>>>OK ---
>>>Fact: Woman wants to talk to the FBI
>>>Fact : . Kavanaugh does not.
>
>>>What does logic tell you here? Better yet -- what does common sense tell you?
>
>Fact: The FBI says the 35-year-old allegations are not in its remit.

FBI - has the word "investigation" right in the name -- they do investigations. It's their whole purpose to exist.

>Fact: Neither Kavanaugh, nor the complainant, nor the Senate Committee, can instruct the FBI to investigate.

Correct - but they can ask them too - which she has. And Trump can tell them to, which he will not.

>Fact: According to Grassley, he has made this point repeatedly in writing to all parties. As he keeps saying, it is vested in Senate, not anybody else, to investigate suitability of the nominee- and there is no power to dragoon a branch of the Executive along the way.

Misleading -- it's the FBI who does the background investigation(s). Often times new things pop up in an investigation - or investigations are re-opened when new witnesses or evidence is discovered.

>Fact: Kavanaugh has given sworn testimony to Senate under penalty of felony perjury- more serious than lying to the FBI- which same opportunity is extended to the accuser.

Correct. Which is another reason why we should hear from all the witnesses and see all the evidence...right?

>Fact: Refusal to accept the facts and doubling down over impossible demands involving the FBI, therefore is most likely to be another obstruction/delaying tactic.

Misleading and incorrect - the FBI should ..ya know.. investigate. It's a lifetime appointment. What you're suggesting is refusal to hear all the facts, gather all the evidence, and justgo ahead and make an uninformed decision. That is what we call "stupid". Ironic that people want to judge a judge without hearing all the evidence lol. I think that would get a judge kicked off the bench lol.

>That's what logic and common sense tells me.

still?