What a dirty dirty politician.

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

From a NYTimes editorial in 2015, contemporaneous to Biden's threat to withhold defense aid to Ukraine:

Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices. A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/opinion/joe-biden-lectures-ukraine.html?module=inline

---

There is also the possibility that Hunter was put on the Burisma board to reduce the corruption, to show they were being watched.

---

Pretty low probability

I believe Hunter was addicted to drugs during this time. He had no experience in oil and gas and had not sat on a corporate board. Is he a lawyer or former prosecutor? Does he speak Ukrainian?

---

That's not any part of the explanation. It was never about his skills or experience.

---

Of course his skills/experience are relevant. If he was paid all that money despite no ability to do the job, the probability that Biden was there to sell access and government influence becomes much higher.

---

Wrong. The point of the story is that Hunter was there to show Burisma they were under a new level of scrutiny.

---

There is absolutely nothing to support that claim.

And significant reason to doubt it.

---

OK, if by nothing you mean a report at NPR.

---

Do you have a link for NPRstory?

---

Looked for it, thought I had it but the transcript seemed to stop before the part I thought was in there. I also thought it was a male NPR reporter but the transcript is Audie Cornish, a woman. Tried the local public radio affiliate and I may have been listening to On Point, and they don't have transcripts available. I could also have been listening to Sirius and then there's no telling what the source was: I get PRI, CBC, BBC etc..

riflebear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

I'm sure 1947 and Cinque will say it's impeachable. Maybe they will even say Trump will go to prison.

---

Don't forget SchmHUCK.

They all were talking about this below - what happened? The liberal media promised us this happened. I'm so confused...again

---

Lol.

He's going down.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BaylorBJM said:

---

Booray said:

---

POTUS asked an ally dependent on U.S. military protection and foreign aid to investigate a political rival. That is wrong. Period, end of story.

I don't care if it is illegal or impeachable. It is wrong and no way to run a country. Minimize it all you want, but in doing so you are further degrading the country we all love.

P.S. I have no idea if either Biden needs investigating. If they do, there are other ways to go about it.

---

This needs to be quoted and read on every page if this thread.

The mental gymnastics some of you do on a daily basis is astonishing.

---

"POTUS asked an ally dependent on U.S. military protection and foreign aid to investigate a political rival. That is wrong. Period, end of story."


As ever, this argument by assertion remains unconvincing. This statement seems to say that members of the opposing party cannot be investigated because they are members of the opposing party. Well.... what if they are f...ing criminals? Please explain it in a way that even we simpletons can understand. Thank you.

---

They can be investigated.

Should another country be extorted into doing oppo research for a candidate, using public funds?

---

So, only countries who receive nothing from us and have no prospect of receiving anything from us and cannot benefit from a relationship with us are then able to investigate a political rival? Pretty short list...

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

From a NYTimes editorial in 2015, contemporaneous to Biden's threat to withhold defense aid to Ukraine:

Sadly, the credibility of Mr. Biden's message may be undermined by the association of his son with a Ukrainian natural-gas company, Burisma Holdings, which is owned by a former government official suspected of corrupt practices. A spokesman for the son, Hunter Biden, argues that he joined the board of Burisma to strengthen its corporate governance. That may be so. But Burisma's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, has been under investigation in Britain and in Ukraine. It should be plain to Hunter Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to help Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/opinion/joe-biden-lectures-ukraine.html?module=inline

---

There is also the possibility that Hunter was put on the Burisma board to reduce the corruption, to show they were being watched.

---

Pretty low probability

I believe Hunter was addicted to drugs during this time. He had no experience in oil and gas and had not sat on a corporate board. Is he a lawyer or former prosecutor? Does he speak Ukrainian?

---

That's not any part of the explanation. It was never about his skills or experience.

---

Of course his skills/experience are relevant. If he was paid all that money despite no ability to do the job, the probability that Biden was there to sell access and government influence becomes much higher.

---

Wrong. The point of the story is that Hunter was there to show Burisma they were under a new level of scrutiny.

---

There is absolutely nothing to support that claim.

And significant reason to doubt it.

---

OK, if by nothing you mean a report at NPR.

---

Do you have a link for NPRstory?

---

Looked for it, thought I had it but the transcript seemed to stop before the part I thought was in there. I also thought it was a male NPR reporter but the transcript is Audie Cornish, a woman. Tried the local public radio affiliate and I may have been listening to On Point, and they don't have transcripts available. I could also have been listening to Sirius and then there's no telling what the source was: I get PRI, CBC, BBC etc..

---

Thanks

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

I'm sure 1947 and Cinque will say it's impeachable. Maybe they will even say Trump will go to prison.

---

Don't forget SchmHUCK.

They all were talking about this below - what happened? The liberal media promised us this happened. I'm so confused...again

---

Lol.

He's going down.

---

LOL, not anytime soon.

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Their BLATANT lying makes them unethical.

Evidence by the recent Kavanaugh hit piece where the accuser doesn't even ****ing recall it and they still published it.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy gives Sue a roofie. She blacks out and he rapes her, Joe witnesses it.. Joe tells the cops. But hey, Sue doesn't recall what happened so it must not be true.

That is your logic.

Add to that the story you are talking about was an opinion piece based on a book where the NYT reporters very clearly give the caveat you accuse the paper of hiding.

Add to that the paper then acknowledged the caveat.

Try again.

---

Ummmm didn't she claim
He touched her breast? I didn't pay much attention as it's just side show while we get a few years to go
Crush it unshackled in the real world.

But seriously, if so, how does your Hangover induced fantasy compare to what Kavanaugh was even accused of by the accuser?

Baylor3216 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

One of these days reasonable people will realize....once and for all.....that the Washington Post and NYT are merely propaganda dispensaries for the Democratic Party .

And are not remotely unbiased or ethical news organizations.

---

You said two things there. I agree that they are biased; that does not make them unethical. And I know of no evidence that would support a claim of "unethical." Do you have something in mind?

Also, where does one find unbiased reporting?

---

Their BLATANT lying makes them unethical.

Evidence by the recent Kavanaugh hit piece where the accuser doesn't even ****ing recall it and they still published it.

---

Joe and Andy go to a party. Andy gives Sue a roofie. She blacks out and he rapes her, Joe witnesses it.. Joe tells the cops. But hey, Sue doesn't recall what happened so it must not be true.

That is your logic.

Add to that the story you are talking about was an opinion piece based on a book where the NYT reporters very clearly give the caveat you accuse the paper of hiding.

Add to that the paper then acknowledged the caveat.

Try again.

---

Ummmm didn't she claim
He touched her breast? I didn't pay much attention as it's just side show while we get a few years to go
Crush it unshackled in the real world.

But seriously, if so, how does your Hangover induced fantasy compare to what Kavanaugh was even accused of by the accuser?

---

Geez, I don't understand why this is so hard. Other than a willful ignorance on the main point.

Analogy=a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

I was not accusing Justice Kavanaugh of doing the acts in the analogy. I was using the analogy to demonstrate the absence of victim recollection is not a definitive answer to whether a crime occurred. I was doing that as a direct response to someone who said the published story must be a lie because the alleged victim said she does not remember the incident.

BTW, the incident described was that at a Yale freshman party, young Kavanaugh was drunk enough to drop his drawers and either shove his ***** into a young woman's body or he got shoved into a young women's body. The allegation was similar to the allegation that Deborah Ramirez made.

Justice Kavanaugh denies both incidents and denied that he ever drank so heavily that the incident(s) could have occurred without his memory of it. Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts, the FBI was not allowed to investigate.

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

---

When you heard Kellyanne Conway say "alternative facts" you knew you were home. didn't you?

I gave you the link from the story earlier. You ignore anything that does not support your worldview and you ignored that too.

it is undisputed that the FBI was not allowed to talk to witnesses regarding the Ramirez claim or this claim.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

---

When you heard Kellyanne Conway say "alternative facts" you knew you were home. didn't you?

I gave you the link from the story earlier. You ignore anything that does not support your worldview and you ignored that too.

it is undisputed that the FBI was not allowed to talk to witnesses regarding the Ramirez claim or this claim.

---

What a load of bilge.

It's funny you remain in denial about all the work the FBI put in, just because you want to believe the lie this time.

And yet you actually try to pretend it's us who are ignoring facts.

Here's a fact - you will lose to Trump next year, and this hysteria is part of why that is certain.

And as for 'alternative' to facts, I bet you ate up that crap from Schiff today.

bearassnekkid said:

---

I swear it's like the dems are trying to get Trump re-elected. It is mind blowing. They are pushing soooo many people to defend or support Trump who otherwise wouldn't . . . just because the lunacy on the left is so incredibly annoying and off-putting. I can't even imagine a more screwed up effort if someone was actively trying to eff it up.

---

dt's supporters are already fired up and dug in. Nobody will come to His from independents or gop trump haters. dt is maxed out.

Waco1947 said:

---

bearassnekkid said:

---

I swear it's like the dems are trying to get Trump re-elected. It is mind blowing. They are pushing soooo many people to defend or support Trump who otherwise wouldn't . . . just because the lunacy on the left is so incredibly annoying and off-putting. I can't even imagine a more screwed up effort if someone was actively trying to eff it up.

---

dt's supporters are already fired up and dug in. Nobody will come to His from independents or gop trump haters. dt is maxed out.

---

History says different.


Wait and see ,,,

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

---

When you heard Kellyanne Conway say "alternative facts" you knew you were home. didn't you?

I gave you the link from the story earlier. You ignore anything that does not support your worldview and you ignored that too.

it is undisputed that the FBI was not allowed to talk to witnesses regarding the Ramirez claim or this claim.

---

Undisputed, lol. TDS folks here will dispute the most well supported facts.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

I'm sure 1947 and Cinque will say it's impeachable. Maybe they will even say Trump will go to prison.

---

Don't forget SchmHUCK.

They all were talking about this below - what happened? The liberal media promised us this happened. I'm so confused...again

---

Lol.

He's going down.

---

For what?

This is all out of the Democrat/media playbook. There is about to be a tremendous about of negative news coming out of the FISA IG report and the DOJ towards the Democrats. So what do Dems do? They get out in front of the story and make up this ridiculous whisleblower complaint that was so overblown and lied about that the GOP fell for it again and caved to release the transcripts. What did it show? That the Dems were lying and Trump did NOTHING remotely close to an impeachable offense and Dems know this. But they play it as the sky is falling 24/7 on every liberal website & TV channel so it becomes this circular cycle of bad news that they all want to talk about.

GOP has got to stop falling for this bullying. Dems are incredible at switching the narrative in DC because they have the full weight of 95% of the American press to push their agenda stories lies conspiracy theories etc.

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

I'm sure 1947 and Cinque will say it's impeachable. Maybe they will even say Trump will go to prison.

---

Don't forget SchmHUCK.

They all were talking about this below - what happened? The liberal media promised us this happened. I'm so confused...again

---

Lol.

He's going down.

---

For what?

This is all out of the Democrat/media playbook. There is about to be a tremendous about of negative news coming out of the FISA IG report and the DOJ towards the Democrats. So what do Dems do? They get out in front of the story and make up this ridiculous whisleblower complaint that was so overblown and lied about that the GOP fell for it again and caved to release the transcripts. What did it show? That the Dems were lying and Trump did NOTHING remotely close to an impeachable offense and Dems know this. But they play it as the sky is falling 24/7 on every liberal website & TV channel so it becomes this circular cycle of bad news that they all want to talk about.

GOP has got to stop falling for this bullying. Dems are incredible at switching the narrative in DC because they have the full weight of 95% of the American press to push their agenda stories lies conspiracy theories etc.

---

What color is the sky in your world?

fubar said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

I'm sure 1947 and Cinque will say it's impeachable. Maybe they will even say Trump will go to prison.

