Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:It seems like just yesterday that posters were calling me an idiot because I wanted the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh. I was being told that I didn't understand how things work and that the FBI would never investigate this because the alleged assault didn't occur on federal property and neither the alleged victim or perpetrator were federal employees.

In fact, when I wrote this post which predicted exactly the type of hearing that was eventually held:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/753686.page

I was repeatedly told that I the FBI could not investigate and given a bunch of different reasons why not. I'm ashamed of my ignorance.

To be fair, it's not an investigation in the way that people tend to think about criminal FBI investigations. It's a background investigation in which the FBI will take statements from individuals and present them to the Senate. They don't come to a conclusion. An FBI criminal investigation is predicated on a federal criminal act the FBI concludes has taken place that the FBI is attempting to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with supporting evidence that is presented to a prosecutor.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It seems like just yesterday that posters were calling me an idiot because I wanted the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh. I was being told that I didn't understand how things work and that the FBI would never investigate this because the alleged assault didn't occur on federal property and neither the alleged victim or perpetrator were federal employees.

In fact, when I wrote this post which predicted exactly the type of hearing that was eventually held:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/753686.page

I was repeatedly told that I the FBI could not investigate and given a bunch of different reasons why not. I'm ashamed of my ignorance.

To be fair, it's not an investigation in the way that people tend to think about criminal FBI investigations. It's a background investigation in which the FBI will take statements from individuals and present them to the Senate. They don't come to a conclusion. An FBI criminal investigation is predicated on a federal criminal act the FBI concludes has taken place that the FBI is attempting to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with supporting evidence that is presented to a prosecutor.

I think that is all most people expected. The precedents were Thomas and Tower. Those were background investigations as well.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:It seems like just yesterday that posters were calling me an idiot because I wanted the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh. I was being told that I didn't understand how things work and that the FBI would never investigate this because the alleged assault didn't occur on federal property and neither the alleged victim or perpetrator were federal employees.

In fact, when I wrote this post which predicted exactly the type of hearing that was eventually held:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/753686.page

I was repeatedly told that I the FBI could not investigate and given a bunch of different reasons why not. I'm ashamed of my ignorance.

The FBI will investigate now not because of the sexual assault per se- but because of perjury and possible malfeasance.

And though I didn’t disagree with you before (bcz there isn’t really too much to process here), I can honestly say that I don’t think it will make any difference to his confirmation. I personally think he will end up being SCOTUS.

Because history has shown us that this is how this whole thing works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite what comes out in the FBI report, no Dems will vote for BK anyways.

Who really thinks that this BS calling for a FBI investigation will change anything.

So if the FBI clears him, then it will be we can’t vote for him cuz abortion, gun laws, etc.. it will then be another set off issues.

How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.

Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.

She sounded emotional and compelling. However, the gaps, inconsistencies and lack of corroboration are overwhelming. She suffers the most traumatic event of her life and can't recall how she got home despite being stranded miles from home in the pre-cell phone age yet specifically remembers she had a single beer? Not credible.

So if she wanted to lie, why wouldn't she just say "I took a bus home?"

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It seems like just yesterday that posters were calling me an idiot because I wanted the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh. I was being told that I didn't understand how things work and that the FBI would never investigate this because the alleged assault didn't occur on federal property and neither the alleged victim or perpetrator were federal employees.

In fact, when I wrote this post which predicted exactly the type of hearing that was eventually held:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/753686.page

I was repeatedly told that I the FBI could not investigate and given a bunch of different reasons why not. I'm ashamed of my ignorance.

To be fair, it's not an investigation in the way that people tend to think about criminal FBI investigations. It's a background investigation in which the FBI will take statements from individuals and present them to the Senate. They don't come to a conclusion. An FBI criminal investigation is predicated on a federal criminal act the FBI concludes has taken place that the FBI is attempting to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with supporting evidence that is presented to a prosecutor.

I think that is all most people expected. The precedents were Thomas and Tower. Those were background investigations as well.

steele, the people attacking you were wrong but I don't think they were even authentic posters. They were blowing the party line and did not care for the truth - the truth about the FBI background investigations, the truth about what happened.

Kavanaugh spent the whole hearing saying that there was no need for a FBI investigation, he could answer their questions right then (and then didn't), when in fact, HE worked in the white house office that handled asking the FBI background investigations when they were being asked for and when they came back to the white house! He stood up there acting like they were irrelevant when he worked with them.

He knew all along and acted like an idiot on tv to the world about things in his very own area of expertise.

Aside from all of the other damning evidence, that behavior calls in to question if he actually believes anything that comes out of his own mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An FBI investigation serves 2 purposes:

1. Provide cover for certain moderate senators to vote yes.

2. Give the White House time to consider the possible benefits of a withdrawal.

3. Give the democrats time to find more women.

Correction , pay and/or find more false accusers willing to be a martar for liberalism

Evidence that Ford is a false accuser who was paid?

Likely was a reference to Swetnick, whose story crumbled within hours.

nope, her story is credible. The smear of her background that happened right away has already crumbled.

I know Swetnick. She mentioned she had horrible stories about mutual acquaintances in Chevy Chase...3 years ago to me.

Thank you for sticking up for her. I’m tired of the smear jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An FBI investigation serves 2 purposes:

1. Provide cover for certain moderate senators to vote yes.

2. Give the White House time to consider the possible benefits of a withdrawal.

3. Give the democrats time to find more women.

Correction , pay and/or find more false accusers willing to be a martar for liberalism

Evidence that Ford is a false accuser who was paid?

Likely was a reference to Swetnick, whose story crumbled within hours.

I hope you plan to contact someone with this information.

nope, her story is credible. The smear of her background that happened right away has already crumbled.

I know Swetnick. She mentioned she had horrible stories about mutual acquaintances in Chevy Chase...3 years ago to me.

Thank you for sticking up for her. I’m tired of the smear jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite what comes out in the FBI report, no Dems will vote for BK anyways.

Who really thinks that this BS calling for a FBI investigation will change anything.

So if the FBI clears him, then it will be we can’t vote for him cuz abortion, gun laws, etc.. it will then be another set off issues.

How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.

Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.

She sounded emotional and compelling. However, the gaps, inconsistencies and lack of corroboration are overwhelming. She suffers the most traumatic event of her life and can't recall how she got home despite being stranded miles from home in the pre-cell phone age yet specifically remembers she had a single beer? Not credible.

So if she wanted to lie, why wouldn't she just say "I took a bus home?"

Because you could easily show that wasn't true. Serious Q. Why did her attorneys not tell her -- as the NYTimes and numerous emails establish -- that the Senate Jd. Committee offered to come to her in California over a week ago. Ford herself is likely innocent, but her attorney (recommended by Senate Democrats) were playing a delay game in hopes that more bad coverage would push BK to drop out. Telling their client that the Senate wouldn't come to her in CA. Telling the Senate she needed to drive to Washington DC from CA because she wouldnt fly! Suggests like the attorneys were embedded with the Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't it be smart for Kavanaugh to step down now? The FBI information could lead to stuff that could jeopardize his current position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would not mind being a fly on Kavanaugh's wall this evening, but I would also really love to be a fly on the wall in the office when Mark Judge has been meeting with his attorneys to craft his statements thus far. I think Brett Kavanaugh is on the record saying Mark Judge is a brilliant writer, so hopefully Brett supports a nice, close look at his books and articles.

Nixon/Rebozo/Key Biscayne

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite what comes out in the FBI report, no Dems will vote for BK anyways.

Who really thinks that this BS calling for a FBI investigation will change anything.

So if the FBI clears him, then it will be we can’t vote for him cuz abortion, gun laws, etc.. it will then be another set off issues.

How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.

Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.

She sounded emotional and compelling. However, the gaps, inconsistencies and lack of corroboration are overwhelming. She suffers the most traumatic event of her life and can't recall how she got home despite being stranded miles from home in the pre-cell phone age yet specifically remembers she had a single beer? Not credible.

So if she wanted to lie, why wouldn't she just say "I took a bus home?"

Because you could easily show that wasn't true. Serious Q. Why did her attorneys not tell her -- as the NYTimes and numerous emails establish -- that the Senate Jd. Committee offered to come to her in California over a week ago. Ford herself is likely innocent, but her attorney (recommended by Senate Democrats) were playing a delay game in hopes that more bad coverage would push BK to drop out. Telling their client that the Senate wouldn't come to her in CA. Telling the Senate she needed to drive to Washington DC from CA because she wouldnt fly! Suggests like the attorneys were embedded with the Democrats.

Her lawyers were negotiating on her behalf. You seem to think that they were not representing her interests. It seems like they were, to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite what comes out in the FBI report, no Dems will vote for BK anyways.

Who really thinks that this BS calling for a FBI investigation will change anything.

So if the FBI clears him, then it will be we can’t vote for him cuz abortion, gun laws, etc.. it will then be another set off issues.

How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.

Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.

So are you saying that an allegation, even if the person making it sounds credible, is sufficient to ruin someone’s career? Do you realize what that opens the door for? She essentially has no corroborating evidence, and the people she identified as being in a position to support her accusation either denied knowledge or outright refuted it. I can’t understand how so many are willing to destroy this guy (or anyone) over an unsubstantiated allegation. I guess I do understand - you hate his politics and/or the person who nominated him.

Credible allegations are why Paterno, Cosby and Larry Nassar have destroyed careers and they ARE IN JAIL. They are why Matt Lauer's and Harvey Weinstein's careers are over.
YES THIS IS HOW IT WORKS.

OMG what is the solution???
don't rape people, that is the solution.

By arguing this you are saying we should let Paterno, Cosby, Nassar, Lauer and Weinstein off the hook. Is that what you want? Is Kavanaugh THAT big a deal to you?
Hell no

All those you cite above were convicted because there was signicant, often unrefiutable evidence against them, as well as the corroborating and credibl testimony of multiple witnesses. That’s not the case with Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be smart for Kavanaugh to step down now? The FBI information could lead to stuff that could jeopardize his current position.

He doesn’t strike me as the type of guy who will step down. He was enraged while testifying. Complete lack of emotional control or the ability to think rationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be smart for Kavanaugh to step down now? The FBI information could lead to stuff that could jeopardize his current position.

I really think it’s dangerous for his mental stability if he doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite what comes out in the FBI report, no Dems will vote for BK anyways.

Who really thinks that this BS calling for a FBI investigation will change anything.

So if the FBI clears him, then it will be we can’t vote for him cuz abortion, gun laws, etc.. it will then be another set off issues.

How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.

Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.

She sounded emotional and compelling. However, the gaps, inconsistencies and lack of corroboration are overwhelming. She suffers the most traumatic event of her life and can't recall how she got home despite being stranded miles from home in the pre-cell phone age yet specifically remembers she had a single beer? Not credible.

So if she wanted to lie, why wouldn't she just say "I took a bus home?"

Because you could easily show that wasn't true. Serious Q. Why did her attorneys not tell her -- as the NYTimes and numerous emails establish -- that the Senate Jd. Committee offered to come to her in California over a week ago. Ford herself is likely innocent, but her attorney (recommended by Senate Democrats) were playing a delay game in hopes that more bad coverage would push BK to drop out. Telling their client that the Senate wouldn't come to her in CA. Telling the Senate she needed to drive to Washington DC from CA because she wouldnt fly! Suggests like the attorneys were embedded with the Democrats.

Especially since Feinstein was the one who steered Ford to Katz.