Really? Is that the new accusation?

Numero tres. Though I thought the second one with the truth or dare **** was whack.

Probably a photo of her once with a margarita. It means nothing in either direction in regards to the story as it's PR 101.

You see problems with Kavanaugh's story?

I don't see "as" many issues with his story compared to Ford's. He's had his background looked into on multiple occasions. Common sense would dictate that he wouldn't have ever gotten this far if the FBI had gotten even a whiff of this stuff before since he was a fairly high profile figure even during the Bush years.

What would you like to be done differently?

Rhode Island only gets one senator. Then the vote could never be a tie.

Problem is that Ford came forward and now those "girls" from his past are calling his BS that he testified to yesterday about his HS, and college party days. In the last day two women who knew him well back then went on TV (both from elite prep schools and both not needing the maelstrom) to say he was a very sloppy drunk who puked and passed out often. They are both willing to be interviewed by the FBI as part of the re-opened investigation.

BK, under oath, in front of the senate judiciary committee, stated he always maintained control while drinking his beloved "beers". Both women said this tipped the scales for them saying someone who could lie under oath about drinking, couldn't be trusted about lying about far more important things, and didn't deserve a seat on the highest court in the land.

FBI is going to gather as much of this as possible and then confront his good buddy Mike with the sworn testimony.

Judge's plea deal is coming folks. Full immunity if he's willing to spill the beans about the Ford episode.

Guess we'll just have to see what happens. I still don't get how someone can be investigated by the FBI multiple times (considering how many people they talk to) and literally nothing about any of this popped up anywhere. Think about his time with Ken Starr and that whole circus. Someone bringing this stuff up would have made a major uproar considering the case they were making against Clinton at the time.

1 I'm fairly liberal for your stupid ass accusations on liberals never using it.

2 It perfectly applies to people who pretend to give a **** or have a moral code for social purposes. Doesn't mean what they said is wrong, just that they as a person are fake. And you know damn well people do this.

Edit: I guess that wouldn't be virtue signaling since signaling a virtue doesn't necessarily mean you are a fraud.

I like that.

If this is what gets people rolling in the aisles these days then just knock my block clean off.

Pay close attention.

During his previous 6 FBI background checks over the past couple of decades, there had been no public claims of sexual assault, possibly as a result of excessive drinking habits.

Have you been paying attention the last couple of days?

Yeesh

You're also on that personal responsibility, anti-PC tip, but I suspect the personal responsibility thing is more a way to punish yourself. Either way I don't think you're using "virtue signalling" as a liberal.

I'm definitely not doing it as a conservative. Personal responsibility is just common among both sides of the fence. It's just commonly linked to republicans because they use it as an excuse to denounce welfare and justify their positions in life because they refuse to understand the fact that somebody has to be the janitor no matter how hard people work. Honestly I think their the originators of virtue signaling with their holier than thou christian values.

Just because the phrase comes from republicans as a way to lazily denounce people who are progressive doesn't mean that's how I use it.


Edit: Also, I'm anti censorship. Not really anti-PC because I personally try to avoid racial slurs and such, I just don't think I have the right to push that on to others.

While you guys were all jerking off about this crap, Florida Man was learning the blade

Two cities were razed by a tsunami in Indonesia but how can that possibly compete for news time when a rich woman was dry humped 40 years ago?

Yep, he definitely does.

Tell him to shove his post up his arse.

Don't worry. Hawk and I are gonna vote. That should put an end to elected officials accepting bribes.

Just makes my original point seem more likely TBH. FBI are pretty thorough in uncovering dirt. Remember who the FBI director was around the time Kavanaugh was appointed? I'll give you a hint: the word "Mueller" is in there. It doesn't matter if someone comes out publicly or not. If these parties were so well known (rape trains, etc.) doesn't make sense that nobody who knew him personally wouldn't have alluded to it in previous investigations.

So many words. So much hot air. There is literally nothing to back up anything you just said. It's all assumption. At least Chula is doing some research.

So do the FBI suck at doing background checks or no? Make up your mind.

