Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

I have not - which is my point. Have you jeff? You seem to have plenty of opinions on what the FBI should and should not do. Last time I checked you are a stay at home dad who runs a chat room. Have you ever run a FBI investigation? If so, would love to hear your opinions, if not, it's just noise.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

Source?

[Anonymous]

McConnell just filed cloture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious honest question. Is the secrecy of the new FBI report just because Grassley says so? Is this common?

Feinstein called for the secrecy, not Grassley

Really? How do we know this? And why?

Because a CNN reporter tweeted it out? Ask her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

Source?

From the front page of the Washington Post you lazy ass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-fbi-background-check-of-kavanaugh-nears-its-end-probe-appears-to-have-been-highly-curtailed/2018/10/03/2fa4e93e-c72f-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford unwilling to turn over therapist's notes to the SJC. These notes were leaked to Post and were referenced by Ford as corroborating her story under oath (though after the fact) to the SJC -- THE CON IS OVER

She offered to provide the notes to the FBI but they never showed up to interview her. If she provided them to the SJC, they would immediately be selectively leaked.

Because they weren't going to interview her and her lawyers knew it. Nor should they because, as you all keep saying, this isn't a criminal trial.

She can file a report and give them to the local police who have said over and over again they would be glad to help even if the statue of limitations has run out.

You can't have it both ways. If Grassley thinks the therapist's notes and other documents are important enough to request, they should are important enough for the FBI to review as part of its background investigation. It makes no sense that an investigation instigated by Ford's testimony wouldn't include an interview with her. It is clear to everyone that the White House restricted this investigation in order to achieve its desired outcome.

She shared them with the Washington Post, but not the senators, because you say they might be leaked? Leaked to who? She already shared them.

I think, frankly, her lawyers are lying (again). They have no intention of sharing those notes with the FBI, or anyone else, but favorable press.

Obviously she didn't share everything that the Committee wants. Otherwise they could just read them in the Post.

The Post has the notes. Why the secrecy unless they don't help her story?

Certainly you aren’t this dumb in real life? Because the SJC would not bother with leaking them. They’d pick the most salacious bits and post them on their website.

She was in couples therapy. Talking about a rape attempt. So the notes contain a discussion of hers — and her husband’s— private martial problems. And if the attempted rape came up, this likely has something to do with sexual problems. She has kids. She’s a professor The notes contain her husband’s information and issues too. And, oh yeah, the SJC just posted ON THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE very selectively edited excerpts of a letter by a bipolar MAGAtt talking about how one abuse victim liked group sex.

So just spitballing here. Maybe she doesn’t want the SJC’s next post to be a therapists notes from when her husband had an affair and said it was her fault because she could only have sex in some weird, kinky way which she attributes to an attempted rape? For her husband’s colleagues and kids and students to read and us to pick apart on DCUM? Just a thought... Idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

Source?

From the front page of the Washington Post you lazy ass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-fbi-background-check-of-kavanaugh-nears-its-end-probe-appears-to-have-been-highly-curtailed/2018/10/03/2fa4e93e-c72f-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html

And who many FBI investigations has the impartial Wash Post run? You piece of lazy ass. Maybe be time to branch out from the Post.

[Anonymous]

Find, feel, force yourself on her
Fail to have sex
Forfeit your supreme court seat
Forever live in infamy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

Source?

From the front page of the Washington Post you lazy ass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-fbi-background-check-of-kavanaugh-nears-its-end-probe-appears-to-have-been-highly-curtailed/2018/10/03/2fa4e93e-c72f-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html

And who many FBI investigations has the impartial Wash Post run? You piece of lazy ass. Maybe be time to branch out from the Post.

What would satisfy you? Gateway Pundit or Breitbart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

I have not - which is my point. Have you jeff? You seem to have plenty of opinions on what the FBI should and should not do. Last time I checked you are a stay at home dad who runs a chat room. Have you ever run a FBI investigation? If so, would love to hear your opinions, if not, it's just noise.

This is considered a background investigation. The organization requesting the background check supplies the name of the individual and people he/she list. They do not look into activities before the subject was 18 years old. It’s not like a criminal or terrorist investigation were they use subpoenas(or don’t), look at your cell phone traffic etc.

[Anonymous]

There is no pleasing you people. Asked for FBI investigation. The FBI investigates. Not good enough - claim WH is hindering when not getting desired result.
What a joke.

[Anonymous]

The pissing and moaning about Thomas always seems to omit that he was confirmed by a Senate with 57 Democrats. The last time a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court by a majority Republican Senate was 1896 when Grover Cleveland nominated Rufus Wheeler Peckham. So the people who claim that conservative judicial nominees are so mistreated by Democrats can just STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

Source?

From the front page of the Washington Post you lazy ass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-fbi-background-check-of-kavanaugh-nears-its-end-probe-appears-to-have-been-highly-curtailed/2018/10/03/2fa4e93e-c72f-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html

And who many FBI investigations has the impartial Wash Post run? You piece of lazy ass. Maybe be time to branch out from the Post.

DP. You are out of control. Must be time to take your meds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no pleasing you people. Asked for FBI investigation. The FBI investigates. Not good enough - claim WH is hindering when not getting desired result.
What a joke.

Uh yeah, we didn't want a fake half assed investigation directed by Trump. Does this really surprise you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

Source?

From the front page of the Washington Post you lazy ass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-fbi-background-check-of-kavanaugh-nears-its-end-probe-appears-to-have-been-highly-curtailed/2018/10/03/2fa4e93e-c72f-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html

And who many FBI investigations has the impartial Wash Post run? You piece of lazy ass. Maybe be time to branch out from the Post.

What would satisfy you? Gateway Pundit or Breitbart?

Have you ever worked for FBI? If not, it does not matter what you say.