kavanaugh

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so all the democrats want an fbi investigation, even though lithe fbi investigated him six times and missed that he participated in 10 gang rapes. Ten.

Does anybody believe this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

Federal judicial nominees undergo a rigorous FBI background check

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Federal judicial nominees undergo a rigorous FBI background check

Number 4
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

Number 4
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why do you bother?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, we'll go over this one more time. When the FBI does a regular background check they don't investigate potential issues that are not generally known.

What's the point of investigating what is already known. Isn't it the point of an investigation to find out that which is not known?

[scottw]

interesting....


"The Judiciary Committee sent Thomas’s nomination to the full Senate on a vote of seven-to-seven. In mid-October, on the eve of the Senate’s final vote on Thomas, his confirmation looked like a sure thing.

Meanwhile, as the chances of defeating the Thomas nomination grew smaller, both the press and the groups working against him grew ever more vigorous in their search for material to use against him. Employees at the EEOC reported getting repeated phone calls from journalists and Thomas opponents explicitly asking for “dirt.” On Sunday, October 6, after the Senate Judiciary Committee had voted to send the Thomas nomination to the Senate, Newsday and National Public Radio reported that for a month the committee had had in its possession an affidavit from a woman named Anita Hill making charges of sexual harassment.

Thomas supporters protested the introduction of a new charge against him, after so many other accusations had been leveled and failed, on the very eve of the confirmation vote. Thomas opponents said that because not much was known about the charges, the vote should be postponed and Hill’s story given a more thorough airing.

But the opponents said a great deal more as well. They claimed that the Senate, by its treatment of Hill, had already demonstrated men’s outrageous indifference to the welfare of women and the fundamental incapacity of male elected officials to give proper political representation to their female constituents. If the Senators went ahead with their floor vote on Thomas as scheduled, they would compound the insult.

The anger of Thomas’s critics drove out respect for procedural traditions and niceties. The Judiciary Committee had considered Hill’s charges privately, in agreement with Hill’s expressed wishes; but someone on some Senate committee staff decided that he or she was morally justified in overriding these rules of confidentiality and leaking Hill’s affidavit, either directly to the press or to an intermediary, and subjecting both Hill and Thomas to a public airing of the issue.

After the leak, Thomas’s supporters said that because he was to be effectively put on trial, he should be given the presumption of innocence: Hill should have to come up with some solid corroboration of her claim. Thomas’s opponents dismissed this idea, explaining that since sexual harassment often took place in private, an absence of corroborating evidence was only to be expected. Asking for the conventional presumption of innocence under this circumstance would be nothing other than a fancy version of “blaming the victim.”

The opponents evidently calculated that by bathing the whole affair in the light of publicity, they could undo the Judiciary Committee’s verdict. And indeed, at first they seemed to succeed. But in the end, they succeeded too well. They forced a public event that featured Hill and Thomas facing off against each other directly and individually. They provided Hill with a phalanx of lawyers to match Thomas’s White House handlers. They created, in other words, a forum that strongly resembled a criminal trial."

[wdmso]

Fox front page on their site


Senate committee talks with 2 men who say Kavanaugh accuser may be mistaking judge for them

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Fox front page on their site


Senate committee talks with 2 men who say Kavanaugh accuser may be mistaking judge for them

Sounds just as rediculous as the judge taking a number at the gang bang.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Fox front page on their site


Senate committee talks with 2 men who say Kavanaugh accuser may be mistaking judge for them

Sounds like a good reason to have the FBI investigate.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Sounds like a good reason to have the FBI investigate.

boy....when you get stuck on a word or theme....

[nightfighter]

Only few minutes I heard of this circus was during Booker's line of questioning, which I found to be misleading and disgusting for a US Senator.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What's the point of investigating what is already known. Isn't it the point of an investigation to find out that which is not known?

Right, it's just an exercise to confirm what's already known, they don't ask any questions about the person's past.