Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, endured the FBI’s most thorough background check. This background check applies to a judge who will only review laws passed by Congress. In recent years a case has been building that those who seek to make the law should be subject to same scrutiny.
As PBS noted in 2016, “prospective justices are put through the nation’s most thorough background check, an invasive process where nothing is off-limits.” In this process, “candidates’ taxes, writings, childhoods, business dealings, medical histories and, yes, love lives, are all scrutinized for potential red flags.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy sat through more than 10 hours of FBI interviews and a three-hour session with the attorney general and White House counsel. The questions included: “have you ever engaged in kinky sex? Did you shoplift as a kid? What about any associations with groups like the Klu Klux Klan? Ever abuse a girlfriend? Engage in cruelty to animals? And tell us about sex in college: How often, how many women, and did you ever contract a venereal disease?
In 2009, Sonia Sotomayor was asked whether anyone in the president’s office had asked her about cases then before the court. She was also asked to list “every opinion she’d authored,” every time she’d recused herself and every legal event she’d attended since joining the district court.
If Kennedy and Sotomayor attempted simply to invent something, say, an opinion, the FBI would have picked it up in short order. Same for denial of association with extremist groups and accusations of sexual abuse. No similar process exists for those seeking election to the House or Senate, and candidates have been rather bold about their own background. Consider, for example, the leftist Democrat who seeks to replace Dianne Feinstein.
“The name on his birth certificate isn’t Kevin de León,” explains Christopher Cadelago of the Sacramento Bee. On his birth certificate and voter rolls, the name is Kevin Alexander Leon and “the certificate says he was born on Dec. 10, 1966, at California Hospital on South Hope Street in Los Angeles.” This document has not been made public, but the FBI could easily verify the claim.
Last year, de Leon began claiming his father is Andres Leon, “a 40-year-old cook whose race was Chinese and whose birthplace was Guatemala” and mother Carmen Osorio, “was also born in Guatemala.” The candidate is on record that “half of my family” used false identification, drivers licenses, Social Security and green cards.
Document fraud is a serious crime and the FBI could easily chase down the full extent of the fakery. They could also have go at the claims of congressional candidate Ammar Najjar who seeks to unseat Duncan Hunter in San Diego.
The Democrat describes himself as a Palestinian-Mexican American, born in San Diego to a “middle-eastern immigrant” father and Mexican-American mother. At the age of nine the family left for Gaza and when they returned after several years Ammar became a “youth leader.” According to his campaign materials, he served as Deputy Regional Field Director for President Obama’s reelection campaign.” Then “secured a White House position.”
The campaign materials fail to note that Ammar is the grandson of PLO terrorist Muhammad Yusuf al-Najjar, mastermind of the murder and mutilation of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. That information did not emerge when grandson Ammar got hired at the White House, and other details remain sketchy.
The candidate’s father, Yusuf Najjar, was orphaned when the Israelis assassinated Muhmmad Najjar in 1973. Yusuf reportedly moved to Egypt and later immigrated to eastern San Diego County. How did he managed to enter the United States? And how about those formative years in Gaza? Any contact with terrorists there? The old-line establishment media show no interest.
Answering such vital questions about an aspiring federal lawmaker would be better duty for the FBI than fake investigations of presidents not charged with any crime. As current conditions confirm, the nation needs what Hemingway called a “built-in bullshit detector.” Speaking of that substance, how about that blockbuster bodice ripper from partisan Democrat Christine Blasey Ford.
It supposedly took place more than 30 years ago and the psychology professor can’t remember the location. She does recall that drunken elitist Brett Kavanaugh tried to take off her clothes, intended to rape her, and maybe he was trying to kill her.
The victim filed no police report and failed to speak out in 2006 when Kavanagh was appointed to the DC Court of Appeals. Blasey Ford held her peace during the recent hearings but with the vote days away the Dems’ stool pigeon decides to sing.
As Fox News reports, after retaining attorney Debra Katz, another partisan Democrat, Blasey Ford “took a polygraph test administered by a former FBI agent.” No word whether James Comey or Peter Strzok did the honors, but “according to the results shared with The Washington Post, the test concluded that Ford was being honest.” And get this, husband Russell backs her up.
Any casual observer could believe this Democrat needs more FBI and media scrutiny. If she does testify, viewers might recall what Big Daddy says in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof: “Didn’t you notice a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room? There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity.”