First,I want to state that I am not trying to get political. I do not know if Kavanaugh is guilty or not, but accusations of something he did in high school appears to be enough to sully his name for good.
If this trend continues, what chance does David have when he decides it,s time to go into politics?
Right after the people pushing the current 'accusation is proof' concept are kicked out of politics. Remember, he has to finish high school and college first, so he has time for the political climate to change again.
Right after the people pushing the current 'accusation is proof' concept are kicked out of politics.
It isn't going away, it's here to stay, it always existed for that matter. How much, or how significant, that impact remains in 10 to 20 years is another matter. But this is venturing into prohibited territory.
The "next iteration" is what concerns me, and is the most interest as a quasi futurist and aspiring author. Things either regress, or things "get weird" to say the least, and ironically almost lands you back into a lead-in for a Naked-In-School setup.
That women are claiming to be "deeply traumatized" and questioning their own self-worth simply by means of a touch speaks more to social conditioning/standards/expectations that are seriously screwed up and need to be addressed and fixed before they needlessly create another additional level of fucked up social norms.
Yes, the guy had no business touching where and how he did, but that has more relevancy and bearing on his worth as an individual.
In the meantime however, terrifying nearly half of the population with the prospect of their life-long ambitions being destroyed by a small cadre of people operating in circles completely unrelated to their line of work is utterly insane.
Edit: And oddly, with an extra line break, that statement is equally valid for both genders, as either the perp, or the victim. Be it from a grope/touch, or false allegations.
Right after the people pushing the current 'accusation is proof' concept are kicked out of politics.
As in, "We Republicans accuse Hillary of running a child sex ring out of the basement of Comet Ping Pong, therefore she must be guilty." (Comet Ping Pong does not have a basement, and Edgar Welch's riddling the place with gunfire was based on said lies.)
Or, more to the point, "We Republicans accuse Dr. Ford of being a liar, therefore she must be a liar." The Democrats, on the other hand, have been pushing for an FBI investigation. They see the accusation as evidence, not proof.
--
Also, sexual assault and rape are the only crimes where the person making the accusation is assumed to be at fault for something from the very beginning of the investigation.
The theft victim is assumed to be telling the truth unless proven otherwise, even though the victim's accusation is not enough proof for a conviction. In most cases, however, the rape victim is treated as a liar.
The theft victim's behavior is not analyzed, while the rape victim's behavior is used to blame the victim for the crime. (This doesn't depend on gender; it took decades for both the Catholic church's and Jerry Sandusky's rapes of boys to be believed.)
I've never heard it said that "the mugging victim advertised his wealth with his fancy suit and tie, so he brought it upon himself." I have heard "the rape victim brought it upon herself by her clothing" far too often.
The Democrats, on the other hand, have been pushing for an FBI investigation. They see the accusation as evidence, not proof.
I think the Republicans would be willing to consider all allegations if they didn't have the cases of Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones in the past to look upon. You know, the women that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy after they were raped by Bill Clinton. Now, what's that comment from her about 'We must believe all accusations?"
Oh, and of course, Keith Ellison beating up his girlfriend, obviously we can't believe her - even though there are police reports to confirm he's done this in the past.
Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones in the past . . . You know, the women that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy
(A) Those cases were investigated. Broaddrick's was investigated by Ken Starr, who declared the evidence "inconclusive." It's possible there was sexual assault, but if Starr thinks there wasn't enough evidence, the evidence for a conviction wasn't there.
Starr also investigated Willey's claims, and discovered that she had repeatedly lied under oath. Also, on March 19, 1998, Julie Hiatt Steele declared in an affidavit that Willey asked her to lie about the incident. Willey was most likely lying when she made her claim.
Jones claimed sexual harassment, not rape. Again, this was investigated, and the mark she claimed to be on Clinton's penis did not exist. Eventually, Susan Webber Wright, who was appointed to the bench by G.H.W. Bush, dismissed Jones' suit as being without legal merit.
In all three cases, the investigations were done. The only allegation I can view as possible is Broaddrick's.
