- This topic has 255 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
August 23, 2008 at 9:15 PM #261137August 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM #260846
jficquette
ParticipantAllan: If I was on the RNC I would keep my mouth shut until after he is nominated.
I can’t stress enough how much they would rather run against Obama then Clinton.
John
August 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM #261044ParticipantAllan: If I was on the RNC I would keep my mouth shut until after he is nominated.
I can’t stress enough how much they would rather run against Obama then Clinton.
John
August 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM #261053ParticipantAllan: If I was on the RNC I would keep my mouth shut until after he is nominated.
I can’t stress enough how much they would rather run against Obama then Clinton.
John
August 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM #261103ParticipantAllan: If I was on the RNC I would keep my mouth shut until after he is nominated.
I can’t stress enough how much they would rather run against Obama then Clinton.
John
August 23, 2008 at 9:23 PM #261142ParticipantAllan: If I was on the RNC I would keep my mouth shut until after he is nominated.
I can’t stress enough how much they would rather run against Obama then Clinton.
John
August 23, 2008 at 9:30 PM #260856Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John: From the FBI.gov website:
“What type of applicants does the FBI investigate?
The FBI conducts background investigations on all persons who apply for employment with the FBI. Additionally, the FBI conducts background investigations for certain other government entities, such as the White House, Department of Justice, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and certain House and Senate committees.”My understanding is that Obama sat on a Senate Intelligence Committee. If that is correct, then the FBI would have conducted a background check (based on the sensitive intelligence and information that the Senators on that committee handle) on him. Hard to imagine that they would have missed the whole “not a US Citizen” thing.
[/quote]They don’t do checks on elected officals. Its none of their business. FBI is in the Adminstrative Branch. If they did background checks half the people in Congress wouldn’t be there considering all the crooks we have elected.
I believe the background checks refer to staffers on the various committees or employees of the aforementioned entities which are of interest to the FBI because they are employed by the federal government. Those employees also do not have to be “natural born”.
John
August 23, 2008 at 9:30 PM #261055Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John: From the FBI.gov website:
“What type of applicants does the FBI investigate?
The FBI conducts background investigations on all persons who apply for employment with the FBI. Additionally, the FBI conducts background investigations for certain other government entities, such as the White House, Department of Justice, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and certain House and Senate committees.”My understanding is that Obama sat on a Senate Intelligence Committee. If that is correct, then the FBI would have conducted a background check (based on the sensitive intelligence and information that the Senators on that committee handle) on him. Hard to imagine that they would have missed the whole “not a US Citizen” thing.
[/quote]They don’t do checks on elected officals. Its none of their business. FBI is in the Adminstrative Branch. If they did background checks half the people in Congress wouldn’t be there considering all the crooks we have elected.
I believe the background checks refer to staffers on the various committees or employees of the aforementioned entities which are of interest to the FBI because they are employed by the federal government. Those employees also do not have to be “natural born”.
John
August 23, 2008 at 9:30 PM #261063Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John: From the FBI.gov website:
“What type of applicants does the FBI investigate?
The FBI conducts background investigations on all persons who apply for employment with the FBI. Additionally, the FBI conducts background investigations for certain other government entities, such as the White House, Department of Justice, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and certain House and Senate committees.”My understanding is that Obama sat on a Senate Intelligence Committee. If that is correct, then the FBI would have conducted a background check (based on the sensitive intelligence and information that the Senators on that committee handle) on him. Hard to imagine that they would have missed the whole “not a US Citizen” thing.
[/quote]They don’t do checks on elected officals. Its none of their business. FBI is in the Adminstrative Branch. If they did background checks half the people in Congress wouldn’t be there considering all the crooks we have elected.
I believe the background checks refer to staffers on the various committees or employees of the aforementioned entities which are of interest to the FBI because they are employed by the federal government. Those employees also do not have to be “natural born”.
John
August 23, 2008 at 9:30 PM #261115Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John: From the FBI.gov website:
“What type of applicants does the FBI investigate?
The FBI conducts background investigations on all persons who apply for employment with the FBI. Additionally, the FBI conducts background investigations for certain other government entities, such as the White House, Department of Justice, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and certain House and Senate committees.”My understanding is that Obama sat on a Senate Intelligence Committee. If that is correct, then the FBI would have conducted a background check (based on the sensitive intelligence and information that the Senators on that committee handle) on him. Hard to imagine that they would have missed the whole “not a US Citizen” thing.
[/quote]They don’t do checks on elected officals. Its none of their business. FBI is in the Adminstrative Branch. If they did background checks half the people in Congress wouldn’t be there considering all the crooks we have elected.
I believe the background checks refer to staffers on the various committees or employees of the aforementioned entities which are of interest to the FBI because they are employed by the federal government. Those employees also do not have to be “natural born”.
John
August 23, 2008 at 9:30 PM #261152Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]John: From the FBI.gov website:
“What type of applicants does the FBI investigate?
The FBI conducts background investigations on all persons who apply for employment with the FBI. Additionally, the FBI conducts background investigations for certain other government entities, such as the White House, Department of Justice, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and certain House and Senate committees.”My understanding is that Obama sat on a Senate Intelligence Committee. If that is correct, then the FBI would have conducted a background check (based on the sensitive intelligence and information that the Senators on that committee handle) on him. Hard to imagine that they would have missed the whole “not a US Citizen” thing.
[/quote]They don’t do checks on elected officals. Its none of their business. FBI is in the Adminstrative Branch. If they did background checks half the people in Congress wouldn’t be there considering all the crooks we have elected.
I believe the background checks refer to staffers on the various committees or employees of the aforementioned entities which are of interest to the FBI because they are employed by the federal government. Those employees also do not have to be “natural born”.
John
August 23, 2008 at 9:33 PM #260861Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantJohn: The only problem with the RNC keeping their mouth shut is this: They are bound by electoral laws governing conduct, and much as attornies are bound by the Canon of Ethics as officers of the court and are duty bound to report certain things, the RNC would find itself in pretty deep water, along the lines of the Watergate investigation into Nixon (“What did the President know and when did he know it?”).
If they know (and that is a mighty big “if”), then they have no choice but to divulge that information and immediately.
Again, if this story genuinely had legs, someone at the NYT or WSJ or WashPost would have spilled the beans. We live in such an information driven age, and a 24/7 news cycle that this would have been an epic headline. Forget the FBI, the MSM would have exploded this across the headlines.
August 23, 2008 at 9:33 PM #261060ParticipantJohn: The only problem with the RNC keeping their mouth shut is this: They are bound by electoral laws governing conduct, and much as attornies are bound by the Canon of Ethics as officers of the court and are duty bound to report certain things, the RNC would find itself in pretty deep water, along the lines of the Watergate investigation into Nixon (“What did the President know and when did he know it?”).
If they know (and that is a mighty big “if”), then they have no choice but to divulge that information and immediately.
Again, if this story genuinely had legs, someone at the NYT or WSJ or WashPost would have spilled the beans. We live in such an information driven age, and a 24/7 news cycle that this would have been an epic headline. Forget the FBI, the MSM would have exploded this across the headlines.
August 23, 2008 at 9:33 PM #261068ParticipantJohn: The only problem with the RNC keeping their mouth shut is this: They are bound by electoral laws governing conduct, and much as attornies are bound by the Canon of Ethics as officers of the court and are duty bound to report certain things, the RNC would find itself in pretty deep water, along the lines of the Watergate investigation into Nixon (“What did the President know and when did he know it?”).
If they know (and that is a mighty big “if”), then they have no choice but to divulge that information and immediately.
Again, if this story genuinely had legs, someone at the NYT or WSJ or WashPost would have spilled the beans. We live in such an information driven age, and a 24/7 news cycle that this would have been an epic headline. Forget the FBI, the MSM would have exploded this across the headlines.
August 23, 2008 at 9:33 PM #261120ParticipantJohn: The only problem with the RNC keeping their mouth shut is this: They are bound by electoral laws governing conduct, and much as attornies are bound by the Canon of Ethics as officers of the court and are duty bound to report certain things, the RNC would find itself in pretty deep water, along the lines of the Watergate investigation into Nixon (“What did the President know and when did he know it?”).
If they know (and that is a mighty big “if”), then they have no choice but to divulge that information and immediately.
Again, if this story genuinely had legs, someone at the NYT or WSJ or WashPost would have spilled the beans. We live in such an information driven age, and a 24/7 news cycle that this would have been an epic headline. Forget the FBI, the MSM would have exploded this across the headlines.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.