[Purple Haize]

Will the FBI investigation ask her questions and look into her background?

[thepostman]

That's normally how it works.

[makarov97]

...

[Yacht Rock]

Politically, I'm probably considered moderate to most. I lean right on some things and left on others. I find it interesting and very fascinating how people can view the same exact thing so differently based on political ideology.

I have friends and family who think Kavanaugh nailed it and friends and family who think he did terribly and lost control.

Just an observation.

Yeah, the most disappointing thing is that from my observations, people are choosing who to believe based on their ideologies, for the most part. There are outliers on both sides, but my observations have been that people are being guided more by what they want to believe and what end result they want, than anything else.

I don't know either of them so I can't speak to either's character. They both deserve to be heard.

I wish more people were comfortable saying, "I don't know what happened" instead of rushing to "He's a liar" or "She's a liar."

[LUDad]

Christine Ford could not even go a minute without lying.
She called herself a psychologist in her introduction to the senate.
Check Californias board ... she was NEVER licensed!

She’s a professor of psychology and a research psychologist with a PhD. Your InfoWars tin foil hat is showing.

Wrong. A person can go law school, graduate, and get a J.D., write & publish law review articles, and become a professor of law, but they are not a lawyer unless & until they pass the bar and are licensed by a governing authority.

The same goes for medical doctors, psychologists, and a host of other professions.

I concur, my son is a PA, daughter-in-law an MD. My daugher has passed all class work and clinicals but until she takes and passes boards she cannot call herself an RN.

[thepostman]

Politically, I'm probably considered moderate to most. I lean right on some things and left on others. I find it interesting and very fascinating how people can view the same exact thing so differently based on political ideology.

I have friends and family who think Kavanaugh nailed it and friends and family who think he did terribly and lost control.

Just an observation.

Yeah, the most disappointing thing is that from my observations, people are choosing who to believe based on their ideologies, for the most part. There are outliers on both sides, but my observations have been that people are being guided more by what they want to believe and what end result they want, than anything else.

I don't know either of them so I can't speak to either's character. They both deserve to be heard.

I wish more people were comfortable saying, "I don't know what happened" instead of rushing to "He's a liar" or "She's a liar."

Yeah. It's super weird.

[Purple Haize]

That's normally how it works.

What’s normal about this?

[thepostman]

I'm speaking on fbi investigations. Not the actual confirmation process.

I for one look forward to what the FBI finds. It seems neither party actually cares what the FBI investigation finds but for different reasons.

[Purple Haize]

I'm speaking on fbi investigations. Not the actual confirmsgkon process.

I for one look forward to what the FBI finds. It seems neither party actually cares what the FBI investigation finds but for different reasons.

I seriously doubt they will look into anything to do with Ford. It will all be Kavanaugh and his background Nothing about her past or background etc

[Jonathan Carone]

Why would they investigate an alleged victim?

[Class of 20Something]

Why would they investigate an alleged victim?

They would probably question the people Dr Ford said could verify her testimony.

[Jonathan Carone]

And that makes sense. But why would they investigate her past or background?

[thepostman]

It depends where an investigation takes them but it they discover she wasn't truthful when under oath they may investigate her a bit more but this particular investigation is more about him and if his story holds up.

I'm not 100% sure a week is long enough to do this investigation and I'm sure the Democrats hope the FBI says they need more time.

I think it is a good thing to further investigate these claims due to the lifetime appointment aspect of this. What really bothers me is that it was used as a weapon to extend the time table. If the Democrats truly cared they would have brought this to the committee behind closed doors long before the time they did. Instead they are using it as a hail Mary and therefore using sexual assault as a weapon as opposed to truly caring about seeking justice like they attempt to portray in public.

The Republicans on the other hand are getting angry and losing their composure which, to many, justify everything people believe the Republican party is.

Both parties are scared of losing power and that is what this is all about and it's extremely sad to watch. Thank God there is so much more to life than what this world has to offer.

[olldflame]

There really aren´t that many people to interview. I honestly can´t see why it would take more than a week.

[makarov97]

...

[makarov97]

...

[Jonathan Carone]

I’m all for investigating the alleged victim in the context of the charge. That makes sense and gives you a broad view of what she is alleging happened.

What doesn’t make sense to me is to automatically start digging into her past and things that may be completely unrelated to the case (ie Botham Jean) in order to potentially protect someone who did in fact do something wrong.

[ballcoach15]

This entire case was plotted by democrats. None of it is true. Most democrats are sorry and will resort to anything, not matter how low they have to go.

[thepostman]

Wait a second, nobody used and abused the system until pansy mellinials came around?? My generation is just the worst!

[adam42381]

This entire case was plotted by democrats. None of it is true. Most democrats are sorry and will resort to anything, not matter how low they have to go.

If nothing else, you’re consistent.

viewtopic.php?p=540583#p540583

[Purple Haize]

I’m all for investigating the alleged victim in the context of the charge. That makes sense and gives you a broad view of what she is alleging happened.

What doesn’t make sense to me is to automatically start digging into her past and things that may be completely unrelated to the case (ie Botham Jean) in order to potentially protect someone who did in fact do something wrong.

Botham Jean case is in no way related to this. How you conflate the two is perplexing
Ford has serious credibility issues simply because everyone she says was at the ‘gathering’ flat out says no such gathering took place. So if the FBI wants to find out what happened they need to do a Foresnsic Interview with her. Which she has already stated she won’t do. Or her lawyers stated it. She was very vague about that and other things in her testimony So interviewing her to clarify her statements would be paramount to getting at the truth. But the good Dr Ford and the people behind her have shown 0 interest in doing that

[Jonathan Carone]

Again - I’m all for interviewing her and asking her about the allegation. That’s part of the process of investigating a crime.

It was mentioned investigating “her past or background” and I don’t see the need for that unless it’s proven she’s lying with this allegation.

[CCWMichael]

Christine Ford could not even go a minute without lying.
She called herself a psychologist in her introduction to the senate.
Check Californias board ... she was NEVER licensed!

She’s a professor of psychology and a research psychologist with a PhD. Your InfoWars tin foil hat is showing.

My tin foil informed me I am right (ha ha) and wrong.
After some extensive research it turns out that at this time Californis does not require Research Psycholgists to be licensed as they believe it would be harmful to that field to require licensure but they are not allowed to treat anyone ... period.

This does vary depending on State.

OBTW --- GO ASTROS! #NeverSettle

[Purple Haize]

Again - I’m all for interviewing her and asking her about the allegation. That’s part of the process of investigating a crime.

It was mentioned investigating “her past or background” and I don’t see the need for that unless it’s proven she’s lying with this allegation.

Well if no one she names can verify her claims that there was a gathering what would you call that? If she made statements to the Committee that seemed a bit off and need clarification that required looking into her past why not? And if the end goal here is the Truth she needs a Forensic Interview which will delve into her past.

[adam42381]

Christine Ford could not even go a minute without lying.
She called herself a psychologist in her introduction to the senate.
Check Californias board ... she was NEVER licensed!

She’s a professor of psychology and a research psychologist with a PhD. Your InfoWars tin foil hat is showing.

My tin foil informed me I am right (ha ha) and wrong.
After some extensive research it turns out that at this time Californis does not require Research Psycholgists to be licensed as they believe it would be harmful to that field to require licensure but they are not allowed to treat anyone ... period.

This does vary depending on State.

OBTW --- GO ASTROS! #NeverSettle

No, you were just plain wrong. It’s okay to admit it.