well no wonder Amy Chua defended Brett Kavanugh so emphatically

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

Facts? Truth?
How about presumption of innocence? Blasey Ford was unable to provide any actual proof of her claims. Zilch.
She had no facts. And, it appeared that her truth was just that - HER truth. Not THE truth.

We will never know since it will never be investigated. So you can’t say if he was “falsely” accused or not. But the MAGAs still will try to tear her down.

Why are the daggers out? Afraid of the truth?

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.

You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

Speaking of clueless - please do share how yet another FBI investigation would "uncover" this ALLEGED incident? I'm genuinely curious. Since no one has voluntarily come forward to corroborate Ford's testimony, then exactly what would you suggest the FBI do to "uncover" a vague, 35 year old, alleged incident? Do you realize how utterly crazy you sound?

The incident has already been reported so no need to “uncover” it, bonehead. It only would have only come out during a background check if BK added CBF to his list of interviewees. Don’t think he did. And if there were other incidents I’m sure his buddies wouldn’t have brought them up. Look at the hilarious way they handled the yearbook. Lying POSs.

The FBI could seek out people to interview - not just sit around waiting for someone to come forward. Look at other evidence (calendar).

Funny how you and the PPs are so quick to decide there is nothing there. Quite telling.

That you keep coming back to his *high school* yearbook as "evidence" - not to mention a calendar that a teenaged boy kept - makes me cringe in embarrassment for you. It is so pathetic that we had U.S. Senators dissecting a teenager's yearbook for telltale "clues" that might make their case. I didn't think I'd ever see the day when our lawmakers would stoop so low and make themselves look so incredibly foolish.

Look, I'm sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted, i.e. I'm sorry an innocent man wasn't caught up in your partisan witch hunt. Thank goodness common sense prevailed.

Yes, we know you want to brush it all aside as quickly as you can.

Amoral scum. All of you.

LOL! Kavanaugh has actually been confirmed - despite your best attempts at derailing his nomination. It's been almost a year.
It is time for you folks to move on. Or, is there an effort to impeach Kavanaugh too?

Yes, the incident was very clearly brushed aside and he was confirmed. Without any moral hesitation on your part. We understand. You wanted your pro-birther justice at any cost and have no moral qualms about it because you are amoral scum.

And - oh look - he's having trouble again with another young lady. Surprise, surprise.

What lady is he “having trouble with,” you absolute moron? Link?? And btw, I’m pro-choice but was very much for his confirmation. You simply don’t decide someone’s fate based on a nebulous 35+ year old accusation with zero evidence. He’s innocent until and unless PROVEN guilty, which he most definitely was not. That’s a basic part of our Constitution, something *you* would dearly love to “brush aside.”
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

Facts? Truth?
How about presumption of innocence? Blasey Ford was unable to provide any actual proof of her claims. Zilch.
She had no facts. And, it appeared that her truth was just that - HER truth. Not THE truth.

We will never know since it will never be investigated. So you can’t say if he was “falsely” accused or not. But the MAGAs still will try to tear her down.

Why are the daggers out? Afraid of the truth?

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.

You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

Speaking of clueless - please do share how yet another FBI investigation would "uncover" this ALLEGED incident? I'm genuinely curious. Since no one has voluntarily come forward to corroborate Ford's testimony, then exactly what would you suggest the FBI do to "uncover" a vague, 35 year old, alleged incident? Do you realize how utterly crazy you sound?

The incident has already been reported so no need to “uncover” it, bonehead. It only would have only come out during a background check if BK added CBF to his list of interviewees. Don’t think he did. And if there were other incidents I’m sure his buddies wouldn’t have brought them up. Look at the hilarious way they handled the yearbook. Lying POSs.

The FBI could seek out people to interview - not just sit around waiting for someone to come forward. Look at other evidence (calendar).

Funny how you and the PPs are so quick to decide there is nothing there. Quite telling.

That you keep coming back to his *high school* yearbook as "evidence" - not to mention a calendar that a teenaged boy kept - makes me cringe in embarrassment for you. It is so pathetic that we had U.S. Senators dissecting a teenager's yearbook for telltale "clues" that might make their case. I didn't think I'd ever see the day when our lawmakers would stoop so low and make themselves look so incredibly foolish.

Look, I'm sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted, i.e. I'm sorry an innocent man wasn't caught up in your partisan witch hunt. Thank goodness common sense prevailed.

Yes, we know you want to brush it all aside as quickly as you can.

Amoral scum. All of you.

LOL! Kavanaugh has actually been confirmed - despite your best attempts at derailing his nomination. It's been almost a year.
It is time for you folks to move on. Or, is there an effort to impeach Kavanaugh too?

Yes, the incident was very clearly brushed aside and he was confirmed. Without any moral hesitation on your part. We understand. You wanted your pro-birther justice at any cost and have no moral qualms about it because you are amoral scum.

And - oh look - he's having trouble again with another young lady. Surprise, surprise.

Trouble? He is not having trouble. The only trouble is the faux outrage on the part of the left.

This. These people are troublemakers, and that’s being generous.

[Anonymous]

https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2019/06/14/tiger-cub-follows-kavanaugh/?slreturn=20190517155335

Financial Times writer Edward Luce calls Chua “a shrewd string-puller,” saying that “overnight the Chuas have turned into emblems of what Americans distrust about their meritocracy.” Slate’s Jeremy Stahl essentially makes similar criticisms, suggesting that the Chuas “might apologize to [Above the Law’s Elie] Mystal [who wrote a year ago that Chua’s op-ed was self-serving], or turn down the clerkship if they “had anything resembling shame.”

So are the criticisms fair to Chua and her daughter? Well, yes. And no.

First, the timing of her hiring is awful—really awful. It happened barely a year after that fawning op-ed by Chua and Sophia’s own declaration on Twitter that she had no plans to clerk for the Supreme Court because of her military obligations (she served in the ROTC in college). While it’s plausible that Sophia didn’t expect the Army to allow her another deferment (she’s now clerking for Britt Grant, judge on the 11th Circuit), why the rush to clerk for Kavanaugh now? I mean, Kavanaugh will be there for a long, long, time, and she could clerk for him after her Army stint.
It’s almost as if Kavanaugh is rubbing our noses in it, says CNN commentator Kate Maltby: “Appointing the daughter of the powerful woman who may have helped your nomination—it’s the latest way to ‘own the libs.’ Kavanaugh wants us to know he simply doesn’t care what we think of him. He’s won.”

But where some critics lost me is when they overplay the nepotism and privilege argument. Yeah, Sophia has a leg up as the daughter of two Yale Law School professors, but comparing her situation to the low-performing students caught in the recent college admissions cheating scandal? Seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

Facts? Truth?
How about presumption of innocence? Blasey Ford was unable to provide any actual proof of her claims. Zilch.
She had no facts. And, it appeared that her truth was just that - HER truth. Not THE truth.

We will never know since it will never be investigated. So you can’t say if he was “falsely” accused or not. But the MAGAs still will try to tear her down.

Why are the daggers out? Afraid of the truth?

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.

You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

Speaking of clueless - please do share how yet another FBI investigation would "uncover" this ALLEGED incident? I'm genuinely curious. Since no one has voluntarily come forward to corroborate Ford's testimony, then exactly what would you suggest the FBI do to "uncover" a vague, 35 year old, alleged incident? Do you realize how utterly crazy you sound?

The incident has already been reported so no need to “uncover” it, bonehead. It only would have only come out during a background check if BK added CBF to his list of interviewees. Don’t think he did. And if there were other incidents I’m sure his buddies wouldn’t have brought them up. Look at the hilarious way they handled the yearbook. Lying POSs.

The FBI could seek out people to interview - not just sit around waiting for someone to come forward. Look at other evidence (calendar).

Funny how you and the PPs are so quick to decide there is nothing there. Quite telling.

That you keep coming back to his *high school* yearbook as "evidence" - not to mention a calendar that a teenaged boy kept - makes me cringe in embarrassment for you. It is so pathetic that we had U.S. Senators dissecting a teenager's yearbook for telltale "clues" that might make their case. I didn't think I'd ever see the day when our lawmakers would stoop so low and make themselves look so incredibly foolish.

Look, I'm sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted, i.e. I'm sorry an innocent man wasn't caught up in your partisan witch hunt. Thank goodness common sense prevailed.

Yes, we know you want to brush it all aside as quickly as you can.

Amoral scum. All of you.

LOL! Kavanaugh has actually been confirmed - despite your best attempts at derailing his nomination. It's been almost a year.
It is time for you folks to move on. Or, is there an effort to impeach Kavanaugh too?

Yes, the incident was very clearly brushed aside and he was confirmed. Without any moral hesitation on your part. We understand. You wanted your pro-birther justice at any cost and have no moral qualms about it because you are amoral scum.

And - oh look - he's having trouble again with another young lady. Surprise, surprise.

What lady is he “having trouble with,” you absolute moron? Link?? And btw, I’m pro-choice but was very much for his confirmation. You simply don’t decide someone’s fate based on a nebulous 35+ year old accusation with zero evidence. He’s innocent until and unless PROVEN guilty, which he most definitely was not. That’s a basic part of our Constitution, something *you* would dearly love to “brush aside.”
-DP

All I wanted was a legit investigation. The speed and voracity of the GOP to "brush aside" was disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

Facts? Truth?
How about presumption of innocence? Blasey Ford was unable to provide any actual proof of her claims. Zilch.
She had no facts. And, it appeared that her truth was just that - HER truth. Not THE truth.

We will never know since it will never be investigated. So you can’t say if he was “falsely” accused or not. But the MAGAs still will try to tear her down.

Why are the daggers out? Afraid of the truth?

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.

You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

Speaking of clueless - please do share how yet another FBI investigation would "uncover" this ALLEGED incident? I'm genuinely curious. Since no one has voluntarily come forward to corroborate Ford's testimony, then exactly what would you suggest the FBI do to "uncover" a vague, 35 year old, alleged incident? Do you realize how utterly crazy you sound?

The incident has already been reported so no need to “uncover” it, bonehead. It only would have only come out during a background check if BK added CBF to his list of interviewees. Don’t think he did. And if there were other incidents I’m sure his buddies wouldn’t have brought them up. Look at the hilarious way they handled the yearbook. Lying POSs.

The FBI could seek out people to interview - not just sit around waiting for someone to come forward. Look at other evidence (calendar).

Funny how you and the PPs are so quick to decide there is nothing there. Quite telling.

That you keep coming back to his *high school* yearbook as "evidence" - not to mention a calendar that a teenaged boy kept - makes me cringe in embarrassment for you. It is so pathetic that we had U.S. Senators dissecting a teenager's yearbook for telltale "clues" that might make their case. I didn't think I'd ever see the day when our lawmakers would stoop so low and make themselves look so incredibly foolish.

Look, I'm sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted, i.e. I'm sorry an innocent man wasn't caught up in your partisan witch hunt. Thank goodness common sense prevailed.

Yes, we know you want to brush it all aside as quickly as you can.

Amoral scum. All of you.

LOL! Kavanaugh has actually been confirmed - despite your best attempts at derailing his nomination. It's been almost a year.
It is time for you folks to move on. Or, is there an effort to impeach Kavanaugh too?

Yes, the incident was very clearly brushed aside and he was confirmed. Without any moral hesitation on your part. We understand. You wanted your pro-birther justice at any cost and have no moral qualms about it because you are amoral scum.

And - oh look - he's having trouble again with another young lady. Surprise, surprise.

What lady is he “having trouble with,” you absolute moron? Link?? And btw, I’m pro-choice but was very much for his confirmation. You simply don’t decide someone’s fate based on a nebulous 35+ year old accusation with zero evidence. He’s innocent until and unless PROVEN guilty, which he most definitely was not. That’s a basic part of our Constitution, something *you* would dearly love to “brush aside.”
-DP

All I wanted was a legit investigation. The speed and voracity of the GOP to "brush aside" was disturbing.

He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2019/06/14/tiger-cub-follows-kavanaugh/?slreturn=20190517155335

Financial Times writer Edward Luce calls Chua “a shrewd string-puller,” saying that “overnight the Chuas have turned into emblems of what Americans distrust about their meritocracy.” Slate’s Jeremy Stahl essentially makes similar criticisms, suggesting that the Chuas “might apologize to [Above the Law’s Elie] Mystal [who wrote a year ago that Chua’s op-ed was self-serving], or turn down the clerkship if they “had anything resembling shame.”

So are the criticisms fair to Chua and her daughter? Well, yes. And no.

First, the timing of her hiring is awful—really awful. It happened barely a year after that fawning op-ed by Chua and Sophia’s own declaration on Twitter that she had no plans to clerk for the Supreme Court because of her military obligations (she served in the ROTC in college). While it’s plausible that Sophia didn’t expect the Army to allow her another deferment (she’s now clerking for Britt Grant, judge on the 11th Circuit), why the rush to clerk for Kavanaugh now? I mean, Kavanaugh will be there for a long, long, time, and she could clerk for him after her Army stint.
It’s almost as if Kavanaugh is rubbing our noses in it, says CNN commentator Kate Maltby: “Appointing the daughter of the powerful woman who may have helped your nomination—it’s the latest way to ‘own the libs.’ Kavanaugh wants us to know he simply doesn’t care what we think of him. He’s won.”

But where some critics lost me is when they overplay the nepotism and privilege argument. Yeah, Sophia has a leg up as the daughter of two Yale Law School professors, but comparing her situation to the low-performing students caught in the recent college admissions cheating scandal? Seriously?

It is interesting that Chua and Rubenfeld didn't think more about the optics. Clerk for Kavanaugh (hardly the most highly thought of justice) vs. keeping her reputation intact. Not sure Tiger Cub got the better part of the bargain here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?

Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient.
She certainly didn’t convince any republicans.

MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there.

Facts? Truth?
How about presumption of innocence? Blasey Ford was unable to provide any actual proof of her claims. Zilch.
She had no facts. And, it appeared that her truth was just that - HER truth. Not THE truth.

We will never know since it will never be investigated. So you can’t say if he was “falsely” accused or not. But the MAGAs still will try to tear her down.

Why are the daggers out? Afraid of the truth?

How, exactly, do you suggest investigating a 35 yr. old allegation? Anyone who might have some information has been invited (repeatedly) to come forward. No one has. No one can corroborate this allegation. In the meantime, Kavanaugh has had six FBI investigations, all of which turned up nothing. No one is trying to "tear down" Blasey Ford, but you simply can't argue with the FACT that she had no evidence or witnesses to back up her claim.

You are so f-ing clueless it’s painful. How on earth would those background checks uncover this incident?

Speaking of clueless - please do share how yet another FBI investigation would "uncover" this ALLEGED incident? I'm genuinely curious. Since no one has voluntarily come forward to corroborate Ford's testimony, then exactly what would you suggest the FBI do to "uncover" a vague, 35 year old, alleged incident? Do you realize how utterly crazy you sound?

The incident has already been reported so no need to “uncover” it, bonehead. It only would have only come out during a background check if BK added CBF to his list of interviewees. Don’t think he did. And if there were other incidents I’m sure his buddies wouldn’t have brought them up. Look at the hilarious way they handled the yearbook. Lying POSs.

The FBI could seek out people to interview - not just sit around waiting for someone to come forward. Look at other evidence (calendar).

Funny how you and the PPs are so quick to decide there is nothing there. Quite telling.

That you keep coming back to his *high school* yearbook as "evidence" - not to mention a calendar that a teenaged boy kept - makes me cringe in embarrassment for you. It is so pathetic that we had U.S. Senators dissecting a teenager's yearbook for telltale "clues" that might make their case. I didn't think I'd ever see the day when our lawmakers would stoop so low and make themselves look so incredibly foolish.

Look, I'm sorry this didn't work out the way you wanted, i.e. I'm sorry an innocent man wasn't caught up in your partisan witch hunt. Thank goodness common sense prevailed.

Yes, we know you want to brush it all aside as quickly as you can.

Amoral scum. All of you.

LOL! Kavanaugh has actually been confirmed - despite your best attempts at derailing his nomination. It's been almost a year.
It is time for you folks to move on. Or, is there an effort to impeach Kavanaugh too?

Yes, the incident was very clearly brushed aside and he was confirmed. Without any moral hesitation on your part. We understand. You wanted your pro-birther justice at any cost and have no moral qualms about it because you are amoral scum.

And - oh look - he's having trouble again with another young lady. Surprise, surprise.

What lady is he “having trouble with,” you absolute moron? Link?? And btw, I’m pro-choice but was very much for his confirmation. You simply don’t decide someone’s fate based on a nebulous 35+ year old accusation with zero evidence. He’s innocent until and unless PROVEN guilty, which he most definitely was not. That’s a basic part of our Constitution, something *you* would dearly love to “brush aside.”
-DP

All I wanted was a legit investigation. The speed and voracity of the GOP to "brush aside" was disturbing.

He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This has been discussed already. Background check <> criminal investigation. Try to keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

DP
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here,...............
How in the hell do you expect the FBI to conduct an investigation of an incident that one person claimed happened, but the people SHE said were present have no knowledge of it? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the day, the date, or even the year in which the alleged incident happened? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the location at which the incident happened? An incident that nobody else can corroborate?

Nah, y'all didn't want an investigation. That was all a delay tactic. You were hoping and praying for a delay long enough - just long enough - that a new nominee would need to be named and vetted in HOPES that you would win the Senate and block any confirmation. We are not stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

DP
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here,...............
How in the hell do you expect the FBI to conduct an investigation of an incident that one person claimed happened, but the people SHE said were present have no knowledge of it? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the day, the date, or even the year in which the alleged incident happened? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the location at which the incident happened? An incident that nobody else can corroborate?

Nah, y'all didn't want an investigation. That was all a delay tactic. You were hoping and praying for a delay long enough - just long enough - that a new nominee would need to be named and vetted in HOPES that you would win the Senate and block any confirmation. We are not stupid.

