Sen. Feinstein Claims She Received Info On Kavanaugh And Sent It To FBI

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm more interested in how the FBI hasn't uncovered how Kavanaugh paid off his substantial unsecured debt.

You mean how it is that the organization run by rich white guys from elite boarding schools didn't manage to find out the incriminating information about the rich white guy from an elite boarding school?

That's not the sort of thing one does in certain circles.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Flake announces he will support Kavanaugh. He'll probably be voted in by the full Senate on Monday.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Flake announces he will support Kavanaugh. He'll probably be voted in by the full Senate on Monday.

Hey now, Ted Cruz is also on the Judiciary committee. We can count on him to do what's right.

 

[Jarhyn]

Flake announces he will support Kavanaugh. He'll probably be voted in by the full Senate on Monday.

Hey now, Ted Cruz is also on the Judiciary committee. We can count on him to do what's right.

Yeah, they don't call him Zodiac for nothing!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Flake announces he will support Kavanaugh.

This was certain when the GOP announced the vote for this morning, last night.

He'll probably be voted in by the full Senate on Monday.

51 to 49. I find it incredible that Murkowski and Collins are voting for the sexual assaulter. McConnell has more control on this than the ACA repeal.

I don't expect a single vote from Democrats. Even vulnerable Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota will likely say she believes Dr. Ford and can't vote for Kavanaugh. It will be a political gamble, but morality might actually win out here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd just like to chime in to say kudos to the FBI for doing such a bang up job with its first background check.

Nothing like having a bunch of entitled white guys verify that the other entitled white guy is good people.

A background check wouldn't have caught this sort of stuff. Perhaps what we need is cabinet and high court appointments need the sort of check given for a top secret clearance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In before the "Why were they going to parties where they rape girls?"

All young men need to sow their wild oats. Good girls (the kind you marry) know to stay away from these parties. Then, after these boys get it out of their system (ha-ha) and are ready to settle down, the good girls are there waiting for them to make nice homes and raise families. The bad girls end up in bad neighborhoods with lots of babies and cry about wanting the rest of us to support them. All because they couldn't keep their legs together.

At least in times past it was the other way around--bad girls knew they were going to have sex and were prepared. Good girls didn't worry about contraception because they weren't going to have sex--and got overwhelmed by the emotions of the moment. Thus the good girls were more likely to end up pregnant than the bad girls.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In before the "Why were they going to parties where they rape girls?"

All young men need to sow their wild oats. Good girls (the kind you marry) know to stay away from these parties. Then, after these boys get it out of their system (ha-ha) and are ready to settle down, the good girls are there waiting for them to make nice homes and raise families. The bad girls end up in bad neighborhoods with lots of babies and cry about wanting the rest of us to support them. All because they couldn't keep their legs together.

At least in times past it was the other way around--bad girls knew they were going to have sex and were prepared. Good girls didn't worry about contraception because they weren't going to have sex--and got overwhelmed by the emotions of the moment. Thus the good girls were more likely to end up pregnant than the bad girls.

*BSOD*

How much of your knowledge on this is based on television and movies?

- - - Updated - - -

I'd just like to chime in to say kudos to the FBI for doing such a bang up job with its first background check.

Nothing like having a bunch of entitled white guys verify that the other entitled white guy is good people.

A background check wouldn't have caught this sort of stuff. Perhaps what we need is cabinet and high court appointments need the sort of check given for a top secret clearance.

We need the White House to do what it did when allegations appeared on Clarence Thomas, and order a deeper FBI investigation!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'd just like to chime in to say kudos to the FBI for doing such a bang up job with its first background check.

Nothing like having a bunch of entitled white guys verify that the other entitled white guy is good people.

A background check wouldn't have caught this sort of stuff. Perhaps what we need is cabinet and high court appointments need the sort of check given for a top secret clearance.

Umm ... yes.

I take it from your post that this is not what's already been done for the past several decades. I find that odd.

Supreme Court Justices should be able to make legal rulings regarding top secret matters. Cabinet officials should be able to weigh in on top secret matters involving their departments and advise the President about them. Is having this level of clearance and therefore the associated background checks which go into it not a standard part of the job?

 

[repoman]

Interesting twitter sleuthing - anti kavanaugh. Sounds intriguing:

https://twitter.com/Myhealthyescape/status/1045572703166574593

@washingtonpost @bpolitics @ReutersPolitics please look carefully at Kavanaugh's calendar & Judge’s book. All the people she named were "at Timmy's" (Timothy Patrick Gaudette) on July 1 near CC #AzaleaDrive #TimothyPatrickGaudette #DrChristineFord #StopKavanaugh

can someone get a blow up of July 1st?

--------------------------------------------

I am gonna spitball here for a bit on I think may have happened,

Something like what Ford describes happened, but Kavanaugh was drunk and does not remember. Ford may also have not been a person he gave much thought about. Also if it was a relaxed fun time for him as it would be for a drunk sexist asshole, that would not stick to the memory.

Now if this Avenatti accuser is full of crap that puts Ford in the same box as her to some. This is not fair, but shit allegations make good ones look bad. Blame human perception.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'd just like to chime in to say kudos to the FBI for doing such a bang up job with its first background check.

Nothing like having a bunch of entitled white guys verify that the other entitled white guy is good people.

A background check wouldn't have caught this sort of stuff. Perhaps what we need is cabinet and high court appointments need the sort of check given for a top secret clearance.

Umm ... yes.

I take it from your post that this is not what's already been done for the past several decades. I find that odd.

Supreme Court Justices should be able to make legal rulings regarding top secret matters. Cabinet officials should be able to weigh in on top secret matters involving their departments and advise the President about them. Is having this level of clearance and therefore the associated background checks which go into it not a standard part of the job?

See, the thing about clearances is, it doesn't matter if you have garbage in your past. The only thing that matters is that you are honest about it in the clearance process, and once the process completes, all that investigation and information stays behind those closed doors. The point is to prevent leveraging, and that is just as easily done by full disclosure in private to the FBI as much as anything else.

This way, when someone tells A TS person "do this or we tell your employer", you can just respond "they already know".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Umm ... yes.

I take it from your post that this is not what's already been done for the past several decades. I find that odd.

Supreme Court Justices should be able to make legal rulings regarding top secret matters. Cabinet officials should be able to weigh in on top secret matters involving their departments and advise the President about them. Is having this level of clearance and therefore the associated background checks which go into it not a standard part of the job?

See, the thing about clearances is, it doesn't matter if you have garbage in your past. The only thing that matters is that you are honest about it in the clearance process, and once the process completes, all that investigation and information stays behind those closed doors. The point is to prevent leveraging, and that is just as easily done by full disclosure in private to the FBI as much as anything else.

Is it, though? If the worry is that someone could be blackmailed by damaging information becoming pubic, then they could still be blackmailed for that same reason even if the FBI privately knows about it.

 

[repoman]

Good point, Tom.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Umm ... yes.

I take it from your post that this is not what's already been done for the past several decades. I find that odd.

Supreme Court Justices should be able to make legal rulings regarding top secret matters. Cabinet officials should be able to weigh in on top secret matters involving their departments and advise the President about them. Is having this level of clearance and therefore the associated background checks which go into it not a standard part of the job?

See, the thing about clearances is, it doesn't matter if you have garbage in your past. The only thing that matters is that you are honest about it in the clearance process, and once the process completes, all that investigation and information stays behind those closed doors. The point is to prevent leveraging, and that is just as easily done by full disclosure in private to the FBI as much as anything else.

This way, when someone tells A TS person "do this or we tell your employer", you can just respond "they already know".

I was using that as an example of how deep they should look.

 

[starwater]

A classmate from Yale is on CNN saying he lied through his teeth at the hearing.

BK does not have the qualifications to be a supreme. He is dishonest and perjured himself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'd just like to chime in to say kudos to the FBI for doing such a bang up job with its first background check.

Nothing like having a bunch of entitled white guys verify that the other entitled white guy is good people.

A background check wouldn't have caught this sort of stuff. Perhaps what we need is cabinet and high court appointments need the sort of check given for a top secret clearance.

Umm ... yes.

I take it from your post that this is not what's already been done for the past several decades. I find that odd.

Clearance checks at that level take longer than the time they currently have to do them.

 

[starwater]

Hell hath no fury as a teenager getting caught doing wrong.

 

[ronburgundy]

Umm ... yes.

I take it from your post that this is not what's already been done for the past several decades. I find that odd.

Supreme Court Justices should be able to make legal rulings regarding top secret matters. Cabinet officials should be able to weigh in on top secret matters involving their departments and advise the President about them. Is having this level of clearance and therefore the associated background checks which go into it not a standard part of the job?

See, the thing about clearances is, it doesn't matter if you have garbage in your past. The only thing that matters is that you are honest about it in the clearance process, and once the process completes, all that investigation and information stays behind those closed doors. The point is to prevent leveraging, and that is just as easily done by full disclosure in private to the FBI as much as anything else.

Is it, though? If the worry is that someone could be blackmailed by damaging information becoming pubic, then they could still be blackmailed for that same reason even if the FBI privately knows about it.

I think Tom is correct. Failure to be honest and disclose any relevant info to the clearance officer will get you disqualified. However, simply being honest is not sufficient to get clearance. If they find out info that makes the person a plausible target for either blackmail (e.g., damaging secrets) or bribery (e.g., massive debts or gambling/drug habits that are predictive of debts), then clearance is not granted.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Umm ... yes.

I take it from your post that this is not what's already been done for the past several decades. I find that odd.

Supreme Court Justices should be able to make legal rulings regarding top secret matters. Cabinet officials should be able to weigh in on top secret matters involving their departments and advise the President about them. Is having this level of clearance and therefore the associated background checks which go into it not a standard part of the job?

Cabinet appointees must be able to maintain a top-secret clearance. I'm unsure of the requirements on SCOTUS appointees.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Cabinet appointees must be able to maintain a top-secret clearance. I'm unsure of the requirements on SCOTUS appointees.

Ya, my point is that they should be. Top secret matters deal with legal and constitutional issues and there are judges and lawyers with such clearance involved with signing warrants, giving opinions on what can or cannot be done, etc. Those mid-level bureaucrats should not be the final authority on those matters and anyone who has an issue with the rulings they give should be able to appeal the matter up to the Supreme Court for the definitive say, as they do with any other legal and constitutional issue.

If someone says "This judge was wrong about signing this surveillance warrant and his overly narrow interpretation of the intelligence statutes is putting the country at risk" or "What the NSA is doing here is wrong and the federal judge who signed off on it is undercutting everything America is supposed to stand for", they should be able to take their concerns all the way up the legal chain for the Supreme Court to give the final say. If the Supreme Court Justices do not have top secret security clearance, then they would not be able to be brought in on the matters and the final decisions of what is or is not legal would end up in the hands of a different group of people than those the constitution specifies gets to make the final decision.