Don’t you think Avenatti would be able to ask his client whether she filed a complaint with Montgomery County? I’m gonna need you to put on yer thinking cap, bro.
People (most notably iiandyiiii) aren’t calling for another background check, they are calling for a full FBI investigation. Unless and until he’s accused of a federal crime, that is not their role.
The GOP Senate leadership, President Trump, and Judge Kavanaugh all seem to be quite worried about this, considering that they have made no move to request or direct the FBI investigate these allegations as they did allegations against nominee Clarence Thomas in the 90s.
We’re waiting to see if the Republicans have the moral courage to recommend that the FBI investigate the sexual assault accusations.
Actually, I realized the problem just as I was typing the words “moral courage”.
The FBI has investigated nominees before at the request of the President, most notably Clarence Thomas. That is indeed their role, if so directed.
For someone who has “read every post in this thread,” you seem remarkably ignorant about the discussion that has taken place in this thread. But don’t let that stop you from making declarative (but wrong) claims, buddy. That’s part of your charm.
When they are reported to the police they should be investigated. One apparently has, I’m sure it will be given as thorough an investigation as is warranted. What that entails will depend on the nature of the report, which as far as I know hasn’t been released.
If it turns out to be an allegation of a misdemeanor 35 years ago, there will presumably be very little investigation, and the police can concentrate on meaningful reports. If it’s more like the reports of gang raping many drugged girls, then it should be a pretty damn high priority.
Still fuck all to do with the FBI, unless some of those girls were transported across stare lines.
Correct. And when someone actually provides evidence that Kavanaugh did that, it will become relevant. As yet, we have some evidence that someone else (Judge) engaged in group sex, and claimed that it was consensual, and no evidence otherwise.
Have you considered actually reading the thread instead of just claiming that you have? It would help prevent you from making ignorant and wrong comments like the one I just quoted.
Hope this helps!
I mean, you’d think that maybe, just maybe, we should cross that bridge when we get there. Maybe we should wait and see if this is actually what happens - if republican nominees consistently get these kinds of accusations, and we seriously need to consider that people are getting hit by smear campaigns alleging sexual assault as part of a political strategy.
But maybe it would be prudent to wait on the panic until the needle shifts in that direction, rather than bringing this shit up in the middle of a huge movement revealing just how endemic sexual assault is and how risky dealing with it is as a woman whose abuser is in a position of power. Recently, we’ve had Donald Trump (“credible” doesn’t begin to describe it) and Roy Moore (pretty much everyone knew about this, apparently), and only one of those lost their election.
Seriously, any more tonedeaf and you’d make one of those American Idol blooper reels.
I know when I want to know the FBI’s role in SCOTUS confirmation proceedings, I go to random internet British person. Certainly not, you know, US professional legal experts, who say that the FBI could definitely investigate these allegations if directed by the President.
I’m glad to see you want Trump to arbitrarily increase the jurisdiction of the FBI. That couldn’t possibly backfire :smack:
Are you even thinking about what you post?
This has been a GOP talking point, but it is false. The FBI investigates backgrounds of Supreme Court nominees for the benefit of the President and the Senate. It could do so in this case if ordered.
I have said before that I believe such a thing is a fool’s errand, but it is something the FBI could do: 1) if it chose, or 2) if it was ordered by the President.
I think the average random British person could do a better job than Steophan, provided they read the thread.
No idea what the hell you’re talking about. I’m talking about the FBI doing something, at the direction of the President, that the FBI has done before at the direction of previous Presidents. Certainly no change in jurisdiction.
Yes, they can do another backgroung check at Trump’s request. Perhaps they should. They are not going to investigate state crimes, and Trump asking them to would (hopefully) be something you and others would be strongly against. I thought you were Liberal, after all.
The article states definitively that they could investigate these specific allegations, if so directed by the President, just as they investigated Anita Hill’s claims about Clarence Thomas (at the direction of the President) in the 90s. And that’s what I want the President to do – direct the FBI to investigate these allegations about his nominee. That’s what he’d do (and what the GOP Senate leadership would advocate for) if they were interested in maximizing the chance of finding the truth.
Doubling down. I like it.
Have you considered taking a break from this thread, educating yourself a little, then coming back and pretending your prior posts never happened?
They will not conduct a criminal investigation of a state crime, but a background check is a type of investigation, especially if they do it. They are the FBI-- it’s in their name.