• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brett Kavanaugh: Sexual assault accuser 'needs more time'

iguanaman said:
You keep talking about "proof and evidence" and yet you don't want the FBI to investigate whether there is any. You are making a fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

no i am not. you simply can't understand it.

IT IS NOT AN FBI case. do you get it now? do you understand it now?
if anything it would be a local MD cop investigation.

however for them to investigate it they need a formal complaint.
they also need some details and the same would go for the FBI.

IE

The date
where it happened.
who all was at the party (everyone).
who took her there etc ...

99% of the information she doesn't have.

so they would go sorry ma'am but we can't investigate this as you have no information to go on.

do you not understand it now that it has been spell out for you?
100% chance you don't.

you need to educate yourself on the process.
 
ludin said:
no i am not. you simply can't understand it.

IT IS NOT AN FBI case. do you get it now? do you understand it now?
if anything it would be a local MD cop investigation.

however for them to investigate it they need a formal complaint.
they also need some details and the same would go for the FBI.

IE

The date
where it happened.
who all was at the party (everyone).
who took her there etc ...

99% of the information she doesn't have.

so they would go sorry ma'am but we can't investigate this as you have no information to go on.

do you not understand it now that it has been spell out for you?
100% chance you don't.

you need to educate yourself on the process.
Click to expand...

Trump gave the FBI the job to investigate Brett's past before Ford came forth but it is not their job to investigate Brett's past now? How foolish does that sound? Tell me the reason for difference or quit before you make a complete fool of yourself. This about vetting a SC nominee not Ms. Ford.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Trump gave the FBI the job to investigate Brett's past but it is not their job to investigate Brett's past now? How foolish does that sound?
Click to expand...

they did investigate it. 6 times they ran their background checks. they found nothing of sexual assault or abuse.
no it is not their job to investigate 35 year old claims.

https://www.apnews.com/f88f394af6734f4ea5d5c91eaa787775

Only the White House can order the FBI to look into the claim as part of Kavanaugh’s background investigation, since Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor in California, is not accusing Kavanaugh of a federal crime.

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE but i doubt they can even get through to you.

The FBI conducts background checks for federal nominees but the agency does not make judgments on the credibility or significance of allegations, according to a Justice Department statement Monday. Instead, the department compiles information about the nominee’s past and provides its findings to the agency that requested the background check. In this case, that would be the White House.

There has been no suggestion that Kavanaugh may have committed a federal crime, so the FBI would not conduct a criminal investigation.

Greg Rinckey, a lawyer specializing in employment law and the security clearance process, said FBI background checks aren’t meant to dig up decades-old claims that never resulted in a police report or criminal charges.

“That’s not really what the FBI is looking for,” Rinckey said. “The FBI is looking for any kind of current problem. What do I mean by current — 7 to 10 years.

100% chance you still don't get it anyway i am done with obtuse posts.
 
This just in:
An email her lawyers sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee said Ford “would be prepared to testify next week” if the senators offer her “terms that are fair and which ensure her safety.”

The message came a day ahead of a 10 a.m. Friday deadline set by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley for Ford to decide whether she would appear before a hearing he set for Monday.
Click to expand...



https://pix11.com/2018/09/20/kavana...ford-says-she-will-testify-if-terms-are-fair/
 
ludin said:
they did investigate it. 6 times they ran their background checks. they found nothing of sexual assault or abuse.
no it is not their job to investigate 35 year old claims.

https://www.apnews.com/f88f394af6734f4ea5d5c91eaa787775

Only the White House can order the FBI to look into the claim as part of Kavanaugh’s background investigation, since Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor in California, is not accusing Kavanaugh of a federal crime.

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE but i doubt they can even get through to you.

The FBI conducts background checks for federal nominees but the agency does not make judgments on the credibility or significance of allegations, according to a Justice Department statement Monday. Instead, the department compiles information about the nominee’s past and provides its findings to the agency that requested the background check. In this case, that would be the White House.

There has been no suggestion that Kavanaugh may have committed a federal crime, so the FBI would not conduct a criminal investigation.

Greg Rinckey, a lawyer specializing in employment law and the security clearance process, said FBI background checks aren’t meant to dig up decades-old claims that never resulted in a police report or criminal charges.

“That’s not really what the FBI is looking for,” Rinckey said. “The FBI is looking for any kind of current problem. What do I mean by current — 7 to 10 years.

100% chance you still don't get it anyway i am done with obtuse posts.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what questions were asked of the nominee when he was vetted by the FBI? They do indeed ask questions about high school years and those answers are now in question. I believe that is the reason that Trump is afraid to ask for a reopening of the FBI background check and the reason that Brett is not demanding it. That is very troubling. It leads to the question of what else may he have lied about?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
And? He likely perjured himself to get that job and that he has it now is irrelevant to what we now know.
Click to expand...

what perjury? he's done a great job for 12 years-seems that is what matters
 
LincolnRossiter said:
The accusations hypothetically aside, I would vote for his confirmation were I a sitting Senator—though some of the reports regarding his debts would concern me. But thst’s just because of my background (unmanageable indebtedness and poor financial management are the #1 reasons people lose security clearances).

Now with this current accusation, I couldn’t support him without running the facts to ground. Yes the timing and the rollout seem very political. But that doesn’t bear on the truthfulness of the accusation. As other posters have pointed out, if Kavanaugh were in the hiring process of just about any job or the process of enlisting or being commissioned into the military, that would all go on hold until these accusations were thoroughly investigated and a determination of their validity made. Hell most organizations would simply show you the door and may offer to invite you back once your issues were resolved.
Click to expand...
I had lots of BG Checks. first in 1990 when I was appointed to the DOJ-then every 5 years after that though I believe they might have skipped one due to 9-11 tying up resources. In my first one-college friends, law school friends, kids I coached when I was in grad school, were interviewed. In 1995 or 96 none of those people were-only attorneys, agency heads, agents, and Judges. same in 05 or 06, same in my last one. in other words, why should anyone go back to before when Kavanaugh was a job.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
The accusations hypothetically aside, I would vote for his confirmation were I a sitting Senator—though some of the reports regarding his debts would concern me. But thst’s just because of my background (unmanageable indebtedness and poor financial management are the #1 reasons people lose security clearances).

Now with this current accusation, I couldn’t support him without running the facts to ground. Yes the timing and the rollout seem very political. But that doesn’t bear on the truthfulness of the accusation. As other posters have pointed out, if Kavanaugh were in the hiring process of just about any job or the process of enlisting or being commissioned into the military, that would all go on hold until these accusations were thoroughly investigated and a determination of their validity made. Hell most organizations would simply show you the door and may offer to invite you back once your issues were resolved.
Click to expand...

Yep. Here's what all the detractors of Prof Ford seem to be unable to address.

Does anyone have a plausible theory about why Ford would:
1. Make up a story about being sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh
2. Include in her false story a witness who could contradict her account
3. Request an FBI investigation of her lie, when lying to the FBI is a felony
 
ludin said:
They need to be investigated if they can't prove their case.
no one's life should be ruined over accusations do you not agree?
Click to expand...

No one should ruin anyone's life, be that through false accusations or through assault.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yep. Here's what all the detractors of Prof Ford seem to be unable to address.

Does anyone have a plausible theory about why Ford would:
1. Make up a story about being sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh
Click to expand...

She knows (thinks at least) no one will challenge her because "but, I'm a giiiiiirl!".
2. Include in her false story a witness who could contradict her account
Click to expand...

She didn't think it through.

3. Request an FBI investigation of her lie, when lying to the FBI is a felony
Click to expand...

Because she knows the FBI isn't going to investigate a state crime.

Since it's a state crime, why hasn't she reported it to the state?
 
apdst said:
She knows (thinks at least) no one will challenge her because "but, I'm a giiiiiirl!".


She didn't think it through.



Because she knows the FBI isn't going to investigate a state crime.

Since it's a state crime, why hasn't she reported it to the state?
Click to expand...

Huh. That's an awful lot of words just to say, "I can't answer those questions in an honest way".
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Huh. That's an awful lot of words just to say, "I can't answer those questions in an honest way".
Click to expand...

Why hasn't she reported it to the state.

What smartass, mindless response will you come up with, now?
 
TurtleDude said:
I had lots of BG Checks. first in 1990 when I was appointed to the DOJ-then every 5 years after that though I believe they might have skipped one due to 9-11 tying up resources. In my first one-college friends, law school friends, kids I coached when I was in grad school, were interviewed. In 1995 or 96 none of those people were-only attorneys, agency heads, agents, and Judges. same in 05 or 06, same in my last one. in other words, why should anyone go back to before when Kavanaugh was a job.
Click to expand...
On your SF-86 they typically wouldn’t ask you to go back more than 7 years (or to your 18th birthday) for most questions—though some ask “have you ever...,” as I’m sure you remember. But if in the course of interviewing friends, neighnors, peers, and colleagues this accusation came up, believe me they would look into it very, very closely. You would not be granted a clearance until they satisfactorily resolved they you either didn’t do it, that it wasn’t as sinister as presented, or that it was not a pattern of behavior that undermined your fitness or was likely to recur.
 
apdst said:
Why hasn't she reported it to the state.

What smartass, mindless response will you come up with, now?
Click to expand...

Why did you lie through your teeth in your reply to me?

What smartass, mindless response will you come up with, now?
 
