Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Will the Brett Kavanaugh investigation expose FBI incompetence?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    His career will be no more stained that Clarence Thomas'.
    That is what I’m hoping for. Thomas was silent for several years after the hell they put him through.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    Now that the FBI investigations are done, and Kavanaugh’s nomination has passed, the Democrats will say the investigation was incomplete or didn’t dig deep enough.
    It’s a no win for anyone, Kavanaugh’s career will forever be stained, the Democrats looked like fools, Feinstein showed herself to be the witch she is.
    His career will be no more stained that Clarence Thomas'.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by American87 View Post

    I doubt it. Except to the Never-Trumpers, Kavanaugh is a good ole boy, just like every other Supreme Court justice in popular memory.
    Sotomayor, Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan might argue that point

    Leave a comment:


  • American87
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    Now that the FBI investigations are done, and Kavanaugh’s nomination has passed, the Democrats will say the investigation was incomplete or didn’t dig deep enough.
    It’s a no win for anyone, Kavanaugh’s career will forever be stained, the Democrats looked like fools, Feinstein showed herself to be the witch she is.
    I doubt it. Except to the Never-Trumpers, Kavanaugh is a good ole boy, just like every other Supreme Court justice in popular memory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Now that the FBI investigations are done, and Kavanaugh’s nomination has passed, the Democrats will say the investigation was incomplete or didn’t dig deep enough.
    It’s a no win for anyone, Kavanaugh’s career will forever be stained, the Democrats looked like fools, Feinstein showed herself to be the witch she is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    It certainly calls their fairness and impartiality into question. Right now, they look like stooges for the Democrats.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by General Staff View Post

    1) Perhaps you'd enlighten us all then.
    2) Your ignore list- I hope it's not getting too unwieldy. You might want to check if there's a limit on how many you can put on it. That and then there's the obvious implied danger there of eventually just talking to yourself.
    3) Ford says he sexually assaulted her, though no charges have yet been filed, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty (except Clinton who gets locked up).
    4) Yes, but don't go overboard here, it's only c100 or so.
    5) Yes, but depends how you define 'more substantial' versus attempted rape of a minor I suppose.
    6) What a surprise, can you blame them, there's not much upside for the lads in the bureau on this one, is there?
    7) Perhaps. Or that he's lied about a number of other issues, aside from this one. He was a 17 year old boy back then, but as a 53 year old man now he should know better than to dissemble in front of the US Senate and expect to get posted to the USSC.
    8) Not to worry then, putting me back on ignore if you've a slot free will ensure you don't have to read my posts and correct all my errors.
    .
    Blumenthal was 32 when he met and courted a 16 year old girl that eventually became Mrs Blumenthal.
    Should we convict him of sex crimes?
    When did Clinton go to jail?

    Leave a comment:


  • General Staff
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    1) That's not how background checks work.

    2) Well, the few times I've read anything of yours it was completely wrong, but if that makes you feel good, well, OK. I usually keep you on my Ignore list because I don't suffer fools gladly, but with the updates I have had to redo my list several times, and you don't post very much, so you slipped through the cracks. I'll fix that after this post.

    3) He's not been accused of any crime; no charges were filed, and in fact in the USA everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

    4) Do do realize that literally hundreds of people have sat on the USSC, right? It's hard to pin down how little you know.

    5) You do realize that a current USSC judge faced much more substantial charges? Or is that likewise in the seemingly endless 'don't know' zone?

    6) You are aware that the FBI has, in weeks past, declined to investigate this alleged incident because of a lack of jurisdiction, lack of a criminal charge, and lack of evidence, right?

    7) I expect they will deliver a memo saying exactly that again. This is nothing more than a claim that includes no facts, no setting, and is completely unsupported by six background checks which failed to uncover any indication of the life choice patterns of the sort of man who does those sort of things.

