SCOTUS

[Bandito]

seacoaster wrote:
"Also perjury charges will likely be filed against Ford."

C'mon; let's get a consensus here and turn on the "Foe"/Ignore function.


It's on, just click on the username on the post and there should be an "Add Foe" link

What took you so long?

Alright boys, I'm in. Bandildo is on my FOE list of one.

Can't handle the truth? Typical liberal. run away run away. Bye complain

[Typical Lax Dad]

seacoaster wrote:
"Also perjury charges will likely be filed against Ford."

C'mon; let's get a consensus here and turn on the "Foe"/Ignore function.


It's on, just click on the username on the post and there should be an "Add Foe" link

What took you so long?

Alright boys, I'm in. Bandildo is on my FOE list of one.

Can't handle the truth? Typical liberal. run away run away. Bye complain

You tell em Bandildo!

[wahoomurf]

seacoaster wrote:
"Also perjury charges will likely be filed against Ford."

C'mon; let's get a consensus here and turn on the "Foe"/Ignore function.


It's on, just click on the username on the post and there should be an "Add Foe" link

What took you so long?

Alright boys, I'm in. Bandildo is on my FOE list of one.

"Clicking" will place you guys in jeopardy.....of viewing the bon mots and pearls of wisdom from the WYWK. Not sure if you'll get to read this....no doubt I'm on more than a few FOE lists.

[DMac]

seacoaster wrote:
"Also perjury charges will likely be filed against Ford."

C'mon; let's get a consensus here and turn on the "Foe"/Ignore function.


It's on, just click on the username on the post and there should be an "Add Foe" link

What took you so long?

Alright boys, I'm in. Bandildo is on my FOE list of one.

"Clicking" will place you guys in jeopardy.....of viewing the bon mots and pearls of wisdom from the WYWK. Not sure if you'll get to read this....no doubt I'm on more than a few FOE lists.

I don't think the FOE thing is all that effective, murf, appears to me as if you still see your FOE's posts if you don't log in anyway. No biggie, just as easy to not respond to the yeast infection that is Bandildo.

[wahoomurf]

seacoaster wrote:
"Also perjury charges will likely be filed against Ford."

C'mon; let's get a consensus here and turn on the "Foe"/Ignore function.


It's on, just click on the username on the post and there should be an "Add Foe" link

What took you so long?

Alright boys, I'm in. Bandildo is on my FOE list of one.

"Clicking" will place you guys in jeopardy.....of viewing the bon mots and pearls of wisdom from the WYWK. Not sure if you'll get to read this....no doubt I'm on more than a few FOE lists.

I don't think the FOE thing is all that effective, murf, appears to me as if you still see your FOE's posts if you don't log in anyway. No biggie, just as easy to not respond to the yeast infection that is Bandildo.

I appreciate your guidance re: managing friends and foes. Major kudos on your Bandito comment. BRILLIANT!

[tech37]

"ST. PAUL, Minn. — An ex-girlfriend's allegation that Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison once physically abused her could not be substantiated because she refused to provide video she said she had of the incident, an attorney hired to investigate the claims concluded in a draft report obtained Monday by The Associated Press."

"a lawyer hired by Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party to investigate the allegation against Ellison."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... es-n915491

Hypocrisy on steroids. Don't any of you give me that specious crap that this isn't as important as Kavanaugh...it's the same issue, abuse of women. This didn't happen 36 years ago when Ellison was a teenager either. How come no one instantly believes Ellison's victim? Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? Where's the liberal moral outrage for this woman? Where's the demand for an independent investigation? FBI? Total nonsense Democrats!

FTR: As I've said, I don't like Kavanaugh. IMO, the best thing that can happen at this point is for the confirmation process to go forward and he's voted down. Next nominee up.

[Typical Lax Dad]

"ST. PAUL, Minn. — An ex-girlfriend's allegation that Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison once physically abused her could not be substantiated because she refused to provide video she said she had of the incident, an attorney hired to investigate the claims concluded in a draft report obtained Monday by The Associated Press."

"a lawyer hired by Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party to investigate the allegation against Ellison."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... es-n915491

Hypocrisy on steroids. Don't any of you give me that specious crap that this isn't as important as Kavanaugh...it's the same issue, abuse of women. This didn't happen 36 years ago when Ellison was a teenager either. How come no one instantly believes Ellison's victim? Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? Where's the liberal moral outrage for this woman? Where's the demand for an independent investigation? FBI? Total nonsense Democrats!

FTR: As I've said, I don't like Kavanaugh. IMO, the best thing that can happen at this point is for the confirmation process to go forward and he's voted down. Next nominee up.

Do you have any comments from the accusers attorney?

[youthathletics]

"ST. PAUL, Minn. — An ex-girlfriend's allegation that Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison once physically abused her could not be substantiated because she refused to provide video she said she had of the incident, an attorney hired to investigate the claims concluded in a draft report obtained Monday by The Associated Press."

"a lawyer hired by Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party to investigate the allegation against Ellison."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... es-n915491

Hypocrisy on steroids. Don't any of you give me that specious crap that this isn't as important as Kavanaugh...it's the same issue, abuse of women. This didn't happen 36 years ago when Ellison was a teenager either. How come no one instantly believes Ellison's victim? Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? Where's the liberal moral outrage for this woman? Where's the demand for an independent investigation? FBI? Total nonsense Democrats!

FTR: As I've said, I don't like Kavanaugh. IMO, the best thing that can happen at this point is for the confirmation process to go forward and he's voted down. Next nominee up.

Do you have any comments from the accusers attorney?

Why is there no FBI investigation going on or even mentioned in the article?

"An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred, particularly where the accusing party declines to produce supporting evidence that she herself asserts exists," Ellingstad wrote. "She has thus repeatedly placed the existence of the video front and center to her allegations, but then has refused to disclose it.

If not for double standards, the Political Democrats would have no standards at all.

[MDlaxfan76]

"ST. PAUL, Minn. — An ex-girlfriend's allegation that Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison once physically abused her could not be substantiated because she refused to provide video she said she had of the incident, an attorney hired to investigate the claims concluded in a draft report obtained Monday by The Associated Press."

"a lawyer hired by Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party to investigate the allegation against Ellison."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... es-n915491

Hypocrisy on steroids. Don't any of you give me that specious crap that this isn't as important as Kavanaugh...it's the same issue, abuse of women. This didn't happen 36 years ago when Ellison was a teenager either. How come no one instantly believes Ellison's victim? Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? Where's the liberal moral outrage for this woman? Where's the demand for an independent investigation? FBI? Total nonsense Democrats!

FTR: As I've said, I don't like Kavanaugh. IMO, the best thing that can happen at this point is for the confirmation process to go forward and he's voted down. Next nominee up.

Do you have any comments from the accusers attorney?

Why is there no FBI investigation going on or even mentioned in the article?

"An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred, particularly where the accusing party declines to produce supporting evidence that she herself asserts exists," Ellingstad wrote. "She has thus repeatedly placed the existence of the video front and center to her allegations, but then has refused to disclose it.

If not for double standards, the Political Democrats would have no standards at all.

I agree with seacoaster that this thread is supposedly about the Supreme Court and related topics. Ellison doesn't have any direct relationship to this thread other than as a whataboutism and it's indeed tedious...however, there's been enough back and forth about other folks who have harassed or assaulted women or children, including Clinton, Trump, Weinstein, Cosby and we could go on and on and on...that throwing up Ellison as another potential example is reasonable given that it hasn't yet been shown whether he's lying about it or not (all the others I mentioned clearly were lying in their denials).

But youth, Ellison wouldn't be going through an FBI background check for the position he seeks. Nor is the alleged crime a federal crime. So, it's disingenuous to ask why the FBI isn't involved in that matter.

A SCOTUS job is subject to an FBI background check. It should be noted that while he's been subject to 6 such background checks previously, only the first time through would have been intensive. The subsequent ones would have only been for the periods of time subsequent to the prior one. I don't know when the first check was done but presumably it was prior to the Watergate investigation and his role in that. Meaning in the mid-90's. It would have begun with his behaviors post age 18 only and given the context of the times, it presumably did not look at his behaviors as a high school or college student towards women, albeit had such an assault allegation been raised to them back then we'd at least hope that it would have been noted in the file even if it had not been taken very seriously.

At any point when serious allegations are made, FBI background checks are typically reopened. Whether they are followed up on aggressively presumably would have something to do with the seriousness of the allegation, it's potential for blackmail, and any issues with the person's prior honesty.

Now, on whether Ellison or the woman should be believed, in my book the tie should typically go to the woman but one would indeed need to test the credibility of the accusation and its motivation. I haven't followed the Ellison question closely (yet), but in the Kavanaugh situation the accuser is highly credible, she made these claims well before he was nominated to the Supreme Court and to multiple people. We have not seen any evidence that she herself has had any motivation beyond civic duty nor any evidence that she is hiding truth, shading truth, or lying. She took a polygraph (BTW, a regular requirement of background checks for security clearances) and she requested an FBI investigation to help get to the truth. Contrast that with Kavanaugh and I think we have to say that she is simply far more credible in her behavior in this than has been Kavanaugh. That's probably not enough to convict in a court of law, but close.

We'll need to see how the Ellison situation plays out, but I'd sure as heck hope that if the accuser proves to be credible, then we'd all take that seriously, D or R or I.

[Typical Lax Dad]

"ST. PAUL, Minn. — An ex-girlfriend's allegation that Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison once physically abused her could not be substantiated because she refused to provide video she said she had of the incident, an attorney hired to investigate the claims concluded in a draft report obtained Monday by The Associated Press."

"a lawyer hired by Minnesota's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party to investigate the allegation against Ellison."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... es-n915491

Hypocrisy on steroids. Don't any of you give me that specious crap that this isn't as important as Kavanaugh...it's the same issue, abuse of women. This didn't happen 36 years ago when Ellison was a teenager either. How come no one instantly believes Ellison's victim? Why does he get the benefit of the doubt? Where's the liberal moral outrage for this woman? Where's the demand for an independent investigation? FBI? Total nonsense Democrats!

FTR: As I've said, I don't like Kavanaugh. IMO, the best thing that can happen at this point is for the confirmation process to go forward and he's voted down. Next nominee up.

Do you have any comments from the accusers attorney?

Why is there no FBI investigation going on or even mentioned in the article?

"An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred, particularly where the accusing party declines to produce supporting evidence that she herself asserts exists," Ellingstad wrote. "She has thus repeatedly placed the existence of the video front and center to her allegations, but then has refused to disclose it.

If not for double standards, the Political Democrats would have no standards at all.

I agree with seacoaster that this thread is supposedly about the Supreme Court and related topics. Ellison doesn't have any direct relationship to this thread other than as a whataboutism and it's indeed tedious...however, there's been enough back and forth about other folks who have harassed or assaulted women or children, including Clinton, Trump, Weinstein, Cosby and we could go on and on and on...that throwing up Ellison as another potential example is reasonable given that it hasn't yet been shown whether he's lying about it or not (all the others I mentioned clearly were lying in their denials).

But youth, Ellison wouldn't be going through an FBI background check for the position he seeks. Nor is the alleged crime a federal crime. So, it's disingenuous to ask why the FBI isn't involved in that matter.

A SCOTUS job is subject to an FBI background check. It should be noted that while he's been subject to 6 such background checks previously, only the first time through would have been intensive. The subsequent ones would have only been for the periods of time subsequent to the prior one. I don't know when the first check was done but presumably it was prior to the Watergate investigation and his role in that. Meaning in the mid-90's. It would have begun with his behaviors post age 18 only and given the context of the times, it presumably did not look at his behaviors as a high school or college student towards women, albeit had such an assault allegation been raised to them back then we'd at least hope that it would have been noted in the file even if it had not been taken very seriously.

At any point when serious allegations are made, FBI background checks are typically reopened. Whether they are followed up on aggressively presumably would have something to do with the seriousness of the allegation, it's potential for blackmail, and any issues with the person's prior honesty.

Now, on whether Ellison or the woman should be believed, in my book the tie should typically go to the woman but one would indeed need to test the credibility of the accusation and its motivation. I haven't followed the Ellison question closely (yet), but in the Kavanaugh situation the accuser is highly credible, she made these claims well before he was nominated to the Supreme Court and to multiple people. We have not seen any evidence that she herself has had any motivation beyond civic duty nor any evidence that she is hiding truth, shading truth, or lying. She took a polygraph (BTW, a regular requirement of background checks for security clearances) and she requested an FBI investigation to help get to the truth. Contrast that with Kavanaugh and I think we have to say that she is simply far more credible in her behavior in this than has been Kavanaugh. That's probably not enough to convict in a court of law, but close.

We'll need to see how the Ellison situation plays out, but I'd sure as heck hope that if the accuser proves to be credible, then we'd all take that seriously, D or R or I.

That was my understanding of how things worked but last week people on this board stated that the FBI does not get involved in situations like Kavanaugh’s. I believe President Trump also said that two weeks ago. I have no reason to believe Ellison’s accuser is lying. It should be investigated. When witnesses don’t cooperate, cases don’t go anywhere, even if a crime was committed, unless there is overwhelming evidence and you don’t need the accusers testimony.

[Bandito]

Democrats:

Kavanaugh is a gang rapist
Ok, not a gang rapist, but a serial rapist.
Not a serial rapist, but a rapist.
Ok, not a rapist but a blackout drunk.
Not a blackout drunk, but an alcoholic.
Not an alcoholic, but he drinks beer.
Ok nevermind, he just threw ice at somebody in the 1980s.

Imagine if someone saw him drinking beer with a straw in California!!! That would be the final nail in the coffin!

heck Democrats are the worst. Red Wave is coming and Kav will be the next SCOTUS

[DMac]

My entries in the "who or what is the real, actual factual BANDITO" contest. Either Anne Coulter, Trump's legitimate son Eric or Betsy DeVos's little brother, Erik Prince.

Any other candidates?

Joan B.
"Joan's even got the nickname the 'jerk Queen.''
https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/1691815 ... -sex-toys/

[wahoomurf]

Chicken turd Republican Senator Perdue hides from women in a bathroom at RR Airport. When asked why he replied (1) they tried to ask me some questions;(2) Mitch Mac ordered me to shut the heck up;(3) my mamma told me that women have COOTIES.

He was so scared of those "bitches" that he had to change his Pampers.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/republic ... hroom.html

[runrussellrun]

Chicken turd Republican Senator Perdue hides from women in a bathroom at RR Airport. When asked why he replied (1) they tried to ask me some questions;(2) Mitch Mac ordered me to shut the heck up;(3) my mamma told me that women have COOTIES.

He was so scared of those "bitches" that he had to change his Pampers.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/republic ... hroom.html

".....especially women of color who are ALL sexual assault victims " says one of the women chasing down the midget mcconnell . (had no idea he was so small )

All women of color have been sexually assaulted? These people are creeps.

As an aside, What the heck are our Senators doing in an airport on a Tuesday morning? Where are the going? Aren't they in session, or were these confrontations from the weekend?

EDIT: I see it was Monday. Were they coming BACK to DC? These clowns fly commercial, not private?

[jhu72]

Old Chucklebees is a riot. She just lost her turd over Bill Clinton, like he is still relevant. Sometimes her pressers are really entertaining.

[seriously?]

Anyone hear from Kavanaugh's parents? You know, the ones who never gave a turd where he was or that he came home wasted on a regular basis while in high school?

[Bandito]

Anyone hear from Kavanaugh's parents? You know, the ones who never gave a turd where he was or that he came home wasted on a regular basis while in high school?

Anyone hear from Obama's parents? You know, the ones who never gave a turd he drank, smoked weed and did lines of cocaine as a teenager? The media praised him for this btw. Such a double standard.
Seriously you need to try harder or stay over on the D1 boards.

[HooDat]

Anyone hear from Kavanaugh's parents? You know, the ones who never gave a turd where he was or that he came home wasted on a regular basis while in high school?

seriously - you must have grown up in the '90's??? No one's parents gave a rat's behind where they were in the 80's. All parents in the 80's cared about was (a) if they were "good" parents - your grades and (b) if they were bad parents - that they didn't get a call from the police at 2 in the morning......

[dislaxxic]

Bandildo protests FL politics



..

[MDlaxfan76]

Bandildo protests FL politics



..

But, but, but he owns his own house (trailer)!