Trump orders FBI supplemental investigation into Kavanaugh
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
Severely restricting? How so?
Democrats Denounce Limits on F.B.I.’s Kavanaugh Inquiry as a ‘Farce’
Sept. 30, 2018F.B.I. investigators looking into sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nominee, will conduct interviews with only four people, at least initially.Erin Schaff for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. moved on Sunday to quickly complete an abbreviated investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, even as Democrats demanded more information about the inquiry’s scope, warning that its apparent constraints could make it a “farce.”As agents conducted their review, which** involves interviewing four potential witnesses, a college professor in North Carolina became the latest in a series of former Yale classmates of Judge Kavanaugh’s to accuse him of giving untruthful testimony by minimizing his use of alcohol when he was a student**.
The professor, Chad Ludington, said he frequently saw Judge Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption” during their student years. He said he planned to tell his story to the F.B.I. at its office in Raleigh, N.C., on Monday. A spokesman for the White House declined to comment on Mr. Ludington’s allegations.
[Read Chad Ludington’s full statement on Judge Kavanaugh’s drinking and Senate testimony.]
Officials said the F.B.I.’s “limited” supplemental background check of Judge Kavanaugh could be finished by Monday morning. Set in motion late last week by three Senate Republicans, the inquiry was supposed to shed further light on accusations that Judge Kavanaugh engaged in sexual misconduct during his high school and college years and help resolve the fierce national debate over whether he should win confirmation to the Supreme Court. CM
Again, where are the severe restrictions you claim are there? You didn't actually show any severe restrictions.
-
@reformed said:
Again, where are the severe restrictions you claim are there? You didn't actually show any severe restrictions.According to a report that has broken within the last hour in the NY Times the White House has now changed its instruction to the FBI. The Bureau may now investigate "anyone it deems necessary as long the review is finished by the end of the week," according to "two people briefed on the matter."
Previously, as widely reported by NBC, The Wall Street Journal, the Times, and other media outlets, the White House had restricted the FBI's witness list as well as the list of subject matters it could investigate. Faced with great backlash, including a request from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for a copy of the White House Counsel's letter of authorization to the FBI - which I'm confident would have shown that the White House lied when it said there were no initial restrictions on the probe - today, apparently, the authorization has changed. If it has, good for everyone involved.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Again, where are the severe restrictions you claim are there? You didn't actually show any severe restrictions.According to a report that has broken within the last hour in the NY Times the White House has now changed its instruction to the FBI. The Bureau may now investigate "anyone it deems necessary as long the review is finished by the end of the week," according to "two people briefed on the matter."
The Times must be a little behind. Trump said that all weekend.
Previously, as widely reported by NBC, The Wall Street Journal, the Times, and other media outlets, the White House had restricted the FBI's witness list as well as the list of subject matters it could investigate. Faced with great backlash, including a request from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for a copy of the White House Counsel's letter of authorization to the FBI - which I'm confident would have shown that the White House lied when it said there were no initial restrictions on the probe - today, apparently, the authorization has changed. If it has, good for everyone involved.
Apparently, Trump didn't get the memo that he put restrictions on it?
-
For reformed, Wolfgang, and any other Kavanaugh supporters. Please address this question directly:
If the FBI investigation shows that Kavanaugh lied when to the Judiciary Committee he defined his yearbook's reference to "Devil's Triangle" as "a drinking game," (NOTE: It's not; it's a sexual threesome) and "boofing" as "flatulence," (NOTE: It's not; in the 1980's, the term referred to anal sex) would that perjury cause you concern? Would it cause you to wonder whether, if he lied about those two factual items, what ELSE did he lie about?
(And by the way, there is almost no dispute about the falsehood of Kavanaugh's definitions of those two terms. They do not and have never meant what he testified under oath they did. So your options are to contend that Kavanaugh lied, was misinformed, confused the two terms from his own yearbook entry with two others, or innocently made up definitions on the fly just to have something to say.)