    8) BTW, what about the sexual assault accusations hanging over your head? Is your shrill (not to mention wildly inaccurate) statements about this nonsense just an effort to draw attention away from your predatory behavior? Until you are cleared of those accusations, you certainly should not be allowed to post in any sub-forum frequented by your accuser.
    1) Perhaps you'd enlighten us all then.
    2) Your ignore list- I hope it's not getting too unwieldy. You might want to check if there's a limit on how many you can put on it. That and then there's the obvious implied danger there of eventually just talking to yourself.
    3) Ford says he sexually assaulted her, though no charges have yet been filed, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty (except Clinton who gets locked up).
    4) Yes, but don't go overboard here, it's only c100 or so.
    5) Yes, but depends how you define 'more substantial' versus attempted rape of a minor I suppose.
    6) What a surprise, can you blame them, there's not much upside for the lads in the bureau on this one, is there?
    7) Perhaps. Or that he's lied about a number of other issues, aside from this one. He was a 17 year old boy back then, but as a 53 year old man now he should know better than to dissemble in front of the US Senate and expect to get posted to the USSC.
    8) Not to worry then, putting me back on ignore if you've a slot free will ensure you don't have to read my posts and correct all my errors.
    .

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Nebfer View Post

    Are you assuming their Gender?
    Not really, it probably works for manholes too...

    Leave a comment:


  • Nebfer
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    It only works if you have a vagina...
    Are you assuming their Gender?

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post


    Do do realize that literally hundreds of people have sat on the USSC, right? It's hard to pin down how little you know.
    Actually it's 114. Kavanaugh will be 115.

    As to worse ones:

    You have Democrat Stephen Field (1863 - 1897). His sins as a justice include: Trying to run for President as a sitting Justice (1880), voting affirmatively for Plessey v. Ferguson (allowing segregation to continue), voting to allow Confederate officers and other officials to hold office and be judges, upheld laws allowing monopolies, child labor, and generally was an arrogant @$$. He liked to rule from the bench too. Field pretty much saw the Constitution as nothing but a sheet of paper with meaningless words on it.

    Then there's James McReynolds (1914 - 1941). Another Democrat appointed by Woodrow Wilson. He was an open bigot, anti-Semite, and described as "lazy" and a "mean drunk." People called him a petty tyrant. His antisemitism extended to fellow Justice Louis Brandeis who, being Jewish, he refused to speak to or even acknowledge including during hearings and other official court matters. He actually insulted several female lawyers who came before the bench asking why they were there, and in once case, walking out before she could speak. The man was a vile hater of people and personally repulsive.




    Leave a comment:


  • Arnold J Rimmer
    replied
    Originally posted by General Staff View Post

    1) How so- wrong (as usual)? In his senior High School year @ 18 (even earlier) all they'd have uncovered was that he 'liked beer'. They'd only have uncovered the attempted rape allegation if they'd spoken to Christine Blasey then- there was no reason too, she didn't attend the same school.
    That's not how background checks work.


    Originally posted by General Staff View Post
    The 'as usual' I'll take as a backhanded compliment that you at least periodically read what I write- thank you.
    Well, the few times I've read anything of yours it was completely wrong, but if that makes you feel good, well, OK. I usually keep you on my Ignore list because I don't suffer fools gladly, but with the updates I have had to redo my list several times, and you don't post very much, so you slipped through the cracks. I'll fix that after this post.

    Originally posted by General Staff View Post
    2) I'm sure there was a time when accused rapists made it onto the Supreme Court, but hopefully those days are over. Let's all hope the investigation finds Kavanaugh didn't do anything like this. As to history and worse people, I'm sure you'r'e not happy with Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, them being ladies and all, but you'll just have to chow down on it for now.
    He's not been accused of any crime; no charges were filed, and in fact in the USA everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

    Do do realize that literally hundreds of people have sat on the USSC, right? It's hard to pin down how little you know.

    You do realize that a current USSC judge faced much more substantial charges? Or is that likewise in the seemingly endless 'don't know' zone?

