Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no pleasing you people. Asked for FBI investigation. The FBI investigates. Not good enough - claim WH is hindering when not getting desired result.
What a joke.

Uh yeah, we didn't want a fake half assed investigation directed by Trump. Does this really surprise you?

Source? Has anyone from the FBI confirmed your opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something interesting to me is reading how comparatively, Clarence Thomas was calm in his own defense, even including “high-tech lynching.” His general and overall tone was superior to Kavanaugh’s, and they were in some ways similarly situated. Everyone knew then and now that Republicans were desperate since Nixon to replace Marshall, but the federal bench has never been deep with African-American, Republican judges, let alone one with “liberal” EEOC/admin law experience. In some ways, Marshall’s seat WAS Thomas’s seat in a way that’s simply not true for Kavanaugh and Kennedy, particularly since Leonard Leo has publicly rated all of the Federalist-approved judges as equal.

Curious what others think explains this gap. I’ve got my theories.

Thomas’s affect at the most intense moment:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8

Kavanaugh’s affect at one of many intense moments:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iVVmlueAVqg

Kavanaugh should be more outraged than Thomas because he knows the game the Dems created with Thomas

No, sorry.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-impeachment-perjury-sexual-harassment-812953%3famp=1

You just proved my case. Kavanaugh knew the game.

Wrong again, but attempting conversation with you is pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no pleasing you people. Asked for FBI investigation. The FBI investigates. Not good enough - claim WH is hindering when not getting desired result.
What a joke.

Uh yeah, we didn't want a fake half assed investigation directed by Trump. Does this really surprise you?

Have you ever worked for FBI? If not, it does not matter what you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FFFFF = find, feel, finger, f***, forget

as Kavanaugh knows.

Doesn't seem that way.

Didn't work. See top right photo caption on page 84 (exact pages not clear but around that).

https://archive.org/details/cupola-1983/page/n83

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford unwilling to turn over therapist's notes to the SJC. These notes were leaked to Post and were referenced by Ford as corroborating her story under oath (though after the fact) to the SJC -- THE CON IS OVER

She offered to provide the notes to the FBI but they never showed up to interview her. If she provided them to the SJC, they would immediately be selectively leaked.

Because they weren't going to interview her and her lawyers knew it. Nor should they because, as you all keep saying, this isn't a criminal trial.

She can file a report and give them to the local police who have said over and over again they would be glad to help even if the statue of limitations has run out.

You can't have it both ways. If Grassley thinks the therapist's notes and other documents are important enough to request, they should are important enough for the FBI to review as part of its background investigation. It makes no sense that an investigation instigated by Ford's testimony wouldn't include an interview with her. It is clear to everyone that the White House restricted this investigation in order to achieve its desired outcome.

She shared them with the Washington Post, but not the senators, because you say they might be leaked? Leaked to who? She already shared them.

I think, frankly, her lawyers are lying (again). They have no intention of sharing those notes with the FBI, or anyone else, but favorable press.

Obviously she didn't share everything that the Committee wants. Otherwise they could just read them in the Post.

The Post has the notes. Why the secrecy unless they don't help her story?

Certainly you aren’t this dumb in real life? Because the SJC would not bother with leaking them. They’d pick the most salacious bits and post them on their website.

She was in couples therapy. Talking about a rape attempt. So the notes contain a discussion of hers — and her husband’s— private martial problems. And if the attempted rape came up, this likely has something to do with sexual problems. She has kids. She’s a professor The notes contain her husband’s information and issues too. And, oh yeah, the SJC just posted ON THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE very selectively edited excerpts of a letter by a bipolar MAGAtt talking about how one abuse victim liked group sex.

So just spitballing here. Maybe she doesn’t want the SJC’s next post to be a therapists notes from when her husband had an affair and said it was her fault because she could only have sex in some weird, kinky way which she attributes to an attempted rape? For her husband’s colleagues and kids and students to read and us to pick apart on DCUM? Just a thought... Idiot.

Her choice. I would, however, refrain from claiming you are a timid mouse who has been for sure attacked by one particular man if you are unwilling to risk backing it up.

These games simply prove Rachel Mitchell's conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

Source?

From the front page of the Washington Post you lazy ass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-fbi-background-check-of-kavanaugh-nears-its-end-probe-appears-to-have-been-highly-curtailed/2018/10/03/2fa4e93e-c72f-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html

And who many FBI investigations has the impartial Wash Post run? You piece of lazy ass. Maybe be time to branch out from the Post.

Noted. Maybe you should lay out your quals on how many FBI investigations you have been involved in. We are waiting.

DP. You are out of control. Must be time to take your meds.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

I have not - which is my point. Have you jeff? You seem to have plenty of opinions on what the FBI should and should not do. Last time I checked you are a stay at home dad who runs a chat room. Have you ever run a FBI investigation? If so, would love to hear your opinions, if not, it's just noise.

While I could now be described as a stay at home dad who runs a chat room, I chose that role after having held a variety of jobs. One of those jobs required a security clearance which necessitated a background check. I know with certainty that the investigators did not rely on a list of people provided by the White House to decide who to interview. They interviewed whoever they thought might have useful information. The FBI failed to do that in this case. While you apparently don't share my credentials of being a stay at home dad who runs a chat room, perhaps you can share your wisdom about why that makes sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

Source?

From the front page of the Washington Post you lazy ass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-fbi-background-check-of-kavanaugh-nears-its-end-probe-appears-to-have-been-highly-curtailed/2018/10/03/2fa4e93e-c72f-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html

And who many FBI investigations has the impartial Wash Post run? You piece of lazy ass. Maybe be time to branch out from the Post.

Noted. Maybe you should lay out your quals on how many FBI investigations you have been involved in. We are waiting.

DP. You are out of control. Must be time to take your meds.

What's got you so unhinged that you can't even quote a post right?

How many FBI investigations have you been in? You must have a lot of "quals"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious honest question. Is the secrecy of the new FBI report just because Grassley says so? Is this common?

Feinstein called for the secrecy, not Grassley

Really? How do we know this? And why?

News reports can give some insight, such as this one: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/senators-fbi-report-kavanaugh/index.html

""I think the investigation ought to be closely held," she reiterated. When asked how the American people will have confidence in the probe if its results are not made public, Feinstein said, "Well, let's see. ... I can't say, because I don't know what the investigation will say.""

If you don't trust just the one (reasonable, given how ridiculous everything has been), you can take some quotes out, search for those strings, and see if you can confirm from other sources.

[Anonymous]

Why are people so sure that the Washington Post has the therapy notes?

Here is Ford's testimony, which indicates she does not remember if she showed the notes to WaPo and isn't sure if she gave the reporter the record. She does remember summarizing the record for the reporter.


MITCHELL: Did you show a full or partial set of those marriage therapy records to The Washington Post?

FORD: I don’t remember. I remember summarizing for her what they said. So I’m not – I’m not quite sure if I actually gave her the record.

MITCHELL: OK. So it’s possible that the reporter did not see these notes.

FORD: I don’t know if she’s – I can’t recall whether she saw them directly or if I just told her what they said.

MITCHELL: Have you shown them to anyone else besides your counsel?

FORD: Just the counsel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The pissing and moaning about Thomas always seems to omit that he was confirmed by a Senate with 57 Democrats. The last time a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court by a majority Republican Senate was 1896 when Grover Cleveland nominated Rufus Wheeler Peckham. So the people who claim that conservative judicial nominees are so mistreated by Democrats can just STFU.

Can you tell me how many Democratic nominees have been made to a majority Republican Senate and failed confirmation since 1896?

[Anonymous]

Vote set for Friday.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

I have not - which is my point. Have you jeff? You seem to have plenty of opinions on what the FBI should and should not do. Last time I checked you are a stay at home dad who runs a chat room. Have you ever run a FBI investigation? If so, would love to hear your opinions, if not, it's just noise.

While I could now be described as a stay at home dad who runs a chat room, I chose that role after having held a variety of jobs. One of those jobs required a security clearance which necessitated a background check. I know with certainty that the investigators did not rely on a list of people provided by the White House to decide who to interview. They interviewed whoever they thought might have useful information. The FBI failed to do that in this case. While you apparently don't share my credentials of being a stay at home dad who runs a chat room, perhaps you can share your wisdom about why that makes sense?

You don't know anything "with certainty" at this point in your career as you no longer have a security clearance and as far as we all know you are not part of the FBI investigation. Please correct me if I am wrong.
It is all speculation and based on other sources - correct? Have you been in on the FBI briefings about the investigation?
I don't claim to have any wisdom but you do without any qualifications to back it up. Just admit that you are speculating based on what you have read. You have no personal knowledge of anything on the investigation.
I admit I know nothing. Can you do the same or are you to proud to admit it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

Source?

From the front page of the Washington Post you lazy ass

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-fbi-background-check-of-kavanaugh-nears-its-end-probe-appears-to-have-been-highly-curtailed/2018/10/03/2fa4e93e-c72f-11e8-9b1c-a90f1daae309_story.html

And who many FBI investigations has the impartial Wash Post run? You piece of lazy ass. Maybe be time to branch out from the Post.

I admit I have no quals - how about you and your one sided opinions. Why do you feel the need to call me unhinged when I'm simply asking for sources for your unsubstantiated statements. If you have a source or you are an FBI agent involved, then please share your opinion.

Noted. Maybe you should lay out your quals on how many FBI investigations you have been involved in. We are waiting.

DP. You are out of control. Must be time to take your meds.

What's got you so unhinged that you can't even quote a post right?

How many FBI investigations have you been in? You must have a lot of "quals"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

I have not - which is my point. Have you jeff? You seem to have plenty of opinions on what the FBI should and should not do. Last time I checked you are a stay at home dad who runs a chat room. Have you ever run a FBI investigation? If so, would love to hear your opinions, if not, it's just noise.

While I could now be described as a stay at home dad who runs a chat room, I chose that role after having held a variety of jobs. One of those jobs required a security clearance which necessitated a background check. I know with certainty that the investigators did not rely on a list of people provided by the White House to decide who to interview. They interviewed whoever they thought might have useful information. The FBI failed to do that in this case. While you apparently don't share my credentials of being a stay at home dad who runs a chat room, perhaps you can share your wisdom about why that makes sense?

You don't know anything "with certainty" at this point in your career as you no longer have a security clearance and as far as we all know you are not part of the FBI investigation. Please correct me if I am wrong.
It is all speculation and based on other sources - correct? Have you been in on the FBI briefings about the investigation?
I don't claim to have any wisdom but you do without any qualifications to back it up. Just admit that you are speculating based on what you have read. You have no personal knowledge of anything on the investigation.
I admit I know nothing. Can you do the same or are you to proud to admit it?

DP. So you're just making noise, right now?

The rest of us are discussing. This is a discussion board. I'm not sure what you're doing, but it's not discussing.