well no wonder Amy Chua defended Brett Kavanugh so emphatically

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You’re talking to a con. Zero scruples.

[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.

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.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You’re talking to a con. Zero scruples.

Apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

No, alcoholism would not have shown up on a background check unless he had a polygraph. As I said above, as his positions requiring background checks were appointments, it’s unlikely that he was poly’d. By his own admission he was a drunk in high school (though he calls it “partying”) and seems to have continued that through high school. What is bizarre is that you swallows any idiotic lie you were fed. Like believing his debt was baseball tickets.

And he is just thumbing his short nose at us all with the optics of this clerkship. He’s a dud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

No, alcoholism would not have shown up on a background check unless he had a polygraph. As I said above, as his positions requiring background checks were appointments, it’s unlikely that he was poly’d. By his own admission he was a drunk in high school (though he calls it “partying”) and seems to have continued that through high school. What is bizarre is that you swallows any idiotic lie you were fed. Like believing his debt was baseball tickets.

And he is just thumbing his short nose at us all with the optics of this clerkship. He’s a dud.

+1

I don't know if he was a alcoholic or not - certainly appears that drinking to excess was a part of his life at one point - but it's a joke if you think those background investigations would really uncover something that he wants hidden. People hide undesirable behavior. Their friends don't rat them out.

[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.

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.

I'm reading this drivel with astonishment, especially the bolded. Where are you getting that he's an "alcoholic"?? "Owned by a mysterious benefactor"?? He paid for baseball tickets on his credit card and was then paid back by the friends he bought them for. Have you never done that? I have - recently, for a concert. My CC was HUGE until I received money from everyone whose tickets I bought. Really, this is not some mystery.

As for "poking his nose in someone's sexual activities" - it was already public knowledge that Clinton had been sexually involved with Lewinsky. Nothing to hide there. Kavanaugh flatly denies any incident with Ford *ever* took place, so there are no "sexual activities" to poke around in. And certainly, no evidence to support that the incident in question ever occurred. As for the "several reported sexual assaults" - what would those be, exactly? Are you seriously using Julie Swetnick as a credible source?? Even in her fevered imagination she never came out and accused Kavanaugh of assaulting anyone. She simply lied about him being at a party, and then tried to walk it all back when she was called on it. So exactly, what are these "several" other reports you refer to?

It's clear you are simply completely bent out of shape yourself because he was confirmed - after a lifetime of service - as he should have been. You can't stand it because he's conservative. It's really that simple. Talk about wildly inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You’re talking to a con. Zero scruples.

Coming from a hypocritical liberal, this is rich. The irony is beyond you, apparently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

+1,000,000
Of course he's not an alcoholic. Six background checks would have turned that up. Even SC justices are allowed to drink alcohol - ask RBG. She loves her wine.

It's so completely ironic that these idiots are always accusing Trump supporters, conservatives, independents - and really, anyone who is not a liberal - of being brainwashed by "right-wing media." It's clear that exactly the opposite is happening here (and in other instances). These liberals actually believe the wildest of tales spun by the MSM. Not a good look, liberals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

+1,000,000
Of course he's not an alcoholic. Six background checks would have turned that up. Even SC justices are allowed to drink alcohol - ask RBG. She loves her wine.

It's so completely ironic that these idiots are always accusing Trump supporters, conservatives, independents - and really, anyone who is not a liberal - of being brainwashed by "right-wing media." It's clear that exactly the opposite is happening here (and in other instances). These liberals actually believe the wildest of tales spun by the MSM. Not a good look, liberals.

He’s most definitely an alcoholic. Did you see that rage he displayed? What a weakling. If he were innocent, he wouldn’t have come out swinging like a raging drunk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Still waiting on an answer to this...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

+1,000,000
Of course he's not an alcoholic. Six background checks would have turned that up. Even SC justices are allowed to drink alcohol - ask RBG. She loves her wine.

It's so completely ironic that these idiots are always accusing Trump supporters, conservatives, independents - and really, anyone who is not a liberal - of being brainwashed by "right-wing media." It's clear that exactly the opposite is happening here (and in other instances). These liberals actually believe the wildest of tales spun by the MSM. Not a good look, liberals.

He’s most definitely an alcoholic. Did you see that rage he displayed? What a weakling. If he were innocent, he wouldn’t have come out swinging like a raging drunk.

You are full of hatred. Of course he displayed rage. I would have too, had I been accused of something I didn't do, and then had to watch democratic lawmakers smear my name simply because they believed her story over mine - even without any true evidence at all. You bet I'd be enraged, and when I saw that he was, I respected him even more. Honestly, before this whole debacle, I was completely neutral about whether he should be confirmed. I'm a moderate conservative, and was open to several of the candidates, including Kavanaugh. But after I saw the way in which he was treated, I definitely wanted him confirmed. In this country, we *do not* assume someone is guilty just because he can't prove his innocence. There has to be something more - and there wasn't.

But sure, blame his completely understandable anger on "alcoholism." That just makes you sound so credible.

[Anonymous]

Hey PP - Don't forget they know him by name at the Chevy Chase Lounge.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/the-elite-world-of-brett-kavanaugh/2018/07/11/504d945e-8492-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html?utm_term=.5f4ac1eac8b3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

+1,000,000
Of course he's not an alcoholic. Six background checks would have turned that up. Even SC justices are allowed to drink alcohol - ask RBG. She loves her wine.

It's so completely ironic that these idiots are always accusing Trump supporters, conservatives, independents - and really, anyone who is not a liberal - of being brainwashed by "right-wing media." It's clear that exactly the opposite is happening here (and in other instances). These liberals actually believe the wildest of tales spun by the MSM. Not a good look, liberals.

It’s easier than you think to avoid certain topics during background investigations...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

+1,000,000
Of course he's not an alcoholic. Six background checks would have turned that up. Even SC justices are allowed to drink alcohol - ask RBG. She loves her wine.

It's so completely ironic that these idiots are always accusing Trump supporters, conservatives, independents - and really, anyone who is not a liberal - of being brainwashed by "right-wing media." It's clear that exactly the opposite is happening here (and in other instances). These liberals actually believe the wildest of tales spun by the MSM. Not a good look, liberals.

It’s easier than you think to avoid certain topics during background investigations...

+1
I don’t know who reported the posts that came after the one to which you’re responding, but as always seems to happen, it included a lot of Republicans willfully missing the point.

Like: who owns Brett? Why did Chua jump in so strongly for this pervy crud bucket? Was it just to get her daughter a leg up?

[Anonymous]

You folks can litigate this and relitigate this all you want.

Fact is.........Kavanaugh sits on SCOTUS and can hire the clerks he wants. Seems he has done a good job so far.... gets high praise from RBG for increasing the number of female clerks so that now, there are more women then men clerks.

Not a bad thing, IMO.
And, he seems to be doing a good job on the court.