(B) Politifact looked into Trump's claim that H. Clinton "viciously" attacked Bill's accusers, and found it to be mostly false. The only definite attack they found was Hillary's decision to release some letters written by Willey. This hardly qualifies as destruction.
(C) Ford's allegations should get the same treatment as Broaddrick's, Willey's, and Jones': an impartial investigation should be set up, and the claims evaluated.
have been pushing for an FBI investigation. They see the accusation as evidence, not proof.
I had been trying not to involve US politics directly in this until now. But I will point out a couple of items, and hope not to get Lazeez's ire because I reply to your politically biased post.
1. The accusation by Ford is a state crime and absolutely nothing to do with the FBI, it's outside of their jurisdiction to investigate it as a crime. Yet the last time I checked Ford refused to go to the Maryland police with the matter to have it investigated as a crime, why?
The FBI have done a number of very thorough past background checks on Kavanaugh and this never came up in them, why was it not mentioned then? There is nothing extra the FBI can do than what they've already done. I suspect what Ford wants is an FBI investigation that's a witch hunt by people of like political agendas, and not a real investigation.
Last week there was a report by someone else who thinks Ford may be mistaking Kavanaugh for another student who looked a lot like him in high school. The other guy even lived in a house that fit the few thing Ford remembers about the alleged assault. But the telling thing about Ford's accusation is the timing makes it look to be politically motivated and nothing to do with truth or honesty.
There are other politicians with much more recent accusations of sexual assault and misconduct with witnesses and more details, but they aren't being given a fraction of the coverage because they're senior Democrats as against a Republican nominee. When you give both side the same support and air time come back and we can talk intelligently.
I was trying to avoid detailed political talks to honor Lazeez's wish to cut the politics, so I'm not going to comment on any specific case again. Before I spoke about the general situation so I wouldn't come across as siding with anyone, as there are people in both major parties at fault in that way.
this never came up in them
Were Ford and the other women who claim to have been mistreated or observed such actions aware that Kavanaugh was being investigated? I doubt it.
Were Ford and the other women who claim to have been mistreated or observed such actions aware that Kavanaugh was being investigated? I doubt it.
Considering the publicity about being posted to his current position, I doubt it's possible for them to not know he was being investigated.
It's called blackmail of the masses. Intimidate the most powerful and you cower all the rest.
It's called blackmail of the masses. Intimidate the most powerful and you cower all the rest.
And you would think they would have learned by now, fear and intimidation only go so far, then people fight back. Once that starts, your house of cards risks falling apart, and people "like Trump"(speaking very broadly, while he might seem like a Putin in the making, I don't currently think he is--as he "lacks markers" which would concern me) come into power.
Even the hyper-security state of the Soviet Block lost their stranglehold on things in the end.
It seems to me that there are several differences between our current political situations and the scenario in stupid boy.
The first key difference is age. David is in High School. The political and judicial people involved in the current situations supposedly committed the actions (not taking a stance) after they were out of high school. That means they were older and supposedly more mature than David. Our society tends to be more forgiving of activities committed in High School, than the same activities committed by college and older people.
Then there are the sexual activities David and these people allegedly engaged in. David's sexual activities were all consensual. Based on the reports, the sexual activities of the people involved in the current situations were not consensual.
Finally, David usually acknowledges his sexual activities when confronted by adults when he gets into a problematic situation. The people involved in the current situations are denying the activities they are accused of.
People who know people involved in the current situations are starting to come forward and talk about what they know about the situations. For example, the Judge went on Fox News and denied being a heavy drinker and a stumbling drunk while in college, now the people who knew him back then are coming forward and telling what they know about his behavior.
David's sexual activities were all consensual.
If you get into politics, you should be aware that what may be consensual at the time of the event could be non-consensual tomorrow. (unless you require all your partners to sign a sworn affadavit before engaging.)
If you get into politics, you should be aware that what may be consensual at the time of the event could be non-consensual tomorrow. (unless you require all your partners to sign a sworn affadavit before engaging.)
Which isn't to mention that some groups would probably label him as a pedophile because he had sex with people under the age of 18. His age, and even local laws, at the time would be immaterial to those people. They were under 18, they were legally minors and thus incapable of giving "proper informed consent" on the matter.
Which isn't to mention one of his previous partners possibly having divergent politics from his own and changing their story over time. Or alternatively, somebody else who was "close enough" but uninvolvrd, making accusations that they had been involved in some of it, against their will.
Maybe it is as "benign" as somebody working through an issue in therapy and they dredge up a rape fantasy/nightmare involving the MC unaware that the "dreamlike quality" of the memory is because it actually was a dream, and not something that happened while drugged out of their minds.
If something is consensual at the time, and the past action is still consensual. Of course, one of both parties can lie in the future.
When a situation occurs and there is no evidence to support either party, it comes down to who is the most believable.
When a situation occurs and there is no evidence to support either party, it comes down to who is the most believable.
Almost any prison in the USA has people in it who were convicted of robbery on no other evidence than the identification by the victim (the alleged victim to be parallel to this case) who had seen the perpetrator only once. He said, "yes, he's the one," and that was enough. Any of his friends who knew he testified will think him a good citizen.
The case which worries so many of you has a person who was well acquainted with the accused, who is going to lose a whole chunk of her reputation over this, who says definitely that he was the one.
Kavanaugh has publicly changed his story several times about his general behavior in HS and college. He faces, not years of imprisonment but not getting a promotion.
Worry about the little guys getting the big punishments first.
Kavanaugh has publicly changed his story several times about his general behavior in HS and college. He faces, not years of imprisonment but not getting a promotion.
He has decades of service as a judge. In terms of the promotion he is up for, no one should give a fuck about his general behavior in HS or college, one way or the other.
(unless you require all your partners to sign a sworn affadavit before engaging.)
In Sweden one law was has already passed and got into effect on 1 July: Sweden passed sex law
There's now a hoax card doing the rounds in the internet: Sex Consent card.
That hoax card could become reality very soon.
Everyone across all political spectrums should be concerned with what is happening. Not just in the SCOTUS fracas, but in general terms. The latter general terms are, in my opinion, far more important to everyone.
Less than a century ago, if a white accused a black of a crime, well he or she was guilty and evidence be damned. The same can be said between Native Americans and whites, Chinese etc. In large parts of Asia, it was the other way around in the same time frame.
It's now 2018, and we are susposed to pass a judgment of guilty simply because a woman said so. No evidence required. That reverses several decades of legal precedence. With the new standard set of accusations equaling guilty, what happens when that gets turned on you?
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Martin Niemöller
It's now 2018, and we are susposed to pass a judgment of guilty simply
This is not a criminal trial where the jury passes a judgment of guilty or not guilty. It is not a trial where proof is required "beyond a reasonable doubt." This is a man seeking to become one of the 9 justices whose decisions will affect all of us, likely for at least a generation. The standard to be met is whether we want this nominee to fill this job. He has no "right" to this seat - no more so than the previous nominee nominated for the same seat by a previous president. We hired these politicians to make hiring decisions such as this for us, and we should judge the politicians on their performance.
I agree, but credibility also plays an important part of the job. Since the job also deals with morality and ethics, we need someone in the job who is moral and ethical.
Where did I say the word trial? For further clarification, some of the worst things that can be done to a person never see the inside of a courtroom. Accused and punished, never mind the trial or even any evidence.
I think the biggest worry would be some of the recruiting parties. If one of the girls woke-up ashamed of what happened she may possibly rationalize she never would have done anything like that if alcohol and possibly drugs were not pushed onto her. Since David instigated the party he obviously planned that situation.
David is mostly unable to be elected due to his escapades. (including those newly revealed in Senior Year 1) His only chance would be if his popularity increases due to his future sports and acting successes. The ability for the opposite side to fabricate wild claims is simple if a pattern of behavior, even if favorable, exist in the first place. I don't know the answer for future politicians... If someone were groomed from birth to be "electable" would we even want such an abnormal person?
I laugh at the criticism of Kavanaugh... "He was drunk and exposed himself"... at a drunken frat party. What the hell is suppose to happen at a drunken frat party? It's a drunken frat party for Christ sake!
"He was drunk and exposed himself"... at a drunken frat party. What the hell is suppose to happen at a drunken frat party? It's a drunken frat party for Christ sake!
I am SHOCKED, completely SHOCKED to discover that sexually questionable activities happened at this establishment.
Now excuse me while I get my underwear out of my hands, and back in the correct location.
....That said, a LOT of other things happen under the banner of "drunken frat parties" that aren't so acceptable, but yeah, if the worst complaint somebody has after being to one is somebody flashed their junk at them, the question needs to be asked: "What did you expect? A poetry recital?"
It is about on par with somebody going to a strip club and complaining about the stripper performing a strip-tease.
It's now 2018, and we are susposed to pass a judgment of guilty simply because a woman said so. No evidence required.
It seems to me that all calls for an actual investigation by the FBI into the facts of the events are being blocked by the party with a vested interest in getting their boy onto the SCOTUS. They seem to prefer to keep things at the level of accusations. Well, if accusations & innuendo were enough to oust Al Franken, it ought to be enough to send Kavanaugh packing.
Well, if accusations & innuendo were enough to oust Al Franken, it ought to be enough to send Kavanaugh packing.
There was at least one picture(staged or not) in Franken's case used to support the claims. He also acknowledged his behavior on a couple of the other claims IIRC. So hardly the scenario of an otherwise innocent man contending with only (allegedly) false accusations.
accusations & innuendo
Is the person making allegations an allegator?
Is "innuendo" anal sex? Maybe the o at the end makes it sound more Latin American.
Is the person making allegations an allegator?
Is "innuendo" anal sex? Maybe the o at the end makes it sound more Latin American.
Go away, kid. Ya bother me.
It seems to me that all calls for an actual investigation by the FBI into the facts of the events are being blocked by the party with a vested interest in getting their boy onto the SCOTUS.
Two minor details - he's ALREADY a Federal Judge and has been investigated in the past BY the FBI. They've already cleared him in their previous background investigations. And the second is that no Federal laws were broken. Since Maryland has no statute of limitations upon sex crimes, if Dr. Ford was serious about this, she could file a police report and the Maryland police would investigate.
But that would also require her to have proof and/or actual witnesses to back up her story - and she has none of that.
Also note that there ARE pictures of Al Franken acting in a sexual manner, including grabbing the breasts of a woman who was asleep on an airplane. So that's not just accusations and innuendo, that's actual proof.
the second is that no Federal laws were broken. Since Maryland has no statute of limitations upon sex crimes, if Dr. Ford was serious about this, she could file a police report and the Maryland police would investigate.
But that would also require her to have proof and/or actual witnesses to back up her story - and she has none of that.
The other consideration in my book is her "reluctance" to either testify or otherwise provide anything resembling "an official statement" you know, one of those things that means criminal charges could be filed against you if they determine you were deliberately lying.
As it is, the worst she has to worry about is civil penalties if he sues her.
But that would also require her to have proof and/or actual witnesses to back up her story
(A) Dr. Ford named a witness: Mark Judge. The Senate Republicans have refused to call him to testify.
(B) Kavanaugh's calendar lists a party on July 1, 1982, and his description of the people at the party and the type of party it was matches Ford's description. The Republican Senators dismissed Rachel Mitchell shortly after she mentioned this.
(C) Two other named women have accused Ford of other sexual assaults.
(D) Research has been done on false rape accusations and the types of people who make them. Dr. Ford does not fit any of these categories.
(E) In the past, Kavanaugh denied ever having received stolen Democratic documents from Manny Miranda while working for G.W. Bush. Kavanaugh's own emails indicate otherwise. This is evidence, separate from the Ford accusation, that he is dishonest. That, in itself, should have been enough to "sully his name for good."
Ford is probably telling the truth.
Dr. Ford named a witness: Mark Judge. The Senate Republicans have refused to call him to testify.
Actually she named 3 witnesses, another man, and a woman who was a friend of hers.
All three, including Mark Judge, provided sworn written statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
All three, including the woman who was Ford's friend, denied any knowledge of any party where they were present with both Kavanaugh and Ford.
Sounds as it Kavanaugh and Judge were so drunk that they didn't remember what they did. When your inhibitions are down, the real you comes out.
I don,t really understand the whole not asking for an FBI investigation against himself. I mean, what moron would ask the FBI to investigate everything they did in high schoo?
I don,t really understand the whole not asking for an FBI investigation against himself. I mean, what moron would ask the FBI to investigate everything they did in high schoo?
Because he's already BEEN investigated by them half a dozen times. You don't get to his position without having already had the FBI do numerous background checks on you. It's not like he's John Doe coming off the street, he's ALREADY a Federal judge.
Lack of specific details regarding the (initial) allegations also don't help in investigating events.
"A party" "sometime during ______ part of the year in ___ or ____" " don't remember where."
Yup, sure thing, we will get out investigation teams on top of that and get this sorted out quickly!
Talk about an open ended investigation that would never be able to definitively end, particularly given the time frame was 30+ years ago.
Edit: Oh, and I have alternately vivid and hazy "dream like recollections" of a sexual encounter involving Britney Spears dating back to the latter part of my High School attendance, do I need to be worried that she had me drugged, abducted and returned, for a (very strange) round of anonymous sex? 😈
Going back to my earlier comments, it is possible that she truly does have memories of such things happening, and the reason they're so non-specific and seem to lack corroboration is that it didn't actually happen.
That said, I am sure any self-respecting 2nd wave feminist would be deeply disturbed about having such recollections rattling around in their head.
Remember, his inspiration and guidance is his grandfather and his grandmother's stories about him. His grandfather was mainly what one would call 'the power behind the throne', not holding a major office but operating behind the scenes. His aspirations may change, but right now I see David as following in his grandfather's footsteps rather than trying to be out front. Between his acting, his modeling, and his sports, he already gets more public acclaim that he is really comfortable with.
I've been the subject of more than one higher level security clearance investigation (by multiple alphabet agencies). I have a better than average understanding of the process. At the lower levels, it's mostly a few phone calls and electronic checks. On the higher levels, your entire history is combed through by numerous people with live visits to people from your entire history.
Supposedly, they don't go back prior to your 18th birthday. However, for some levels of clearance, your teens are also checked. The clearance levels he had would have been that.
He had been investigated to that level at least three times from previous positions and three others at lower levels for earlier positions. Then he got the SCOTUS nod which made it seven times.
Exactly how many times does a person have to be investigated fully like that? I had two people from high school (having been out of high school for 21 years) call me when I got my last one asking me what the hell was going on after they'd been contacted for that clearance check, and it was three levels below what he's already held.
I'm calling bullshit on the idea of an eighth investigation turning up anything the previous seven did not. The calls for that eighth investigation therefore have a different purpose. The only logical purpose would be a delay tactic.
(Edited for clarity)
At the lower levels, it's mostly a few phone calls and electronic checks. On the higher levels, your entire history is combed through by numerous people with live visits to people from your entire history.
My son had a TS code word clearance due to his MOS. They went through the neighborhood door to door asking about him. I got to hear all about it from two of them - the one with the FFL that thought they were checking on him and the other that was a retired E9.
My son had a TS code word clearance due to his MOS.
Your son stands still so long he has moss growing on him? What is he, a scarecrow?
United States military occupational specialty code (MOS code).
Thank you. I guess the E9 is something to do with the military as well and not a weather category, and I guess the FFL doesn't mean Final Flight Level.
I guess the E9 is something to do with the military
E9 is the highest enlisted rank in the military.
E9 is the highest enlisted rank in the military.
I'm guessing you mean the US military with that comment. When i had a lot to do with the Australian Military we didn't use number like that, just ranks. But things may have changed in the last 20 years.
edit to add: The media reports I see still use the old style ranks, so if they have changed it's most probably only an internal administrative change that most people don't know or understand.
The US Military uses what it calls "pay grades" that are divided into three groups: Commissioned officers (O1-O10), Warrant officers (W1-W5) and Enlisted (E1-E9)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Defence_Force_ranks
Australian version. E9 would have been a warrant officer.
Australian version. E9 would have been a warrant officer.
In the US Military, Warrant Officers would be pay grades W1-W5 and are all above E9
In the US Military
E-1 to E-4 (specialist) are considered enlisted rank.
E-4 (hard stripe) to E-9 are non-commissioned officers.
W-1 to W-5 are warrant officers.
O-1 to O-10 are commissioned officers.
A commissioned officer has had his rank confirmed by an official government document - a commission. They are the management - the leaders. You can receive your commission after graduation from a service academy or from college, or more rarely, from promotion after time as a non-commissioned officer and completion of educational requirements. (Those latter officers are known as mustangs.)
The non-commissioned officer is the middle and lower management. They earn promotions to higher enlisted rank from both time in service as well as completing training.
A warrant officer is someone who has specialized training, deserving of higher than enlisted pay and benefits, but without the full benefits of a commission.
Where this comes into play is in chain of command and authority, especially in a combat situation, as far as who can give lawful orders to who. An O-1 (Second Lieutenant) with 6 months service outranks a W-5 with 20 years service, a W-1 with 6 months service outranks an E-9 (Sergeant Major) with 20 years service. And an E-4 (Corporal) outranks an E-4 (Specialist).
Also, combat arms outrank support arms, even if the support arms is of a higher rank, during a combat situation, just to confuse things. Thus, an Infantry 1LT (O-2) can give orders during combat to a medical Colonel (O-6) because the Infantry is combat arms and thus in the chain of command, while the medical branch is NOT combat arms and not in the chain of command.
Where this comes into play is in chain of command and authority, especially in a combat situation, as far as who can give lawful orders to who. An O-1 (Second Lieutenant) with 6 months service outranks a W-5 with 20 years service, a W-1 with 6 months service outranks an E-9 (Sergeant Major) with 20 years service. And an E-4 (Corporal) outranks an E-4 (Specialist).
That said, an O-1 with less than 6 months experience who countermands an order from either a W-5 or E-9 is an idiot, and will potentially be treated as such by his command.
Which leads to the addage about smart officers not issuing orders they know are not going to be obeyed, or even outright ignored.
Edit: didn't catch auto-correct turning addage into average.
That said, an O-1 with less than 6 months experience who countermands an order from either a W-5 or E-9 is an idiot, and will potentially be treated as such by his command.
Which leads to the addage about smart officers not issuing orders they know are not going to be obeyed, or even outright ignored.
Oh, yes, completely understand that. I was in the National Guard already (enlisted), joined ROTC while in college, so the Guard put me in SMP - Simultaneous Membership Program. I got paid E-5 pay even though I was an E-3, and was considered an officer candidate, wearing a different type of rank marking. Sort of the junior officer in training.
But because my Guard unit only had two officers in it, me and another ROTC cadet were posted as 2nd and 3rd platoon 'commanders'. I basically let my platoon sergeant run things, although he did 'ask my permission' to do things his way, since I was legally in charge. I just did officer calls and the meetings, passed down what the CO wanted done, and let him do it. I think it helped that I'd already been in the unit for almost two years.
The question was for Australian forces, not U.S. their system is different according to the information I linked in the earlier post.
Yes Carl said his son was an E9, so US Military would be assumed.
When Carl first mentioned the E9 there was nothing there to indicate it was US or military until his next response mentioned the US military but didn't clarify what the E9 was or if it was military, so i asked.
All this lengthy exchange does is it highlights the need to not restrict a mention simply to acronyms and codes that aren't known universally by people around the world.
From this I've learned what a MOS and E9 is as well as the FFL he mentioned which is nothing to do with the US Military. I also learned Australia now has a pay administrative code system similar to the USA because it floated across from NATO.
From this I've learned what a MOS and E9 is as well as the FFL he mentioned which is nothing to do with the US Military. I also learned Australia now has a pay administrative code system similar to the USA because it floated across from NATO.
To make it more fun, Navy Enlisted don't have a MOS, they having "Ratings" (Which are part of their rank once more--DoD very recently tried to do away with that "archaic practice") which then further specialize by obtaining Naval Enlistment Codes("NEC" or "NECs" depending on number involved).
And the pay grade system is in part one way they try to make sense of Military Ranks across multiple types of seniority systems, like somebody on the GS(Government Services) pay scale who makes GS-15 being roughly equivalent to a O-6 for example. (And "background data" for TV programs like NCIS--Gibbs and his team are on either the GS or SES(Senior Executive Service) pay scale, otherwise they would be wearing a standard issue Navy/Marine Corps uniform to the office on most days.)
When i had a lot to do with the Australian Military
Which side of the Barassi Line were you from?
E9 is the highest enlisted rank in the military.
Pay grade, not rank. Depending on branch there are "multiple ranks" within that pay grade(and some times others). Specifically command level, force level, etc.
Now 30-ish years ago it was more-or-less the guy with most time in grade, and wanted the job, was the guy who got it, but it don't work that way anymore.
Pay grade, not rank
Yes you are correct. E9 is the pay grade of the highest enlisted rank. The 'multiple ranks" within the pay have to do with time in service, not rank.
I guess the E9 is something to do with the military as well and not a weather category, and I guess the FFL doesn't mean Final Flight Level.
E9 is a militaryt pay grade and as someone else mentioned, it's the pay grade for the top level enlisted rank in the US military, all the services use the same pay grades, but the rank names vary from one service to the next.
FFL=Federal Firearms License. For gun dealers/gunsmiths and firarearms/ammunition manufactures and importers.
I have also been though such background investigations. The problem with your position is the women were not close associates of Kavanaugh, so they probably were not included in those questioned by the FBI. Their statements are now part of the public record and deserve to be investigated.
Their statements are now part of the public record and deserve to be investigated.
So send them to the police department with the jurisdiction in Maryland, and let them do their job.
The people who need to be interviewed may no longer live in Maryland. Therefore, it needs to be done by the FBI. Add in that it is a Federal Investigation and that rules out Maryland police.
The people who need to be interviewed may no longer live in Maryland. Therefore, it needs to be done by the FBI.
Police frequently travel interstate to conduct investigations and to interview witnesses, so there's nothing to stop the Maryland Police from handling the issue, if they wish to. The matter is not a federal crime and thus it's not under the jurisdiction of the FBI at all.
thus it's not under the jurisdiction of the FBI at all.
As a criminal investigation, true. However, the FBI also handles background checks for government service. That's the authority under which they would be investigating this matter.
FBI also handles background checks for government service. That's the authority under which they would be investigating this matter.
Only two problems with that:
1. They've already done all that a few times, and
2. The people calling for an FBI investigation want it as a criminal investigation.
The people calling for an FBI investigation want it as a criminal investigation.
No, they wan't the FBI background check re-opened to cover these allegations to block his SCOUTS nomination, that's all.
That doesn't hold water. His close associates and friends would have been included in the investigation. I can't think of one high school party where bragging didn't occur. By the person, friend, friend of a friend, so forth. Something like that would have at a minimum been rumored. If you are familiar with the process, then you know it's SOP to ask leading questions to develop more leads. In other words, rumors
Neither you nor I can know the truth from here. But what I do know is, the previous investigations came back empty. Any further information has been and should be considered tainted by the publicity. Therefore I stand by "nothing new" coming of this.
It's dirty politics either way you look at it.
His close associates and friends would have been included in the investigation.
What investigation. The one related to his nomination or the ones earlier for his security clearance. The people currently making the allegations would not have been interviewed for they weren't close friends and acquaintances. The people at his college parties may not have been among his friends back then and he is not associated with them now, so they would not have been interviewed.
The people at his college parties may not have been among his friends back
Of the three allegations currently out there, only two (Ford's and the gang rape ring allegation) involved parties, and both of those are alleged to have happened when Kavanaugh was in High School, not college.
Only the dick in face indecent exposure incident is alleged to have happened when Kavanaugh was in college and that is supposed to have happened in the dorms, not at a party.
Only the dick in face indecent exposure incident is alleged to have happened when Kavanaugh was in college and that is supposed to have happened in the dorms, not at a party.
I thought she said it happened at a college frat party?
Ok yes at a party - "Ramirez alleged in an article in The New Yorker magazine that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when they were both freshmen at Yale University."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-what-we-know/1408056002/
Now that we have thoroughly gotten nowhere in the discussion of the current 'scandal of the month', can be get back to the original discussion?