Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Correction: Kavanaugh had 6 FBI background checks, not FBI investigations. Those are very different things. And an FBI check wouldn't uncover evidence of alcoholism unless it was a huge problem. Drinking alcohol is legal. And people with high profile, powerful jobs are often very careful to hide problem drinking. The FBI uncovers criminal activity, employment history, and financial problems, not what the candidate does when he is off work socializing or at home.
Many of these individuals are functional alcoholics, and it is much easier to hide a drinking problem when the drinker has a enabling spouse. Leonard Nimoy, Stephen King, and Samuel L. Jackson were all high functioning alcoholics who kept working full throttle right through their boozing days. Disclaimer: I am not saying Kavanaugh is an alcoholic; just that he could be and an FBI background check wouldn't pick that up unless he really screws up and gets a DWI or something.
Not true. He worked in the White House and those aren’t just checking to see if there are any arrests. They interview people you know, people they tell them that knew you, people in the neighborhood you lived, and all sorts of things. It would have absolutely come up in one of those investigations.
Not true. He worked in the White House and those aren’t just checking to see if there are any arrests. They interview people you know, people they tell them that knew you, people in the neighborhood you lived, and all sorts of things. It would have absolutely come up in one of those investigations.
This is true. My daughter was enlisted in the USAF and needed a top secret security clearance (keep in mind she was an E-5, not a commissioned officer). Anyway, the FBI did a thorough investigation on her, including looking into immediate family members (my husband and I included). Believe me, it was very thorough. All sorts of people were interviewed, they needed previous addresses, names of schools, etc.
I doubt he was wrong about revenge for the Clintons. He was talking about the Democratic senators, and it is very credible they thought this was poetic justice for the Starr investigation. He lives in Washington, so I’m sure it’s been the talk of the town.
I doubt that was the main reason though. The main reason is the makeup of the Court for the next generation.
Not true. He worked in the White House and those aren’t just checking to see if there are any arrests. They interview people you know, people they tell them that knew you, people in the neighborhood you lived, and all sorts of things. It would have absolutely come up in one of those investigations.
Depends on the clearance he had. If he had yankee, then he would have had the ssbi, and they would have went all the way back to whenever, but at least to the age of 18 and examined everything, interviewed people, etc, and things like drinking, finances, if come up, would be logged and examined about the severity, and see if he receives a clearance.
Thanks -- that answers several questions I had. I never quite worked out what the yellow paper was.
It was the Statement that she and her Lawyer worked out for her to Swear to for the polygraph test.
Several cross outs and it's basically what she said in her testimony in the Judicial Committee Hearing.
The polygraph had ONLY two questions and both concerned this written statement. The polygraph examiner (one used by the Katz, Bain Law firm) judged her "passing the Polygraph". Odd that the test was in a Hotel and on the day of her Grandmothers funeral -- which even shocked the Arizona gal.
NOTHING about the Letter she sent to Dianne Feinstein or anything else except the events as she remembered them
Read this yellow paper statement very, very closely - and see if you can spot what is missing.
The names of people don't appear anywhere in this statement that determined the results of the Polygraph Test. She uses 2 first names "Brett & Mark" and that's it. Once again - very fuzzy about who was there and it's a very bare bones statement that the Polygraph Examiner wasn't very interested in at all ..... just "is this statement true"?
That's very interesting. Lawyer Katz & Bain got what they wanted and they got it long before the Washington Post story came out. Text was done on August 7.
I doubt he was wrong about revenge for the Clintons. He was talking about the Democratic senators, and it is very credible they thought this was poetic justice for the Starr investigation. He lives in Washington, so I’m sure it’s been the talk of the town.
That very well may be correct. But that's not a line for any Sup Court justice to cross, at any time, according to ABA ethics guidelines. Judges are supposed to be "neutral, decisive, respectful, and composed." Kavanaugh was anything but composed, that's for sure.
“When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive,” the statement reads. “On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”
He will be making his statement officially tomorrow but provided it to The Washington Post today.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,645 posts, read 12,561,414 times
Reputation: 10508
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrahamLabroy
No one really believes that, but it is the lefts talking point now that everything else is falling apart. All fair minded adults saw a response entirely proportionate to the accusation and impact.
Yep. I wonder if those who think otherwise would just sit back and flash big grins while watching people try to destroy their entire lives.
Like I said, if he's smart he won't take it since they are so notorious for inaccurate results that they are inadmissible in court.
I shared on the other thread how I took one once - and failed it. Thankfully everyone in management knew I was innocent and I suffered no ramifications from it, but the polygraph administrator did tell me he wouldn't recommend that I ever submit to another one.
I've taken at least 4 polygraph tests - first company I ever worked for has a policy that all employees had to take the test every 6 months. My last one was because I had to get bonded and the polygraph test was part of that. NONE of them were 2 questions.
“When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive,” the statement reads. “On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”
He will be making his statement officially tomorrow but provided it to The Washington Post today.
Excellent. That mutual friend should be found, and review the jail record. That would be the most evidence of anything so far.
Has zero to do with Ford, I could not care less about this incident as it was a long, long time ago and Kavanaugh himself was not arrested (funny that one).
This one should be very easy to prove.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
