New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

White House limits FBI investigation:
WASHINGTON — The White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, multiple people briefed on the matter told NBC News.

While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News. A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...vestigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061

Seems like Kav and his supporters would want the FBI to talk to everybody, in the full expectation that lies would be exposed. If they are lies.
 
Minoosh said:
If you have questions about a nominee's behavior at age 17, why wouldn't you look at yearbooks?
Click to expand...

Looking at year books is not the problem, calling the man a liar because one wants to believe a made-up word he used means something other than what he says it does.

Some words have different meanings to different people. One example I can think of is the word "uppity." A lot of people think it's a racist codeword, locally it means someone is too good to wear clothes purchased at Walmart.
 
Bob001 said:
And you would still want him confirmed to the Supreme Court? Is he really the best judge conservatives can find? Or just the hack Trump needs?
Click to expand...

*quietly points at various later posts by River that state that he does not support Kavanaugh's confirmation*
 
It's vital that FBI investigations be subject to arbitrary, politically motivated limitations. If they aren't, the FBI might find actual evidence of actual crimes.
 
Bogative said:
Looking at year books is not the problem, calling the man a liar because one wants to believe a made-up word he used means something other than what he says it does.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that Kavanaugh was completely honest in his testimony Thursday?
 
The Big Dog said:
Where was it?
Uhhh
When was it?
Uhhh
Whose house was it?
Uhhh
How’d ya get there?
Uhhh
How did you get home?
Uhhh
Click to expand...

You have completely mischaracterized the whole thing.... but then that's all we come to expect from you; half-truths, misdirection, dodging and posts full of evidence-free BS - nothing new there. You're almost as good at it as Kavanaugh himself

Sen KAMALA HARRIS: All three of the women who have made sworn allegations against you have called for an independent FBI investigation in to the claims. You’ve been asked during the course of this hearing — by four different members by my count, at least eight times today, and also earlier this week on national television whether you would call for the White House to authorize an FBI investigation.

Each time you have declined to do so. Now you know, I know you do — that the FBI is an agency of men and women who are sworn and trained law enforcement who in the course of conducting background investigations on nominees for the Supreme Court of the United States and others, are charged with conducting those background investigations because they are sworn law enforcement and they have the expertise and the ability and the history of doing that.

So I’m going to ask you one last time, are you willing to ask the White House to authorize the FBI to investigate the claims that have been made against you?

KAVANAUGH: I’ll do whatever the committee wants, of course —

HARRIS: And I’ve heard you say that —

KAVANAUGH: The witness statements —

HARRIS: But I’ve not heard you answer a very specific question that’s been asked, which is, are you willing to ask the White House to conduct an investigation by the FBI to get to whatever you believe is the bottom of the allegations that have been levied against you?

KAVANAUGH: The FBI would gather witness statements, you have witness statements —

HARRIS: Sir, it’s — I don’t want to debate with you how they do their business, I’m just asking are you willing to ask the White House to conduct such an investigation? Because as you are aware, the FBI did conduct a background investigation in to you, before we were aware of these most recent allegations. So are you willing to ask the White House to do it — and say yes or no and then we can move on.

KAVANAUGH: I’ve had six background investigations over 26 years —

HARRIS: Sir, as it relates to the recent allegations are you willing to have them do it?

KAVANAUGH: The witness testimonies before you know a witness who was there, supports that I was there —

HARRIS: OK, I’m going to take that as a no...​

Dodge, dodge, dodge. All he did when asked this question is dodge

The Big Dog said:
So unequivocal. The only facts she was able to provide were the people there,and they all said she was full of ****.
Click to expand...

And that is a flat out lie (another thing we have come to expect)

Saying that you don't recall something happening doesn't mean it didn't happen or that the person is full of ****. I don't recall the Berlin Wall coming down (I was on two-week a survival exercise in Wales at the time, so I didn't see any of the newscasts). That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
The Big Dog said:
Where was it?
Uhhh
When was it?
Uhhh
Whose house was it?
Uhhh
How’d ya get there?
Uhhh
How did you get home?
Uhhh

So unequivocal. The only facts she was able to provide were the people there, and they all said she was full of ****.
Click to expand...

