Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Should be noted she is now being harassed by conservatives as well as getting death threats. I don't blame her for not wanting to appear on TV to be attacked by Republicans as a liar - she's right to demand an investigation first to get the facts out.

 

Anyone calling her a liar at this stage should definitely be condemned. The right thing to do is to investigate her claims, not make a circus out of it.

 

As many times as necessary. If you keep posting nonsense, it'll continue to be debunked.

 

wow. you are especially obtuse today. I had a better opinion of you, when you actually replied to people's points, instead of being a mindless drone/troll

 

I did respond to your point....and I debunked it. You didn't like that, so you've taken this weird direction.

You were supporting her passing up her chance to tell her story for political reasons, and I said that was a mistake and that if she passed up her chance to testify that she should be ignored completely.

 

None of us are qualified to make this determination. There is a process that should have occurred a long time ago. Feinstein is now saying that she could be lying. CNN is on board though. I guess we should just roll with that.

 

And you did not answer my question.

At this point, again, the star witness has publicly denied this happened. There is nothing to investigate at this point. If its true, its sad.

Your blind view of the situation prevents you from seeing the bigger picture. At this point, the bar is set so low that anyone in the future can make up any vague claim to create havoc in the system.

 

Why would the FBI do a background check to investigate a potential crime? Is this ever done? It certainly doesn't make much sense to me why she would request the FBI. Why wouldn't the local authorities investigate this crime first and then bring in the Feds if a federal crime potentially occurred?

https://work.chron.com/fbi-federal-background-check-consist-of-28722.html

Even if you have never done anything wrong, the idea of an FBI background check can cause some anxiety. However, there is no need to worry if you don't have a criminal past. Background checks are required for all prospective employees of federal agencies, public and private schools, local law enforcement and independent contractor positions that handle sensitive data. Knowing what to expect can help ease concerns. Background checks are a valuable safety measure that weeds out those who may not be suitable for certain types of work.

Criminal Record Check
All FBI background checks include a summary of your criminal history. The FBI compiles criminal history, sometimes called a "rap sheet", through information gathered from fingerprint matches obtained through federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. Any company can require a background check as a condition of employment. However, only you can request a copy of your criminal history summary from the FBI. You will be notified whether or not you have a criminal history.

FBI Fingerprint Check
Fingerprints may be required even for those not applying for a position with a federal agency. Fingerprints are used by the FBI to positively identify people. Most states require teachers or daycare providers to submit their fingerprints. Some municipalities require massage therapists, coaches of youth teams and school janitors to undergo fingerprinting. Check with your state and local law enforcement officials about locations and proper procedures for an FBI fingerprint check.

Credit History Report
A federal background check may also include a credit history. A credit history is often required for security clearance with a government agency or government contractor. According to the FBI, a poor credit history may not disqualify you as a job candidate. However, it could delay hiring until the negative entries on your credit are resolved. If the issues on your credit report are significant, such as bankruptcies and multiple judgements, security clearance may be denied.

Top Security Clearance
A security clearance is the ultimate FBI background check. It's required for all employees who have a "need-to-know" status with national security information, classified at the Confidential or Secret level. This includes people who work for government contractors who have access to national security data. Along with criminal and credit history, security clearance background checks include interviews with friends, relatives and neighbors of prospective employees. These interviews are conducted in person by an FBI agent. Top Secret clearance includes all the requirements at the Secret level and a background investigation covering a 10-year time period.


None of these things would seem to apply to what she wants. Is there another type of FBI background check?

 

As I said before, an fbi investigation is the most fair approach to both sides. You would want this unless you have already made up your mind.

P.s. I don’t think any one trust congressional committee to be fair at almost anything, nevermind something this charged.

The narrative that the fbi can’t investigate because of what is publicly known is silly. Why have an investigation into anything if public info is good enough to said yep guilty or nope not guilty. Recall how the muller investigation was bs and wouldn’t find anything. Some seems to be repeating the mistake of underestimating the ability of the fbi.

But my understanding is the fbi won’t investigate this unless requested to do so by the WH or maybe by Congress. Neither is likely going to happen.

 

Anyone calling her a liar is making a determination of what happened.

 

Where did you see this?

 

Just so we're clear, the most fair thing to do when faced with a 36 year old accusation that isn't credible would be to put everything on hold until the FBI can fully investigate an attempted rape case that we don't know when it happened, where it happened, or who was even there for the most part.....a case that doesn't have enough evidence for ANY level of law enforcement to even consider investigating in any other circumstance.

Is that where we're at?

 

Mike Judge hasn't denied it under oath or been question by law enforcement so his denial is not a basis to stop an investigation. If this were the case, we could all lie on behalf of our friends and loved ones who committed crimes to help them avoid the law.

You have a credible accuser and law enforcement should investigate her accusation. That's what is best for everyone, including the country.

 

She didn't call her a liar but it wasn't the most resounding line of support.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...sations-i-dont-know-if-everything-is-truthful edit for a better link

 

I saw that, she said "This is a woman, who I really believe, has been profoundly impacted by this. Now, I can't say everything is truthful. I don't know."

Here's the video, looks like it was FoxNews interviewing her and it kind of seems like she's hedging a bit but I can't blame her.

 

The statue of limitations has long expired. There is no point in discussing the criminal aspect of this.

Judge not only publically denied it, he also said he would not participate in any hearings or investigations. Again, as this is not a criminal investigation, he is not forced to do anything. Unless Judge has a change of heart, he is done with this matter.

 

The FBI has no legal jurisdiction to investigate the matter. An FBI background check searches if a person is national security risk. There is nothing fair about delaying the vote. It should be telling to you that Ford is going to the FBI and not the police.

 

That's not necessarily true depending on the allegation. Sure the 4th degree sexual offense that they might suggest would be long past the statute of limitations, but if the accusation is attempted rape or attempted sexual offense in the first or second degree then there is no statute of limitations.

That said, when you can't say when something happened, where it happened, or come up with the 6 other people there in a something like 36 year old accusation, that's something that doesn't even get investigated because it's not a credible allegation.

 

I don't know what kind of background checks they run at these confirmation hearings. Considering that the SCOTUS positions are lifetime appointments and it serves as the last check on the executive/legislative branches, I actually don't figure that the Top Security Clearance type of background check is too overbearing and/or invasive. I want to be sure that they are upright individuals with no blackmail potential and other nefarious character blemishes. Call me paranoid.

The accusation is not frivolous and seems in line with the #metoo accusations that have been rocking the nation lately - it has 4-5 named participants, the lie detector pass, the individuals that are involved seem plausible to be in the same vicinity in the time of the crime, the therapist note and no obvious motive for slander (when the death threats are to be expected in such case). Once FBI/whoever interviews the participants and nothings comes out of it, I'm totally inline to call the accusation baseless, but until then I consider this a political liability for Repubs coming into election cycle.

Just my two cents.