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

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
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
You pinched my ass yesterday. Should you be investigated
 
The FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate anything asserted by Ford. Her allegation of groping is not a federal crime therefore it CANNOT be investigated by the FBI even if they desired. Which they clearly don't and have already issued a statement to that effect.
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."
 
She better hope like hell he never does.

That would be a sure-fired way of having someone all of a sudden "remember" that back when she was 12 years old and babysitting she touched the pee-pee of the baby while "claiming" she was cleaning him up after he shit his diaper and demand she go to jail or at least be deemed t be a serial child molester.

Guaran-fukin'-teed.

dems/libs have learned that sh it works and guilt can and WILL now be assigned, (to cons anyway), based on nothing more than one allegation, accusation, even insinuation.


She best turn him down if that ever does come to pass. And that is the plan of the left too.
Your memory is just as bad as Trump's.

"When the GOP stole Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court seat, they set the stage for a miserable battle"
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-supreme-court-nomination-20170131-story.html
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
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."
Kav is not a prospective fed employee. He is a fed employee

Next doofus
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
What's the excuse? I gave you a CNN link for crissakes....

September 26, 1991: Three days later, the FBI completed its investigation, and a report was submitted to the White House and the Judiciary Committee, according to Smith's statement. "The White House reviewed the report and determined that the allegation was unfounded," the statement said.


Now if you can find the FBI investigation coming up with ANYTHING credible against Clarence Thomas, now you just go on ahead and provide it...

But wait....there's more!

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2018/09/20/note-nets-fbi-investigation-anita-hill-claims-was-inconclusive

Amazingly, not one of the correspondents on the three networks managed to share the outcome of the FBI investigation into Hill’s allegations against Thomas. On October 7, 1991, The New York Times reported:

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Delaware Democrat who heads the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement today that when Ms. Hill first contacted the committee, on Sept. 12, she insisted that her name not be used and that Judge Thomas not be told of her allegations. He said this effectively tied the committee's hands.

Only on Sept. 23, Pres. Biden said, did she agree to allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate the allegations. The report was finished by Sept. 25, he said, and all committee members were notified of it by the next day. On Sept. 27, the committee deadlocked 7 to 7 on the nomination.

The White House today described the F.B.I. report as finding the allegations as “without foundation.” But Congressional officials who have seen the report said the bureau could not draw any conclusion because of the "he said, she said" nature of the subject.





Not only was the FBI inquiry inconclusive, but Hill was the one reluctant to even allow an investigation.

Summarizing Hill’s accusations against Thomas in a 2010 online article, CBS explained:

In 1991, Hill submitted a confidential statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee alleging that Thomas had sexually harassed her 10 years earlier, when they were both single. The FBI had already investigated the charges and given the committee what was called an inconclusive report. The committee decided not to pursue the matter. But two days before the full Senate was expected to confirm Thomas, Hill's statement was leaked to reporters.

The media seem to be arguing that the FBI can get to the bottom of the accusations against Kavanaugh. However, in the only other comparable situation that they point to, the Hill-Thomas hearing, the FBI was unsuccessful in getting to the bottom of anything. The very least reporters could do would be to provide that important context in their coverage.
Poppy’s White House said the Anita Hill allegations were unfounded? Shocking.

Of course, your own link notes that the FBI probe, truncated as it was, actually said the allegations were “inconclusive,” as he said/she saids usually are.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Poppy’s White House said the Anita Hill allegations were unfounded? Shocking.

Of course, your own link notes that the FBI probe, truncated as it was, actually said the allegations were “inconclusive,” as he said/she saids usually are.
The sad thing is that *edited* like you have no idea.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bugsy McGurk

President
No dipshit it's actually a fact. This "case" does not even meet the standard of evidence that would allow a civil trial to go forward let alone a criminal investigation.

Somehow you guys have come to believe that you can accuse someone of attempted rape and assault and NOT have to actually prove the allegations.

