• 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!

Democrats refuse phone call with Kavanaugh, demand FBI probe

ludin said:
no facts.
Click to expand...

its a charade. the TDS crowd would try to prevent even Moses from being seated if he was the nominee-they would claim thousands of years ago, he was responsible for the ten commandments tablet being broken

what is funny is watching hateful TDS basket cases pretending that their nonsense is not based on wanting to defeat Trump on this issue/ I will also note that the people who are in the Dem stable of possible USSC justices most likely have issues dating back to their HS or college records. First question I got from the FBI retired SA doing my initial background check-"how much weed did you smoke in college? now there was a five year rule and I technically didn't have to answer it but I said-almost none because I was on the NADA list. and he said-yes I know-i have your NADA records but he also noted=-anyone who went to an IVY in the 70s, or 80s, who claimed never to have even tried dope was most likely a liar
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm still trying to figure out HOW in the world this is anywhere within the jurisdiction of the FBI?

It's a 30+ year old case, outside of the statue of limitations for legal action, that occurred in Maryland and doesn't involve any federal laws?

Is there some subset of federal law I am unaware that the FBI has jurisdiction in investigating any potential crime at any given time for an individual up for public nomination?
Click to expand...

you're right but Feinscum probably will claim its a federal matter due to the hearings
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm still trying to figure out HOW in the world this is anywhere within the jurisdiction of the FBI?

It's a 30+ year old case, outside of the statue of limitations for legal action, that occurred in Maryland and doesn't involve any federal laws?

Is there some subset of federal law I am unaware that the FBI has jurisdiction in investigating any potential crime at any given time for an individual up for public nomination?
Click to expand...

Because this a federal government position. Or perhaps you would prefer the GRU?
 
JANFU said:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-call-with-kavanaugh-demand-fbi-investigation


Clear that the Republicans are rushing this.
Phone calls, not under oath and not public hidden from the American people

This is turning into another Republican mess, with this dumb ass attempt

Public testimony, under oath, and let the American citizens see and decide.
Just another Republican Fiasco

They could delay, public testimony, under oath, and they still screw it up
No doubt that women voting for Republicans will take another massive drop
Click to expand...

They already admitted that they still haven't gotten over Bork or Anita Hill.
Almost forty years, and they're still playing revenge.
How about Democrats refuse to get over Garland for a CENTURY.
Maybe they should have just given Garland a fair hearing.
Too bad.
 
Vern said:
Its good to see the dems finally play hardball. But alas, this only allows conservatives to use the victim card again. and boy do they like playing it.
Click to expand...

Remember Merrick Garland
I'll be sipping on Republican tears served over ice.
 
Lutherf said:
This is just further evidence of Democrat obstruction and politicking for the midterms. They need some kind of story for the headlines because all their Trump stuff keeps coming up empty. They're playing to their base because their base is pretty much all they have left.
Click to expand...

Maybe you guys should have given Garland a hearing. We won't ever forget what you did.
EVER.
 
Fishking said:
Clear that the Democrats are very, very, desperately trying to stall past the mid-terms where they hope to gain a majority and then block any nomination for 2 years.
Click to expand...

Remember Merrick Garland
:eek2: :hitsfan: :failpail:

We're never going to forget.
And at best, your side is going to maybe sway SCOTUS for five or ten years.

RepublicanTears.jpg
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Maybe you guys should have given Garland a hearing. We won't ever forget what you did.
EVER.
Click to expand...

That's great. I'll add it to the list of things I'll never be forgiven for. However, if we had given Garland a hearing, what do you expect would have happened? Would he have been nominated? Remember, Republicans were 54-44 with 2 independents.
 
JANFU said:
And these women were contacted today and only 2 remained supportive, many did not call back. Gotta stay current, join Twitter
Click to expand...

Evidence of Clinton sexual assaults: Too numerous to list.

Evidence of Weinstein sexual assaults: Too numerous to list.

Evidence of Kavanaugh sex assault: One just emerging claim by one anti-Trump, red vagina hat sporting, activist leftist democrat seeking to bring down a good judge before he gets appointed to the Supreme Court the democrats think belongs to them.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Because this a federal government position. Or perhaps you would prefer the GRU?
Click to expand...

Right. The position is a federal position. But the suggested crime here is not a federal one, so I just am not understanding what jurisdiction the FBI has to investigate a crime that isn't a federal one (let alone one that is outside of the statue of limitations).

This isn't a sarcastic question, it's an honest one. I just don't quite understand how or why the FBI would be the one to investigate this issue. The mere fact he's in a current federal position, or is going for a new one, doesn't necessarily make it an issue for the FBI's jurisdiction I would think.

The FBI has a specific role and specific jurisdiction with regards to the Law. I'm simply trying to understand why or how they would be the right ones for this. That's not to say an investigation should or shouldn't happen, I'm just not quite understanding how it's the FBI's place. I've not seen anything to suggest simply because he's a candidate that suddenly any and all accusations of crimes, over all periods of time, regardless of their normal jurisdiction, are suddenly under the purview of the FBI.

Not saying it's not, I'm just asking for some actual evidence.

Or perhaps all you have is prejudice, idiotic assumptions and smart ass comments that are baseless.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Right. The position is a federal position. But the suggested crime here is not a federal one, so I just am not understanding what jurisdiction the FBI has to investigate a crime that isn't a federal one (let alone one that is outside of the statue of limitations).

This isn't a sarcastic question, it's an honest one. I just don't quite understand how or why the FBI would be the one to investigate this issue. The mere fact he's in a current federal position, or is going for a new one, doesn't necessarily make it an issue for the FBI's jurisdiction I would think.

