New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You're absolutely right - setting a time limit on the investigation is stupid, especially one as short as this. Unless, of course, the purpose is not to actually determine the truth of the accusations, but instead to do the bare minimum in order to give the appearance of having "done something" before voting to confirm anyway.
Click to expand...

Well apparently, they have been on standby for this, and are already moving quickly

"The FBI moved immediately given the short time frame. By Friday night, agents had sought to schedule an interview with one of two other women who, after Blasey Ford went public, made accusations of their own about alleged assaults dating to Kavanaugh’s days in high school and at Yale University, according to two sources with knowledge of the investigation who asked to remain unidentified given the sensitivity of the matter."

"FBI investigators contacted the attorneys for the woman and asked to interview her “as early as tonight,” according to one of the sources. Her attorneys countered with a later time, but the interview could occur this weekend, the sources said."​
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-congress-kavanaugh-vote-20180928-story.html

In an interview on Brian Williams' "11th Hour" news show, Frank Figliuzzi (former FBI Assistant Director for Counter-intelligence) said

"...pagers have gone off, text messages are being sent, calls are being made, everybody has been on standby. If you're in the Baltimore Division that covers Georgetown Prep, if you're in the New Haven, Connecticut Division that covers Yale, if you're in California where some of the accusers and survivors are, you are in action tonight, getting your plan. They're going to divide this up by field office, and then they're going to divide it up by what I call "three buckets"; people, places and things. Who are the "people"? All of the accusers that are known currently, and some who may not yet be known (and) all of the witnesses. What are the "places"? Yale University, dorm rooms, the house in Maryland where this party may have occurred; does it still exist, has it been refurbished, is there a stairway, is there a bathroom across from a bedroom. Are there photographs and Georgetown Prep or at Yale that can put Kavanaugh next to people he says he doesn't even know; next to some of the accusers. who lived in the dorm? Those people are going to get a phone call from the FBI. The Potomac Safeway Supermarket where people may have worked and been spotted. They are going to pull records and pay record from there, and find dates and schedules if they exist. And what about the "things". The things include the polygraph exam that Dr. Ford already took. That should be pulled for quality, and see if it was done right and is credible."​
For those with sufficient attention span, here is a video of the interview with he and Barbara McQuade (United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan).
http://www.msnbc.com/brian-williams...with-ford-s-allegation-1332536387569?v=railb&

Looks like they will try to pack three weeks worth of investigation into seven days.
 
Yes, apparently the timeline is that Flake was confronted, he and Coons used a phonebox to phone the FBI looking to talk to Wray, Wray wasn't available so they spoke instead to Rosenstein, they asked Rosenstein if an investigation could be done in a week, he said it could, then Flake asked for the investigation.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So you don't think it matters if Kavanaugh was lying today? Or in his previous confirmations which emails apparently contradicted his testimony?
Click to expand...

Depends on the type of lie. If he sexually assaulted anyone, he's out.


If it turns out that one night in the dorms he had to ask his roommate whether or not he threw up in the trash can when he stumbled in, no.

And if it turns out that he meant the same thing that everyone else meant by "boof", I'll scratch my head and wonder what the heck he's thinking, but otherwise wouldn't care. (Afraid he would be called homophobic? I really don't know why you would make up a different meaning. There are, I suppose, local variation in slang. In my home town, a "hooter" was a slang term for fellatio. I've never heard that use anywhere else in the world.)
 
Meadmaker said:
Depends on the type of lie. If he sexually assaulted anyone, he's out.


If it turns out that one night in the dorms he had to ask his roommate whether or not he threw up in the trash can when he stumbled in, no.
Click to expand...

What if he is shown to have consistently lied to the Senate about his heavy drinking?

What if he is shown to have consistently lied to the Senate about the misogynistic nature of the yearbook entries?

What if his calendar is shown to be a recent fabrication or to have been recently altered?

What if he is shown to have actually participated in getting girls drunk or drugged in order to get them gang raped, even if he didn't actually participate in the rapes?

Are you really comfortable with the idea of having a serial liar on SCOTUS?
 
Meadmaker said:
Depends on the type of lie. If he sexually assaulted anyone, he's out.


If it turns out that one night in the dorms he had to ask his roommate whether or not he threw up in the trash can when he stumbled in, no.

And if it turns out that he meant the same thing that everyone else meant by "boof", I'll scratch my head and wonder what the heck he's thinking, but otherwise wouldn't care. (Afraid he would be called homophobic? I really don't know why you would make up a different meaning. There are, I suppose, local variation in slang. In my home town, a "hooter" was a slang term for fellatio. I've never heard that use anywhere else in the world.)
Click to expand...

Locally, "Boof" is short for "buffoon". "Well I was a real 'boof' last night, I fell up the stairs in front of everyone."
 
The ABA has made its reservations clear on Kavanaugh:
first, because he is a partisan hack who puts his agenda above the law,
and secondly, because they want to be on record that they don't support someone for Supreme Court who has credible sexual assault accusations against them.

Kavanaugh lied to the Committee and was aggressively disrespectful at times. He has also acted extremely partisan in the hearing, which alone should be a Red Flag in someone who is supposed to be above partisan politics.

Hopefully, the FBI will turn up something that gives enough Republicans the spine to say no. If not, I have no doubt that by 2020 there will be enough Democratic Senators to impeach him.
 
smartcooky said:
What if he is shown to have consistently lied to the Senate about his heavy drinking?

What if he is shown to have consistently lied to the Senate about the misogynistic nature of the yearbook entries?

What if his calendar is shown to be a recent fabrication or to have been recently altered?

What if he is shown to have actually participated in getting girls drunk or drugged in order to get them gang raped, even if he didn't actually participate in the rapes?

Are you really comfortable with the idea of having a serial liar on SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

The senators'/Ken Starr's questions were worse than Brett Kavanaugh's/Bill Clinton's lies.*

A lot of those questions should never have been asked. It was just an exercise in character assassination and an attempted perjury trap. I wouldn't want to reward that.

If the lies in question were actually to cover up some serious crime, even one 35 years old, then I would have a problem with it. If he actually drugged women, even when 17, then he ought to be out, and he will be. If it turns out he was an immature brat who was a jerk toward women (things like the "Renate" stuff), then it proves the wisdom of not appointing 17 year olds to the Supreme Court.


*ETA: For skimmers, that's a reference to a previous post, which in turn referenced a comment made in 1999 by Bill Maher.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
The ABA has made its reservations clear on Kavanaugh:
first, because he is a partisan hack who puts his agenda above the law,
and secondly, because they want to be on record that they don't support someone for Supreme Court who has credible sexual assault accusations against them.

Kavanaugh lied to the Committee and was aggressively disrespectful at times. He has also acted extremely partisan in the hearing, which alone should be a Red Flag in someone who is supposed to be above partisan politics.

Hopefully, the FBI will turn up something that gives enough Republicans the spine to say no. If not, I have no doubt that by 2020 there will be enough Democratic Senators to impeach him.
Click to expand...

100%.

I am really uncomfortable with the idea of putting a lying conspiracy theorist on SCOTUS. After his rant about blaming the stalling of his confirmation "revenge for the 2016 elections" and "the Clintons", how can he ever be trusted to make politically balanced decisions?
 
Meadmaker said:
It was just an exercise in character assassination and an attempted perjury trap..
Click to expand...

And how do you avoid getting caught in a perjury trap? By telling the truth, that's how!!

If he had admitted to being a heavy drinker, perhaps even an alcohol abuser at school, but pointed to the fact that it did not affect his academic achievements or grades, and that was simply part of his teenage years, and that he has left those years and that behaviour behind, he would have garnered a lot of respect all around.

Instead, he chose to claim choir boy status, and became aggressive and belligerent with anyone who claimed it wasn't so. If what we saw is the way he behaves when stone cold sober, I fear to think what he would be like with a few beers under his belt.
 
smartcooky said:
100%.

I am really uncomfortable with the idea of putting a lying conspiracy theorist on SCOTUS. After his rant about blaming the stalling of his confirmation "revenge for the 2016 elections" and "the Clintons", how can he ever be trusted to make politically balanced decisions?
Click to expand...

I'm much more uncomfortable with what is undeniable - that he is 100% partisan. He is a Republican and he made that clear. The system sucks. When you start judgeships off at the lowest levels as elected officials, they develop partisan positions (or they don't get the party backing). By the time this particular Golem was ready to be foisted on the country, he'd been a Republican hack first and a judge second for several decades.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I'm much more uncomfortable with what is undeniable - that he is 100% partisan. He is a Republican and he made that clear. The system sucks. When you start judgeships off at the lowest levels as elected officials, they develop partisan positions (or they don't get the party backing). By the time this particular Golem was ready to be foisted on the country, he'd been a Republican hack first and a judge second for several decades.
Click to expand...

I'd say his particular brand of "lying conspiracy theorist" is actually just a manifestation of his partisan hackery.
 
Lol. Even 9/11 conspiracy theorists weren't this gullible. This place truly has been reduced to the dregs.
 
Stacyhs said:
Liz Swisher, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh, said on Cuomo tonight that K was lying about the extent of his drinking. She said he was a "sloppy drunk". She also said the 'Ralph Club' had nothing to do with a sensitive stomach...it was about vomiting from excess alcohol. Switzer said he committed perjury and that disqualifies him from the SC.
Click to expand...

Jeez, all this makes me reflect back on my teen years. Thank god I'm not in that type of position where my past could possibly taint something in my current life. The late 80s for me were a blur. Although nothing criminally violent, my partying was on epic proportions in comparison.
 
River said:
Jeez, all this makes me reflect back on my teen years. Thank god I'm not in that type of position where my past could possibly taint something in my current life. The late 80s for me were a blur. Although nothing criminally violent, my partying was on epic proportions in comparison.
Click to expand...
And if you stand accused of sexually assaulting people during that blur, yet your response is to walk it back and say your parties weren't all that epic and you remember everything with perfect clarity so it could never have happened, I would say you are not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice either.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
And if you stand accused of sexually assaulting people during that blur, yet your response is to walk it back and say your parties weren't all that epic and you remember everything with perfect clarity so it could never have happened, I would say you are not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice either.
Click to expand...


I have enough haters that would come forward and show up with documentation. Plus at this point in my life I could give zero *****. No need or purpose for me to lie about anything from my past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom