Reply to well no wonder Amy Chua defended Brett Kavanugh so emphatically

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "well no wonder Amy Chua defended Brett Kavanugh so emphatically"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?[/quote]
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,[/quote]

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?

[b]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.[/b]  [/quote]

+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.[/quote]

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

[/quote]

Still waiting on an answer to this... 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics