The Kavanaugh conundrum: Trump's FBI grandstanding highlights flaw in the bureau's background check

[easyt65]

There is no flaw in the FBI's background check....not just because....

- Liberals say so

- Liberals have decided Republicans / Conservatives are guilty until proven innocent

- Liberals have decided Republicans / Conservatives bear the burden of proof every time they are falsely accused

- Liberals have decided the word of a Republican / Conservative who opposes abortions can not be trusted

So far the FBI's background check is perfectly fine - there is no evidence to suggest it is not.

The changing accusations of an admitted Trump/Conservative Judge-hating, pu$$y hat-wearing, womens'-march participating, Deep State-Lawyered-Up Progressive Socialist Liberal Activist who has no evidence to substantiate her claim has made an accusation .... Especially when 4 seperate witnesses say it never happened.....does NOT mean the FBI's background investigation is flawed.

Snowflakes continue to be judge and jury to decide Kavanaugh is already guilty & the FBI's investigation is flawed despite having no evidence that supports either of their claims.

Sounds like Mueller's failed investigation has rubbed off on them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The thing about background checks, even FBI background checks is that they don't detect hidden or in some cases not so hidden character flaws. There are a lot of people with no criminal history to speak of who are basically sociopaths, the two serial rapists and in one case murderers captured via DNA in California recently come to mind

Opinion | Frank Figliuzzi: Kavanaugh chaos highlights major flaw in FBI background check process

This White House has repeatedly undermined the institutions charged with upholding the law.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been stalled by a credible allegation dating back three decades to his high school days at Georgetown Prep. What appeared to be a confirmation certainty is now in question as the reporting victim, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, requests an FBI investigation to substantiate her claims.

And yet, the only entity who can grant Ford’s request seems wholly uninterested in making that happen. President Donald Trump can, with one phone call, request the FBI re-open its background inquiry into Kavanaugh. Thus far he has both refused to issue such a request and uttered false statements about the FBI’s willingness and authority to investigate if he were to do so. Similarly, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee chair, wrongly asserted that this is not a job for the FBI. I disagree. Congress and the White House must take steps to modify the existing memorandum of understanding between the White House and the FBI as well as current protocols so that the bureau can unilaterally and independently pursue logical follow-ups to background inquiries.

Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee seems to have learned little from the travesty of the Anita Hill hearings, nor from our evolving cultural understanding of how to handle credible allegations. The White House and the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are so myopically focused on getting Kavanuagh confirmed that they can’t see the logical solution staring them in the face.

[snipped]
Any rookie FBI agent can recite the acronym used to shape the interview questions posed to colleagues, neighbors, scorned significant others and family members of a nominee — CARLA. CARLA stands for character, aptitude, reputation, loyalty (to our nation) and associations. There are sub-headings under each of those categories — such as finances and temperament — but you get the idea. Here’s the thing though; these SPINs are unlike almost any other investigation the FBI conducts. They are neither criminal nor national security investigations but rather more akin to hiring a private eye to check on your cheating spouse. By that I mean that unlike the FBI’s other work, the FBI’s client in these investigations isn’t the American public, it’s the nominating agency; in this case the White House.​

The FBI background checks is are not designed to detect hidden character flaws, that is not their purpose nor should it be.

What makes the allegation credible? is it the total lack of evidence or witnesses? Is it the lack of detail like what year or what month or what house?

Her allegation is no more credible than if I accused you of peeping on my windows sometime in the past.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Or imaginary flaws either.

What do you consider an imaginary flaw?

The imaginary flaw would be the one they could not find.

Have you ever background checked anyone or been subjected to a background check? How about an FBI background check or one to obtain a security clearance.

I have, 20 years in the Corps holding a TS for 5 years and a S for the rest of the time. Had a re-check done every 5 years. Why do you ask?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

the Kavanugh one comes to mind...

What part is the flaw? What is he alleged to have done, the fact that so many in society don't believe it should be a disqualifier if true, or the fact that he lied about it or failed to disclose it when asked?

If it never happened, why would he disclose it? You apparently have lost all common sense when it comes to this topic. Several of your cohorts seem to think he should have admitted to something he never did, just to satisfy your lust for blood.

I don't have a blood lust and I don't appreciate you portraying me as such and why are you making this personal? All I did was ask a question. None of us were there, so none of us knows what exactly happened. You're assuming that the reason it wasn't disclosed was because it didn't happen and Ms. Ford is alleging that it did.

People don't report things for a variety of reasons but the one reason that stands out the most is that the perpetrators rarely are held to account and retaliation and more grief for the victim is often the only result.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

the Kavanugh one comes to mind...

What part is the flaw? What is he alleged to have done, the fact that so many in society don't believe it should be a disqualifier if true, or the fact that he lied about it or failed to disclose it when asked?