You [Unwelcome language removed] get away with this and yes, we do live in a Banana Republic......thanks to you and your fascist friends.

Oh and just as a matter of course please go [Unwelcome language removed] yourself you lying sack of shit. Thank you.
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.
 
No matter how many people are interviewed or not we are still dealing with ONE allegation of groping at a teen party 35 or 40 years ago which simply dose NOT qualify as a "firestorm of allegationS", now does it?
Kavanaugh has allegations of covering up alleged sexual misconduct that long predate Dr. Ford's recent letter, not that supporters of Pussy-Grabber would care.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gomez-kavanaugh-kozinski-20180920-story.html#

"I find myself doubting Kavanaugh’s truthfulness about what happened to Christine Blasey Ford because I doubt his veracity about something that has gotten lost in the latest news: His testimony during the confirmation hearings when asked about the sexual improprieties of one of his mentors, retired Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."

"Last year, 15 women came forward to say Kozinski had harassed them physically or verbally over his four decades as a federal judge. Kozinski chose retirement rather than face an investigation into the allegations.

"Asked repeatedly by both Republican and Democrat senators about his knowledge of Kozinski’s bad acts, Kavanaugh said he never witnessed Kozinski 'engaging in inappropriate behavior of a sexual nature.'"
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
I LOVE it...……..

"We almost certainly have a serial perjurer.."

I know that you as a dem/lib have NO concept of what the words you post actually MEAN, so please allow me to assist you. What the definitions of all of those words you just posted, when strung together in the manner that they are, tell us can be boiled down into a much more understandable message. And THAT would be;

"We don't have a serial perjurer."

Oh, you WANT to, you definitely "feel" we do, you even believe we do, BUT, the actual facts show us otherwise and those damned 'ol facts are still something that, after decades of trying, will not be displaced by sh it you on the left want to be.

But your persistence never ceases to amuse me so please, by all means, carry on.
Try not to think. You just can’t pull it off.

Sane people think he almost certainly committed perjury. Anita Hill provided exceptionally detailed testimony. Clarence Thomas came in and did his “high tech lynching of an uppity black” routine, claiming that everything Hill said was a completely concocted lie. It’s insane to believe Thomas. And if you think he lied, we have a serial perjurer on the SCOTUS.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Try not to think. You just can’t pull it off.

Sane people think he almost certainly committed perjury. Anita Hill provided exceptionally detailed testimony. Clarence Thomas came in and did his “high tech lynching of an uppity black” routine, claiming that everything Hill said was a completely concocted lie. It’s insane to believe Thomas. And if you think he lied, we have a serial perjurer on the SCOTUS.
So....what did the FBI determine?
I mean, they investigated, what were the conclusions?
Find that yet?
 

Dino

Russian Asset

Bugsy McGurk

President
So....what did the FBI determine?
I mean, they investigated, what were the conclusions?
Find that yet?
I just told you - their finding was that the allegations were inconclusive. Your lie was that they concluded that the allegations were unfounded.

Pay attention.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
I just told you - their finding was that the allegations were inconclusive. Your lie was that they concluded that the allegations were unfounded.

Pay attention.
One means there's no basis or jurisdiction to bring a charge, the other means no proof it happened.
Which one do you like better to use against Justice Thomas?
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
One means there's no basis or jurisdiction to bring a charge, the other means no proof it happened.
Which one do you like better to use against Justice Thomas?
Such drivel. An accuser’s account of such conduct can result in charges being brought. There is then a trial (or hearing) to assess the charges.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Such drivel. An accuser’s account of such conduct can result in charges being brought. There is then a trial (or hearing) to assess the charges.
Amazing that Clarence Thomas is not only still walking free, but has like a real job, sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States.
You can't have charges without any evidence or probable cause for such a crime.
 

UPNYA2

Mayor
Your memory is just as bad as Trump's.

"When the GOP stole Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court seat, they set the stage for a miserable battle"
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-supreme-court-nomination-20170131-story.html
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?
 
Top