Kansas Crimson

Need the truth, anyone?

BTW, who has more to gain by lying?

imzcount wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:07 pm Exactly. FBI isn't needed here.

Everyone knows it is a desperate ploy to hold off the confirmation through November in hopes that the Left can flip enough seats to keep out any conservative justices who are nominated. Typical douchebaggery from folks who can’t deal with reality.

This, too, shall pass.

Geezer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:11 pm Need the truth, anyone?

BTW, who has more to gain by lying?

The libs? If Dianne Feinstein didn't slow walk this fake letter, Trump could have nominated one of the other 50 amazing nominees, and instead, we are stuck waiting for some fake allegations to be litigated in the media.

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:13 pm

imzcount wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:07 pm Exactly. FBI isn't needed here.

Everyone knows it is a desperate ploy to hold off the confirmation through November in hopes that the Left can flip enough seats to keep out any conservative justices who are nominated. Typical douchebaggery from folks who can’t deal with reality.

This, too, shall pass.

Garland?

Geezer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:23 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:13 pm

imzcount wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:07 pm Exactly. FBI isn't needed here.

Everyone knows it is a desperate ploy to hold off the confirmation through November in hopes that the Left can flip enough seats to keep out any conservative justices who are nominated. Typical douchebaggery from folks who can’t deal with reality.

This, too, shall pass.

Garland?

Fine. Any further conservative justices. The principle still applies.

imzcount wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:07 pm Exactly. FBI isn't needed here.

So Count, are you now sharing the opinion of Trump that our Law Enforcement agencies are all corrupt?

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:25 pm

Geezer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:23 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:13 pm

Everyone knows it is a desperate ploy to hold off the confirmation through November in hopes that the Left can flip enough seats to keep out any conservative justices who are nominated. Typical douchebaggery from folks who can’t deal with reality.

This, too, shall pass.

Garland?

Fine. Any further conservative justices. The principle still applies.

Hahaha...priceless!

typical douchebaggery from folks who can’t deal with reality lulz

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:19 pm It didnt take long for this site to become fucked.

^^^^^^^^^
pollution happens

already have two foes, and it isn’t even 6am

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:57 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:41 pm

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:19 pm It didnt take long for this site to become fucked.

Right about the time you showed up.

Sure about that?

JFC

is this all you do?

This, and mention me every handful of posts for whatever reason, even though I am not posting or doing the things you dislike me for?

I thought in the user agreement we agreed not to harass and troll? Do better...I'm trying to as well.

But seriously, lay off me a bit. I would like very much if we could improve our posting relationship some. Even if that only means not talking to or about each other.

take it here you guys:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=870

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:06 pm wut?

The FBI acted w/respect to Hill because he was a federal employee and she was a federal employee who alleged that assault/harassment took place on federal property.

Incorrect. Pres. G.H.W. Bush asked them to look into the matter. It's part of the background check not an investigation of a crime.

The count lives.

Geezer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:01 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:06 pm wut?

The FBI acted w/respect to Hill because he was a federal employee and she was a federal employee who alleged that assault/harassment took place on federal property.

Incorrect. Pres. G.H.W. Bush asked them to look into the matter. It's part of the background check not an investigation of a crime.

But they had jurisdiction because of the employment status/site of the offense. The DO NOT have any jurisdiction here. None.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:26 am

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:57 pm

HouseDivided wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:41 pm

Right about the time you showed up.

Sure about that?

JFC

is this all you do?

This, and mention me every handful of posts for whatever reason, even though I am not posting or doing the things you dislike me for?

I thought in the user agreement we agreed not to harass and troll? Do better...I'm trying to as well.

But seriously, lay off me a bit. I would like very much if we could improve our posting relationship some. Even if that only means not talking to or about each other.

I mentioned you a couple of times...get over yourself.

I would like to enjoy this site free of this bullshit too.

Maybe you should reflect on your multiple bans, and assess your part in all of this.

I will taper down responding...you work on not kicking the Hornets nest...deal?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:34 am

Geezer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:01 am

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:06 pm wut?

The FBI acted w/respect to Hill because he was a federal employee and she was a federal employee who alleged that assault/harassment took place on federal property.

Incorrect. Pres. G.H.W. Bush asked them to look into the matter. It's part of the background check not an investigation of a crime.

But they had jurisdiction because of the employment status/site of the offense. The DO NOT have any jurisdiction here. None.

I know you understand what a background check is and how it differs from a criminal investigation.

FBI has stated repeatedly that has completed its background check and has no cause to reopen it.

jeepinjayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:34 am

I mentioned you a couple of times...get over yourself.

I would like to enjoy this site free of this bullshit too.

Maybe you should reflect on your multiple bans, and assess your part in all of this.

I will taper down responding...you work on not kicking the Hornets nest...deal?

Deal.

Although multiple "bans" is a stretch. I was "banned" because Vega didn't like me and tried to play it off that I was a "troll" even though he and the other mods knew I wasn't. And that's why it was done somewhat secretly instead of how it's been done with others...but water under the bridge. If you would judge me solely off my new posting habits I don't think you'd have much of an issue with me anymore....and since this isn't on topic I will now leave the politics area where nothing good happens.

Does Kavanaugh's history point to someone who is a problem drinker? Haven't had a lot of time for reading the past few weeks.

Has he ever mentioned a point where he got sober?

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 10:43 am FBI has stated repeatedly that has completed its background check and has no cause to reopen it.

The only thing close that I could find. From your favorite Foxnews.

In an FBI background investigation, the bureau is only responsible for finding information and passing it along, which they have done in the Kavanaugh case, a source said. The source said the FBI would not “investigate” the information found.

“The FBI does not make any judgement about the credibility or significance of any allegation,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement earlier this week.

According to the Justice Department, on Sept. 12, the FBI received a letter dated from July 2018, obtained by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., alleging that Kavanaugh “engaged in an incident of misconduct in the 1980s.”

“The FBI forwarded this letter to the White House Counsel’s Office,” the spokesperson said. “The allegation does not involve any potential federal crime. The FBI’s role in such matters is to provide information for the use of the decision makers.”

An FBI spokesperson, earlier this week, said in a statement that Ford’s Sept. 12 letter was “included as part of Judge Kavanaugh’s background file, as per the standard process.”

So while the bureau will not launch a criminal investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh, according to February testimony by FBI Director Christopher Wray, the only way the bureau would further probe the information as part of the background investigation would be if the White House requested a “follow-up” inquiry.