She didn't say "uhhh" as an answer to those questions. She unequivocally stated that she didn't know. Do you know what "unequivocal" means?
 
Bogative said:
Looking at year books is not the problem, calling the man a liar because one wants to believe a made-up word he used means something other than what he says it does.

Some words have different meanings to different people. One example I can think of is the word "uppity." A lot of people think it's a racist codeword, locally it means someone is too good to wear clothes purchased at Walmart.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. But in this particular case, Kav claimed it referred to flatulence. Would anyone ask anyone "Have you farted yet?" On a yearbook page? Why would you think it could mean anything other than the common slang at the time?
 
River said:
Here is my assessment of the whole thing. Do I think he was being completely honest? Most likely not. Do I think he assaulted that woman? Most likely not.

These allegations are so loose, no prosecutor would touch it. I understand there is a different set of standards in a job interview and in a criminal court.

Boofing is definitely not farting from my experience with slang.

I think Mrs Ford has had a traumatic experience. I think this could've been handled in such a way that she never had to go public. I don't think that was even considered by Democrats, because it would not have the same impact. (on their plan) In the mean time, Ford and Kavanaugh get publicly ridiculed and forever now will be a stain on them both. Also, both will likely need security for a while. Because? IMHO because democrats chose to make this a spectacle. Not a search for truth.

No truth can be found. That is the truth. It's all he said she said at this point.
Click to expand...


It was all he said/she said.

Now it's all he said/she said ... plus his abysmal performance before the Judiciary Committee, which ought to be more than enough to prove him unfit for the position.
 
Bogative said:
Looking at year books is not the problem, calling the man a liar because one wants to believe a made-up word he used means something other than what he says it does.

Some words have different meanings to different people. One example I can think of is the word "uppity." A lot of people think it's a racist codeword, locally it means someone is too good to wear clothes purchased at Walmart.
Click to expand...
I was thinking of the Renate Alumnius. She didn't think it was a term of endearment, as Kavanaugh claims.
 
Minoosh said:
The Renate explanation deserves to be looked into, and witnesses who could testify to the extent of Kavanaugh's early drinking history. Not because it was so bad; just because it would offset his own minimizing testimony and speak to his veracity. If he did get blackout drunk - and he was extremely evasive and aggressive regarding this - it ups the chances that he doesn't remember some of his alcoholic behavior. I suppose his financial situation has been explained, but that might bear further looking into, including a timeline showing how he got into debt and out of it.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Someone else upthread used similar terms to describe this portion of his testimony. "Evasive".

He wasn't evasive about that. It was an outright, categorical denial. One of the few points he didn't waffle about.

And since it is so obviously false, it is also pretty clearly perjurious.

I can remember when the Republicans used to be quite upset by that sort of thing.

It appears they've gotten over it.
 
Minoosh said:
I was thinking of the Renate Alumnius. She didn't think it was a term of endearment, as Kavanaugh claims.
Click to expand...

Not to mention everyone who knew him at the time claiming he was closer to the Bart O'Kavanaugh character in behavior than the choir boy he pretended to be.
 
smartcooky said:
Really?

You think wanting an FBI investigation to look at both sides of these allegations, is not being skeptical?

You think that assessing the credibility of testimony, and the manner in which it is given, is not being skeptical?

I'll tell you what I am skeptical of; the whole of Kavanaugh's testimony. If you watched, you heard, just like the rest of us, when Kavanaugh....

1. Blamed the Clinton's for the position he finds himself.
2. Accused the Democrats of destroying his family and sullying his name.
3. Told bare faced, provable lies about the meanings of terms in his yearbook.
4. Refused to answer question after question that required a simple yes or no answer.

He was evasive, dishonest, belligerent, disingenuous and obnoxious and his behaviour was risible; all attributes that you do NOT want in a Supreme Court Judge (or any Judge on the bench for that matter). You don't have to be much of a skeptic to see this.

In no way is this man a suitable candidate for a seat on SCOTUS, even if the sexual assault allegations cannot be proved. The aforementioned behaviour ought to be sufficient to rule him out.
Click to expand...
Sounds like evidence based statements to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom