Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Clinton has allegations like Trump, Kavanaugh, and Roy Moore but you worship those 3. Booker was a 15 year old consensually making out with another 15 year old. Ellison did not beat his ex. And Kennedy was before my time and I don’t care, but it was an accident. He did not intend to kill her while rapists like Kavanaugh do intend to rape.Just posting the facts traitor.^ Lol this rape enabler’s posting phony graphics calling for victims to be believed, while he spends his time enabling rapists and demonizing women.
I think you got that backwards.`
Never go to school with people you think will be politicians. But if you do, document, document, document.
You got BlackFag on defense. Won't change Democrat dirty tricks, but they know they've been exposed.Just posting the facts traitor.^ Lol this rape enabler’s posting phony graphics calling for victims to be believed, while he spends his time enabling rapists and demonizing women.
Wow, you are more deranged than I thought.Clinton has allegations like Trump, Kavanaugh, and Roy Moore but you worship those 3. Booker was a 15 year old consensually making out with another 15 year old. Ellison did not beat his ex. And Kennedy was before my time and I don’t care, but it was an accident. He did not intend to kill her while rapists like Kavanaugh do intend to rape.Just posting the facts traitor.^ Lol this rape enabler’s posting phony graphics calling for victims to be believed, while he spends his time enabling rapists and demonizing women.
Clinton, unlike all the others you spew about, lied under oath. He's a criminal pos. Kennedy may have had an accident, but leaving her to drown was no accident, criminal lover.Clinton has allegations like Trump, Kavanaugh, and Roy Moore but you worship those 3. Booker was a 15 year old consensually making out with another 15 year old. Ellison did not beat his ex. And Kennedy was before my time and I don’t care, but it was an accident. He did not intend to kill her while rapists like Kavanaugh do intend to rape.Just posting the facts traitor.^ Lol this rape enabler’s posting phony graphics calling for victims to be believed, while he spends his time enabling rapists and demonizing women.
Ford named four witnesses. They have all denied that this incident ever happened. What would be phase two of the investigation?A background check is not an "investigation"
A background check relies on documentation from other agencies and government bodies, as well as interviews with select people to corroborate any documentation provided.
Kavenaugh has already been through numerous background checks by the FBI due to his multiple involvements with federal positions.
I used the wrong term. The FBI uses the term background investigations, as it relates to judicial nominees.
And that has already been done. Considering none of these accusations have any corroborating paperwork, we are left with the statements of all parties, which will happen at the hearing.
The background investigation may be re-opened. It's a political decision, not a legal one.
Why? The whole point of a background check is to provide information to the person appointing the subject, and in this case to the committee voting on their nomination.
Since there is no documentation of either of these accusations, a further check would be pointless.
Right. In an ethical administration, the man making the appointment would request the FBI look into Blasey Ford's allegations, including questioning any alleged witnesses.
I know that's out of the question.
You're the one defending rapists killers and liars.You got BlackFag on defense. Won't change Democrat dirty tricks, but they know they've been exposed.Just posting the facts traitor.^ Lol this rape enabler’s posting phony graphics calling for victims to be believed, while he spends his time enabling rapists and demonizing women.
Ford named four witnesses. They have all denied that this incident ever happened. What would be phase two of the investigation?I used the wrong term. The FBI uses the term background investigations, as it relates to judicial nominees.
And that has already been done. Considering none of these accusations have any corroborating paperwork, we are left with the statements of all parties, which will happen at the hearing.
The background investigation may be re-opened. It's a political decision, not a legal one.
Why? The whole point of a background check is to provide information to the person appointing the subject, and in this case to the committee voting on their nomination.
Since there is no documentation of either of these accusations, a further check would be pointless.
Right. In an ethical administration, the man making the appointment would request the FBI look into Blasey Ford's allegations, including questioning any alleged witnesses.
I know that's out of the question.
`If you're a conservative entering politics, document, document, document.
Do democrats being hypocritical dismiss the validity of the statement or do you disagree with the premise of the statement all together?
Kennedy was a million years ago, and my generation doesn’t know or care about him. I was too young to vote for or against Clinton, but it shocks me that conservatives now use Clinton to defend rapists they support.Clinton, unlike all the others you spew about, lied under oath. He's a criminal pos. Kennedy may have had an accident, but leaving her to drown was no accident, criminal lover.Clinton has allegations like Trump, Kavanaugh, and Roy Moore but you worship those 3. Booker was a 15 year old consensually making out with another 15 year old. Ellison did not beat his ex. And Kennedy was before my time and I don’t care, but it was an accident. He did not intend to kill her while rapists like Kavanaugh do intend to rape.Just posting the facts traitor.^ Lol this rape enabler’s posting phony graphics calling for victims to be believed, while he spends his time enabling rapists and demonizing women.
You created this thread to defend a rapist and liar.You're the one defending rapists killers and liars.You got BlackFag on defense. Won't change Democrat dirty tricks, but they know they've been exposed.Just posting the facts traitor.^ Lol this rape enabler’s posting phony graphics calling for victims to be believed, while he spends his time enabling rapists and demonizing women.
A background check is not an "investigation"
A background check relies on documentation from other agencies and government bodies, as well as interviews with select people to corroborate any documentation provided.
Kavenaugh has already been through numerous background checks by the FBI due to his multiple involvements with federal positions.
I used the wrong term. The FBI uses the term background investigations, as it relates to judicial nominees.
And that has already been done. Considering none of these accusations have any corroborating paperwork, we are left with the statements of all parties, which will happen at the hearing.
The background investigation may be re-opened. It's a political decision, not a legal one.
Why? The whole point of a background check is to provide information to the person appointing the subject, and in this case to the committee voting on their nomination.
Since there is no documentation of either of these accusations, a further check would be pointless.
Right. In an ethical administration, the man making the appointment would request the FBI look into Blasey Ford's allegations, including questioning any alleged witnesses.
I know that's out of the question.
I used the wrong term. The FBI uses the term background investigations, as it relates to judicial nominees.
And that has already been done. Considering none of these accusations have any corroborating paperwork, we are left with the statements of all parties, which will happen at the hearing.
The background investigation may be re-opened. It's a political decision, not a legal one.
Why? The whole point of a background check is to provide information to the person appointing the subject, and in this case to the committee voting on their nomination.
Since there is no documentation of either of these accusations, a further check would be pointless.
Right. In an ethical administration, the man making the appointment would request the FBI look into Blasey Ford's allegations, including questioning any alleged witnesses.
I know that's out of the question.
How about in an ethical opposition they release any accusations ahead of time instead of waiting until the last minute?
Thou doth protest too much.
Plus these accusations have ZERO credible documentation to them.
`I grant you the last-minute nature bringing this forward arouses pushback. It's the nature of sexual assault that it normally occurs in private, and that there is zero documentation absent immediate reporting and a rape kit.
And that has already been done. Considering none of these accusations have any corroborating paperwork, we are left with the statements of all parties, which will happen at the hearing.
The background investigation may be re-opened. It's a political decision, not a legal one.
Why? The whole point of a background check is to provide information to the person appointing the subject, and in this case to the committee voting on their nomination.
Since there is no documentation of either of these accusations, a further check would be pointless.
Right. In an ethical administration, the man making the appointment would request the FBI look into Blasey Ford's allegations, including questioning any alleged witnesses.
I know that's out of the question.
How about in an ethical opposition they release any accusations ahead of time instead of waiting until the last minute?
Thou doth protest too much.
Plus these accusations have ZERO credible documentation to them.
I grant you the last-minute nature bringing this forward arouses pushback. It's the nature of sexual assault that it normally occurs in private, and that there is zero documentation absent immediate reporting and a rape kit.
Did you bother reading this new woman’s account? She was shitfaced drunk and had no idea who it was. Totally unreliable testimony and the people there already refute it.`
`Brett Kavanaugh's prospects of being confirmed to the Supreme Court suffered another major setback on Sunday night when a second woman accused him of sexual assault decades ago, and a prominent lawyer took to Twitter claiming a third woman has "credible information" on the high court nominee.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are investigating another allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, according to The New Yorker. Deborah Ramirez, who is 53, told the magazine that when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale in the 1983-84 academic school year, she remembers that he “exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away.”
Kavanaugh flatly denied the allegation, calling it a last-minute smear. But his confirmation now appears to be in serious doubt. Most Senate Republicans had vowed to push forward with his nomination after securing a Thursday hearing with Christine Blasey Ford, who went public a week ago with her allegation that Kavanaugh sexually attacked her at a high school party.- Source
`
When it rains, it pours. Poor Brett can't seem to get a break here.
`
The background investigation may be re-opened. It's a political decision, not a legal one.
Why? The whole point of a background check is to provide information to the person appointing the subject, and in this case to the committee voting on their nomination.
Since there is no documentation of either of these accusations, a further check would be pointless.
Right. In an ethical administration, the man making the appointment would request the FBI look into Blasey Ford's allegations, including questioning any alleged witnesses.
I know that's out of the question.
How about in an ethical opposition they release any accusations ahead of time instead of waiting until the last minute?
Thou doth protest too much.
Plus these accusations have ZERO credible documentation to them.
I grant you the last-minute nature bringing this forward arouses pushback. It's the nature of sexual assault that it normally occurs in private, and that there is zero documentation absent immediate reporting and a rape kit.
Also, 30+ years later and none of the named witnesses remember anything happening.
And not date, time or location has been given.
What the last minute thing arouses is confirmed assumption of this being nothing more than a political hit job.