---

Don't forget SchmHUCK.

They all were talking about this below - what happened? The liberal media promised us this happened. I'm so confused...again

---

Lol.

He's going down.

---

For what?

This is all out of the Democrat/media playbook. There is about to be a tremendous about of negative news coming out of the FISA IG report and the DOJ towards the Democrats. So what do Dems do? They get out in front of the story and make up this ridiculous whisleblower complaint that was so overblown and lied about that the GOP fell for it again and caved to release the transcripts. What did it show? That the Dems were lying and Trump did NOTHING remotely close to an impeachable offense and Dems know this. But they play it as the sky is falling 24/7 on every liberal website & TV channel so it becomes this circular cycle of bad news that they all want to talk about.

GOP has got to stop falling for this bullying. Dems are incredible at switching the narrative in DC because they have the full weight of 95% of the American press to push their agenda stories lies conspiracy theories etc.

---

What color is the sky in your world?

---

Depends on atmospheric refraction, but most people here see a blue sky.

How does it look out there in Hysteristan?

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

---

When you heard Kellyanne Conway say "alternative facts" you knew you were home. didn't you?

I gave you the link from the story earlier. You ignore anything that does not support your worldview and you ignored that too.

it is undisputed that the FBI was not allowed to talk to witnesses regarding the Ramirez claim or this claim.

---

Who said the FBI wasn't allowed to talk to witnesses?

fubar said:

---

riflebear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

riflebear said:

---

ScottS said:

---

I'm sure 1947 and Cinque will say it's impeachable. Maybe they will even say Trump will go to prison.

---

Don't forget SchmHUCK.

They all were talking about this below - what happened? The liberal media promised us this happened. I'm so confused...again

---

Lol.

He's going down.

---

For what?

This is all out of the Democrat/media playbook. There is about to be a tremendous about of negative news coming out of the FISA IG report and the DOJ towards the Democrats. So what do Dems do? They get out in front of the story and make up this ridiculous whisleblower complaint that was so overblown and lied about that the GOP fell for it again and caved to release the transcripts. What did it show? That the Dems were lying and Trump did NOTHING remotely close to an impeachable offense and Dems know this. But they play it as the sky is falling 24/7 on every liberal website & TV channel so it becomes this circular cycle of bad news that they all want to talk about.

GOP has got to stop falling for this bullying. Dems are incredible at switching the narrative in DC because they have the full weight of 95% of the American press to push their agenda stories lies conspiracy theories etc.

---

What color is the sky in your world?

---

Please tell me what I said that was wrong ?

Here we have the Ukraine investigator UNDER OATH saying that Biden committed collusion & a Quid Pro Quo - What does the press do? Ignore it

Here we have the President of Ukraine saying Trump didn't ask him to do anything wrong. What does the Press do? Say he needs to be impeached.

We live in bizarro world on a daily basis and you libs fall for it everyday. When you are exposed, you don't apologize retract, you just move on to the next story the press pushes.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

---

When you heard Kellyanne Conway say "alternative facts" you knew you were home. didn't you?

I gave you the link from the story earlier. You ignore anything that does not support your worldview and you ignored that too.

it is undisputed that the FBI was not allowed to talk to witnesses regarding the Ramirez claim or this claim.

---

What a load of bilge.

It's funny you remain in denial about all the work the FBI put in, just because you want to believe the lie this time.

And yet you actually try to pretend it's us who are ignoring facts.

Here's a fact - you will lose to Trump next year, and this hysteria is part of why that is certain.

And as for 'alternative' to facts, I bet you ate up that crap from Schiff today.

---

Yup - Schiff is one of the most dirty Congressional members the US has ever seen. If a GOP committee chair lied as much as he did they would have removed him years ago, not to mention the press would be calling him out daily. Instead, they put him on TV every night to push his lies and conspiracy theories and when they are proven 100% FALSE - they continue to let him speak about other issues.

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

---

When you heard Kellyanne Conway say "alternative facts" you knew you were home. didn't you?

I gave you the link from the story earlier. You ignore anything that does not support your worldview and you ignored that too.

it is undisputed that the FBI was not allowed to talk to witnesses regarding the Ramirez claim or this claim.

---

So the same FBI that missed this error 6 times should be trusted to investigate him again?

Let me ask this question, does his dick thing just disqualify him from the Supreme Court or should he have also lost his job as an appellate judge? Both are lifetime appointments.

The Congress is free to investigate and interview these so called witness. Let them ask the questions.

They won't because the lie is more important than the truth.

Truth.

You may as well seek it; because, in the end, Truth will win.

Good Morning!
"Every country needs its whistleblowers. They are crucial to a healthy society. The employee who, in the public interest, has the independence of judgement & the personal courage to challenge malpractice or illegality is a kind of public hero."
Fuad Alakbarov

They need to stop calling this a whistleblower complaint and stop calling this person a whistleblower and tell it like it is: this is a glorified ILLEGAL LEAK and this LEAKER is ABUSING our whistleblower protections to get away with it

Doc Holliday said:

---

They need to stop calling this a whistleblower complaint and stop calling this person a whistleblower and tell it like it is: this is a glorified ILLEGAL LEAK and this LEAKER is ABUSING our whistleblower protections to get away with it

---

Yeah right on brother! Let dt get away with corruption one more time. Sarcasm intended

"Every country needs its whistleblowers. They are crucial to a healthy society. The employee who, in the public interest, has the independence of judgement & the personal courage to challenge malpractice or illegality is a kind of public hero."
Fuad Alakbarov

riflebear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

---

When you heard Kellyanne Conway say "alternative facts" you knew you were home. didn't you?

I gave you the link from the story earlier. You ignore anything that does not support your worldview and you ignored that too.

it is undisputed that the FBI was not allowed to talk to witnesses regarding the Ramirez claim or this claim.

---

What a load of bilge.

It's funny you remain in denial about all the work the FBI put in, just because you want to believe the lie this time.

And yet you actually try to pretend it's us who are ignoring facts.

Here's a fact - you will lose to Trump next year, and this hysteria is part of why that is certain.

And as for 'alternative' to facts, I bet you ate up that crap from Schiff today.

---

Yup - Schiff is one of the most dirty Congressional members the US has ever seen. If a GOP committee chair lied as much as he did they would have removed him years ago, not to mention the press would be calling him out daily. Instead, they put him on TV every night to push his lies and conspiracy theories and when they are proven 100% FALSE - they continue to let him speak about other issues.

---

Don't worry. Ed Buck will roll on him unless he gets the Epstein treatment first.

You may Believe the Bidens to be guilty but the central issue here is abuse of power not the Bidens guilt or innocence. That's a red herring. Pursue if you wish but dt abused his power.

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Wrong. The point of the story is that Hunter was there to show Burisma they were under a new level of scrutiny.

---

There is absolutely nothing to support that claim.

And significant reason to doubt it.

---

OK, if by nothing you mean a report at NPR.

---

Do you have a link for NPRstory?

---

Looked for it, thought I had it but the transcript seemed to stop before the part I thought was in there. I also thought it was a male NPR reporter but the transcript is Audie Cornish, a woman. Tried the local public radio affiliate and I may have been listening to On Point, and they don't have transcripts available. I could also have been listening to Sirius and then there's no telling what the source was: I get PRI, CBC, BBC etc..

---

Thanks

---

More detailed story this morning, about 45 minutes ago. I'll watch for the transcript.

Found this instead: https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

***? Where'd the prosecutor story go? You were so excited...

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Putin FTW.

---

Do you know anything about the IC?

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Putin FTW.

---

Do you know anything about the IC?

---

I was responding to your post about the prosecutor. You changed it.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

Putin FTW.

---

Do you know anything about the IC?

---

I was responding to your post about the prosecutor. You changed it.

---

Yeah the Ukrainian Prosecutor SWORE UNDER OATH that he was fired for REFUSING to drop Ukraine's Biden Investigation...

Oldbear83 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" Despite literally dozens of witnesses who were apparently ready to dispute those facts"

Total BS.

---

When you heard Kellyanne Conway say "alternative facts" you knew you were home. didn't you?

I gave you the link from the story earlier. You ignore anything that does not support your worldview and you ignored that too.

it is undisputed that the FBI was not allowed to talk to witnesses regarding the Ramirez claim or this claim.

---

What a load of bilge.

It's funny you remain in denial about all the work the FBI put in, just because you want to believe the lie this time.

And yet you actually try to pretend it's us who are ignoring facts.

Here's a fact - you will lose to Trump next year, and this hysteria is part of why that is certain.

And as for 'alternative' to facts, I bet you ate up that crap from Schiff today.

---

Indeed, Coons told the Post that he "came away from" his conversation with McGahn realizing that agents would not be expanding their investigation to include witnesses they learn about in the course of their initial interviews who might be able to corroborate specific claims. A lawyer for Debbie Ramirez, John Clune, echoed that concern in a series of statements this week. On Tuesday, he tweeted that "we are not aware of the FBI affirmatively reaching out to any" of the more than 20 witnesses Ramirez identified in her interview who may have corroborating information. And in a letter to FBI Director Chris Wray on Thursday, Clune said "we can only conclude that the FBIor those controlling the investigationdid not want to learn the truth behind Ms. Ramirez's allegations." Ford's attorneys wrote their own letter to Wray on Thursday, claiming that, to their knowledge, the bureau hadn't contacted the more than 20 witnesses they'd suggested, either.

Clune attached a declaration by Dr. Richard Oh, a former classmate of Kavanaugh and Ramirez at Yale, who recalled hearing about the incident on the night that it allegedly happened. "On both September 29 and 30, 2018, I contacted the FBI to inform them that I was willing to be interviewed as part of the Kavanaugh investigation," Oh wrote. "To date, no one from the FBI has attempted to interview me or schedule an interview."

Former FBI agents I spoke with this week said it seemed inconceivable that the bureau would simply ignore walk-ins, submissions, or calls made to tip lines of their own volition. "Every field office has a system in place to receive reports like that," Frank Montoya Jr., a former FBI special agent who led the Seattle field office until 2016, told me. "It's a time-honored process known as 'complaint duty.' There's not an agent in the field who doesn't know what that is." Still, he said, "it could have happened. There has been a lot of confusion inside about how far to take this case. It would have been highly unusual, though, for FBI HQ to tell field offices to ignore inquiries or complaints." Figliuzzi hypothesized that if these leads were being purposefully overlooked it is because they were outside the scope of the bureau's mandate. "The White House is still tightly controlling this investigation," he said.

In a New York Times op-ed published earlier this week, FBI Director James Comey argued that, despite the "shot clock" confronting the bureau, the FBI was up to the task of thoroughly investigating Kavanaugh"unless," he wrote, it has been "limited in some way by the Trump administration."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/fbi-probe-brett-kavanaugh-limited-trump-white-house/572236/

Actual evidence does not face you. The FBI interviewed 9 people in its post Blasey-Ford investigation, almost all of them related to the Blasey-Ford allegations. It also interviewed Deborah Ramirez.

It did not interview: Deborah Ramirez' potentially collaborating witnesses; Julie Swetnick or her potentially corroborating witnesses, or Max Stier or his potentially corroborating witnesses despite having knowledge that they existed and wished to talk to the FBI. It was not all one-sided: the FBI also did not interview a Blasey-Ford friend who know says it does not think the timeline Blasey-Ford suggested was right.

That is about 40 potential witnesses. There was a compressed timeline, but the FBI can do 40 interviews in a week. As the Atlantic article quoted above suggests, there is absolutely no way that the FBI decided on its own not to interview these witnesses.

If you can't see the futility in what the FBI was doing I can't help you.

IT'S OFFICIAL: COURT DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR WAS FIRED TO PROTECT HUNTER BIDEN


This corroborates what Joe Biden has said, already. Just another piece of the puzzle.