New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Why Trump should not allow the FBI to re-extend Kavanaugh's SIXTH background check

EatTheRich

President
Damnnnnnnnn……..

ONE loony li bby bi tch says that after 35 or 40 years she thinks that Kavanaugh felt her up at a teen party but she didn't and THAT to dems/libs, constitutes a, "firestorm of allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh"?

WOW...…...you lefties REALLY are overly "touchy-feely", huh?
In Trumplandia, trying to tear a child’s clothes off while holding her down with your hand over her mouth to muffle her screams is known as “feeling her up.”
 
Last edited:

UPNYA2

Mayor
In Trumplandia, trying to tear a child’s clothes off while holding her down with your hand over her mouth to muffle her screams is known as “feeling her up.”
Is that as bad as in loony li bby La-La land some bi tch claims that that 37 years ago someone tried to hold her down and tear her cloths off is haild and worshipped for being "a courageous rape survivor"?
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
Nope. I think such allegations do have to be proven. That’s where a law enforcement investigation comes in, followed by abhearing. Of course, in our new banana republic the FBI is not investigating the Ford allegations.
Good boy. Ignore reality and keep repeating your talking points.
 
What's changed since 1991 with regard to the FBI's authority to investigate charges of sexual harassment made against prospective federal employees?

http://www.startribune.com/fbi-should-reopen-kavanaugh-background-check/493780101/

"Curiously, Grassley and Hatch were on the Judiciary Committee that heard law Prof. Anita Hill allege sexual harassment on the job by then-nominee Clarence Thomas in 1991. They know that those allegations were sent to the White House, which promptly ordered an FBI investigation. Yes, there is some question as to how thorough the agency was in that case — it reported back within 72 hours that the claims were unfounded. But the FBI’s capability to undertake such an investigation — as well as the president’s authority to order it — cannot be questioned."
Nothing has changed.

Thomas and Hill were both federal employees working federal jobs hence the FBI had jurisdiction.

Kavanaugh was an unemployed teen when this alleged incident took place so the State of Maryland authorities would have to be the ones to investigate.

The FBI cannot investigate this even if they wanted to........which they don't and have already issued a statement explaining exactly the same thing I just did for you here.

Get off the fake news channels and tune into a real news station and you'll learn important things like that. Fake news channels do not tell you the truth Georgey. They only push the dishonest narrative just like the mental midgets Hirono, Gillibrand and all the other dim morons screaming for the FBI to step in.

If you need help with anything else let me know.
 
Last edited:
I love it when the left brings Garland into the debate.
Just proof there may not be any truth to the charges leveled against Kavanaugh, and all we're dealing with is "turnabout is fair play" utter nonsense.
By his own admission, McConnell doesn't do policy; he does politics.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-supreme-court-nomination-20170131-story.html

"The Democrats have been put in a terrible bind. Do they take the Republican bait, declare the seat stolen and launch a filibuster against any candidate in a spirit of spite and vengeance?

"Or do they roll over, brand themselves patsies and allow Trump to appoint a Scalia clone or someone worse to fill the seat?

"What message do the Democrats send if they allow themselves to accept this theft supinely without exacting any punishment?

"How should they fight if the nominee is truly outside the mainstream?

"And what if he or she is a conservative who is well-respected and competent — what strategy makes sense then? It's an awful predicament and it's hard to see how it ends well."

Republicans promote the politics of the "angry white male" without noticing the declining demographics that make that policy political suicide.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html
 
Kavanaugh was an unemployed teen when this alleged incident took place so the State of Maryland authorities would have to be the ones to investigate.
Kavanaugh has an active background investigation by the FBI into his character, and an alleged rape attempt is sufficient grounds to reopen the inquiry. In order for that to happen, Pussy Grabber would have to authorize the FBI to proceed.

Or not.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
By his own admission, McConnell doesn't do policy; he does politics.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-supreme-court-nomination-20170131-story.html

"The Democrats have been put in a terrible bind. Do they take the Republican bait, declare the seat stolen and launch a filibuster against any candidate in a spirit of spite and vengeance?

"Or do they roll over, brand themselves patsies and allow Trump to appoint a Scalia clone or someone worse to fill the seat?

"What message do the Democrats send if they allow themselves to accept this theft supinely without exacting any punishment?

"How should they fight if the nominee is truly outside the mainstream?

"And what if he or she is a conservative who is well-respected and competent — what strategy makes sense then? It's an awful predicament and it's hard to see how it ends well."

Republicans promote the politics of the "angry white male" without noticing the declining demographics that make that policy political suicide.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html
I think Republicans are backing a justice for the Supreme Court who will swear to uphold the rights of Americans provided by the Constitution. I support that.
Do you think I care whether the man is white or not? How absurd.
 
I think Republicans are backing a justice for the Supreme Court who will swear to uphold the rights of Americans provided by the Constitution. I support that.
Do you think I care whether the man is white or not? How absurd.

Kavanaugh was born and raised in the DC swamp.
Why would any self-respecting (if there is such a thing) Angry White Male support such a corporate low life?
 
I suppose my memory is that bad. Help me out here.

What specific claims of vile sh it like rape, assault, child molestation or whatever did all the cons and media blast out to the public in order to destroy his family life and ruin him personally were used?
Republicans took the "high" road.
They simply stalled for a year.
How's that any better?


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-supreme-court-nomination-20170131-story.html#

"For now, another Justice Scalia or someone even more extreme will probably be enstooled, potentially endangering the rights of women and non-whites, threatening backward movement on same-sex marriage and abortion, offering more protection for powerful businesses and less for the environment.

"Even in these difficult days, this disgraceful move by Senate Republicans to manipulate a U.S. Supreme Court seat for partisan purposes stands out as sad and egregious."
 

Spamature

President
Because this was done already, when Democrats asked for it prior to Clarence Thomas's confirmation.

To make a few things clear, the FBI would NOT be doing a criminal investigation. That's not what this is for. It would add an extension (by 2 or 3 days) to Kavanaugh's latest (and sixth) background investigation. That's what happened with Clarence Thomas due to the (last minute) complaint as filed by Anita Hill.

And then, even though her claims were officially documented as "unfounded", Clarence Thomas is still branded as a serial sexual harrasser. No matter the complaint was unfounded, he is a conservative "Uncle Tom" and must therefore be castigated the rest of his life.

To hell with these phony 'pound me too' Democrats and 30+ year old claims with no evidence, police report, or witnesses to back any of it up. Their stall tactic is obvious and if this Ballsy Ford doesn't appear in front of the Senate committee, they should move for the vote on Kavanaugh's nomination. If the state of Maryland moves to arrest Kavanaugh some time in the future (they won't because the statute of limitation has run out) then he could be impeached and removed from the bench. But we all know it would never happen.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/19/politics/anita-hill-clarence-thomas-allegations-timeline/index.html
So what do the other background checks say about this allegation ?
 

Dino

Russian Asset
So what do the other background checks say about this allegation ?
Nothing. This allegation doesn’t, and wont, say anything about this allegation. A background check is not a criminal investigation. If anything the claim of Ballsy Ford will be a referral on his background check. Nothing but a mere notation that someone filed a historical complaint about him.
Didn’t stop Clarence Thomas, even after the FBI looked into it, and won’t stop Kavanaugh unless hard evidence suddenly surfaces.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Then they aren't done.




Then let's see if some hard evidence turns up in the new investigation. They won't know about it, unless they look for it.
Well she has her chance if she chooses to take it. If she doesn’t show up for the Judiciary committee they’ll likely vote to send Kavanaugh to the full Senate.
 
Nothing but a mere notation that someone filed a historical complaint about him.
Didn’t stop Clarence Thomas, even after the FBI looked into it, and won’t stop Kavanaugh unless hard evidence suddenly surfaces.
Wouldn't any hard evidence be more likely to come to light if the FBI interviewed all other students who attended that party under oath?
 
So what do the other background checks say about this allegation ?
Kavanaugh has had six background checks over the course of his professional career. The most recent one concluded shortly after his official nomination to the SCOTUS.

Ford's shoddily fabricated allegation came well after his last background check.

Why would you think the background check would have any reference to this shameless attack?
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Wouldn't any hard evidence be more likely to come to light if the FBI interviewed all other students who attended that party under oath?
Probably so. But because there’s no federal statute violated they wouldn’t do that. That would be the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction in Maryland. The FBI won’t waste resources interviewing party goers from 30+ years before just to find out if perhaps Kavanaugh attended.
 
Probably so. But because there’s no federal statute violated they wouldn’t do that. That would be the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction in Maryland. The FBI won’t waste resources interviewing party goers from 30+ years before just to find out if perhaps Kavanaugh attended.
The president would have to request the FBI to investigate Dr, Ford's claim. In '91 Bush made such a request on behalf of Anita Hill, but it's unlikely Pussy Grabber will do likewise today.

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/17/cyrus-sanai-federal-court-employees-attempted-to-come-forward-to-chuck-grassley-and-dianne-feinstein-neither-responded/?utm_source=The+Intercept+Newsletter&utm_campaign=7f5e61bfff-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_09_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e00a5122d3-7f5e61bfff-131747501

"THE TOP REPUBLICAN and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee were both approached in July by an attorney claiming to have information relevant to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

"The attorney claimed in his letter that multiple employees of the federal judiciary would be willing to speak to investigators, but received no reply to multiple attempts to make contact, he told The Intercept."
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Probably so. But because there’s no federal statute violated they wouldn’t do that. That would be the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction in Maryland. The FBI won’t waste resources interviewing party goers from 30+ years before just to find out if perhaps Kavanaugh attended.
Really? You think allegations of committing sexual assault are irrelevant to whether a nominee should be confirmed for the SCOTUS?
 
Top