If it never happened, why would he disclose it? You apparently have lost all common sense when it comes to this topic. Several of your cohorts seem to think he should have admitted to something he never did, just to satisfy your lust for blood.

I don't have a blood lust and I don't appreciate you portraying me as such and why are you making this personal? All I did was ask a question. None of us were there, so none of us knows what exactly happened. You're assuming that the reason it wasn't disclosed was because it didn't happen and Ms. Ford is alleging that it did.

People don't report things for a variety of reasons but the one reason that stands out the most is that the perpetrators rarely are held to account and retaliation and more grief for the victim is often the only result.

Could you let us know what about the allegation you find that makes them credible, as you said they were?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Or imaginary flaws either.

What do you consider an imaginary flaw?

The imaginary flaw would be the one they could not find.

Have you ever background checked anyone or been subjected to a background check? How about an FBI background check or one to obtain a security clearance.

I was a nuclear weapons officer in the Navy. Draw your own conclusions, dumbass!

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Or imaginary flaws either.

What do you consider an imaginary flaw?

The imaginary flaw would be the one they could not find.

Have you ever background checked anyone or been subjected to a background check? How about an FBI background check or one to obtain a security clearance.

I was a nuclear weapons officer in the Navy. Draw your own conclusions, dumbass!

Case in point

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

the Kavanugh one comes to mind...

What part is the flaw? What is he alleged to have done, the fact that so many in society don't believe it should be a disqualifier if true, or the fact that he lied about it or failed to disclose it when asked?

If it never happened, why would he disclose it? You apparently have lost all common sense when it comes to this topic. Several of your cohorts seem to think he should have admitted to something he never did, just to satisfy your lust for blood.

I don't have a blood lust and I don't appreciate you portraying me as such and why are you making this personal? All I did was ask a question. None of us were there, so none of us knows what exactly happened. You're assuming that the reason it wasn't disclosed was because it didn't happen and Ms. Ford is alleging that it did.

People don't report things for a variety of reasons but the one reason that stands out the most is that the perpetrators rarely are held to account and retaliation and more grief for the victim is often the only result.

You should sell that post as fertilizer because it contains 100% bullshit!

You cannot disclose something during a background check if it never happened. You are suggesting that someone admit to being the second gunman on the grassy knoll in Dallas on November 22, `1963. I could claim that but no one would believe a three-year old could shoot that well.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Or imaginary flaws either.

What do you consider an imaginary flaw?

The imaginary flaw would be the one they could not find.

Have you ever background checked anyone or been subjected to a background check? How about an FBI background check or one to obtain a security clearance.

I was a nuclear weapons officer in the Navy. Draw your own conclusions, dumbass!

Case in point

Apparently you have no clue what that phrase means. I held a Top Secret clearance. The FBI did not do my background investigations. The Defense Intelligence Agency did.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The thing about background checks, even FBI background checks is that they don't detect hidden or in some cases not so hidden character flaws. There are a lot of people with no criminal history to speak of who are basically sociopaths, the two serial rapists and in one case murderers captured via DNA in California recently come to mind

Opinion | Frank Figliuzzi: Kavanaugh chaos highlights major flaw in FBI background check process

This White House has repeatedly undermined the institutions charged with upholding the law.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been stalled by a credible allegation dating back three decades to his high school days at Georgetown Prep. What appeared to be a confirmation certainty is now in question as the reporting victim, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, requests an FBI investigation to substantiate her claims.

And yet, the only entity who can grant Ford’s request seems wholly uninterested in making that happen. President Donald Trump can, with one phone call, request the FBI re-open its background inquiry into Kavanaugh. Thus far he has both refused to issue such a request and uttered false statements about the FBI’s willingness and authority to investigate if he were to do so. Similarly, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee chair, wrongly asserted that this is not a job for the FBI. I disagree. Congress and the White House must take steps to modify the existing memorandum of understanding between the White House and the FBI as well as current protocols so that the bureau can unilaterally and independently pursue logical follow-ups to background inquiries.

Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee seems to have learned little from the travesty of the Anita Hill hearings, nor from our evolving cultural understanding of how to handle credible allegations. The White House and the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are so myopically focused on getting Kavanuagh confirmed that they can’t see the logical solution staring them in the face.

[snipped]
Any rookie FBI agent can recite the acronym used to shape the interview questions posed to colleagues, neighbors, scorned significant others and family members of a nominee — CARLA. CARLA stands for character, aptitude, reputation, loyalty (to our nation) and associations. There are sub-headings under each of those categories — such as finances and temperament — but you get the idea. Here’s the thing though; these SPINs are unlike almost any other investigation the FBI conducts. They are neither criminal nor national security investigations but rather more akin to hiring a private eye to check on your cheating spouse. By that I mean that unlike the FBI’s other work, the FBI’s client in these investigations isn’t the American public, it’s the nominating agency; in this case the White House.​

The FBI background checks is are not designed to detect hidden character flaws, that is not their purpose nor should it be.

What makes the allegation credible? is it the total lack of evidence or witnesses? Is it the lack of detail like what year or what month or what house?

Her allegation is no more credible than if I accused you of peeping on my windows sometime in the past.

I am probably in a better position than most to prove that I've never peeped in your window but if you believe I had then 1) did you report it and if not why not? 2) how did you positively identify me as the perpetator?

For me it's not so much that her statements are credible but that the experience she relayed is plausable. Since this story hit the news I've remember several incidents that I had put out of my mind, some of which even though they were never reported were conveyed over the years to various other individuals. Most of them occurred during college but the most egreious offense (and criminal) occurred long after I had graduated.

If you've ever listened to the any of the women of the #MeToo movement, many of them only came forward because these offenses were finally being seen and recognized for the unacceptable in not criminal behavior that it was and look how long it had been going on before anything was done about it.

There is generally no benefit to subjecting oneself to the scorn and hatred of so many people if you don't have smoking gun evidence even when the violation absolutely occurred and most sexual assualts occur where there are not witnesses. That's the nature of our legal system and it's even moreso for women making allegations against powerful men.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am probably in a better position than most to prove that I've never peeped in your window but if you believe I had then 1) did you report it and if not why not? 2) how did you positively identify me as the perpetator?

I thought I would wait 30 years and then report it. Seems to be the in thing to do.

For me it's not so much that her statements are credible but that the experience she relayed is plausable. Since this story hit the news I've remember several incidents that I had put out of my mind, some of which even though they were never reported were conveyed over the years to various other individuals. Most of them occurred during college but the most egreious offense (and criminal) occurred long after I had graduated.

I think they choose the very allegations because of their plausibility. Since there are not enough details to be credible, plausible is all they had to go with.

If you've ever listened to the any of the women of the #MeToo movement, many of them only came forward because these offenses were finally being seen and recognized for the unacceptable in not criminal behavior that it was and look how long it had been going on before anything was done about it.

She has, according to her own words, watched him rise through the ranks. He currently holds the 2nd highest position a judge can hold. Was that not enough? It was ok for him to be on the Appeals court? That makes no sense at all.

There is generally no benefit to subjecting oneself to the scorn and hatred of so many people if you don't have smoking gun evidence even when the violation absolutely occurred and most sexual assualts occur where there are not witnesses. That's the nature of our legal system and it's even moreso for women making allegations against powerful men.

Unless one has very strong political motivations and views, which is the case with Ford.

 

[Freiheit]

Or imaginary flaws either.

What do you consider an imaginary flaw?

The imaginary flaw would be the one they could not find.

Have you ever background checked anyone or been subjected to a background check? How about an FBI background check or one to obtain a security clearance.

As a matter of fact yes I have a national security clearance check. They are quite thorough. When they are done they probably know more about the person being checked than the person him/herself.

 

[whitehall]

A flaw in the FBI's background checks? What flaw?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

She has, according to her own words, watched him rise through the ranks. He currently holds the 2nd highest position a judge can hold. Was that not enough? It was ok for him to be on the Appeals court? That makes no sense at all.

Was what not enough? If you're saying that she could have come forward at an earlier point in time, the point I was trying to make was maybe it was not until the advent of the #MeToo movement that she felt that something might be done about her allegations. Some of the men who have recently been fired from their positions of power held those positions for decades. Normally the statute of limitations forecloses anything from being done about incidents that occurred so long ago but apparently once someone takes the allegations seriously and investigated them, they discovered that they had merit.

Or maybe she just wanted to go on record.

 

[flacaltenn]

The thing about background checks, even FBI background checks is that they don't detect hidden or in some cases not so hidden character flaws. There are a lot of people with no criminal history to speak of who are basically sociopaths, the two serial rapists and in one case murderers captured via DNA in California recently come to mind

Opinion | Frank Figliuzzi: Kavanaugh chaos highlights major flaw in FBI background check process

This White House has repeatedly undermined the institutions charged with upholding the law.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been stalled by a credible allegation dating back three decades to his high school days at Georgetown Prep. What appeared to be a confirmation certainty is now in question as the reporting victim, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, requests an FBI investigation to substantiate her claims.

And yet, the only entity who can grant Ford’s request seems wholly uninterested in making that happen. President Donald Trump can, with one phone call, request the FBI re-open its background inquiry into Kavanaugh. Thus far he has both refused to issue such a request and uttered false statements about the FBI’s willingness and authority to investigate if he were to do so. Similarly, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the committee chair, wrongly asserted that this is not a job for the FBI. I disagree. Congress and the White House must take steps to modify the existing memorandum of understanding between the White House and the FBI as well as current protocols so that the bureau can unilaterally and independently pursue logical follow-ups to background inquiries.

Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee seems to have learned little from the travesty of the Anita Hill hearings, nor from our evolving cultural understanding of how to handle credible allegations. The White House and the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are so myopically focused on getting Kavanuagh confirmed that they can’t see the logical solution staring them in the face.

[snipped]
Any rookie FBI agent can recite the acronym used to shape the interview questions posed to colleagues, neighbors, scorned significant others and family members of a nominee — CARLA. CARLA stands for character, aptitude, reputation, loyalty (to our nation) and associations. There are sub-headings under each of those categories — such as finances and temperament — but you get the idea. Here’s the thing though; these SPINs are unlike almost any other investigation the FBI conducts. They are neither criminal nor national security investigations but rather more akin to hiring a private eye to check on your cheating spouse. By that I mean that unlike the FBI’s other work, the FBI’s client in these investigations isn’t the American public, it’s the nominating agency; in this case the White House.​

I'm done with this cheap peep show that's really about a drunken pool party that the 15 yo kids' GUARDIANS should have taken care of 38 years ago. NOT a Juvvy Court, NOT the FBI..

But the reporting here is SO BAD and uninformed, the record needs to be corrected. This "CARLA" crap doesn't BEGIN to describe the thorough colon scope investigation of people's past that apply for and GET the clearances ABOVE Top Secret that you need to work in the White House or the Intel areas.

And Kavanaugh GOT THOSE. The FBI has had the colon scope so far up Kavanaugh ass SIX TIMES that they probably removed his tonsils while they were in there. I know. I served seven years "in the Intel area biz"...

For clearances like those that got him a TOP LEVEL WH badge, the FBI went back thru his parents and grandparents if necessary. They verified his birthing. THey interviewed teachers, classmates, and grabbed every school record they could find. I'm VERY certain, this includes his GeorgeTown Prep days. And the CONGRESS critters know this, it's just that the "resistance" media is too lazy and scoundrelous to do REAL journalism and report it to the public.

The concept that this process is DAMAGED, or that TRUMP somehow is the problem is pure unadulterated bovine scatology.

This nation killing gossip and voyeurism festival is a JOY for Vladimir to see. How WEAK American minds really are and how little HE has to do to push us over the edge into total cluster fuck dysfunction..

I'm out of this. It's absurd and sick and sordid..

 

[OKTexas]

A flaw in the FBI's background checks? What flaw?

They don't detect imaginary crimes from almost 40 years ago.

.

 

[OKTexas]

She has, according to her own words, watched him rise through the ranks. He currently holds the 2nd highest position a judge can hold. Was that not enough? It was ok for him to be on the Appeals court? That makes no sense at all.

Was what not enough? If you're saying that she could have come forward at an earlier point in time, the point I was trying to make was maybe it was not until the advent of the #MeToo movement that she felt that something might be done about her allegations. Some of the men who have recently been fired from their positions of power held those positions for decades. Normally the statute of limitations forecloses anything from being done about incidents that occurred so long ago but apparently once someone takes the allegations seriously and investigated them, they discovered that they had merit.

Or maybe she just wanted to go on record.

Or maybe she wanted to just shred a mans life for political reasons. If that can be proven, she and her supporters are enemies of the US.

I'm starting to think America should consider divorce proceedings. Just give you commie regressives a couple of contiguous coastal states and call it a day, you can run them anyway you chose.

.

 

[karpenter]

Trump's FBI grandstanding highlights flaw in the bureau's background check

No It Doesn't
There's Another Fake Accusation On Kav
And The Ramirez Story Is Near Identical To Fords
And The Different Witnesses At This Different Party
Echo The Witnesses At The Ford Party
This Is Being ORCHESTRATED

Here, Get A Load Of The New Yorker:
Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from the Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years
In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh....

This Is How False Memories Are Created ^ ^ ^
Considering Her Career
Ramirez Has Probably Helped Others
To Formulate False Memories Of Their Own

Now From The Witnesses:
Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events
"We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale.
He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place.
Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale.
We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred,
we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not.
The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett."

Identical To Witnesses In The Ford Case ^ ^ ^

Yep
This Is Being ORCHESTRATED
Both Of These Cases

 

[Claudette]

Notice its the New Yorker the most leftist magazine out there. Of course they will print anything.

Ford, Ramirez and whoever the chick is that's accusing him of gang rape seem to be all in on this.


All the stories sound similar



Grassly says he has the votes. They should vote and confirm Kav for the SC.

 

[karpenter]

Why Aren't Either Of These Accusers Being Investigated
Why Should Their Accusations Be Considered FACT
Just Because They Say So
Why Don't We At Least Check Their In-Coming Phone Calls