Flake says if FBI investigation finds Kavanaugh lied, nomination is over

[Kaon]

Are you a prophet ?

Nope. This is getting cliche, redundant and very predictable. History repeats itself boldly now.

 

[super animator]

Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

That depends on the findings of the FBI.

 

[Veritas]

And if the investigation determines that Ford lied? Should she (among others) be prosecuted?

 

[super animator]

And if the investigation determines that Ford lied? Should she (among others) be prosecuted?

This thread isn't about Ford.

 

[Kaon]

That depends on the findings of the FBI.

No, it doesn't. I will ridicule myself later to save everyone the trouble, but this is all for our entertainment. What happened with Anita Hill?

Do you think 1 week is enough time to investigate someone? It is a farce to thicken the dividing line, exploit emotions, and the prejudices of the nation. It is darn near (rudimentary) witchcraft, but I will stick with psychological operation.

The entire nation is being had.

 

[A_Thinker]

No, it doesn't. I will ridicule myself later to save everyone the trouble, but this is all for our entertainment. What happened with Anita Hill?

Anita Hill's charges were not nearly so significant. She only accused Clarence Thomas of making a couple of weird offensive remarks ...

 

[super animator]

Do you think 1 week is enough time to investigate someone?

2-3 days actually.

 

[USincognito]

And if the investigation determines that Ford lied? Should she (among others) be prosecuted?

What about Kavanaugh's yearbook lies.

 

[Kaon]

Anita Hill's charges were not nearly so significant. She only accused Clarence Thomas of making a couple of weird offensive remarks ...

Don't you see the people of modernity are arguing the same marginalized sentiments with respect to Ford?

The future is nuanced, but its mostly a repeat. The frequency of the repetition is increasing.

 

[Kaon]

2-3 days actually.

So you are telling me that you believe that it will take 2-3 days to effectively investigate claims decades old?

That should actually scare you if it is true. Have you read The Trial by Franz Kafka?

 

[Veritas]

This thread isn't about Ford.

No duh. But it is nonetheless a fair question. Care to answer it?

 

[super animator]

No duh. But it is nonetheless a fair question. Care to answer it?

Your deflecting.

So you are telling me that you believe that it will take 2-3 days to effectively investigate claims decades old?

That should actually scare you if it is true. Have you read The Trial by Franz Kafka?

...Did you even bother reading the link?

P.S. Yes I did read it, and it's nothing like it.

 

[Veritas]

Your deflecting.


...Did you even bother reading the link?

P.S. Yes I did read it, and it's nothing like it.

You're. No I'm not. Are you going to answer the question?

 

[Kaon]

...Did you even bother reading the link?

P.S. Yes I did read it, and it's nothing like it.

Yes. But, I asked you a specific question: whether you believe it would take 2-3 days to investigate claims decade old. I am not opining on behalf of a particular side, but I am trying to highlight how much of a farce the entire thing is, and always has been.

If you were accused of sexual assault and you were about to receive a [moral-based] job promotion (e.g. Dean of a university, medical chair), would you be satisfied with a 2-3 day investigation about claims someone brought up from decades ago? I wouldn't; I would either want no investigation (to substantiate the idea that I, as an innocent man, did not do anything), or I would demand a long, thorough investigation in order to completely clear any harm to my name by the accusation alone.

This is theater; none of it is logical, and all of it is emotional.


And, I referenced The Trial because of the farce of it all. There should have been some type of interference when Ford told her therapist years before the nomination. If this was already known, then that is an even bigger issue, but ultimately this entire fiasco is a psycho-op on the public. Since people aren't fighting each other enough, emotions need to be stirred along the usual divide.


This is why I say just based on history he will be confirmed. Kavanaugh is already a partisan martyr; if he doesn't get confirmed, it would be a worse case scenario IMO.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Last year a close friend applied for a position at the FBI that entailed candidates being promoted through four increasingly rigorous stages as part of the hiring process. He has exceptionally impressive credentials and persuasive communication skills, so he vaulted through the initial selection where competitive applicants are invited to interview. Following the interview, he entered into the final selection where he was given an employment offer contingent upon the successful completion and favorable adjudication of a full background investigation and the receipt of an FBI Top Secret security clearance. That was the lengthiest, most intensive part. It involved more interviews, a pre-employment polygraph examination, urinalysis test, and fingerprinting. The FBI background investigators contacted all of his employers, past and present; his references, social acquaintances, and neighbors. As a young adult in the modern era, they were significantly aided in identifying and soliciting information from friends, coworkers, and classmates. People who knew him intimately as well as those with only peripheral affiliation were contacted. He was required to submit the correct details for every social media account he ever had in his life, including his "finsta" (secondary account on Instagram), Pinterest, YouTube, Reddit, and the Facebook he made in middle school and abandoned years ago. They carefully reviewed his school, credit, and even his medical and immunization records.

After all of this, he was issued a Top Security clearance and given an EOD (Enter-on-Duty) for the summer of 2018. He reorganized his schedule to fit this start date, and made the necessary travel and living arrangements. Then he got a call that halted everything. Fresh eyes had reviewed his application for a final time and noticed a detail previously overlooked. On his CV he stated that he'd received a "full scholarship" to college. This was an unnecessary detail, but one he'd added to make himself appear even more accomplished. At our college, full scholarships are only given to recruited athletes; all other aid is based on family financial status, not on student merit. He also had not received a "full" scholarship, but he had been awarded substantial aid that covered the cost of tuition. This would be considered a peccadillo by most employers, but was of importance to the FBI because it was a reflection of his honesty. The leading reason security clearances are denied or altered are due to questions of trustworthiness. He wasn't disqualified from ever working for the FBI but his offer for that program was rescinded.

I am informed about the details of all of this because he knows that my mom used to be an attorney for the FBI, and was hopeful she could offer guidance to him. She advised him not defend the error but to instead own it, and disclose anything else that could get snagged on in a fine-tooth comb inspection over his life. To use clear, unambiguous wording and not attempt to mitigate any mistakes but rather to present them plainly. A respected colleague of hers had frozen during her first polygraph when asked about marijuana use, with fear of being instantly disqualified if the truthful answer was given. But she did tell the truth about experimenting with it at a party, and was then asked if she was going to use it again, to which she truthfully answered no. Her forthrightness is what was valued.

The program my friend applied for is the FBI's college honors internship for undergraduates. They expect applicants, most of whom are 18 to 23, to use care with their words to ensure accuracy.

I don't know when the FBI security clearances for Brett Kavanaugh took place, and how thorough they would have been of his youth. The National Agency Check with Law and Credit goes back five years, while the clearance process for Top Secret uses a Single Scope Background Investigation that goes back ten years. What I do know is that in his testimony, which Kavanaugh prepared in advance and should have had scrutinized for any discrepancies, he made some inaccurate, disputable, or misleading statements.
When asked about his alcohol consumption in high school, he said his classmates were “legal to drink” in their senior year, even though the legality of the drinking was not the issue, and, in fact, he could not legally drink because the age was raised to 21 before he even turned 18. He depicted his drinking habits in college as being typical, whereas his classmates remember him drinking in excess even of the norms of the time, and stated that he “grossly misrepresented and mischaracterized his drinking.” Instead of just being candid about the vulgarities in his high school yearbook, explaining them with chagrin perhaps but honesty, he gave explanations that ring as false and his classmates have said were untrue.

 

[Kaon]

Last year a close friend applied for a position at the FBI that entailed candidates being promoted through four increasingly rigorous stages as part of the hiring process. He has exceptionally impressive credentials and persuasive communication skills, so he vaulted through the initial selection where competitive applicants are invited to interview. Following the interview, he entered into the final selection where he was given an employment offer contingent upon the successful completion and favorable adjudication of a full background investigation and the receipt of an FBI Top Secret security clearance. That was the lengthiest, most intensive part. It involved more interviews, a pre-employment polygraph examination, urinalysis test, and fingerprinting. The FBI background investigators contacted all of his employers, past and present; his references, social acquaintances, and neighbors. As a young adult in the modern era, they were significantly aided in identifying and soliciting information from friends, coworkers, and classmates. People who knew him intimately as well as those with only peripheral affiliation were contacted. He was required to submit the correct details for every social media account he ever had in his life, including his "finsta" (secondary account on Instagram), Pinterest, YouTube, Reddit, and the Facebook he made in middle school and abandoned years ago. They carefully reviewed his school, credit, and even his medical and immunization records.

After all of this, he was issued a Top Security clearance and given an EOD (Enter-on-Duty) for the summer of 2018. He reorganized his schedule to fit this start date, and made the necessary travel and living arrangements. Then he got a call that halted everything. Fresh eyes had reviewed his application for a final time and noticed a detail previously overlooked. On his CV he stated that he'd received a "full scholarship" to college. This was an unnecessary detail, but one he'd added to make himself appear even more accomplished. At our college, full scholarships are only given to recruited athletes; all other aid is based on family financial status, not on student merit. He also had not received a "full" scholarship, but he had been awarded substantial aid that covered the cost of tuition. This would be considered a peccadillo by most employers, but was of importance to the FBI because it was a reflection of his honesty. The leading reason security clearances are denied or altered are due to questions of trustworthiness. He wasn't disqualified from ever working for the FBI but his offer for that program was rescinded.

I am informed about the details of all of this because he knows that my mom used to be an attorney for the FBI, and was hopeful she could offer guidance to him. She advised him not defend the error but to instead own it, and disclose anything else that could get snagged on in a fine-tooth comb inspection over his life. To use clear, unambiguous wording and not attempt to mitigate any mistakes but rather to present them plainly. A respected colleague of hers had frozen during her first polygraph when asked about marijuana use, with fear of being instantly disqualified if the truthful answer was given. But she did tell the truth about experimenting with it at a party, and was then asked if she was going to use it again, to which she truthfully answered no. Her forthrightness is what was valued.

The program my friend applied for is the FBI's college honors internship for undergraduates. They expect applicants, most of whom are 18 to 23, to use care with their words to ensure accuracy.

I don't know when the FBI security clearances for Brett Kavanaugh took place, and how thorough they would have been of his youth. The National Agency Check with Law and Credit goes back five years, while the clearance process for Top Secret uses a Single Scope Background Investigation that goes back ten years. What I do know is that in his testimony, which Kavanaugh prepared in advance and should have had scrutinized for any discrepancies, he made some inaccurate, disputable, or misleading statements.
When asked about his alcohol consumption in high school, he said his classmates were “legal to drink” in their senior year, even though the legality of the drinking was not the issue, and, in fact, he could not legally drink because the age was raised to 21 before he even turned 18. He depicted his drinking habits in college as being typical, whereas his classmates remember him drinking in excess even of the norms of the time, and stated that he “grossly misrepresented and mischaracterized his drinking.” Instead of just being candid about the vulgarities in his high school yearbook, explaining them with chagrin perhaps but honesty, he gave explanations that ring as false and his classmates have said were untrue.

Do you think it would take the FBI 2-3 days to make thorough reviews of claims of sexual assault against an honorable judge that spans over decades? If you can divulge that type of info, I would like to know, please.

 

[Fantine]

There are 24 other rabid conservative ideologues who were recommended by the Federalist Society.

I think Trump is prepared to jettison Kavanaugh and pick one of the others. Of course, he'll be sad, because Kavanaugh had a very expansive view of "executive privilege," and Trump values a justice who'll help him save his skin much more than a justice who'll overturn Roe v. Wade.

I also think that some patriots on both side of the aisle are thinking of the future of the Supreme Court. There are already cartoons circulating showing a Supreme Court picture with Kavanaugh and Thomas with clouds over their heads while the three female justices are defending themselves with pepper spray.

The biggest fear of Republicans, of course, is that if the court is unbalanced and has lost public respect, a future Democratic administration and majority could make an 11 person court, adding two people of their choosing to bring the court back into the 21st century.

 

[variant]

Paid for by her lawyers and where only two questions were asked.

The questions were whether anything in her statement was untrue or if she made any of it up.

For a fair test for Kavanaugh have him take a polygraph and ask him if any part of the senate testimony was untrue.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Lying about other things would be okay ???

Brett better pray it is -- he's already been caught lying on other things...

 

[Sistrin]

Kavanaugh has not asked the FBI to give him a lie detector test. His accuser passed a lie detector test. Not everyone passes them.

Depending on the questions asked a person guilty of the very crime being investigated could pass a lie detector test.