    Originally posted by General Staff View Post
    3) Who said anything about established guilt? I just said 'could'. Now that the Republicans and Trump have loosed the hounds of the FBI, we just have to wait and see how they can help with the truth here. Now that's one commodity that's been in remarkably short supply these last few years.
    You are aware that the FBI has, in weeks past, declined to investigate this alleged incident because of a lack of jurisdiction, lack of a criminal charge, and lack of evidence, right?

    I expect they will deliver a memo saying exactly that again. This is nothing more than a claim that includes no facts, no setting, and is completely unsupported by six background checks which failed to uncover any indication of the life choice patterns of the sort of man who does those sort of things.


    BTW, what about the sexual assault accusations hanging over your head? Is your shrill (not to mention wildly inaccurate) statements about this nonsense just an effort to draw attention away from your predatory behavior? Until you are cleared of those accusations, you certainly should not be allowed to post in any sub-forum frequented by your accuser.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Either way this new investigation goes it’s a losing proposition for the FBI.
    That is just an observation.
    There is more at stake here than just Kavanaugh’s reputation. The reputation of the FBI is also on the line.
    If after six background investigations they failed to even sniff out a binge drinking college party animal like the Dems are portraying Kavanaugh, then we must question every background investigation the FBI has conducted going back at least to Kavenaughs first one in the 1990s when he was just a grad student and his actions on the campus would have been fresh in the minds of all those who knew him.
    Every background investigation conducted by the FBI now can be questioned.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    For the record I was not in favor of the Clinton impeachment. Just as I'm not in favor of pronouncing Kavanaugh guilty without evidence. He said she said is not a political but a social issue. My personal belief is that the real problem is an atmosphere of promiscuity and a lack of decorum in which character references are almost worthless.

    Moral panics do not arise in a vacuum, there is always some truth on the side of the moral busy buddies. Drunkenness was a serious problem but prohibition proved to not be the solution. Drugs were and are a serious problem but the war on drugs is not working. Sexual assault is a serious problem but just believe women creates more problems than it solves. The Victorian attitudes toward sex were unhealthy but sexual freedom without responsibility has damaged women more than they realize. The left is pushing an agenda where abortion is an acceptable form of birth control, where marrying the state is empowering, where accusing men of outrageous behavior such as child abuse is an acceptable tactic in divorce proceedings, where making false allegations of rape should go unpunished, where women are the recipients of 70 percent of government handouts and 70 percent of college degrees but it is still not enough, where women have no obligation to respect the people who let them live in unparalleled luxury. A world in which men are the only responsible party is unworkable and it is ruining women's lives.

    Leave a comment:


  • General Staff
    replied
    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post

    1) Wrong as usual.

    2) Seriously? Worse people have been appointed to the USSC. Do you know anything about history?

    3) And since when has guilt been established? One claim made without details does not, in the USA, constitute anything. There have never been charges filed, then or now.

    This is nothing but political drama at best, criminal obstruction of a government process at worst.
    1) How so- wrong (as usual)? In his senior High School year @ 18 (even earlier) all they'd have uncovered was that he 'liked beer'. They'd only have uncovered the attempted rape allegation if they'd spoken to Christine Blasey then- there was no reason too, she didn't attend the same school.

    The 'as usual' I'll take as a backhanded compliment that you at least periodically read what I write- thank you.

    2) I'm sure there was a time when accused rapists made it onto the Supreme Court, but hopefully those days are over. Let's all hope the investigation finds Kavanaugh didn't do anything like this. As to history and worse people, I'm sure you'r'e not happy with Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, them being ladies and all, but you'll just have to chow down on it for now.

    3) Who said anything about established guilt? I just said 'could'. Now that the Republicans and Trump have loosed the hounds of the FBI, we just have to wait and see how they can help with the truth here. Now that's one commodity that's been in remarkably short supply these last few years.


    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X