Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

STSBO wrote:

Not quite... wrote:

No, his potentially having lied under oath, in this century--about this and other things--matters.

Ummm . . . Yes, something as serious as attempted rape should absolutely, unquestionably matter for the entire life of the perpetrator.

Kavanaugh has other job options. Just not as a judge, let alone a SCOTUS justice. For example, he could take the cushy job of being Trump and Trump Org's new fixer.

About the GOP's "female assistant", Rachel Mitchell from Maricopa County:

She worked for ultra-conservative Andy Thomas, who focused heavily on immigration busts. Hw was disbarred following an abuse of power case.

The agency that Mitchell comes from has come under fierce criticism for its handling of rape cases, and has a poor track record of getting justice for victims in rape, child molestation or domestic violence cases.

In 2016, there were 3,290 rapes reported across Arizona. Police only made 344 arrests as a result. That clearance rate of Arizona rape cases stands at approximately 10%, well below the national average of 34.5%. Maricopa County had a backlog of 4,000 untested rape kits.

Maricopa County had to pay out massive settlements as a result of Arpaio’s mishandling of rape cases.

Maricopa County threw out several high-profile cases at Arizona State University in Tempe by arguing that expulsion is “too severe” a punishment for rapists.

How many of you would pass through the scrutiny that a potential SCOTUS must?

XY h wrote:

How many of you would pass through the scrutiny that a potential SCOTUS must?

A position as a justice on the SCOTUS is an extraordinarily elite and an extraordinarily important position. As such, I would hope that very, very few people would be able to pass through the scrutiny that a potential candidate for the SCOTUS must. Otherwise we as a nation would be setting our standards far too low.

Further, I would hazard to guess that most people have not attempted rape or murder. Plenty of parking tickets and smoking MJ perhaps. But attempted rape? No.

STSBO wrote:

XY h wrote:

How many of you would pass through the scrutiny that a potential SCOTUS must?

A position as a justice on the SCOTUS is an extraordinarily elite and an extraordinarily important position. As such, I would hope that very, very few people would be able to pass through the scrutiny that a potential candidate for the SCOTUS must. Otherwise we as a nation would be setting our standards far too low.

Further, I would hazard to guess that most people have not attempted rape or murder. Plenty of parking tickets and smoking MJ perhaps. But attempted rape? No.

There have been, since the country was founded.

113 SCOTUS justices

~500,000,000 American Citizens

FBI Sucks wrote:

Just another fail for the inept FBI. He had something like 7 FBI background checks and they found nothing of this sort when apparently it is a pattern???? What are they doing just calling his old teachers and asking if he was a good kid?

In fairness, an FBI background check is very different from a specific investigation. Background checks (full disclosure: I was questioned in one, regarding a classmate) are actually fairly thorough, but general--they don't, and presumably can't, delve deeply into individual incidents of which the Bureau has not been informed.

Well.. wrote:

FBI Sucks wrote:

Just another fail for the inept FBI. He had something like 7 FBI background checks and they found nothing of this sort when apparently it is a pattern???? What are they doing just calling his old teachers and asking if he was a good kid?

In fairness, an FBI background check is very different from a specific investigation. Background checks (full disclosure: I was questioned in one, regarding a classmate) are actually fairly thorough, but general--they don't, and presumably can't, delve deeply into individual incidents of which the Bureau has not been informed.

I have through an extensive background search by the FBI. It was for a top level government security clearance. I passed the search, and received the clearance. I have no clue what questions they asked anyone, nor who they spoke with --people who told me they were questioned said they could not reveal the questions they were asked.

What I can say is that several people who the FBI contacted and questioned contacted me to ask me what the heck was going on. They were worried I was in some sort of trouble. These were people I had not listed as character references. They were people the FBI learned about from either from the people I listed, or in some other way. There was one person who contacted me who I had complete forgotten about. I know that I only heard from a few people the FBI contacted. Most stayed quiet.

What I understood was that the people listed as FBI character references are not asked the same number, or level, of questions as the people you do not list. What the FBI does is they ask a lot more pointed questions of people you did not list, than of the people you did list.

Flagpole wrote:

We now also have at least three women (perhaps 4) who have levied accusations against Kavanaugh including one who has now filed charges against him in Maryland.

Who has filed charges against Kavanaugh?

johnny99 wrote:

You're right. I forgot about that.

I know that they generally are not admissable in court and I don't know how reliable they are, but just the fact that she was willing to take one speaks volumes about her credibility here.

No it doesn't. The test was administered in private by her lawyer, thus we don't know if it was administered properly and obviously would have been thrown out if the "results" didn't come out the way they wanted. Remember that infamous story where Hillary Clinton used the polygraph tactic to get her guilty client off a rape charge by "passing" the test which "forever destroyed [her] faith in polygraphs"...

Don't Care wrote:

Does any of this have anything to do with his ability to do his job? When it does, et back to me.

So had he murdered someone a number of years ago and was able to do his job currently he's a go for confirmation?

test

The Fokus wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

We now also have at least three women (perhaps 4) who have levied accusations against Kavanaugh including one who has now filed charges against him in Maryland.

Who has filed charges against Kavanaugh?

Actually it appears an unnamed person is in contact with a county in Maryland and is deciding whether or not to file charges. The person has accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, and the county is looking to see if this indeed happened in their county. It is also unclear is this person is Avenatti's client or a 4th accuser.

The Fokus wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

We now also have at least three women (perhaps 4) who have levied accusations against Kavanaugh including one who has now filed charges against him in Maryland.

Who has filed charges against Kavanaugh?

No names. The person requested privacy. A local Maryland paper (The Sentinel) had a story about a filing and edited that part out. My guess as why they happened is that the local police asked the paper to drop the story unless they notified them that an official charges were made. So, in this case it looks like you will never know who the person is if the police advise her that her claims might not be sufficient for a case filing.

Take it however you like. Maybe the claim is iffy. Maybe the case is a biggy. Maybe the accuser wants their privacy guaranteed--especially with death threats by Trump supporters for their daring to make accusations, however justified the accusations are.

Hardloper wrote:

No it doesn't.

Stop playing lawyer, millennial, software "engineer".

Hardloper wrote:

johnny99 wrote:

You're right. I forgot about that.

I know that they generally are not admissable in court and I don't know how reliable they are, but just the fact that she was willing to take one speaks volumes about her credibility here.

No it doesn't. The test was administered in private by her lawyer, thus we don't know if it was administered properly and obviously would have been thrown out if the "results" didn't come out the way they wanted. Remember that infamous story where Hillary Clinton used the polygraph tactic to get her guilty client off a rape charge by "passing" the test which "forever destroyed [her] faith in polygraphs"...

Nope. Provide more so I can go find out that it's not true.

ffgtrdf wrote:

test

Test indeed. I had a couple of posts that didn't seem to go through. No big deal.

Very suspicious that Mark Judge is hiding out at a beach house like a coward. Now his ex-girlfriend has come forward to say Judge is lying. She remembers him ashamedly telling her about taking turns with other guys having sex with a drunk woman. Now, Kavanaugh wasn't named but it lends credibility to the type of conduct going on at the time, as described by the new accuser from Avenatti:

OMFG this is insane:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-ceo-says-trump-metals-121230013.html

Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has told Kavanaugh to apologize to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/26/jeff-flake-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-speech-sot-vpx.cnn

Flagpole wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

No it doesn't. The test was administered in private by her lawyer, thus we don't know if it was administered properly and obviously would have been thrown out if the "results" didn't come out the way they wanted. Remember that infamous story where Hillary Clinton used the polygraph tactic to get her guilty client off a rape charge by "passing" the test which "forever destroyed [her] faith in polygraphs"...

Nope. Provide more so I can go find out that it's not true.

This is the story I'm talking about. I'm not trying to make it about Hillary BTW, it is just the example that came to mind.