Hey Hill....how about the FBI investigates you and Bill? They HAVE investigated him...six times.

Hillary Clinton appears on 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' to ask FBI to investigate Kavanaugh

As the nation continues to focus on the contentions process to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court amid accusations of sexual assault, Hillary Clinton appeared on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” to call on the FBI to investigate the situation.

Clinton appeared on Colbert’s late night program to promote the paperback version of her book, “What Happened,” when the host grilled her on her thoughts with regard to the Kavanaugh hearings.

As previously reported, President Trump’s nomination for the Supreme Court was expected to be confirmed when Christine Blasey Ford reluctantly came forward with allegations saying he forced himself on her during a party in the early 1980s while they were both still in high school.

 

Colbert opened his discussion with the former 2016 Democratic candidate for president by asking how she weighed the Kavanaugh controversy against that of Merrick Garland, an Obama SCOTUS pick who republicans refused to meet with or confirm.

“It’s one of the reasons that I think a lot of Americans are just fed up with the whole political process. Because, In a democracy you have to have at least enough trust to be able to work with each other and solve difficult problems,” she said. “When the republicans refuse to give a distinguished judge appointed by President Obama even the courtesy of meetings, let alone a hearing, that sent such a terrible message. Now, what they’ve done in this case is to hold back information, they have not provided all the information, which was always made available for other nominees, and they’re trying to rush this through to the detriment of the American public, who deserves to have answers to whatever charges might be presented."

As of now, Ford is planning to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee with regards to he claims. However, she previously called on the Senate to investigate her claim before she stepped into a courtroom. Clinton noted that she feels that was a worthwhile request.

“I’m hoping that at some point there will be an agreement to have an investigation. It would be very easy for the FBI to go back and finish the background investigation, to investigate these charges. And, you know maybe find out there’s nothing to them, maybe find out there is something to them. But, at least have that investigation completed. I think that’s a fair request for due process to be asked for,” she said, to applause from Colbert’s crowd.

Clinton went on to note that the republicans’ discrepency between the way they’re treating Kavanaugh and the way they treated Garland is the “crassest, most cynical kind of politics that can even be imagined.”

She concluded her thoughts on Kavanaugh with a simple plea to investigate the claims against him before rushing anything into motion.

“Have an investigation, it won’t take that long,” she concluded. “Let the investigation go forward, present it and then go from there.”

"Verbal Lynching is the political tool used today by dems to silence debate on critical issues."

Original Post

I had an FBI background check for my security clearance in the army, plus I was trusted with tens of thousands in cash.  From friends who were interviewed, mine was quite thorough.  Anyone trusted with a high office like a judge or justice, surely underwent a much more thorough one.

Via Twitter:

Mitch McConnell: “You’ve watched the fight. You’ve watched the tactics, But here’s what I want to tell you: In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court… Don’t get rattled by all of this. We’re gonna plow right through it and do our job.”

Doug Jones: "The last time I read the Constitution, it said our role was to advise and consent, not to “plow right through” the confirmation process. If you believe that, then any hearing this week is simply perfunctory. You’ve made up your mind and Dr. Ford’s testimony has no bearing..."


Narrator: The so called republicans (tea party)  were worried about tyranny during the eight years of Obama.  Then something changed.  All they cared about was power.

 

Naio posted:

It's a joke because kavanaugh thinks presidents are above the law. Which is why trump picked him. Enjoy the show.

gremlins laughing GIF

Proof old Batty accepts leftwing agitprop without researching what he posts.

Kavanaugh in this http://www.minnesotalawreview....1/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf, 

Kavanaugh stated Congress “consider a law exempting a President — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation.” He makes this proposal in the same law-review article, by the way, where he also suggests that Congress should assert greater authority over war powers, and he floats the idea of a single, six-year term for the president (an interesting idea, by the way.)  He advocating that congress pass a law, not how a judge should decide the question.  Pretty much in line with Madison in the Federalist Papers.  Research, before posting. 

The Obama maladministration weaponized the IRS and turned it on the Tea Party movement -- that's not arguable.  The IRS made a public apology and paid $3.4 million in damages.  A peaceful movement was destroyed by the IRS, which conspired to damage the election process far more than the Russians.

As a result, Trump was elected.  Demmies, you caused the Trump presidency by destroying the Tea Party.  Now, live with your actions.

direstraits posted:
Naio posted:

It's a joke because kavanaugh thinks presidents are above the law. Which is why trump picked him. Enjoy the show.

gremlins laughing GIF

Proof old Batty accepts leftwing agitprop without researching what he posts.

Kavanaugh in this http://www.minnesotalawreview....1/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf, 

Kavanaugh stated Congress “consider a law exempting a President — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation.” He makes this proposal in the same law-review article, by the way, where he also suggests that Congress should assert greater authority over war powers, and he floats the idea of a single, six-year term for the president (an interesting idea, by the way.)  He advocating that congress pass a law, not how a judge should decide the question.  Pretty much in line with Madison in the Federalist Papers.  Research, before posting. 

https://www.politico.com/blogs...dent-indicted-709641

Kavanaugh's allies note that the 2009 Minnesota Law Review article he wrote addressing such subjects advocates for a congressional statute that would exempt the president from civil suits while in office, as well as immunizing him from criminal investigation and prosecution. He does use some pretty strong language about the prospect of a criminal trial of a sitting president, saying it would "cripple the federal government"—an assessment that one could imagine leading a Supreme Court justice to step in to avert such a prospect.

However, Kavanaugh's supporters observe that by backing a law to provide such immunity, he was implicitly accepting that it could not be found in the Constitution or existing law. Perhaps so, but it turns out Kavanaugh was asked directly about his view on the subject two decades ago and signaled his belief that a presidential indictment was beyond the pale.

During a 1998 Georgetown Law School conference on what would turn out to be the dim prospects of renewing the independent counsel law, moderator Mark Tuohey (who hired Kavanaugh onto the staff of independent counsel Ken Starr) put a question to the panel:

"How many of you believe, as a matter of law, that a sitting president cannot be indicted during the term of office?" Tuohey asked.

Kavanaugh's hand went up, as did more than half of the experts on the panel, including some with liberal political outlooks.

Kavanaugh's stance—or his stance at that time— is not an unusual or outlandish one. In fact, it's the official position of the Justice Department, formally articulated in a 1973 opinion under President Richard Nixon and reaffirmed in 2000 under President Bill Clinton. But it could be that there's less nuance to Kavanaugh's view than his supporters are suggesting.

Earlier in the panel discussion, helpfully preserved for eternity by C-SPAN, Kavanaugh refers to the issue as "a question that has been a lurking constitutional issue for a long time which at some point here should be resolved so we can determine whether the Congress or an independent counsel should investigate the president when his conduct is at issue."

"I tend to think it has to be the Congress," Kavanaugh added, presaging the views he would offer in more detail in his law review article a decade or so later. Democrats are expected to press Kavanaugh hard on the topic at his confirmation hearings, arguing that Trump picked him as a kind of insurance policy against potential negative developments in special counsel Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia probe.

Some scholars are of the view that a president could be indicted while in office, but could not be tried until he vacated the office, whether by impeachment, resignation or because his term expired. But the most recent Justice Department opinion, which is likely binding on Mueller's office, says that even a sealed indictment of the president would be impermissible.

 

direstraits posted:

The Obama maladministration weaponized the IRS and turned it on the Tea Party movement -- that's not arguable.  The IRS made a public apology and paid $3.4 million in damages.  A peaceful movement was destroyed by the IRS, which conspired to damage the election process far more than the Russians.

As a result, Trump was elected.  Demmies, you caused the Trump presidency by destroying the Tea Party.  Now, live with your actions.

lol. Obama can't hurt you anymore, casablanca. I look forward to the tea party's outrage when the trump tax cuts expire.

direstraits posted:
Naio posted:

It's a joke because kavanaugh thinks presidents are above the law. Which is why trump picked him. Enjoy the show.

gremlins laughing GIF

Proof old Batty accepts leftwing agitprop without researching what he posts.

Kavanaugh in this http://www.minnesotalawreview....1/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf, 

Kavanaugh stated Congress “consider a law exempting a President — while in office — from criminal prosecution and investigation.” He makes this proposal in the same law-review article, by the way, where he also suggests that Congress should assert greater authority over war powers, and he floats the idea of a single, six-year term for the president (an interesting idea, by the way.)  He advocating that congress pass a law, not how a judge should decide the question.  Pretty much in line with Madison in the Federalist Papers.  Research, before posting. 

Be fair. If the lefties had to have facts and the truth to post they'd never be able to do it. On second thought...dems not posting is not such a bad idea.

Naio posted:
direstraits posted:

The Obama maladministration weaponized the IRS and turned it on the Tea Party movement -- that's not arguable.  The IRS made a public apology and paid $3.4 million in damages.  A peaceful movement was destroyed by the IRS, which conspired to damage the election process far more than the Russians.

As a result, Trump was elected.  Demmies, you caused the Trump presidency by destroying the Tea Party.  Now, live with your actions.

lol. Obama can't hurt you anymore, casablanca. I look forward to the tea party's outrage when the trump tax cuts expire.

The harm Obama caused will last for years.  Tea Party has pretty much passed.  Its Trump's party now.  Republicans are planning on extending the individual tax cuts, if they have a sufficient majority in the Senate. 

Liberals never did catch on about Ohussein, he's of the one
world order cult and wasn't going to do for blacks any more than
for all Americans. As a non American he's still in the mix and on
the payroll to take this country to a socialist controlled level---
 
If liberals would read the daily events of Damocraps updates they
could see the fault in their thinking but they don't, proving there's
a major breakdown in their comprehension if they did keep up---
 
And they've yet to learn everyone including 'they' will bite the
dirt while the only master is the one with the Gun-- 
 

TAPPER, CNN: Doesn't Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?

HIRONO: I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.

Well give her credit for directness. According to Senator Hirono, Brett Kavanaugh is not protected by the United States Constitution. He does not enjoy the presumption of innocence. Kavanaugh is guilty because his opponents say he is guilty. That is Senator Hirono's position. She's proud of it. She's become a folk hero on the left for saying that.

Watch her say it again on Monday.

HALLIE MARIE JACKSON, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NBC NEWS, ANCHOR,

MSNBC: Can you clarify what you meant? Do you believe Judge Kavanaugh doesdeserve a presumption of innocence or not?

HIRONO: Look, we're not in a court of law. We're actually in a Court ofCredibility at this point. And without having the -- the FBI report or some semblance of trying to get corroboration, we are left with the credibility of the two witnesses.

Oh, a Court of Credibility. Now, Senator Hirono didn't explain exactly what a Court of Credibility is, though you can be sure you wouldn't ever want to be tried in one, though at this rate, sorry, you may be.

If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to Brett Kavanaugh, it probably doesn't apply to you either. It all depends on what Mazie Hirono thinks of your political views. If she agrees with you, you'll be fine. If not, you won't be fine.

Keep in mind that once you've been accused in this new Court of Credibility, you're responsible for proving yourself innocent. It's your job to un-convict yourself. If that sounds like a mirror image of our actual justice system, you're right. It is.

For more than a 1,000 years, the burden of proof in the West has fallen on the accuser. In our country, that would be the government. If they say you did it they have to prove that you did it. But, not anymore.

Here's Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut on Monday morning explaining how the new system works:

“We have a constitutional duty to get to the bottom of these allegations. They are serious, and credible. And now, the person with the most knowledge about them, namely, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, has a responsibility to come forward with evidence to rebut them.”

Got that? We accuse you of a felony. Your job is to show you're innocent. You're a sex criminal, prove you're not.

Senator Blumenthal went to Yale Law School. Did he learn that concept in his classes there?

Probably not.

It's a new idea but it's also a very old idea. It was common during the medieval period where the accused also had a "responsibility" to come forward with evidence to rebut the charges against them. Heretics who survived torture sometimes got declared innocent. Hurray.

But there's a flip side to the new system. Because the accused are guilty by definition, the accuser suddenly have no responsibility to make credible claims. And we're seeing that principle in action too.

Here's Christine Ford’s timeline: 1982 - Something may or may not have happened with another 2 (or 4) teenagers at a party, she cannot remember who threw the party, where the party was held, who she was with or how she got home. She was drinking and said nothing to anyone. 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 - she said nothing. July 25, 2003: President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit - she said nothing. 2004, 2005 - she said nothing. May 11, 2006: The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary recommended confirmation. Kavanaugh subsequently confirmed by the United States Senate - she said nothing. June 1, 2006: Kavanaugh sworn in by Justice Anthony Kennedy - she said nothing. 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 - she said nothing. 2012 She vaguely remembers 'something' may have happened in 1982, yet doesn't name Kavanaugh and still said nothing to authorities. 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 - becomes an anti-trump activist. 2018 - now 36 years later, with Kavanaugh's SCOTUS confirmation looming, she pens an anonymous letter with grave accusations against Kavanaugh regarding foggy circumstance that occurred while they were both minors, then reveals herself and DEMANDS an FBI investigation before testifying to her incredible allegations.

A presumption of innocence until proven guilty has a long provenance, not just in English common law, but in Roman law, from which England developed much of its own law.  That's about 2,400 years.  There are a few times when this was breached.  During the witch trials in Europe and the US, one was accused of witchcraft and had to prove they weren't.  Similar during the Spanish Inquisition, one had to present the case one was innocent, before even hearing the charges.  Another was about 1,000 years ago during the Blood Libels against Jews.

Democrats find themselves amongst witch trials, the Inquisition and anti-Semitic Medieval purges.  Fit company for the likes of them. 

Do these idiots realize where their efforts will lead? 

What does it matter? I'm sure they have hundreds willing to lie about him, and the left thinks that somehow they can make all the accusations make him look guilty. They want to cause an uproar and  elevate the incident she claimed happened to "rape status", so they can ruin a man's life for their own agenda.

Clinton's real victims, who know where it happened, who was there, and have photos and witnesses to prove they were with Bill at the time they claim the assaults happened, are vilified and/or ignored by the left. See how they are now ignoring Ellison, whose victim came forth, and Cory Booker, who admitted he did the thing that Kavanaugh is accused of doing, and still gets to vote.

Jutu posted:
Kraven posted:
I probably haven't mention this before but if liberals can't cheat,,
they can't win.

That we know all too well, and nothing is taboo when they go after someone to ruin.

This changes everything about conformations the way the talk
has been going for future events... I hope they've **** in their
nest again in the aftermath of all the damage done to both
sides of the swamp----

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×