Not really, but if it were it'd be 100% justified by the GOP's appalling handling of Merrick Garland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

Exactly. 10000000x AGAIN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

DP
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here,...............
How in the hell do you expect the FBI to conduct an investigation of an incident that one person claimed happened, but the people SHE said were present have no knowledge of it? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the day, the date, or even the year in which the alleged incident happened? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the location at which the incident happened? An incident that nobody else can corroborate?

Nah, y'all didn't want an investigation. That was all a delay tactic. You were hoping and praying for a delay long enough - just long enough - that a new nominee would need to be named and vetted in HOPES that you would win the Senate and block any confirmation. We are not stupid.

+1,000
Nailed it. That's exactly what they wanted. And they've told us time and time again how "stupid" we are. Clearly, they actually believe they can get away with this nonsense. Very glad it backfired on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

DP
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here,...............
How in the hell do you expect the FBI to conduct an investigation of an incident that one person claimed happened, but the people SHE said were present have no knowledge of it? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the day, the date, or even the year in which the alleged incident happened? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the location at which the incident happened? An incident that nobody else can corroborate?

Nah, y'all didn't want an investigation. That was all a delay tactic. You were hoping and praying for a delay long enough - just long enough - that a new nominee would need to be named and vetted in HOPES that you would win the Senate and block any confirmation. We are not stupid.

+1,000
Nailed it. That's exactly what they wanted. And they've told us time and time again how "stupid" we are. Clearly, they actually believe they can get away with this nonsense. Very glad it backfired on them.

So you do or you don’t think political parties should delay and push off nominees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2019/06/14/tiger-cub-follows-kavanaugh/?slreturn=20190517155335

Financial Times writer Edward Luce calls Chua “a shrewd string-puller,” saying that “overnight the Chuas have turned into emblems of what Americans distrust about their meritocracy.” Slate’s Jeremy Stahl essentially makes similar criticisms, suggesting that the Chuas “might apologize to [Above the Law’s Elie] Mystal [who wrote a year ago that Chua’s op-ed was self-serving], or turn down the clerkship if they “had anything resembling shame.”

So are the criticisms fair to Chua and her daughter? Well, yes. And no.

First, the timing of her hiring is awful—really awful. It happened barely a year after that fawning op-ed by Chua and Sophia’s own declaration on Twitter that she had no plans to clerk for the Supreme Court because of her military obligations (she served in the ROTC in college). While it’s plausible that Sophia didn’t expect the Army to allow her another deferment (she’s now clerking for Britt Grant, judge on the 11th Circuit), why the rush to clerk for Kavanaugh now? I mean, Kavanaugh will be there for a long, long, time, and she could clerk for him after her Army stint.
It’s almost as if Kavanaugh is rubbing our noses in it, says CNN commentator Kate Maltby: “Appointing the daughter of the powerful woman who may have helped your nomination—it’s the latest way to ‘own the libs.’ Kavanaugh wants us to know he simply doesn’t care what we think of him. He’s won.”

But where some critics lost me is when they overplay the nepotism and privilege argument. Yeah, Sophia has a leg up as the daughter of two Yale Law School professors, but comparing her situation to the low-performing students caught in the recent college admissions cheating scandal? Seriously?

It is interesting that Chua and Rubenfeld didn't think more about the optics. Clerk for Kavanaugh (hardly the most highly thought of justice) vs. keeping her reputation intact. Not sure Tiger Cub got the better part of the bargain here.

Yeah, it's bad--unless she actually does something in the military at some point and has a redemption arc in the media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

DP
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here,...............
How in the hell do you expect the FBI to conduct an investigation of an incident that one person claimed happened, but the people SHE said were present have no knowledge of it? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the day, the date, or even the year in which the alleged incident happened? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the location at which the incident happened? An incident that nobody else can corroborate?

Nah, y'all didn't want an investigation. That was all a delay tactic. You were hoping and praying for a delay long enough - just long enough - that a new nominee would need to be named and vetted in HOPES that you would win the Senate and block any confirmation. We are not stupid.

Squi can corroborate it. CBF said Bretty’s best friend was in the room. That they were laughing.

And you investigate it the same way you investigate lots of old crimes. The FBI does this already, you know.

It’s bizarre, absolutely bizarre the level of hypocrisy conservatives have. I mean I’m beginning to suspect you all have some shared brain anomaly that enables this level of self delusion in regards to your motivations. This is the highest court on the land and the people appointed tonit are supposed to be beyond reproach, just nearly perfect people. But this guy - alcoholic, owned by some mysterious benefactor, a hypocrite himself (you can’t poke your nose in someone’s sexual activities and then get bent out of shape when it bends around to you) and the alleged aggressor in several reported sexual assaults. That’s not beyond reproach. That’s wildly inappropriate.