Should the FBI get involved with th Kavanaugh confirmation?
 

Well, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, here's what Joe Biden had to say, about the value of bringing the FBI into a supreme court justice confirmation. Joe seems rather sure of himself, not very tentative on the subject, doesn't he?

The left never ceases to crack me up. As Groucho Marx said, here are my principles...if you don't like them, I have other, different principles."

Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htvr9XR1qGE

You’re really obsessed with this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He does get obsessed. And he ignores the hypocrisy on the right
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’ve actually said again and again, that i support an fbi investigation. but biden has a very firm position.

you guys can’t respond, so turn it on me, we get it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden’s position is wrong.
Yes, have an investigation. After that, Vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who cares what Biden said. I only care about what K may or may not have done.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so biden, being on the senate judiciary committee, isn’t qualified to render an opinion, on whether or not the fbi can add value to the scotus confirmation process?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I gave his idiotic statements the same weight as I give the idiotic statements I've heard from McConnell and hatch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Coming from the party of free trade, pro democracy, balanced budgets and high moral standards, wait now it’s tariffs, deficits, lauding totalitarian governments and you know how boys/men are.
I have a mirror you can borrow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes we are all anti democracy!! you have a point, of course, on balanced budgets.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Only after/if a charge has been filed should they get involved.

Huh? It's the FBI's job to perform background checks including additional investigation when asked by the WH.

Did you notice in the FOX interview when they asked Kav about having the FBI investigate his wife tried to answer and he cut her off? I'd think he'd be all for it.

Now his Yale classmates are laughing at his downplaying his heavy drinking and partying in school.

The virgin defense was particularly absurd.

Ford is bringing 4 sworn affidavits with her to the hill, this is going to get real.

Spence, if an accusation isn’t evidence, then neither is repeating that accusation to others. The fact that she told a few people, isn’t evidence, is it? you’re right it’s going to get real for the next few days.

what would the fbi uncover, without knowing what year the assault took place, or where, and with 100% of Ford’s witnesses denying any knowledge of the event?

it’s very likely they’d come back and say “ we found nothing”, which would not convince a single democrat in the senate to vote for him, nor would it change your
mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One should never investigate entitled preppies, especially if they have been Washington insiders for their entire career. That works for both parties.
We will never know what could have been, but the FBI would have generated a report, that is their job. I would rather have seen it happen earlier, but better late than never.
Do a little research on Clarence Thomas and see if you have any doubt about what happened then. All this stuff comes out when people write their memoirs, too late.

It gives her accusation more credibility for sure.

It's very common for the FBI to investigate decades old incidents. They're experts in it.

It's quite possible they could come back with nothing, or perhaps they could find people who recall hearing about the alleged event. I think it's highly unlikely they're going to find hard evidence but that's also not the standard for this process.

If you mean by "this process," that hearsay is enough to successfully smear someone, then . . . yeah.

My comment about the year is not false. She thinks it was probably 1982, but isn't certain.

It's also true that every person Ford claims was there, denies any knowledge. That's 100% true, and one of those, is a woman who is a lifelong friend of Ford's.

"I am glad to know you can look into people's minds,"

Not trying to read minds, I am relying on what happened when the FBI looked into Clarence Thomas, and found zip. Anita Hill is all over the media this week, talking about what it's like to be a victim like Ford. You can only call her a victim, if you ignored the FBI's findings.

Do you have trouble reading? And I mean that seriously...you keep saying I'm a Trump apologist, now you're suggesting I'm opposed to an FBI investigation when I said ten times I'm in favor of it. It's just funny that the liberals who are calling for it, are the ones who will ignore it, if the outcome isn't what they like.

I remember the Thomas case. Why would Hill voluntarily follow him from job to job, if he was harassing her?

"It gives her accusation more credibility for sure. "

Using what logic?

Evidence gives her claim more credibility, or eyewitnesses, or subsequent provable accusations against Ford.

How many people has Trump told, that he never touched Stormy Daniels? What if Ford (and this is a huge 'if'), is the kind of person who made this up because she's desperate for attention and/or sympathy? We know there are people like that, and of course they aren't going to keep it to themselves.

"It's very common for the FBI to investigate decades old incidents. They're experts in it."

I actually agree. But that wasn't the liberal reaction to the FBI finding no evidence against Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill is considered a hero and a victim, despite the FBI findings.

Who cares who heard about it? Heresay is evidence now?

Are they experts at background checks? Because Kavanaugh has had 6 done on him. Six.

Look a little further and read before you condemn
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ce-thomas.html

Doesn't answer my question. Why would Anita Hill follow Thomas from job to job, if he was harassing her?

she said working in a reputable position within the civil rights field had been her ambition. The position was appealing enough to inhibit her from going back into private practice with her previous firm. She only realized later in her life that this ambitious venture was a poor judgment and also explained that "at that time, it appeared that the sexual overtures ... had ended