Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay I read the statement. The Judge says that she wasn't the one who was pushed and she was dating him then.

She uses the typical lawyer language to leave open the possibility that it was another woman who was pushed, because of course she can't know that he wasn't seeing other women with certainty.

So it wasn't her and we still don't know.

So did I. She's now a Federal Judge appointed by Trump. Unless the person she was with has a different take on the event, this lead seems dead.

I meant District Judge, here in DC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabney_L._Friedrich

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay I read the statement. The Judge says that she wasn't the one who was pushed and she was dating him then.

She uses the typical lawyer language to leave open the possibility that it was another woman who was pushed, because of course she can't know that he wasn't seeing other women with certainty.

So it wasn't her and we still don't know.

So did I. She's now a Federal Judge appointed by Trump. Unless the person she was with has a different take on the event, this lead seems dead.

I meant District Judge, here in DC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dabney_L._Friedrich

I agree, the lead is dead. Only thing that could happen from here, is that this story was about another woman, she remembers the incident the way her friend does, and she does come forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a good article that explains why Swetnick could have gone to those parties again and again

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/9/27/17906644/sixteen-candles-rape-culture-1980s-brett-kavanaugh

FBI is not permitted to investigate Julie Swetnick claims. I'm not a big Avenatti fan but Swetnick did file a sworn declaration under oath to Congress.

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.

This doesn’t ring true to me. The FBI is not investigating these women as separate cases. It is investigating Kavanaugh’s background. To do an investigation agents have to go down many rabbit holes that they can’t anticipate at the outset. If another name comes up (even another one we haven’t heard about) the agents will have more doors to knock on.

Apparently, according to this article which has WH sources, they're not being permitted to that.
For example they can't get records from Safeway re: Mark Judge.
They can't look into the drinking allegations at Yale.
And they can't look at Julie Swetnick.

What a surprise! The investigation is a sham. Just like everything else having to do with Kavanaugh.

Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-house-limits-scope-fbi-s-investigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the white house says that the FBI is limited in who they can interview to the list of witnesses Trump gave them, then why is the FBI asking for people with information to come forward?

This doesn't make sense.

If they limit it in this way, then no one will believe the results.

Trump just said on TV that the FBI has "free rein."

But who knows, this is not the greatest source of accurate information.

[Anonymous]

But in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.

The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”

“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’”

A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been “sanctimonious” during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he “dissembled” in the courtroom.

This.
This.
This.

That sneering entitled performance on Thursday was very much in line with this description. He refused to answer simple questions directly. The snarling nastiness to Sen. Klobuchar alone should disqualify him. He might make a great hard right politician, but he does NOT belong on the Supreme Court.

We need a reasonable SCOTUS process: 60 vote requirement. Term limits of 25 years or age 80, whichever is first
. Mandatory Senate vote on a nominee within 90 days of presidential nomination. (i.e., no future Merrick Garland scenarios).

[Anonymous]

Avenatti will let us know if they speak with Ms. Swetnick.

Obviously, it makes no sense to have an investigation and not speak with her.

Why so scared, Brett????

[Anonymous]

If the administration somehow gets the FBI to ignore Swetnick, I bet Avenatti has her do a big interview the night before the Senate votes. Also, that would mean the investigation is a sham, not meant to find the truth, but only to appear as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.

The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”

“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’”

A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been “sanctimonious” during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he “dissembled” in the courtroom.

This.
This.
This.

That sneering entitled performance on Thursday was very much in line with this description. He refused to answer simple questions directly. The snarling nastiness to Sen. Klobuchar alone should disqualify him. He might make a great hard right politician, but he does NOT belong on the Supreme Court.

We need a reasonable SCOTUS process: 60 vote requirement. Term limits of 25 years or age 80, whichever is first
. Mandatory Senate vote on a nominee within 90 days of presidential nomination. (i.e., no future Merrick Garland scenarios).

AGREE!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear Conservative/Evangelical/Extreme-right/Republican folks,

None other than Judge Nepolitano, on none other than Fox News channel, on a phone conversation with a Fox News host, said FBI investigation is DANGEROUS (caps for emphasis by me) for Brett Cavanaugh. When asked by the host why it is, Judge Napolitano said "for all his (meaning Brett Kavanaugh's) denials yesterday (meaning Thursday, September 27, 2018 during the Senate Judicial Committee hearing).

My question to you folks is, why would an FBI investigation be dangerous to Brett Kavanaugh if all his denials are truthful? Does Judge Napolitano feel at least some of Brett Kavanaugh's denials weren't truthful? As you very well know, Judge Napolitano is NO LIBERAL and he is not ignorant of the law. Will chickens come home to roost? A week to ten days will tell.

CRICKETS (all caps for emphasis)

Because the FBI has lately proved itself to be involved in some very shady dealings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) I don't recall Kavanaugh ever saying he did not get drunk back then. I heard him say he was never blackout drunk, i.e. so drunk that he had no recollection of events. That's important because the Dem Senators were trying very hard to establish this to use it to say that he didn't remember assaulting Ford.

2) It's a matter of time before someone steps forward with Ford's yearbook - the fact that her social media was scrubbed clean suggests intent to hide background information.

3) Ford flew multiple times for pleasure, as far as Polynesia. You can make any excuse you want for why, but the FACT is she said she was afraid to fly to come out to the DC area. Furthermore, she also stated she flew out yearly to go to DE with her family.

4) The prosecutor who interviewed her said that she would not prosecute Kavanaugh based on Ford's testimony.

But why didn’t Kavanaugh ask for an FBI investigation? Why hasn’t his friend been questioned by a professional investigator?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the administration somehow gets the FBI to ignore Swetnick, I bet Avenatti has her do a big interview the night before the Senate votes. Also, that would mean the investigation is a sham, not meant to find the truth, but only to appear as such.

I would watch her interview! Can't wait, in fact.

[Anonymous]

Trump would never try to interfere with an investigation, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.

The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”

“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’”

A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been “sanctimonious” during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he “dissembled” in the courtroom.

This.
This.
This.

That sneering entitled performance on Thursday was very much in line with this description. He refused to answer simple questions directly. The snarling nastiness to Sen. Klobuchar alone should disqualify him. He might make a great hard right politician, but he does NOT belong on the Supreme Court.

We need a reasonable SCOTUS process: 60 vote requirement. Term limits of 25 years or age 80, whichever is first
. Mandatory Senate vote on a nominee within 90 days of presidential nomination. (i.e., no future Merrick Garland scenarios).

He has already been a judge for many years. The above was a prediction of how he would act as a federal judge. Based on his 12 year record, how has that prediction held up? If he were a democrat, you would have called him “passionate.” SMH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump would never try to interfere with an investigation, right?

I don't know, let's check his calendar. Nope, he clearly does not have written "interfere with FBI investigation" on there this month!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You people need to put down the Kool aid. Are you willfully stupid or outright crazy? Or just a garden variety troll? As soon as you start talking about "liberals" as though they are a monolith, you lose all credibility. There are crazy posts on these Kavanaugh threads, to be sure, but so is yours. You "know" he's innocent. There are a limited set of people who "know" that, and you ain't one of em.

LOL! Kool aid? Go watch the opening of the first hearing on Kavanaugh. Almost choreographed and staged. Ridiculous, unprofessional performance by Dems.

Then, go listen to Feinstein the afternoon of K's last hearing--all the attacks. All the stupid questions about high school yearbooks. Personal attacks. Kavanaugh has had years on the bench and yet high school is the best they have? And, the assault accusations. Look at how Ford was handled by her lawyers--either she is lying or they deceived her.

No. It's not Kool Aid. The spiked punch came from Feinstein, et.al--not Kavanaugh.

And then watch this and try to convince me that this guy is owed a Supreme Court seat.

Not sure if I’m missing something, but that seems pretty uneventful.

Well, I guess you missed all the LIES the guy who wants to be on the SCOTUS said. Boofing means using drugs/alcohol anally, Devil’s Triangle is a threesome, Kav refused to admit that ralphing referred to puking when drunk, etc.
Review the tape and you’ll find more. Oh, and he claimed the ralphing had to do with his “weak stomach.”

All these stupid small lies were completely unnecessary. He could have said the things in his yearbook were sensational exaggerations typical of a teenager, and that he’sd put them in for the benefit of his friends because he wanted to look cool. Instead, he lied, which is far more suspicious. If he’s lying about small things, he’s surely lying about big things.