-
@Bill_Coley said:
For reformed, Wolfgang, and any other Kavanaugh supporters. Please address this question directly:If the FBI investigation shows that Kavanaugh lied when to the Judiciary Committee he defined his yearbook's reference to "Devil's Triangle" as "a drinking game," (NOTE: It's not; it's a sexual threesome) and "boofing" as "flatulence," (NOTE: It's not; in the 1980's, the term referred to anal sex) would that perjury cause you concern? Would it cause you to wonder whether, if he lied about those two factual items, what ELSE did he lie about?
Yes it would cause concern, but you would have a pretty hard time proving he lied. For the record, when I hear the word boofing I know it as a whitewater kayaking term. Devil's Triangle can also refer to the Bermuda Triangle. So I'm not sure what sick twisted and perverted world you live in, but apparently you need to get your head out of the gutter.
(And by the way, there is almost no dispute about the falsehood of Kavanaugh's definitions of those two terms. They do not and have never meant what he testified under oath they did. So your options are to contend that Kavanaugh lied, was misinformed, confused the two terms from his own yearbook entry with two others, or innocently made up definitions on the fly just to have something to say.)
It could easily mean that they had a different definition at their school, or he just didn't know what it meant and thought it meant something else. Coming from a private school background I can tell you that was the case at our school.
-
@Bill_Coley said: Previously, as widely reported by NBC, The Wall Street Journal, the Times, and other media outlets, the White House had restricted the FBI's witness list as well as the list of subject matters it could investigate. Faced with great backlash, including a request from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for a copy of the White House Counsel's letter of authorization to the FBI - which I'm confident would have shown that the White House lied when it said there were no initial restrictions on the probe - today, apparently, the authorization has changed. If it has, good for everyone involved.
Yes, you're correct. CM
-
@reformed said:
The Times must be a little behind. Trump said that all weekend.
Oh, please! Why a new directive today? Be real and truthful in your exchanges here. Do''t dirty yourself over Trump.
Previously, as widely reported by NBC, The Wall Street Journal, the Times, and other media outlets, the White House had restricted the FBI's witness list as well as the list of subject matters it could investigate. Faced with great backlash, including a request from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for a copy of the White House Counsel's letter of authorization to the FBI - which I'm confident would have shown that the White House lied when it said there were no initial restrictions on the probe - today, apparently, the authorization has changed. If it has, good for everyone involved.
Apparently, Trump didn't get the memo that he put restrictions on it?
See above-- come clean. CM
-
@reformed said:
Yes it would cause concern, but you would have a pretty hard time proving he lied. For the record, when I hear the word boofing I know it as a whitewater kayaking term. Devil's Triangle can also refer to the Bermuda Triangle. So I'm not sure what sick twisted and perverted world you live in, but apparently you need to get your head out of the gutter.
Ah! "Boofing" as a kayaking term! If THAT'S what he meant - if in high school he was fond of kayaking, and used the term in his yearbook as a witness to his appreciation of that pastime - then why did he testify that it was a reference to "flatulence," a definition NO one seems to have heard of? And why has neither he nor anyone else reported his interest in that recreational activity?
And then also remember the lesson you helped me learn about Maryland sexual assault law: that it's what the law was AT THE TIME KAVANAUGH WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL that matters, NOT what the law is now. In the 1980's, "boofing" referred to anal sex.
If "Devil's Triangle" refers to the Bermuda Triangle, then why did Kavanaugh testify under oath that it was "a drinking game," a definition NO ONE seems to have heard of?
More broadly, consider the terms of his yearbook: Devil's Triangle, Boofing, and "FFFFFFourth of July" (Kavanaugh testified that was a reference to a classmate's way of saying the F-word). ALL OF THEM have sexual connotations. (Google the six Fs to discover for your self its connotation) But your alternative definitions, reformed - kayaking and Bermuda Triangle - have no thematic continuity. In a high school yearbook entry that ALSO included what his classmates say was the sexually suggestive reference to "Renate Aluminus," the most likely definitions of those words were ALL sexual in nature. Those words did NOT refer to "flatulence," "a drinking game," or someone's pronunciation of the F-word, and Kavanaugh knew it. That means he lied. So I ask again: What ELSE did he lie about?
It could easily mean that they had a different definition at their school, or he just didn't know what it meant and thought it meant something else. Coming from a private school background I can tell you that was the case at our school.
There is NO corroboration from ANY source to-date, at least as far as I know, of ANY of his definitions. If his school had a "different definition" of those words, then his classmates should be saying so. From what I've read, his classmates are confirming the reports to which I have referred, not Kavanugh's definitions.
The most common sense explanation of the definitions he gave under oath was to shield himself from criticism or ridicule, to maintain some semblance of credibility for the (false) image he offered of himself as a high school and college student. The LAST thing he needs to acknowledge when under investigation for sexual assault is that he used sexually aggressive terms in his yearbook!
But WHY he chose to lie about those words is far less important, in my view, than THAT he chose to lie. According to my understanding of the law, it doesn't matter WHY you commit perjury (knowingly false witness on a material matter); it only matters WHETHER you do so.
Reformed, I think you've posted that you believe the person who made a false report about Kavanaugh's actions on a boat in Rhode Island should be investigated and possibly prosecuted. In the name of consistency, if Brett Kavanaugh made a false report to Congress while under oath last week, do you want him prosecuted for perjury? (please answer directly)
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
The Times must be a little behind. Trump said that all weekend.
Oh, please! Why a new directive today? Be real and truthful in your exchanges here. Do''t dirty yourself over Trump.Previously, as widely reported by NBC, The Wall Street Journal, the Times, and other media outlets, the White House had restricted the FBI's witness list as well as the list of subject matters it could investigate. Faced with great backlash, including a request from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for a copy of the White House Counsel's letter of authorization to the FBI - which I'm confident would have shown that the White House lied when it said there were no initial restrictions on the probe - today, apparently, the authorization has changed. If it has, good for everyone involved.
Apparently, Trump didn't get the memo that he put restrictions on it?
See above-- come clean. CM
Um, even the NY Times article said the directive came over the weekend. There was no new directive today. Stop being so partisan and blindly claiming what Democrats say as truth without one shred of evidence.
-
@reformed said:
Um, even the NY Times article said the directive came over the weekend. There was no new directive today. Stop being so partisan and blindly claiming what Democrats say as truth without one shred of evidence.
As you know from reading the NY Times article, reformed, about the timing of the new directive it says... (emphasis added)
"The new directive came in the last 24 hours after a backlash from Democrats, who criticized the White House for limiting the scope of the bureau’s investigation into President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court."
Given that the Times' story broke in the 2pm hour today, east coast time, the White House must have distributed the new directive either in the last quarter of the weekend (noon-midnight on Sunday) or in the first half of Monday.
That said, the fact that there WAS a new directive is what matters here. If you don't think they loosened the controls on the FBI's probe via the new directive - ie. gave the Bureau freedom to interview the witnesses of THEIR choosing, and to follow the evidence as they see fit - what OTHER reason did the White House have for distributing it?
-
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
The Times must be a little behind. Trump said that all weekend.
Oh, please! Why a new directive today? Be real and truthful in your exchanges here. Do''t dirty yourself over Trump.Previously, as widely reported by NBC, The Wall Street Journal, the Times, and other media outlets, the White House had restricted the FBI's witness list as well as the list of subject matters it could investigate. Faced with great backlash, including a request from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for a copy of the White House Counsel's letter of authorization to the FBI - which I'm confident would have shown that the White House lied when it said there were no initial restrictions on the probe - today, apparently, the authorization has changed. If it has, good for everyone involved.
Apparently, Trump didn't get the memo that he put restrictions on it?
See above-- come clean. CM
Um, even the NY Times article said the directive came over the weekend. There was no new directive today. Stop being so partisan and blindly claiming what Democrats say as truth without one shred of evidence.
I will await your apology. CM
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Um, even the NY Times article said the directive came over the weekend. There was no new directive today. Stop being so partisan and blindly claiming what Democrats say as truth without one shred of evidence.
As you know from reading the NY Times article, reformed, about the timing of the new directive it says... (emphasis added)
"The new directive came in the last 24 hours after a backlash from Democrats, who criticized the White House for limiting the scope of the bureau’s investigation into President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court."
Given that the Times' story broke in the 2pm hour today, east coast time, the White House must have distributed the new directive either in the last quarter of the weekend (noon-midnight on Sunday) or in the first half of Monday.
That said, the fact that there WAS a new directive is what matters here. If you don't think they loosened the controls on the FBI's probe via the new directive - ie. gave the Bureau freedom to interview the witnesses of THEIR choosing, and to follow the evidence as they see fit - what OTHER reason did the White House have for distributing it?
All I know is that Saturday the President said something different so not sure who/what to believe.
Even still, the original directive wasn't even that restrictive other than to say we weren't going to have an open-ended probe as six background checks have already been completed. It is limited in scope, as it should be. As all investigations should be.
-
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
@C_M_ said:
@reformed said:
The Times must be a little behind. Trump said that all weekend.
Oh, please! Why a new directive today? Be real and truthful in your exchanges here. Do''t dirty yourself over Trump.Previously, as widely reported by NBC, The Wall Street Journal, the Times, and other media outlets, the White House had restricted the FBI's witness list as well as the list of subject matters it could investigate. Faced with great backlash, including a request from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee for a copy of the White House Counsel's letter of authorization to the FBI - which I'm confident would have shown that the White House lied when it said there were no initial restrictions on the probe - today, apparently, the authorization has changed. If it has, good for everyone involved.
Apparently, Trump didn't get the memo that he put restrictions on it?
See above-- come clean. CM
Um, even the NY Times article said the directive came over the weekend. There was no new directive today. Stop being so partisan and blindly claiming what Democrats say as truth without one shred of evidence.
I will await your apology. CM
You won't get one.
-
Interesting 22 hours ago @Bill_Coley and @C_M_ the original directive hadn't even been released. The directive the Times is talking about today is THE ORIGINAL DIRECTIVE.
-
@reformed said:
All I know is that Saturday the President said something different so not sure who/what to believe.
And we all know the president NEVER shades, distorts, or lies about the truth!
Following Trump's tweet over the weekend, several media outlets re-checked with their sources. ALL of them reported that, the tweet notwithstanding, nothing had changed about the limitations the White House had placed on the investigation; the president's tweet did not reflect reality.
Even still, the original directive wasn't even that restrictive other than to say we weren't going to have an open-ended probe as six background checks have already been completed. It is limited in scope, as it should be. As all investigations should be.
I don't know what "original" means, but according to multiple White House sources, at first, the FBI was allowed to speak with four witnesses, a group that did NOT include Julie Swetnick (the third on-the-record accuser), Dr Blasey Ford, or Brett Kavanaugh. Why would the White House want to put ANY restrictions on the investigatory reach of our best, most professional and non-partisan investigative agency... unless it feared what other witnesses would say?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
All I know is that Saturday the President said something different so not sure who/what to believe.
And we all know the president NEVER shades, distorts, or lies about the truth!
Following Trump's tweet over the weekend, several media outlets re-checked with their sources. ALL of them reported that, the tweet notwithstanding, nothing had changed about the limitations the White House had placed on the investigation; the president's tweet did not reflect reality.
Even still, the original directive wasn't even that restrictive other than to say we weren't going to have an open-ended probe as six background checks have already been completed. It is limited in scope, as it should be. As all investigations should be.
I don't know what "original" means, but according to multiple White House sources, at first, the FBI was allowed to speak with four witnesses, a group that did NOT include Julie Swetnick (the third on-the-record accuser), Dr Blasey Ford, or Brett Kavanaugh. Why would the White House want to put ANY restrictions on the investigatory reach of our best, most professional and non-partisan investigative agency... unless it feared what other witnesses would say?
Oh you mean the anonymous sources. hahhahaha Sorry Bill. The NYT doesn't keep getting a pass on anonymous sources.
-
@reformed said:
Interesting 22 hours ago @Bill_Coley and @C_M_ the original directive hadn't even been released. The directive the Times is talking about today is THE ORIGINAL DIRECTIVE.The Politico article to which you link, reformed, DOES NOT SAY the directive referenced in the NY Times article is "THE ORIGINAL DIRECTIVE." In fact, the Politico article specifically says the original directive... (emphasis added)
"...came one day after Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and described in detail how Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her in the 1980s when they were both high school students."
Blasey Ford testified before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday of last week, which means the directive - "ORIGINAL" or otherwise - came on Friday of last week, and NOT "22 hours ago."
In addition, as you know from reading the NY Times article, the directive issued "within the last 24 hours" is called "new," meaning there was a directive BEFORE the one issued within the last 24 hours.
Feinstein and the other Committee Democrats wrote to ask for what they had reason to believe was the original directive - the one that came out last week. At the time of their letter, they likely did not know of the new directive reported out by the Times.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Interesting 22 hours ago @Bill_Coley and @C_M_ the original directive hadn't even been released. The directive the Times is talking about today is THE ORIGINAL DIRECTIVE.The Politico article to which you link, reformed, DOES NOT SAY the directive referenced in the NY Times article is "THE ORIGINAL DIRECTIVE." In fact, the Politico article specifically says the original directive... (emphasis added)
"...came one day after Christine Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and described in detail how Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her in the 1980s when they were both high school students."
Blasey Ford testified before the Judiciary Committee on Thursday of last week, which means the directive - "ORIGINAL" or otherwise - came on Friday of last week, and NOT "22 hours ago."
In addition, as you know from reading the NY Times article, the directive issued "within the last 24 hours" is called "new," meaning there was a directive BEFORE the one issued within the last 24 hours.
Feinstein and the other Committee Democrats wrote to ask for what they had reason to believe was the original directive - the one that came out last week. At the time of their letter, they likely did not know of the new directive reported out by the Times.
What I am saying is I don't think there is a new directive since we never saw the original directive and your sources for said original directive are Anonymous. (convenient).
I think this is all more political sham and fake news.
-
Latest news: Kavanaugh is trying to get friends to change their recall and testimonies. Kavanaugh is in deep trouble and too dirty to serve on the High Court. This is proof. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Latest news: Kavanaugh is trying to get friends to change their recall and testimonies. Kavanaugh is in deep trouble and too dirty to serve on the High Court. This is proof. CMCitation? If it is proof, why did you not provide a link to prove your claim?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
That said, the fact that there WAS a new directive is what matters here. If you don't think they loosened the controls on the FBI's probe via the new directive - ie. gave the Bureau freedom to interview the witnesses of THEIR choosing, and to follow the evidence as they see fit - what OTHER reason did the White House have for distributing it?
Expanding probe-- Trump "Backed down". He's caving in at every turn. He needs to pull this nominee. CM
-
@reformed said:
What I am saying is I don't think there is a new directive since we never saw the original directive and your sources for said original directive are Anonymous. (convenient).
The Politico article TO WHICH YOU LINKED says there was a directive issued on Friday of last week. The NY Times article says the White House issued a "new directive" within "the last 24 hours." In my view, those two reports mean the directive issued in the last 24 hours was an update to the directive issued on Friday of last week.
Your only objection is to the anonymity of the Times' sources? Do you have any OTHER proof that the Times' story is false?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
What I am saying is I don't think there is a new directive since we never saw the original directive and your sources for said original directive are Anonymous. (convenient).
The Politico article TO WHICH YOU LINKED says there was a directive issued on Friday of last week. The NY Times article says the White House issued a "new directive" within "the last 24 hours." In my view, those two reports mean the directive issued in the last 24 hours was an update to the directive issued on Friday of last week.
Your only objection is to the anonymity of the Times' sources? Do you have any OTHER proof that the Times' story is false?
I didn't link to Politico. And the article on The Hill that I did link to does say that a directive was issued on Friday. I never disputed that. What I am saying is that the directive was never released. So you assume the one that was publicly released after Feinstein demanded the release was a different directive. I am contending it was the original.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
What I am saying is I don't think there is a new directive since we never saw the original directive and your sources for said original directive are Anonymous. (convenient).
The Politico article TO WHICH YOU LINKED says there was a directive issued on Friday of last week. The NY Times article says the White House issued a "new directive" within "the last 24 hours." In my view, those two reports mean the directive issued in the last 24 hours was an update to the directive issued on Friday of last week.
Your only objection is to the anonymity of the Times' sources? Do you have any OTHER proof that the Times' story is false?
I want to thank President Trump, again for doing the right thing, although under force. It's the right thing to do. Let's not forget, "even a broken clock is right twice a day". CM
CM -
@reformed said:
I didn't link to Politico. And the article on The Hill that I did link to does say that a directive was issued on Friday. I never disputed that. What I am saying is that the directive was never released. So you assume the one that was publicly released after Feinstein demanded the release was a different directive. I am contending it was the original.
I had been reading an article in Politico. Sorry for the incorrect reference.
I don't understand the hangup. You acknowledge that a directive was issued on Friday. The Times says a "new" directive was issued within the last 24-27 hours, which means it could not have been the one that was issued on Friday. That's two different directives.
To my knowledge NO directives have been "released publicly," whether in response to Feinstein's letter or otherwise. I don't know whether the JC Democrats have received a response to their request. To my knowledge, the White House "released" a directive to the FBI, but that would have been an intra-governmental exchange, not a public release.
Please provide a link to a site that has the text of what you're contending is the directive that has been publicly released.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I didn't link to Politico. And the article on The Hill that I did link to does say that a directive was issued on Friday. I never disputed that. What I am saying is that the directive was never released. So you assume the one that was publicly released after Feinstein demanded the release was a different directive. I am contending it was the original.
I had been reading an article in Politico. Sorry for the incorrect reference.
I don't understand the hangup. You acknowledge that a directive was issued on Friday. The Times says a "new" directive was issued within the last 24-27 hours, which means it could not have been the one that was issued on Friday. That's two different directives.
Based on what? The first directive was never published. How do they know this isn't that one?
To my knowledge NO directives have been "released publicly," whether in response to Feinstein's letter or otherwise. I don't know whether the JC Democrats have received a response to their request. To my knowledge, the White House "released" a directive to the FBI, but that would have been an intra-governmental exchange, not a public release.
Please provide a link to a site that has the text of what you're contending is the directive that has been publicly released.
So how do they know it is a new directive? More anonymous sources?
-
I don't understand the hangup. You acknowledge that a directive was issued on Friday. The Times says a "new" directive was issued within the last 24-27 hours, which means it could not have been the one that was issued on Friday. That's two different directives.
@reformed said:
Based on what? The first directive was never published. How do they know this isn't that one?I STILL don't understand the hangup.
You've acknowledged there was a directive on Friday of last week.
The NY Times reports that a "new" directive was issued on Sunday.
Your ONLY objection to the conclusion that there was a revised directive is that you don't like anonymous sources. So yet again I ask: Do you have any OTHER evidence that the Times' story (as well as the several other stories over the weekend about the original directive!) is incorrect?
And I will also ask again for a link to a site that has the text of the directive you claimed in a previous post has already been "publicly released."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
I don't understand the hangup. You acknowledge that a directive was issued on Friday. The Times says a "new" directive was issued within the last 24-27 hours, which means it could not have been the one that was issued on Friday. That's two different directives.
@reformed said:
Based on what? The first directive was never published. How do they know this isn't that one?I STILL don't understand the hangup.
You've acknowledged there was a directive on Friday of last week.
The NY Times reports that a "new" directive was issued on Sunday.
Didn't know the NY Times was the gold standard of truth.
Your ONLY objection to the conclusion that there was a revised directive is that you don't like anonymous sources. So yet again I ask: Do you have any OTHER evidence that the Times' story (as well as the several other stories over the weekend about the original directive!) is incorrect?
Do you have any other evidence that it is correct? The other stories cite the Times.
And I will also ask again for a link to a site that has the text of the directive you claimed in a previous post has already been "publicly released."
I misspoke.
-
Does it make a difference? Let the FBI do a complete investigation. If Kavanaugh is so clean, why all the dirty tricks? Republicans "don't want the truth" because they "can't handle the truth"! CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Does it make a difference? Let the FBI do a complete investigation.A complete investigation into what? what is the crime that needs to be investigated?
I would think, the FBI has a lot more to do ... in particular conduct a proper investigation into the Clinton clan's various dubious doings, for example involving Hillary (breech of security clearance, treasonous behavior) ?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)