Here's a hard fact for you: he's been investigated SIX times between 1993 and 2018, all of which are considered to be "full-field" investigations that dive deeply into a candidate's background. What Chula said literally means nothing in the face of how thorough these guys can be.

You seem to be implying that the FBI MUST have known about various rapes from up and coming political figures while they were in college even though nobody reported them. I mean. They're the FBI right? They know EVERYTHING.

Whether something is reported publicly means nothing in the face of a background investigation. The FBI have repeatedly talked to people with multiple degrees of separation from Kavanaugh, including former colleagues, schoolmates, etc. on six past occasions, with the goal being to determine if he met the standards for hiring for whatever position he was gunning for at the time.

The point isn't that FBI "know everything11". The point is that they've already gone through this process multiple times in the past with a similar premise, i.e. can we find dirt on this person who is applying for a highly visible federal position. And yet they couldn't find a single person between 1993 and 2018 that mentions a rape train, groping, whatever.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/LameKlutzy...restricted.gif

The **** do you know about law enforcement investigations?

I know enough to factor it into my position. I could throw up thirty or forty links probably, but there's plenty of information out there on what gets covered in an FBI "full-field" investigation.

https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/interne...ons_Policy.pdf

Some good comments here too - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLE/comme...t_a_fullfield/

And that doesn't even cover what they cross-reference in their interviews with what you have to fill out here.

https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf

The FBI doesn't cast a big net over your entire life.
If you're being considered for a federal job that includes a judicial position,
these guys go to your professional connections. The FBI agents interview a
minimum of 30 people that are or have been connected to you professionally
over the years: lawyers that you've worked with, people in law enforcement,
judges, etc. If these people that you've worked with offer any other names that
they think the FBI should pursue, then they will. If old drinking buddies aren't mentioned, well...
Yes, neighbors and family are contacted too.

It was noted last night by an ex-FBI investigator that during a standard background check they do not go back further than 18 years old. Ant, you against the re-opening of the investigation based on the new allegations? You sure sound like you are. If so, why?

Like I said, you truly sound like a closeted GOP fan.

Yes, please come out so we can stone you for the apostate you are.

Hey Chula, whats 1993 minus 18?

I'm not opposed to another investigation. My question to you would be: what are you going to do when they come back with the same answer they've gotten six times before?

The GOP at least say they prefer smaller government. Where's my liberal candidate that would actually advocate for such a thing? Andrew Yang is the only one I like so far.

Sexual assault is notoriously hard to prove unless the victim immediately goes to the police and gets a rape kit, so after nearly four decades it wouldn't be surprising if an unreported near rape didn't come up on the FBI's radar. TBH I'd be kinda surprised if they did uncover anything.

Yeah exactly, why would it have ever come up if no one had talked about it?

Is it typical to discuss drinking habits and high school parties when being "thoroughly vetted?" Genuine question, bc I think not.

"Agent Smith. Your next assignment is to travel to this mans college and go through the footage that didn't exist back then to find out who exactly attended these undocumented parties where copious amounts of alcohol was being consumed. Find those people and ask if they ever saw our man rape somebody. They'll obviously tell you the exact truth as they remember it because that's reality Agent Smith."

Reading comprehension is a bitch.

Again, reading comprehension is a bitch. Junior, you're beginning to come across as a desperate dullard with your recent attempts at sticking up for your buddy Kavanaugh.

Nah, I think you are the one lacking comprehension here. Bigly.

You don't seem to get it: the FBI have more than likely gone through a massive amount of people connected to Kavanaugh every time he has gone up the ranks. That means hundreds of people (cumulatively). Friends, family, former college classmates, people who knew him prior to college, neighbors, anyone who ever worked under him, etc. etc. etc. Are you seriously going to bull**** me and say that not a single person would have thought his alcoholic tendencies and/or any rape party rumors were worth mentioning? People talk.

Translation: I'm unwilling to side against Trump so in this specific instance and only this specific instance I am attributing omniscience to the FBI for the sake of preserving my stance as a Trump supporter.

Ad hominem. I don't like the FBI, but I never disagreed with their findings about Russia (for example).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if an investigation against Trump unearths legitimate (and not assumed) evidence of collusion, he should be impeached. It doesn't matter to me if he's President or not.