Ford wants FBI investigation before testifying

Wrong and even suggesting this, shows your level of stupidity; unless you want to provide something that says the FBI is supposed to be the ones who "investigate" a Federal employee.

Wrong and even suggesting this, shows your level of stupidity; unless you want to provide something that says the FBI is supposed to be the ones who "investigate" a Federal employee. :palm:

And then you double down and try to equate the POTUS to the SCOTUS.

Your desperation is showing. :D

:facepalm:

They investigated Thomas 27 years ago, they can investigate Bretty today.

But didn't you say that 2 years are a lifetime, so that would make 27 years what??

The people have spoken and Kavanaugh will be a Supreme Court Justice. :D

Do you intend to harm yourself, when you don't get your way??
 
You see, lying to the FBI is a crime, so they only need to take statements from those three who Ford claims were in the room... see how they respond when lying has consequence.

Yes, and we know lying to the FBI is a crime because several of Trump's people pleaded guilty to doing just that.
 
what a nut-bag,

eww eww I'm telling

It's obvious that all of this info will come out, and my point is why would she subject her children to this, she had to know,
might as well parade them out there in front of the cameras, how long before a reporter snaps their pictures for the papers?
it's just so sad

perfect liberal though, whine until you cry yourself to sleep nut-bag

You're trying to suss out information on Ford's kids so you can harass them because you're a fucking loser.

Sent your shitty post to the FBI.
 
They don't get to vote without hearing from the American people this close to an election.

That's the excuse you all used for Garland.

Time for you to eat that plate of shit.

What stops them from voting before the election? They heard from the American people in 2016 when they elected the current president and Senate. In 2019 we will have a new Congress and they can do whatever they want. Garland has nothing to do with it. And I don't know who "you all" is but I never said anything about hearing from the American people. I only said it would be a waste of time to hold hearings on Garland since he did not have the votes for confirmation.

The American people seldom vote for specific actions like Supreme Court appointments. Democrats are going to vote Democratic even if there was no appointment pending.
 
Republicans should be careful, I suspect the Feinstein will drop something new on Friday.
 
But didn't you say that 2 years are a lifetime, so that would make 27 years what?

So your inability to understand English is showing now.

2 years was a lifetime when it came to using the mandate of the election to push through a nominee.

Thomas was investigated 27 years ago.

Time is linear.
 
professor nut-bag is having second thoughts about sharing her fairy tale, she bit off more than she could chew, much like her hero Hillary

Nowhere to run and hide now "Professor Ford" come out come out wherever you are :rofl2:

The DNC must have suffered from sphincter cramps, when this didn't work out as planned.

There needs to be an investigation, regarding her financial statements, to see who paid her to lie.
 
She is willing to testify after an investigation...as anyone would. You wouldn't want to testify in court without the conclusions of an investigation to which you can testify, so why is this any different?

There's not going to be a FBI "investigation; because they've determined that there's nothing to investigate.

:dealwithit:
 
The people have spoken and Kavanaugh will be a Supreme Court Justice.

No, they "spoke" for Gorsuch.

This is a completely different election, different SCOTUS seat.

If Obama didn't have the mandate from his 2012 win to pick Garland and have him confirmed because we were 9 months from an election, then Trump doesn't have the mandate from his 2016 win to pick Brett the Amateur Rapist because we're only 7 weeks out from the election.


Do you intend to harm yourself, when you don't get your way??

Conservatives are the ones drinking themselves to death out of despair, like a bunch of whiny losers.
 
So she doesn't know where it happened, when it happened, how many people were in the room, who was at the party, how she got there, how she got home, yet she is positive that it was Kavanaugh that was the perpetrator? Curious how anyone could possible defend that. The three other people she stated were at the party have all stated they have no idea what she is talking about.

She asked to be heard and volunteered to testify, yet when the committee says 'ok', suddenly she wants and investigation by the FBI to investigate first? The FBI investigation would have no bearing on her testimony. None. So why is she so eager to delay? Why did Feinstein wait until the last minute to submit to the committee?
 
What stops them from voting before the election?

Hopefully political sense because pushing him through after making such a big deal about not letting Garland get a vote will result in them getting creamed in November. But at this point, Conservatives are going to get creamed regardless of what they do with Bretty. And if they push him through, the Democrats can simply impeach him because he lied under oath when he testified about his time as a Bush the Dumber swamp monster.

So Conservatives have quite a dilemma now. Push through a rapist and watch the women all vote Democratic, or don't push the rapist through and watch all the Conservatives stay at home. In either case, they are fucked because Bretty can be impeached for lying to the Senate Committee about his time as a Bush the Dumber swamp monster.
 
2 years is a lifetime??

2 years is a lifetime??

You are truly unhinged and delusional. :palm:

Now you're proving that liberals want to rewrite what the word "credibly" really means; because the accusation is not credible.

C'mon and just admit it, this is about VENGENCE; because at least then you could be considered to have at least a modicum of honesty.

:facepalm:

In politics, yes.

You squandered whatever goodwill you narrowly won (thanks to the Electoral College) with Gorsuch. That was yours. So now that we are closer to an election than we were back in 2016, we must wait until at least after this election, so that the people have a chance to have their voice heard.

Then why do you want to keep referring to 27 years ago??

How is 306 to 232 a "narrowly" win?? :palm:

The people's voice is being heard, you just don't like what they're saying. :D
 
They heard from the American people in 2016 when they elected the current president and Senate.

And they got Gorsuch. That was the result of that election.

Now, we're 7 weeks out from another election, and the American people need to have a voice here.


I only said it would be a waste of time to hold hearings on Garland since he did not have the votes for confirmation.

You sure about that? Sotomayor and Kagan both had more than 60 votes in their final confirmation vote in the Senate.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're just making all this shit up off the top of your head, aren't you? Be honest.
 
Back
Top