I have been the subject of an FBI Background Investigation a number of years ago (for a Top Secrect Clearance) and I can affirm that they do, in fact, dredge up people from all over that ever knew the subject of the investigation. They interviewed next-door neighbors of my parents in other states that we'd lived near when I was a mere child. I cannot believe that in the 6 BIs that had already been concluded on Judge Kavanaugh that anything of this seriousness could have been passed over.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by lbj:

quote:

Originally posted by Tuckerrnr1:
Dianne Feinstein proves that California banning straws has not stopped Democrats from sucking.

CUT for the funny man.

Thank you sir, I will get back to you with my requested cut.

^^ Congrats! Don't forget to close the Bat Cave door when you pull into the reserved parking!

quote:

Originally posted by BGULL:
My rather limited Twitter feeds suggest that the backup line of Democratic attack is to go more into Kananaugh’s characterization of his drinking vs. possibly contemporary accounts that differ. Nothing matters but keep going until something sticks to derail this nomination.

That's the one thing they think they can cobble an argument together about - that he drank a lot despite claiming that he didn't drink that much and was otherwise pretty much a Boy Scout.

The beauty of that for them is that it plays into a classic stereotype about drunk white men getting violent and raping people who aren't drunk white men. Lace it with a soupcon of "aaand they were part of the priviledged elite!", and it smells like magic to a Dem.

The beauty of that from the perspective of the forces of truth, righteousness and liberty is twofold. The more important aspect of it is that Kavanaugh's got an otherwise clean sheet whereas the accusations are not entirely supported by Ford's testimony and are utterly uncorroborated. The less important, but somehow kinda funnier aspect is that the stereotype they're trying to play to isn't really all that vivid a bugaboo for anyone outside of the more progressive knitting circles in the more liberal enclaves of some of the bigger cities. As you can see if you look around, even in the MSM and in digital points to the MSM's left, the whole "he was a raging drunk who can't remember everything he did when he was drinking" thing just isn't getting much traction out there.

To paraphrase Pogo, on this front of the Kavanaugh mess "we has called the enemy's raise and he seems to have peanuts in his hand".

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

It's only because no victims have come forward to file a complaint. They made it clear. But, what do you think the maggots are doing right now? That's right. Digging for more "victims".

As someone said previous, they are now going to pursue a strategy that goes after his drinking. Reports now are that some Yale classmate, some guy who is no doubt a hard leftist, is going to recount to the FBI stories of a drunken, out of control Kavanaugh during his college years. It'll be pure bull of course.

So now they're shifting the focus of their attacks toward him being a heavy drinker in his youth to somehow back up Miss Mouse's testimony. Of course, somehow we're to believe that the FBI missed all of this during their first six background checks. Sure.

On cue here you go.

quote:

On cue here you go.

Yeah, but take a look at that. She referred to two specific incidents, "several" times when she got drunk when she was around Kavanaugh (and was never assaulted, apparently), aaaannnddd...nothing. She talked about how she played two sports, her academic career, her family, her friends. She talked about what life was like at Yale. She made some wonderfully vague comments about how important the truth is and how people should never lie, I guess as a follow-up to mentioning that she "felt" that several of Kavanaugh's answers in the Committee hearing were somehow "evasive". But she said nothing more that could be considered to be a factual statement about Kavanaugh.

I'm sure there are those that will try to pursue this line of media inquiry. But how could anyone not burst out laughing when even Chris Cuomo there finally had give up on getting anything truly earthshaking out of Lynne Brookes and in a burst of frustration asked her whether Kavanaugh was a virgin when he was at Yale?!?!? I mean, what was she supposed to say, "Yeah, I fucked him on the couch one night."?

Man, at least on present evidence, I just don't think there's much to the whole drinking angle there. Remember, even he drank, that doesn't prove that he attacked Ford - which is why Cuomo had to go through that whole rigamarole about this being a test of Kavanaugh's trustworthiness in general.

Maybe some lawyers, and difi, will have to answer for their actions regarding Ford.

When I hear democrats scream that this is not a trial and there is no presumption of innocence (scary stuff considering it's coming from many of our elected officials), I'm reminded of a drumhead trial.

"We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again." ~Captain Jean-Luc Picard, The Drumhead

Tin foil hat time? Dems know Kavanaugh is getting the nod. Made deal with Republicans to do investigation to make it look like they actually accomplished anything at all in this mess.

They all point fingers at each other during elections. It was that guy on the other side that made this happen. Every career politician gets re-elected and politics goes on as usual.

quote:

Originally posted by jezsuiz:
Tin foil hat time? Dems know Kavanaugh is getting the nod. Made deal with Republicans to do investigation to make it look like they actually accomplished anything at all in this mess.

They all point fingers at each other during elections. It was that guy on the other side that made this happen. Every career politician gets re-elected and politics goes on as usual.

That hat is way too tight for you.

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
Maybe some lawyers, and difi, will have to answer for their actions regarding Ford.

...

Ol' GDC water boy Dickerson found hisself touchin' Cotton. Not a feeling he was expecting.

Mancrush on Tom Cotton, fer sure.

I couldn't help but laugh out loud at this. Flake is truly a man without a country.

Hah! Jeff Flake Welcomes Audience to Global Citizen Festival with Chris Coons– Audience Yells “F*ck You!” –VIDEO
Jim Hoft by Jim Hoft September 29, 2018

Earlier in the day on Friday Senator Jeff Flake announced he would vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh out of the Judiciary Committee.

Then he got cornered in an elevator by a screaming leftist for 4 minutes.

About an hour later and after several private talks with Democrats Jeff Flake came out and announced he would only vote for Brett Kavanaugh if an investigation continued on the man for another week.

This was exactly what Democrats were hoping for!
On Friday night it was revealed the women screaming at Flake were astro-turfed Soros activist leaders.

On Saturday Sen. Jeff Flake joined his friend liberal Senator Chris Coons at the Global Citizen Festival.

The two politicians joined together on stage to open the festival.
Jeff Flake smiled and welcomed the crowd. He told them, “Feel free to join me in an elevator any time.”

The Audience Shouted, “F*ck You!”

Stupid RINOs never learn.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.c...yells-fck-you-video/

Rachel Mitchell's analysis
http://apps.washingtonpost.com...hells-analysis/3221/

---

---

Mitchell says she would not bring criminal charges against Kavanaugh in memo

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...st-kavanaugh-in-memo

By Edmund DeMarche | Fox News


Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Christine Blasey Ford last week, wrote in a memo released late Sunday that there were inconsistencies in Ford's testimony and that-- given the information at hand-- she would not bring criminal charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Mitchell, who was hired by the Senate Judiciary Committee to assist Republicans, addressed the letter to “All Republican Senators,” and said no senator approved the memo. She noted in the assessment that she is a Republican, but said she is not a political person.


She identified Ford's case as an example of “he said, she said,” and said her case is “even weaker than that.”

Ford, a California psychology professor, claims Kavanaugh assaulted her while at a house party in the 1980s when they were both teenagers. She said he pinned her to a bed, attempted to forcibly remove her clothes and prevented her from screaming.

Ford said she was "100 precent" certain that Kavanaugh was her attacker.

Kavanaugh has vehemently denied the allegations.

Mitchell, who worked as a sex-crimes prosecutor for nearly 25 years in Arizona, pointed out what she identified as timing inconsistencies. She wrote that Ford appeared to jump around on the timing of the alleged sexual assault, ranging from the “mid 1980s” to “early 1980s,” and then the “summer of 1982.”

“While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year,” she wrote.

Mitchell also pointed out that Ford has a history of struggling to name Kavanaugh as her attacker. Mitchell noted that his name was not in notes from her 2012 marriage therapy or her individual therapy in 2013.

Ford also appears unable to remember key elements about the incident, Mitchell wrote. She does not recall how she got to the party or back home and she does not remember the house where the alleged assault took place.

She said Ford’s account has not been corroborated by anyone who she identified as attending the party, including a “lifelong friend.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa., said last week that he hired Mitchell because he wanted a hearing that “is safe, comfortable and dignified” for both Ford and Kavanaugh. He said the “goal” of Mitchell’s hiring is to “de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns.”

Since the hearing, President Trump ordered the FBI to conduct a limited, one-week "supplemental" background investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh.

Mitchell pointed out that the Senate confirmation hearing is not a trial, but she said she provided her assessment based on a legal context.

Turn about is fair play - if its not a trial, there's nothing preventing her from laying out a clear outline of all the reasons she found Kavanaugh more credible than Ford.

In my opinion, anytime LE wants to talk to you... get your lawyer!

quote:

Originally posted by jezsuiz:
Tin foil hat time? Dems know Kavanaugh is getting the nod. Made deal with Republicans to do investigation to make it look like they actually accomplished anything at all in this mess.

Keep ridiculous shit like this out of this thread.

2012BOSS' post on the previous page has a very good interview w Sen Tom Cotton.

It looks like the REP strategy is shaping up as:

- Only lightly attack Ford by emphasizing that for all the other people she identified at the gathering, none of them remember the event.

- push that Ford has been "victimized" by Feinstein for not handling the claim in a confidential manner

- push that Ford's lawyers (one recommended by Feinstein) also victimized Ford by hiding from her the offer to privately interview in CA

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

link to Rachel Mitchell's analysis

http://apps.washingtonpost.com...hells-analysis/3221/

or here

https://assets.documentcloud.o...chell-s-analysis.pdf

This report is worth a read

Mitchell bottom line:




adding: I have criticized Rachel Mitchell in other posts. But let me say now, this is one powerful and well written memo from her.

I wonder if the haters now see the logic in having a person like Mitchell question Dr Ford.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Mitchell bottom line:



adding: I have criticized Rachel Mitchell in other posts. But let me say now, this is one powerful and well written memo from her.

I agree with all that sdy posted above. Rachel Mitchell's report is worth a read.

I would also like to emphasize:

The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.
• See the included timeline for details.

The Democrats, led by Feinstein, have been on a mission to sink the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh by any means, no matter what it takes. The Democrats chose her attorneys. Chrissy Ford did not pay them, they were working with and for the Democrats, sometimes to the detriment of their "client".

So to me, it appears Franken-Feinstein submitted the letter to the SJC? without the express permission from Ford, as she had promised from the get-go. Yeah...that dog don't hunt. And just who in the hell goes STRAIGHT to the newspapers with a story like this?? I wouldn't even know who to call at our local rag. I'd deal with this straight through/with an attorney. JSMH...