Kavenaugh Hearing Travesty. Dems Obstruct throughout

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by hcap

You suck as an investigator and as a pretend Sherlock Holmes.

Organizationsd like the FBI are trained, specialize and do older crimes and uncover old evidence much better than you or boxcar.
Assuming of course they are allowed to do their jobs.

No you do...

THE FBI Have No Jurisdiction in a case of a 35 year old civil matter that the local Constable would not look into on the provided accusation.

Is that clear Inspector Clouseau

[Fred Mertz]

Originally Posted by MONEY

This is not a good excuse, Grassley has offered to have the hearing anywhere that she wants.

I suggest the scene of the crime. Oh, wait...never mind.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by Fred Mertz

I suggest the scene of the crime. Oh, wait...never mind.

I think it would be a little crowded inside her head.

[davew]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

For argument's sake, let's say the allegations from Hill and Ford are true.

Would it matter for one second to you?

What are the allegations by Ford?

It would not matter what he did to me, Bill Clinton set the standard of what is allowed.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by davew

What are the allegations by Ford?

It would not matter what he did to me, Bill Clinton set the standard of what is allowed.

The point is that, according to staunch conservatives, sexual assault is only a crime
when it is committed by a liberal. This makes them completely without any trace of credibility,
and shows how pointless it is to argue any issue with any of them. Rat bastards.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

The point is that, according to staunch conservatives, sexual assault is only a crime
when it is committed by a liberal. This makes them completely without any trace of credibility,
and shows how pointless it is to argue any issue with any of them. Rat bastards.

I adhere to Rep. Ellison's (d) philosophy. The woman needs to be heard, but not believed. I also, adhere to attorney Debra Katz's philosophy that context is everything and that the briefness of the behavior is important. ( see Katz's statements while defending Sen. Franken (d) and William Jefferson Clinton (d) against sexual assault allegations)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I give up. You are worse here than the religious thread.n The FBI does criminal investigations and "background investigations" Yes Kavanaugh has had 5 or 6 "background investigations" The latest being for the Supreme court. The essence of the question is should and could the FBI re open the latest one. Answer. When new information is uncovered not examined by the latest, the president has the authority to have the FBI re open it.

In fact that's why a new "background investigations" is required for each new office applied for or confirmed for the same individual. Things change all the time.

But the game is rethug politics being run by the majority knowing damn well their time is running out. Of course so are the dems playing politics. But the midterms do not scare the hell out of them as it terrifies the rethugs.

BTW, just in case you babble nonsense that the FBI only does "background investigations" on federal employees.

The "background investigations" is not being done on Dr. Ford a "civilian", it is being done on Kavanauh

You are denser than a rock! You keep conflating routine background checks with specific criminal investigations. The two are very different. Since Mr. K has passed the former more than once, and nothing was discovered (no arrests, no outstanding warrants,no parking tickets, no convictions), then it would be futile to ask the FBI to conduct another background check, unless of course you think the FBI is that incompetent that they missed something with all the previous routine background checks. It's not as though this alleged crime was committed recently and escaped under the radar of relatively recent background checks. The alleged crime is over 35 years old! Get that through your thick skull!

However, if you think the FBI should investigate a specific alleged crime that was committed over 35 years ago, that, sir, is an entirely different matter. The alleged crime is NOT a federal crime. The FBI has no jurisdictional authority to go into some other jurisdiction's backyard and play in its sandbox. Neither Ford or K were federal employees in their teens, as were Hill and Thomas. Jurisdictional authority, therefore, resides solely in Maryland.

And number two, as I pointed out last night in the link I posted, the FBI also has no constitutional authority to investigate the alleged crime since the accuser went public, unlike Anita Hill. Once she went public she shot herself in the foot. The only investigative body who has constitutional authority to investigate this matter now is the Senate. To Grassley's credit he's got this right and I hope he sticks by his guns. But even if he doesn't, he doesn't have the authority to order the FBI to investigate. Only Trump does but he will stand his ground because he knows the FBI has no jurisdictional authority.

I know you hate it when pesky little laws get in the way -- you know...like the Constitution, jurisdictional issues, etc. -- but hey -- life always sucks raw eggs for guys like you whenever you want to stand the law on its head.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

No you do...

THE FBI Have No Jurisdiction in a case of a 35 year old civil matter that the local Constable would not look into on the provided accusation.

Is that clear Inspector Clouseau

Are you suggesting that Ford is a day late and a dollar short?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

No you do...

THE FBI Have No Jurisdiction in a case of a 35 year old civil matter that the local Constable would not look into on the provided accusation.

Is that clear Inspector Clouseau

Can you Prove that Sherlock?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by bollixed-up-car

You are denser than a rock! You keep conflating routine background checks with specific criminal investigations. The two are very different.

I have never done this. You have bunky

Since Mr. K has passed the former more than once, and nothing was discovered (no arrests, no outstanding warrants,no parking tickets, no convictions), then it would be futile to ask the FBI to conduct another background check, unless of course you think the FBI is that incompetent that they missed something with all the previous routine background checks. It's not as though this alleged crime was committed recently and escaped under the radar of relatively recent background checks. The alleged crime is over 35 years old! Get that through your thick skull!

I have repeatedly told you the current and latest B.I. can be updated. In the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas it was done by Chairman Joe Biden and ranking members asking president George H.W. Bush to by authorizing the FBI to do so.

What's different pebble brain?

The fight over reopening the FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, explained
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tion-kavanaugh

Grassley’s correct — the FBI’s background investigation is closed. But there’s nothing to stop the FBI from reopening or adding to it.

In fact, in 1991, the agency did just that, at the request of then-President George H.W. Bush, when Anita Hill made sexual harassment allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. The FBI investigated and wrote a report that eventually led the White House to declare that Hill’s allegations were unfounded.

Back then, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — who was and still is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — called it “the very right thing to do.”

That’s in stark contrast to the tweet his office posted on Tuesday claiming that the “FBI does not do investigations like this” and that the “responsibility falls to us.”

Here Grassley commends re opening at approx the 3 minute makk as the right thing to do

YouTube (Short URL)

[davew]

hcap, do you know what Hill was charging?
was Ford at a federal workplace?

[chadk66]

This discussion has become rather comical.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by davew

hcap, do you know what Hill was charging?
was Ford at a federal workplace?

Sexual harassment.

What difference does it make whether or not Ford was at a federal workplace?. THE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION IS BEING CONDUCTED ON KLAVANAUH, NOT FORD

[Clocker]

Grassley bends over, says stick it to me again. Ford's lawyer refused to respond to yesterday's deadline to notify the Senate as to whether or not she would be willing to testify. That was the fifth extension of time granted by the Senate.

“Your cavalier treatment of a sexual assault survivor who has been doing her best to cooperate with the committee is completely inappropriate,” Katz wrote as she demanded an additional day’s delay in giving an answer.

The new demand comes after almost a full business week since first being offered the opportunity to testify in any one of a number of ways, including in open committee and behind closed doors, as to her allegation that Kavanaugh and another teenager attacked and groped her at a high school party more than 35 years ago.

Grassley granted yet another extension until today, Saturday. He issued a series of tweets that essentially said, "I can't get no respect." Gee, I wonder why not. Tweets at:

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...inal-deadline/

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I have never done this. You have bunky

I have repeatedly told you the current and latest B.I. can be updated. In the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas it was done by Chairman Joe Biden and ranking members asking president George H.W. Bush to by authorizing the FBI to do so.

That's because Hill did not go public with her accusations AND because Hill and Thomas, when the incident(s) allegedly took place were both federal employees. That is not the case with Ford and Kavanaugh. You're comparing apples to oranges.

And since, Ford has gone public with her accusations against a SC nominee, those accusations now becomes public business and fall squarely within the public domain of the Senate that is the only constitutionally-ordained body that is authorized to investigate into those charges. The FBI has NO constitutional authority. And the FBI has no jurisdictional authority because of the differences between the two sets of circumstances.

What's different pebble brain?

The fight over reopening the FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh, explained
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...tion-kavanaugh

Grassley’s correct — the FBI’s background investigation is closed. But there’s nothing to stop the FBI from reopening or adding to it.

Yes, there is. The Constitution and the jurisdictional issues

In fact, in 1991, the agency did just that, at the request of then-President George H.W. Bush, when Anita Hill made sexual harassment allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. The FBI investigated and wrote a report that eventually led the White House to declare that Hill’s allegations were unfounded.

Back then, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) — who was and still is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — called it “the very right thing to do.”

That’s in stark contrast to the tweet his office posted on Tuesday claiming that the “FBI does not do investigations like this” and that the “responsibility falls to us.”

He's absolutely right due to the two differences stated above. Get it through your thick skull: The Thomas/Hill and Kavanaugh/Ford circumstances are NOT apples to apples. They are different!

Here Grassley commends re opening at approx the 3 minute makk as the right thing to do

https://youtu.be/Tw7iPO1bO1U

Then he's an idiot. He doesn't know the Constitution. Either that, or as Fast said last night, Grassley is playing the perception card because he knows the Senate cannot order such an investigation. Only the president does and it's very doubtful that Trump would go diametrically against the grains of the Constitution and jurisdictional law.