous indignation in his belly.

 

WRONG.
The real purpose of a confirmation hearing is to verify the suitability of a candidate. That WAS NOT the purpose of the Kavanaugh hearings- only the window dressing.
Rather- It was a moral assassination plot designed to harm Trump by using Kavanaugh as the medium. In perhaps the most dispicable display of political treachery we have ever seen, the legitimate purpose, the honor of the congress and whatever shred of honor the dems at that hearing may have had left at the time- were all sacrificed in an effort to satisfy an emotional and personal hate. Only those who carry that disease can defend what happened at that so-called hearing- because anybody with good moral values and self respect is disgusted; indeed reviled to see elected officials lower themselves to the tawdry performances and outright fraud that defined the entire event.

That would be something you understand. In your brief two-line post reply, you manage to repeatedly malign both Trump and Kavanaugh. No facts, just slander.