The FBI has a specific role and specific jurisdiction with regards to the Law. I'm simply trying to understand why or how they would be the right ones for this. That's not to say an investigation should or shouldn't happen, I'm just not quite understanding how it's the FBI's place. I've not seen anything to suggest simply because he's a candidate that suddenly any and all accusations of crimes, over all periods of time, regardless of their normal jurisdiction, are suddenly under the purview of the FBI.

Not saying it's not, I'm just asking for some actual evidence.

Or perhaps all you have is bigoted, idiotic assumptions and smart ass comments that are baseless.
Click to expand...

I think they just do a background check on all nominees. I think they have already said they would not be investigating. Just adding the accusation to the background check they sent the WH. That is what I understand, could be wrong.

BTW what the hell was bigoted in what atomic said?
 
This testimony needs to out in the open.

I'd be even open to him, if he's man enough, undergoing a polygraph. But since the GOP side of the Judiciary Com. is male it won't be happening.
 
Truckstop said:
I think they just do a background check on all nominees.
Click to expand...

I do believe you're right there. I can understand looking into it as part of the overall background investigation, but that's far different than investigating this specific matter.

BTW what the hell was bigoted in what atomic said?
Click to expand...

I changed it to prejudiced, as that is more accurate. The pathetic assumption on his part, based on literally NOTHING he'll be able to find by me on this site or especially in this thread OTHER than the fact I'm listed as "conservative", that somehow I'd prefer a Russian organization investigate instead.
 
Zyphlin said:
Right. The position is a federal position. But the suggested crime here is not a federal one, so I just am not understanding what jurisdiction the FBI has to investigate a crime that isn't a federal one (let alone one that is outside of the statue of limitations).

This isn't a sarcastic question, it's an honest one. I just don't quite understand how or why the FBI would be the one to investigate this issue. The mere fact he's in a current federal position, or is going for a new one, doesn't necessarily make it an issue for the FBI's jurisdiction I would think.

The FBI has a specific role and specific jurisdiction with regards to the Law. I'm simply trying to understand why or how they would be the right ones for this. That's not to say an investigation should or shouldn't happen, I'm just not quite understanding how it's the FBI's place. I've not seen anything to suggest simply because he's a candidate that suddenly any and all accusations of crimes, over all periods of time, regardless of their normal jurisdiction, are suddenly under the purview of the FBI.

Not saying it's not, I'm just asking for some actual evidence.

Or perhaps all you have is prejudice, idiotic assumptions and smart ass comments that are baseless.
Click to expand...

How is that prejudiced? Please, explain. Really, explain yourself.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Remember Merrick Garland
:eek2: :hitsfan: :failpail:

We're never going to forget.
And at best, your side is going to maybe sway SCOTUS for five or ten years.
Click to expand...

Which is nothing compared to what Dems have tried to do with the SCOTUS, not even in the same ballpark, so nice try.
 
Parrish said:
How is that prejudiced? Please, explain. Really, explain yourself.
Click to expand...

There's absolutely ZERO content in this thread, or on this forum, for him to assume or suggest I'd prefer Russia investigate this, OTHER than either my lean or the fact I'm daring to do something other than just outright condemn the judge. His comment regarding the GRU towards me was based on pure prejudice, founded on stereotypes and his own ignorant assumptions rather anything actually presented by myself in this thread.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Everyone is jockeying for position on this, disgusting is not good enough of a word to cover it.

Republicans are seemingly doing all they can to push this through knowing the midterms might not be so kind to them, Democrats are using this to delay this until after the midterms in hopes the next Congress flips to their control.

In the meantime we have every indication that this story should be heard, even though the timing suggests Democrats were far more about scheming than this woman's story.

... this is the sad state of the union these days.
Click to expand...

I think you just coined a new and appropriate acronym that reflects our country extremely well these days. SSOTU. ( Sad State of the Union )
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
They already admitted that they still haven't gotten over Bork or Anita Hill.
Almost forty years, and they're still playing revenge.
How about Democrats refuse to get over Garland for a CENTURY.
Maybe they should have just given Garland a fair hearing.
Too bad.
Click to expand...

Gartland was payback for Estrada and Keisler
 
ludin said:
no reason it should.
women should be outraged that democrats are paying a game with another women.

The fact is that they are attempting a hill 2.0.
the fact is this is a last desperate attempt to stop this and it is really one of the worst things that liberals could do.

that is haul out the typical sexual assault victim. 0 evidence nothing to support the allegations and hope the never
ending stream of society stupid jumps onto the bandwagon.

even after 30 years of investigation by the FBI finding nothing of sexual assault or any other sexual assault claims
and after having 65 women and at least 2 girl friends stand up for his integrity this is still the route that they are going to take
and their rapid pathetic fan base will be like lemmings and jump off the cliff with them.

don't you find it interesting that the FBI isn't even looking into it?

looks like her hack lawyer is going to let her testify.
then again we have no evidence that anything wrong was done.

Kavanaugh now is saying he wasn't at a party described by the person.
she was drinking at the party as well. she told her psychiatrist it was 6 people.

her story changes from second to second.

kavanaugh will be confirmed just like thomas was and liberals will have egg on their face once again.
Click to expand...

She has also removed he political involvement track record, had a lie detector test chosen by her attorney.

She needs to be under oath, and the attorneys office needs to be bagged up and taken to FBI headquarters.
 
Zyphlin said:
I'm still trying to figure out HOW in the world this is anywhere within the jurisdiction of the FBI?

It's a 30+ year old case, outside of the statue of limitations for legal action, that occurred in Maryland and doesn't involve any federal laws?

Is there some subset of federal law I am unaware that the FBI has jurisdiction in investigating any potential crime at any given time for an individual up for public nomination?
Click to expand...

Lying to Congress, for starters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom