PDA

View Full Version : Lindsey Graham Explodes On Senate Committee Over Kavanaugh Process



Pages : 1 [2]

Hoosier8
09-30-2018, 04:59 PM
And so you change the subject...
No they won't.

Not keeping up with current events eh?

Captain Obvious
09-30-2018, 04:59 PM
False testimony is not evidence. It's perjury.

And slander.

... or libel, I can never fucking remember.

stjames1_53
09-30-2018, 04:59 PM
They went looking for her.

They paid for her lawyers.

They paid her way to DC

They paid her expenses.

There you go. You won't buy it because you're a hack but there it is.

I'd like to see the FBI dig up her deleted social media accounts, in their entirety.....you know, the ones she deleted

Hoosier8
09-30-2018, 05:00 PM
Testimony IS evidence.

You mean where she could remember little like who drove her home?

Body language expert reads Fords testimony.


https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI

Captain Obvious
09-30-2018, 05:11 PM
You mean where she could remember little like who drove her home?

Body language expert reads Fords testimony.


https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/72/af/0d72afe775ed3952d7b3ea4e3ef1b88f.gif

gamewell45
09-30-2018, 05:13 PM
How is it apparent?

To me while watching he did not appear to be genuine; then i found this opinion piece:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/david-brock-this-whole-thing-is-phony-graham-is-trying-to-help-himself/vp-BBNImod

I'm hearing on television more and more stories about Graham and how he operates which only further cements in my mind that his speech castigating democrats did not come from his heart but from his brain figuring out what career moves this might get him.

Hoosier8
09-30-2018, 05:22 PM
https://youtu.be/zTeTHh_8CqI

jet57
09-30-2018, 05:58 PM
It has to be credible.

...unless you're a partisan hack

Trump said she was credible. Everybody said she was credible.

stjames1_53
09-30-2018, 06:04 PM
Trump said she was credible. Everybody said she was credible.

no one is denying something happened. She's been a disposable tool for the DNC gangsters. So they've doubled down twice on her. She was promised complete and total confidentiality. Boy was she wrong about that.
Then they make her publically relive that moment. A moment she doesn't remember where or when and no one will go on record to support her statement.
The real culprits here are Feinstein and Waters...........
What if the FBI comes back empty-handed...........you're not about to let this go............so, why care if your mind is made up?

Tahuyaman
09-30-2018, 06:04 PM
Graham always does what he says.

No. He’s a two faced weasel.

Captain Obvious
09-30-2018, 06:05 PM
Trump said she was credible. Everybody said she was credible.

Suddenly Trump's opinion is valid with this crowd.

:biglaugh:

You hacks are amazing.

I know that's good enough for you, that was pretty much the point but thanks for slam dunking it for me.

Captdon
09-30-2018, 07:19 PM
To me while watching he did not appear to be genuine; then i found this opinion piece:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/david-brock-this-whole-thing-is-phony-graham-is-trying-to-help-himself/vp-BBNImod

I'm hearing on television more and more stories about Graham and how he operates which only further cements in my mind that his speech castigating democrats did not come from his heart but from his brain figuring out what career moves this might get him.

You have to do better than a MSN commentator.

Captdon
09-30-2018, 07:24 PM
Trump said she was credible. Everybody said she was credible.

Hilarious. Trump is believable now? He only says that to keep the women from going all ape-shit.

Captdon
09-30-2018, 07:25 PM
Trump said she was credible. Everybody said she was credible.

Being credible is an impression. A good liar can act credible.

Captdon
09-30-2018, 07:27 PM
No. He’s a two faced weasel.

And you are afraid to admit you're wrong. There's a reason he isn't well-liked here but you don't know what you're talking about. We know full well he thinks he can deal with the other side.

If a well-funded, known Republican would run against him he wouldn't be in the Senate.

See, you're surprised at him doing this and we aren't. He knows we want Kavanaugh on the court and he won't buck us. We didn't care about the liberals so much because Obama was going to put one on no matter what.

You have an opinion and I have facts.

Captdon
09-30-2018, 07:37 PM
You mean where she could remember little like who drove her home?

Body language expert reads Fords testimony.



I can buy that. You would remember who drove her there. She said he friend was there and her friend says she wasn't. All I needed to know.

Whatever happened to her it wasn't this. She claims she never talked about until therapy bit testified she had. She said she didn't tell her husband until therapy but testified she didn't tell him until after they were married.

Graham say the same thing and blasted the Democrats for an obvious scam.

Cletus
09-30-2018, 08:44 PM
Testimony IS evidence.

A single eyewitness without corroborating evidence is really nothing, at all.

Hoosier8
09-30-2018, 08:47 PM
BREAKING: A classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Yale has sent a tip into the Senate Judiciary Committee identifying a fraternity brother known for exposing himself as the likely boy who exposed himself to Debbie Ramirez.

Ramirez refused to send a statement to the Senate Judiciary committee under oath.

Abby08
09-30-2018, 09:00 PM
Testimony is NOT evidence. Testimony is no more than answering the questions asked of you, about relaying events, as you remember/precieved them.

Common Sense
09-30-2018, 09:20 PM
Testimony is NOT evidence. Testimony is no more than answering the questions asked of you, about relaying events, as you remember/precieved them.
Technically speaking testimony is indeed a form of evidence. At least according to the law.

stjames1_53
10-01-2018, 05:43 AM
Technically speaking testimony is indeed a form of evidence. At least according to the law.

evidence is not testimony....you never went to law school, nor really know anything about Due Process. A statement needs some sort of physical evidence, or multiple corroborations to be evidence.
You can say he did it, but where's your proof? You have no proof. you have no proof. No proof.
Hell, she can't even corroborate her own statement.
Common Sense: "I got this here c*ckroach. He claims to have witnessed the attacks. all of them. But he's unable to testify in court, so we should believe it."
You gave no idea what "evidence" is.................evidence is proof of a statement. All she's done is make a statement without proof. She even admits that.
She doesn't know where or when, other than it was on a weekend.
She cannot remember how she got there or how she got home. Who's the blackout drunk?

Well, we know she's committed perjury:
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/101371-Ford-and-Kavanaugh-Senate-Hearing/page56
She can't even remember what she does for a living.

stjames1_53
10-01-2018, 05:48 AM
I'd like to see the FBI walk into Facebook's main office with a search warrant and get her old account that she deleted.
If she had nothing to hide, why did she delete it? It could have been the evidence she needs to back up her claim, or utterly destroy her

Hoosier8
10-01-2018, 07:00 AM
Technically speaking testimony is indeed a form of evidence. At least according to the law.

She made an accusation. Testimony would come from others backing her allegation.

Hoosier8
10-01-2018, 07:03 AM
The real reason for the second door.

https://i.redd.it/vdfjfznrz9p11.jpg

jet57
10-01-2018, 07:37 AM
A single eyewitness without corroborating evidence is really nothing, at all.

A single eye witness who is believed by everybody IS something quite significant and has been enough to convict many.

Hoosier8
10-01-2018, 07:48 AM
A single eye witness who is believed by everybody IS something quite significant and has been enough to convict many.
That would be an eyewitness for the prosecution of which there are none.

There is not even any circumstantial evidence. The accuser’s story has changed throughout. The accuser refuses to turn over evidence of her own claims.

No jury would convict a man based on such flimsy nonsense, unless of course, it is a jury of liberals that want to destroy innocent men because of their agenda.

stjames1_53
10-01-2018, 08:01 AM
A single eye witness who is believed by everybody IS something quite significant and has been enough to convict many.

so, where is the single eye witness?

Trish
10-01-2018, 08:09 AM
I'd like to introduce another fact into this discussion.

Background checks for government jobs. A false narrative has been put out by the Republicans that the previous 6 FBI background checks should be sufficient. Nothing was found. This is misleading, albeit intentionally I'm sure.

Potential government employees are required to go through as many FBI background checks as is necessary. When a background check is conducted it is based on information that the FBI receives from the individual being investigated.

Let me repeat this because it's important. The FBI bases it's initial investigation on information received and provided by the individual being investigated.

When the FBI conducts the investigation, they speak to the people that are named or associated with the information the individual provided.

BUT, whenever new information comes forward the FBI must open the file back up and perform a supplemental investigation.

EVERY government employee goes through multiple background checks throughout their career. Some are performed annually, some every 3 - 5 years depending on the level of security the employee holds.

The suggestion that new allegations or information cannot be considered or investigated is a lie.

There is a reason why EVERY POTENTIAL OR PERMANENT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE MULTIPLE BACKGROUND CHECKS whenever new information comes forward or is learned.

It keeps us honest.

Anyone who is opposed to investigating new information does not understand what the process is or has an agenda.

stjames1_53
10-01-2018, 08:25 AM
I'd like to introduce another fact into this discussion.

Background checks for government jobs. A false narrative has been put out by the Republicans that the previous 6 FBI background checks should be sufficient. Nothing was found. This is misleading, albeit intentionally I'm sure.

Potential government employees are required to go through as many FBI background checks as is necessary. When a background check is conducted it is based on information that the FBI receives from the individual being investigated.

Let me repeat this because it's important. The FBI bases it's initial investigation on information received and provided by the individual being investigated.

When the FBI conducts the investigation, they speak to the people that are named or associated with the information the individual provided.

BUT, whenever new information comes forward the FBI must open the file back up and perform a supplemental investigation.

EVERY government employee goes through multiple background checks throughout their career. Some are performed annually, some every 3 - 5 years depending on the level of security the employee holds.

The suggestion that new allegations or information cannot be considered or investigated is a lie.

There is a reason why EVERY POTENTIAL OR PERMANENT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE MULTIPLE BACKGROUND CHECKS whenever new information comes forward or is learned.

It keeps us honest.

Anyone who is opposed to investigating new information does not understand what the process is or has an agenda.

and yet Feinstein held on to this information for 2 months so it could be used against Kavanaugh, without Due Process.
So where did it happen, who all was there that can objectively testify, when, exactly did it happen?
You are aware that there is no statute of limitations on rape charges in Maine, right?
Why didn't Ford go to the local authorities when she "discovered" who she claimed her attacker to be, instead of floating it over to Feinstein?

Trish
10-01-2018, 08:31 AM
and yet Feinstein held on to this information for 2 months so it could be used against Kavanaugh, without Due Process.
So where did it happen, who all was there that can objectively testify, when, exactly did it happen?
You are aware that there is no statute of limitations on rape charges in Maine, right?
Why didn't Ford go to the local authorities when she "discovered" who she claimed her attacker to be, instead of floating it over to Feinstein?

My comment is focused solely on the false narrative surrounding the FBI background check process.

I've helped develop policy on them, I've ordered them, and I've been through them......multiple times.

stjames1_53
10-01-2018, 08:42 AM
My comment is focused solely on the false narrative surrounding the FBI background check process.

I've helped develop policy on them, I've ordered them, and I've been through them......multiple times.

Feinstein did not turn over the letter until the last second after holding it for 2 months. Does that mean nothing in regards to said background check? All of this could have been handled long before the fricking democrats destroyed a man and his family.
Timing is everything........................
If the Democrats are willing to destroy everything Trump I guess I can wait for them to knock on my door...............
This was pure bovine excrement, and you know it.

Trish
10-01-2018, 09:01 AM
Feinstein did not turn over the letter until the last second after holding it for 2 months. Does that mean nothing in regards to said background check? All of this could have been handled long before the fricking democrats destroyed a man and his family.
Timing is everything........................
If the Democrats are willing to destroy everything Trump I guess I can wait for them to knock on my door...............
This was pure bovine excrement, and you know it.

You're not going to like my answer. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter. That is a separate issue. Whatever Ms. Feinstein did or didn't do has no impact on whether the FBI should be investigating new information.

I thought I saw another article which stated Feinstein was going to be investigated for her handling of the letter. If that happens it will address your comments and concerns.

Cletus
10-01-2018, 09:43 AM
My comment is focused solely on the false narrative surrounding the FBI background check process.

I've helped develop policy on them, I've ordered them, and I've been through them......multiple times.

The thing is, they didn't really say what you said they said.
The point they were making is that if these allegations had some basis in reality, it is highly likely that during the course of the 6 previous BIs, someone would have mentioned that Kavanaugh was involved in or suspected of being involved this kind of conduct. BIs START with the information provided by the subject of the investigation, but they are not limited by it. At some point in the previous 6 investigations, it is not unreasonable to think that someone would have said "Well, there was this one thing..."

Trish
10-01-2018, 09:53 AM
The thing is, they didn't really say what you said they said.
The point they were making is that if these allegations had some basis in reality, it is highly likely that during the course of the 6 previous BIs, someone would have mentioned that Kavanaugh was involved in or suspected of being involved this kind of conduct. BIs START with the information provided by the subject of the investigation, but they are not limited by it. At some point in the previous 6 investigations, it is not unreasonable to think that someone would have said "Well, there was this one thing..."

It is highly unlikely that someone on Kavanaugh's list mentioned Dr. Ford's claim otherwise the FBI would have noted that in their investigation and the Senators would have made a point that the claim had been debunked.

I think you will at least agree with me that if an allegation is made in this manner it is not unusual for the FBI to re-open their investigation and look into the claim.

To say that it isn't the FBI's job is a lie (not you but the republican leadership and Mr. Trump and his Administration). They do this all the time (the FBI).

Hoosier8
10-01-2018, 09:57 AM
It is highly unlikely that someone on Kavanaugh's list mentioned Dr. Ford's claim otherwise the FBI would have noted that in their investigation and the Senators would have made a point that the claim had been debunked.

I think you will at least agree with me that if an allegation is made in this manner it is not unusual for the FBI to re-open their investigation and look into the claim.

To say that it isn't the FBI's job is a lie (not you but the republican leadership and Mr. Trump and his Administration). They do this all the time.
An FBI investigation has been opened. The dem that worked with Flake agreed to a week. The dems are now calling for an open ended investigation and will be whining about it on all the news networks. If you can't see the handwriting on the wall you ain't looking. The whole way this has been handled was to create a circus atmosphere that will delay Kavanaugh's confirmation past the midterms. Stinks to high heaven.

The lady questioning during the last circus is a prosecutor and says there is nothing to prosecute as Ford's testimony is skeletal and has changed and she won't turn over evidence supporting her claim.

Trish
10-01-2018, 10:04 AM
An FBI investigation has been opened. The dem that worked with Flake agreed to a week. The dems are now calling for an open ended investigation and will be whining about it on all the news networks. If you can't see the handwriting on the wall you ain't looking. The whole way this has been handled was to create a circus atmosphere that will delay Kavanaugh's confirmation past the midterms. Stinks to high heaven.

The lady questioning during the last circus is a prosecutor and says there is nothing to prosecute as Ford's testimony is skeletal and has changed and she won't turn over evidence supporting her claim.

I'm talking past tense when the republicans and the Administration lied when they told the American people that the FBI doesn't perform investigations.

Seriously Hoosier? You're being intentionally obtuse. You cannot believe for one minute that once an investigation stumbles upon some information during an active investigation that they will look the other way.

There is no such thing as an "open or close ended" investigation. You are getting lured into BS language. The FBI doesn't perform half ass investigations.

I don't care what a hired republican "assistant" determines based on her questioning of one person but not permitted to question Mr. Kavanaugh. That in itself speaks volumes.

Cletus
10-01-2018, 10:36 AM
It is highly unlikely that someone on Kavanaugh's list mentioned Dr. Ford's claim otherwise the FBI would have noted that in their investigation and the Senators would have made a point that the claim had been debunked.

Exactly.

It is also highly likely that if such an incident had occurred, someone would have known about it and mentioned it when interviewed. That fact that it did not during the course of 6 separate investigations is actully pretty telling.


I think you will at least agree with me that if an allegation is made in this manner it is not unusual for the FBI to re-open their investigation and look into the claim.

If the allegation is deemed credible.


To say that it isn't the FBI's job is a lie (not you but the republican leadership and Mr. Trump and his Administration). They do this all the time (the FBI).
I think they would have done it if there had been a criminal referral from Maryland law enforcement. When this was initially presented to the FBI, they declined to investigate it because there didn't seem to be any actual basis for an investigation. They don't investigate every allegation that crosses their desks. They do investigate if they think there is something to investigate. In this case, it was an allegation that was decades old, no evidence of which had been discovered in any of their previous investigations and for which there was no corroborating evidence. Probably the single biggest factor is that there was no active criminal investigation be law enforcement in the state in which the offense allegedly occurred.

They are investigating only because the President ordered them to investigate it, not because they think it merits investigation.

stjames1_53
10-01-2018, 10:48 AM
I'm talking past tense when the republicans and the Administration lied when they told the American people that the FBI doesn't perform investigations.

Seriously Hoosier? You're being intentionally obtuse. You cannot believe for one minute that once an investigation stumbles upon some information during an active investigation that they will look the other way.

There is no such thing as an "open or close ended" investigation. You are getting lured into BS language. The FBI doesn't perform half ass investigations.

I don't care what a hired republican "assistant" determines based on her questioning of one person but not permitted to question Mr. Kavanaugh. That in itself speaks volumes.
really??? Then why is the integrity of the FBI under assault now? You going to trust these same guys who nay-sayed away Hillary's use of a private server where all of her information was sold to the highest bidder?

Trish
10-01-2018, 10:54 AM
really??? Then why is the integrity of the FBI under assault now? You going to trust these same guys who nay-sayed away Hillary's use of a private server where all of her information was sold to the highest bidder?


Why are you conflating two different issues.

Look, you and I will never agree on government. You don't see any value in it and you've bought into Mr. Trump's pitch hook, line, and sinker how evil, corrupt and incompetent our intelligence community is.

I think there is a role for government to play and although mistakes are made I believe 99.9% of the people who serve in these positions do so because they love their country.

I'm sorry you hate civil servants and think they're corrupt. You'll be happy to learn that Mr. Trump has done tremendous damage to those institutes and has crippled their credibility and ability around the globe.

Hoosier8
10-01-2018, 10:57 AM
I'm talking past tense when the republicans and the Administration lied when they told the American people that the FBI doesn't perform investigations.

Seriously Hoosier? You're being intentionally obtuse. You cannot believe for one minute that once an investigation stumbles upon some information during an active investigation that they will look the other way.

There is no such thing as an "open or close ended" investigation. You are getting lured into BS language. The FBI doesn't perform half ass investigations.

I don't care what a hired republican "assistant" determines based on her questioning of one person but not permitted to question Mr. Kavanaugh. That in itself speaks volumes.

No such thing? Mueller comes to mind.

Captdon
10-01-2018, 11:00 AM
Technically speaking testimony is indeed a form of evidence. At least according to the law.

But you know what we mean, right? We aren't parsing words are we?

Captdon
10-01-2018, 11:03 AM
A single eye witness who is believed by everybody IS something quite significant and has been enough to convict many.

You're dreaming.

Trish
10-01-2018, 11:06 AM
No such thing? Mueller comes to mind.

Well then you need to think on it again. The investigation clearly states that he can pursue anything he uncovers during his Russia investigation. That's why Manafort was convicted.

Captdon
10-01-2018, 11:11 AM
I'd like to introduce another fact into this discussion.

Background checks for government jobs. A false narrative has been put out by the Republicans that the previous 6 FBI background checks should be sufficient. Nothing was found. This is misleading, albeit intentionally I'm sure.

Potential government employees are required to go through as many FBI background checks as is necessary. When a background check is conducted it is based on information that the FBI receives from the individual being investigated.

Let me repeat this because it's important. The FBI bases it's initial investigation on information received and provided by the individual being investigated.

When the FBI conducts the investigation, they speak to the people that are named or associated with the information the individual provided.

BUT, whenever new information comes forward the FBI must open the file back up and perform a supplemental investigation.

EVERY government employee goes through multiple background checks throughout their career. Some are performed annually, some every 3 - 5 years depending on the level of security the employee holds.

The suggestion that new allegations or information cannot be considered or investigated is a lie.

There is a reason why EVERY POTENTIAL OR PERMANENT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE MULTIPLE BACKGROUND CHECKS whenever new information comes forward or is learned.

It keeps us honest.

Anyone who is opposed to investigating new information does not understand what the process is or has an agenda.

Trish, I've been interviewed twice by the FBI about people I didn't know. That's as far as it went but something that had nothing to do with someone naming me.

Captdon
10-01-2018, 11:18 AM
evidence is not testimony....you never went to law school, nor really know anything about Due Process. A statement needs some sort of physical evidence, or multiple corroborations to be evidence.
You can say he did it, but where's your proof? You have no proof. you have no proof. No proof.
Hell, she can't even corroborate her own statement.
Common Sense: "I got this here c*ckroach. He claims to have witnessed the attacks. all of them. But he's unable to testify in court, so we should believe it."
You gave no idea what "evidence" is.................evidence is proof of a statement. All she's done is make a statement without proof. She even admits that.
She doesn't know where or when, other than it was on a weekend.
She cannot remember how she got there or how she got home. Who's the blackout drunk?

Well, we know she's committed perjury:
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/101371-Ford-and-Kavanaugh-Senate-Hearing/page56
She can't even remember what she does for a living.

Her best friend says she has never met Kavanaugh, been at a party he was at, but believes Ford. I don't know what to make of that. She is factually saying it never happened. There's some evidence.

Ford is either lying or she nutty as a fruitcake. Ramirez won't talk under oath. The gang rape is a load of bullshit.

Theis woman claims she wanted to remain unnamed. What would that do? That isn't even going to be allowed. Why did she go to a lawyer paid by the Dems. Why take a lie detector test if she wasn't going public.

The Dems told her she wouldn't have to be named and she bought it. They used her and when it's done they'll toss her aside like garbage. That's my version of this scam.

Hoosier8
10-01-2018, 11:22 AM
Well then you need to think on it again. The investigation clearly states that he can pursue anything he uncovers during his Russia investigation. That's why Manafort was convicted.

Manaforts conviction had nothing to do with the initial reason for the investigation. Dems want the same thing with Kavanaugh.

Schumer recently stayed he hoped for ‘Devine intervention’ to stop the nominee from being confirmed.

Dont be niave.

Captdon
10-01-2018, 11:25 AM
It is highly unlikely that someone on Kavanaugh's list mentioned Dr. Ford's claim otherwise the FBI would have noted that in their investigation and the Senators would have made a point that the claim had been debunked.

I think you will at least agree with me that if an allegation is made in this manner it is not unusual for the FBI to re-open their investigation and look into the claim.

To say that it isn't the FBI's job is a lie (not you but the republican leadership and Mr. Trump and his Administration). They do this all the time (the FBI).

They are not investigating anything. They are doing another background check. So, if they only go by what information the person tells them, what are checking?

They are doing a background check and have more than enough time to do it. They don't use one agent, they use agents in the area. Yet, the Demonuts are already saying it too short a time.

McConnell needs to end this. Put the vote on the schedule and be done with it. The Democrats have changed the rules and will live to regret it.

Captdon
10-01-2018, 11:29 AM
I'm talking past tense when the republicans and the Administration lied when they told the American people that the FBI doesn't perform investigations.

Seriously Hoosier? You're being intentionally obtuse. You cannot believe for one minute that once an investigation stumbles upon some information during an active investigation that they will look the other way.

There is no such thing as an "open or close ended" investigation. You are getting lured into BS language. The FBI doesn't perform half ass investigations.

I don't care what a hired republican "assistant" determines based on her questioning of one person but not permitted to question Mr. Kavanaugh. That in itself speaks volumes.

They will have five days for this. They will have five days to make a report. No matter what else they find, they have five days to turn there report in. That's a fact. What happens late ris what happens later. Ob Friday, McConnell needs to set a vote for Tuesday and let the Dems and reps vote up or down. No more delay. The Dems don't run the Senate.

Ransom
10-01-2018, 12:01 PM
Manaforts conviction had nothing to do with the initial reason for the investigation. Dems want the same thing with Kavanaugh.

Schumer recently stayed he hoped for ‘Devine intervention’ to stop the nominee from being confirmed.

Dont be niave.

May I speak in Trish's defense here? Trish or her arguments rather as we're in an anonymous forum....those arguments may be cold. Calculated. Politically driven. At the end of puppet strings. Mirror the media's bullshiit almost to the tee. And are agenda oriented.....that doesn't mean naïve, Hoosier8. Trish knows exactly what she's doing. Is a trained professional on the playbook. Purposeful. Candid. Wide open.

Nothing naïve about it. Political Agenda to its' core is what it is. Kudos to her.

Captdon
10-01-2018, 12:04 PM
If I owned a business, I wouldn't hire any more women than I had to. When the partial testimony of one woman is enough to make a man guilty I wouldn't take any chances.

Ford's testimony doesn't add up but women are believing her. That tell me what's what today. Nope. wouldn't hire one more than I had to.

stjames1_53
10-01-2018, 12:14 PM
Well then you need to think on it again. The investigation clearly states that he can pursue anything he uncovers during his Russia investigation. That's why Manafort was convicted.
you make it sound like his conviction as somehow tied to Trump and the phony collusion story

Hoosier8
10-01-2018, 01:54 PM
Word is the FBI investigation may be finished by Tuesday.

ripmeister
10-01-2018, 04:21 PM
My comment is focused solely on the false narrative surrounding the FBI background check process.

I've helped develop policy on them, I've ordered them, and I've been through them......multiple times.
I heard a comment the other day too that these background checks are of the professional lives of the ones being vetted, that it doesn't really go into their personal lives unless there is some indication to do. Don't know if that's true or not.

Trish
10-01-2018, 04:37 PM
I heard a comment the other day too that these background checks are of the professional lives of the ones being vetted, that it doesn't really go into their personal lives unless there is some indication to do. Don't know if that's true or not.

It depends on the security clearance. The applications are pretty thorough and tough. You have to list every residence, every loan, banks, stocks, legal history, marriages, name changes, parents, siblings, in laws, children, schools, friends. I even had my neighbors interviewed. It was weird because I kinda felt like a criminal. I forgot to list something and they came back to me and asked why I didn't disclose it. Freaked me out. They always ask for character references.

Every 3 years they pull my file and I have to update it and go through another review.

That's why I'm not surprised that Dr. Ford didn't show up on their radar until she came forward. Kavanaugh probably didn't list her and it's not like they hung out after the incident. Ford said she didn't tell anyone so it wouldn't have been something people would have been gossiping about.

ripmeister
10-01-2018, 04:45 PM
It depends on the security clearance. The applications are pretty thorough and tough. You have to list every residence, every loan, banks, stocks, legal history, marriages, name changes, parents, siblings, in laws, children, schools, friends. I even had my neighbors interviewed. It was weird because I kinda felt like a criminal. I forgot to list something and they came back to me and asked why I didn't disclose it. Freaked me out. They always ask for character references.

Every 3 years they pull my file and I have to update it and go through another review.

That's why I'm not surprised that Dr. Ford didn't show up on their radar until she came forward. Kavanaugh probably didn't list her and it's not like they hung out after the incident. Ford said she didn't tell anyone so it wouldn't have been something people would have been gossiping about.
Thanks for the clarification.

stjames1_53
10-01-2018, 06:53 PM
It depends on the security clearance. The applications are pretty thorough and tough. You have to list every residence, every loan, banks, stocks, legal history, marriages, name changes, parents, siblings, in laws, children, schools, friends. I even had my neighbors interviewed. It was weird because I kinda felt like a criminal. I forgot to list something and they came back to me and asked why I didn't disclose it. Freaked me out. They always ask for character references.

Every 3 years they pull my file and I have to update it and go through another review.

That's why I'm not surprised that Dr. Ford didn't show up on their radar until she came forward. Kavanaugh probably didn't list her and it's not like they hung out after the incident. Ford said she didn't tell anyone so it wouldn't have been something people would have been gossiping about.

maybe Kavanaugh didn't list her because there was nothing there to give notice about. I'm sure he would have said something if it was the case that it might show up.
She claimed she told some other friends about it............ At least that was her claim

Trish
10-01-2018, 06:57 PM
maybe Kavanaugh didn't list her because there was nothing there to give notice about. I'm sure he would have said something if it was the case that it might show up.
She claimed she told some other friends about it............ At least that was her claim

Yes, I agree, that's very possible also.

stjames1_53
10-01-2018, 07:19 PM
Yes, I agree, that's very possible also.
but I cannot hang a man without proof.........

Tahuyaman
10-01-2018, 08:45 PM
Well then you need to think on it again. The investigation clearly states that he can pursue anything he uncovers during his Russia investigation. That's why Manafort was convicted.
I really thought that this could be one thread that didn't morph into more Trump / Ruusia collusion idiocy.

Tahuyaman
10-01-2018, 08:46 PM
maybe Kavanaugh didn't list her because there was nothing there to give notice about. I'm sure he would have said something if it was the case that it might show up.
She claimed she told some other friends about it............ At least that was her claim

Or he didn't know her at all.

Hoosier8
10-01-2018, 09:03 PM
Evidently Ford wrote something about self hypnosis to create false memories.

Trish
10-01-2018, 09:35 PM
I really thought that this could be one thread that didn't morph into more Trump / Ruusia collusion idiocy.

Well......I did think twice about introducing facts here. I said to myself, trish with a little "t", should you go there or just let it pass. I guess you see which path I chose.

Tahuyaman
10-01-2018, 09:40 PM
Well......I did think twice about introducing facts here. I said to myself, trish with a little "t", should you go there or just let it pass. I guess you see which path I chose.
There’s always a reason for making a thread another Trump rant.

Trish
10-01-2018, 09:45 PM
There’s always a reason for making a thread another Trump rant.

True dat, Tman (with a capital T).

Truth be told, I'm not one to blame others BUT this is completely Hoosiers fault. I was challenged! I mean, what was I supposed to do? I think you'll agree Hoosier has to take the fall on this one.

Joking aside, I didn't mean to move the discussion towards Mr. Trump.

Tahuyaman
10-01-2018, 10:07 PM
A single eye witness who is believed by everybody IS something quite significant and has been enough to convict many.
Who is this eye witness who actually witnessed something? The only witnesses named so far, admit to witnessing nothing.

Tahuyaman
10-01-2018, 10:12 PM
Technically speaking testimony is indeed a form of evidence. At least according to the law.
What is it called when a witness testifies that they witnessed nothing and have no knowledge of the incident in the question? I mean..... according to the law.

stjames1_53
10-02-2018, 04:43 AM
True dat, Tman (with a capital T).

Truth be told, I'm not one to blame others BUT this is completely Hoosiers fault. I was challenged! I mean, what was I supposed to do? I think you'll agree Hoosier has to take the fall on this one.

Joking aside, I didn't mean to move the discussion towards Mr. Trump.

Nope. That paper is out there. She wrote it.

jet57
10-02-2018, 07:59 AM
Evidently Ford wrote something about self hypnosis to create false memories.

24413

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/10/01/pro-kavanaugh-conspiracy-theory-suggests-christine-ford-hypnotized-herself-creating-false-memory/221530



Pro-Kavanaugh conspiracy theory suggests Christine Ford hypnotized herself into creating false memory of assault by KavanaughStudy co-author blasts this conspiracy theory as “absolutely ridiculous”