New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

MikeG said:
Who are the FBI reporting to? Surely not to the president? Is it to Congress? Why wouldn't they just publish their conclusions?

Again, what sort of system is it that means the president, and the president alone, gets to ask the FBI to do this work?

Here, anyone...literally anyone......can ask the police to investigate something, and it is then up to the police as to whether they do or don't. Many a politician has written to the Metropolitan Police and asked them to investigate this that or the other. And no-one gets to tell the police where they send their reports. If there is any criminality involved (in this case, perjury), they would send a file to the CPS (our prosecutors) who would decide whether to bring a case to court. If these events were in the UK, the chances are high, in my judgement, that Kavannaugh would end up facing criminal charges.
Click to expand...
The FBI is not the police. Nor are all of their investigations directed by the president, I believe, though they are part of the executive branch.

This is not a criminal investigation.
 
Segnosaur said:
This thread is moving so fast so I'm not sure if I've overlooked it...

From: http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/polit...before-it-became-public/ar-BBNOH2l?ocid=ientp
In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.... The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.... Berchem’s memo outlining her correspondence with Yarasavage shows there’s a circle of Kavanaugh friends who may have pertinent information and evidence relevant to the inquiry who may not be interviewed.

First of all, I know its not a criminal trial, but if Kavanaugh and his associates are trying to contact former friends, wouldn't that be the moral equivalent of "witness tampering"? (Not sure what the legality is here if its not a criminal trial, whether it would still be considered criminal.)

Secondly... the fact that Kavanaugh felt it necessary to contact people before the allegations were made public AND the fact that one of the victims didn't want to be around Kavanaugh when they were at the same wedding lends credibility to show that Kavaaugh did act inappropriately towards her.

I certainly do hope the FBI is able to actually interview some of these people that may be potential witnesses (whether their failure to do so is because of mistakes by the FBI or interference by the republicans needs to be figured out.)
Click to expand...

That is an old version of the story that falsely states when BK found out about the investigation.

The whole thing is bull ****
 
Belz... said:
Strawman. It doesn't need to be tricky for you to not understand it.
Click to expand...

Hi! i was being kind, because saying that people don't know what "fake news" is might be the silliest damn thing anyone is going to read today.

Thanks, tho, for *following up.*
 
The Big Dog said:
Problem; one of them was her boyfriend.

So we are supposed to believe she did not know her boyfriend was at the party and that note does not refresh her memory where the 'party" was?

Bull ****
Click to expand...

Problem; Kavanaugh has stated he did not know Ford and did not travel in the same social circles, but seems to have been drinking buddies with her boyfriend...
 
The Big Dog said:
Problem; one of them was her boyfriend.

So we are supposed to believe she did not know her boyfriend was at the party and that note does not refresh her memory where the 'party" was?

Bull ****
Click to expand...


Kavanaugh hung out with her boyfriend? But he swore under oath that she and he didn't "travel in the same social circles". If what you say is true, then he committed perjury.
 
The Big Dog said:
fake News, no wonder people get ******* pissed off at the shady media
Click to expand...

Lügenpresse!

And, yes, it is dishonest when people edit quotes to make it seem like someone has said something different to what they have said, isn't it? I believe the correct response to having that pointed out is "*k* :rolleyes:"
 
Lurch said:
I had to wonder why Mitchell would go through the motion of writing that finding in the first place, knowing the hearing was a goddamned sham due to the deliberate avoidance of *any* other witnesses to testify under oath beside the two principals.
Click to expand...

I expect she was well compensated, and perhaps promised something further down the line.
 
Meadmaker said:
Wait. What? Seriously? Which one, and is that new information?
Click to expand...

Squi was Chris Garrett (who was the guy Whelan outed in that crazy tweet storm), and who Ford stated that she knew because she *went out with* him.

That being said, it is not clear when they went out out (or even if they really did given Ford's fabulism)
 
The Big Dog said:
Problem; one of them was her boyfriend.

So we are supposed to believe she did not know her boyfriend was at the party and that note does not refresh her memory where the 'party" was?

Bull ****
Click to expand...
The *boyfriend* could have been at the EARLIER party, and not at the somewhat later party where Ford showed up. Or could there only be one party on any given day?
 
TofuFighter said:
It's really not evidence of anything, but when you ask an alcoholic about their drinking, hearing the "I like beer, okay?" response in an offended or defensive tone will not surprise you. I've heard it before and that was definitely what I was reminded of when he said it.
......
Click to expand...


Others have made the same observation.
The defiance, the casual references to “liking beer,” the mentioning of a friend who has a real problem, the insistence that he was the “Ralph King” because he has a “delicate stomach,” the turning the question on the questioner—all are tactics of the person with alcoholism who has been cornered. I’ve seen this scene before—in a kitchen, and in a driveway. But I was stunned to see it on the floor of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
Click to expand...
https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-problematic-drinking-hearing.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom