Why does it have to be the FBI?

Thing1 said:
Or, conversely, she might just not want to testify in public.

I still think it's hilarious that you guys think all of this is a negative w/ potential backlash for Dems. I'm not sure if you can see how this looks to a good solid half of the voting public.
Click to expand...

UH - didn't they give her several options, that have nothing to do with her testifying in front of the public??

Or are you just being obtuse, again??
 
evince said:
why do the republicans want to DO SPECIAL THINGS this time around instead of having the professionals investigate the issue
Click to expand...

What issue??

Unless you mean the issue of her having a changing memory and no evidence.

Are you comfortable with her being investigated for lying??
 
Thing1 said:
They haven't played me at all. Both sides do the same thing. I've been on record here saying that Kav will likely be confirmed, and frankly, unless something more compelling comes out on this, I think he should be. If Kav doesn't get confirmed, chances are someone as or more conservative will be ultimately. This isn't really a battle they should waste time on.

Outside of simply letting the process of this accusation play out. I'm not saying that if he's guilty, he should slide through. But there isn't enough there right now, without corroborating witnesses or other evidence, to create more than a he said/she said.
Click to expand...

That must be why you've disagreed so passionately with other JPP liberals, over this.

OH, WAIT - YOU HAVEN'T.
 
Teflon Don said:
So on Monday, Ford's lawyer categorically stated that her client would testify in front of the Judiciary Committee. She did not bring up any conditions whatsoever. In fact, she sounded confident and ready to go.

But, now the story has changed after the Judiciary Committee granter her her wish.

No, now she wants the FBI to investigate. Well, why does it have to be the FBI?

Why can't she just fly back home and file a complaint with the local police department and have them launch an investigation? Why leave her fate up to the FBI? She has other options if she really wants this investigated.
Click to expand...

If Ford wanted a criminal investigation then she should have gone to the proper jurisdiction at local authorities. She came to politicians (ie DiFi) where it's advise and consent.
 
LV426 said:
Simple:

Lying to local law enforcement is not a felony. In fact, the penalties for lying to local PD vary depending on the jurisdiction, are at the local prosecutor's discretion, and could be just a fine.

However, lying to the in a Congressional Hearing is a felony. So it's pretty obvious why liberals don't want Ford talking to the Congressional Hearing; because liberals simply can't stop her from lying in the Congressional Hearing. They all saw what happened to when Ford was offered the ability to testify, and they don't want that to happen.

So there's a lot of bad faith posturing going on, like the DNC.

You obviously know that there's no federal statute when it comes to lying to local law enforcement; a cursory Google search would reveal that.

So that begs the obvious question; why is the DNC acting in bad faith?

The answer is because the DNC simply don't know how to act any other way.
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
No Show Ho said:
typical bullshit by you

You throw out some unsubstantiated claim. When you are asked to back it up, you whine and move the goal posts. Why are you defending yourself against accusations I never made?

I asked you to provide proof of Fox and Talk Radio doing the things you claim they did. You simply said "I saw it on Full Frontal"

Maybe you should call for a full FBI investigation before you provide proof of what you say :)
Click to expand...

Wait until he goes to his back up reply of:

"WHATEVER".

:laugh:
 
Stretch said:
If Ford wanted a criminal investigation then she should have gone to the proper jurisdiction at local authorities. She came to politicians (ie DiFi) where it's advise and consent.
Click to expand...

ANITA HILL

I recognize that truth, logic, and common sense aren't real popular on your side of the world .. but damn .. ANITA HILL disproves everything you've been told.
 
LV426 said:
The penalties depend on the jurisdiction, but in most cases, lying to local cops isn't prosecuted, and if the offender is caught doing so, the penalties are at the discretion of the DA pressing the charges.

That's not the case with the FBI; there is no discretion on penalties. You lie to them, you go to jail.

How could he possibly perjure himself if he's innocent?

Conservatives don't have a very good track record when it comes to being honest with law enforcement (Flynn, Gates, Manafort, Papadopolous).
Click to expand...

I've already shown that you're an idiot and don't know what you're talking about; but then a foreign DNC propogandist would know much about American law; because you're not an American.

Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who "willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true" is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both.

Section 1001 covers false statements more generally, without requiring an oath. The section stipulates that "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully" falsifies or conceals information, including before a congressional committee's inquiry, may also be fined or imprisoned up to five years.
 
Originally Posted by evince View Post
It seems she doesnt want to be smeared by a republican partisan investigation
she prefer the PROFFESSIONALS do the investigation

Thankfully, SHE doesn't get to call the shots.
 
LV426 said:
"I don't recall" isn't a defense. And "I don't recall" isn't an answer you can give to the FBI and expect to walk away clean.

What's the age of consent in Maryland, where this attack occurred?

14-16.

So...old enough to give consent, old enough to be tried as an adult.
Click to expand...

So it won't and can't work for Ford then, during her sworn testimony??

Are you saying that the current age of consent, was the same back when this supposed incident occurred??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top