Cardinal said:
She took a polygraph. She passed.
Click to expand...

Unreliable and we have yet to see the results and the questions from that polygraph.

Nice try Cardinal, but that ship has sailed long ago.
 
Roadvirus said:
Unreliable and we have yet to see the results and the questions from that polygraph.

Nice try Cardinal, but that ship has sailed long ago.
Click to expand...

So was Erod lying?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Why did you lie through your teeth in your reply to me?

What smartass, mindless response will you come up with, now?
Click to expand...

That's the one you're going with? Ok...got it!
 
ClaraD said:
Where do you find HE is willing to take a polygraph? I think that both he and Judge refused to take one, last I heard...and she already took one. No where does it say she is not willing to testify...she is asking for a witness to be allowed and is also asking for an investigation....liars don't usually ask the FBI to get involved.
Click to expand...

I have no idea if she is a liar but asking the FBI to do that investigation when the FBI definitely is NOT going to do it, would be a clever thing for a liar to do from a PR perspective.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I have no idea if she is a liar but asking the FBI to do that investigation when the FBI definitely is NOT going to do it, would be a clever thing for a liar to do from a PR perspective.
Click to expand...

So why did they investigate Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas?
 
ClaraD said:
So why did they investigate Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas?
Click to expand...

Clarence Thomas was accused of a federal crime and the FBI had actionable information, like when and where.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Clarence Thomas was accused of a federal crime and the FBI had actionable information, like when and where.
Click to expand...

That isnt what the timeline said...if it were a criminal investigation, they wouldn't ask Hill for her go ahead

September 23, 1991: Biden says in a statement reported in the Times that this is the date on which Hill agreed to allow the FBI to investigate the allegations.

Then-White House deputy press secretary Judy Smith said in a statement published by Newsday on October 6, 1991, that Hill's allegations of harassment were "brought to the attention of the Judiciary Committee" on September 23 -- a time frame that differs from Hill's account -- and the committee "immediately" informed the White House. The White House then "promptly directed the FBI to conduct a full, thorough and expeditious investigation," according to the statement.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/19/politics/anita-hill-clarence-thomas-allegations-timeline/index.html
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You do know that there appears to be quite a bit of evidence to substantiate that the event did happen as described and that evidence comes from the high school students to whom she related it at the time, don't you?

That a male doesn't understand that a female might be somewhat reluctant to discuss these types of incidents in public doesn't surprise me (even though , too, am a male).

That someone who lives in a culture where violence against another has become "socially normalized" (which is different from "socially acceptable") doesn't understand that someone whose life and health have been threatened just might be more than slightly reluctant to discuss these types of incidents in public doesn't surprise me either (even though I live in a society where the degree of "social normalization" for the use of violence against another).



Polygraphs DO NOT establish whether someone is telling the truth or not. They do, however, have some use in sorting out people who have adverse reactions to NOT telling the truth from those who do not have adverse reactions to NOT telling the truth.

They are completely useless in sorting out people who actually believe the "contrary to fact" statements they are making from the people who actually believe the "according to fact" statements they are making.



She already did, but, so what? See above.



Actually the difference appears that she wants the matter investigated so that any questioning can be done of the basis of MORE THAN "He said - She said" and he isn't.



Quite right!!!

Anyone who slanders the good name of someone that Mr. Trump wants to put into a lifetime position - regardless of whether what they say is true or not - should be locked up because we simply can't have "Enemies of the State" running around loose - and so should anyone who says that whatever that person claims should be investigated to see if there is any truth to it should be taken out and shot.

Do I know if Mr. Kavenaugh DID what is alleged? I do not.

Do you know if Mr. Kavenaugh DID NOT do what is alleged? You do not.

Would I like to see the issue resolved on more than a "He said - She said" basis? Yes I would.

Would you like to see the issue resolved on "Just trust me, would I lie to you?" basis? Yes you would.
Click to expand...

Let's see a link to this supposed evudence. Either you have some inside knowledge of this case or you are simply making crap up.
 
Felis Leo said:
Pretty much the standard by which 90% of people seem to be operating now at the moment. If I like him, we must, of course, have sympathy for the victim but wait for the evidence. If I dislike him, crucify the S.O.B.

I think a better standard is: Wait until the evidence is in, especially when you hate the person being accused. Whether the accused is a Brett Kavanaugh or a Keith Ellison, wait until the evidence is presented and examined. Look at the evidence before you leap to conclusions.
Click to expand...

I agree that that is a MUCH better standard, but it isn't the operative standard and to pretend that it is is like pretending that 100% of the Christian clergy live according to "Christ's Teachings".

"Leaping To Conclusions" will NOT be added as an Olympic event - REGARDLESS of how much the American public would like to see that happen (because the US is a shoe in to win Gold, Silver, AND Bronze).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom