Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

There are 6 F’s in that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vote set for Friday.

Yup.

I think there will be an actual impeachment effort if it happens, and ultimately? May take a year or more but Kavanaugh may not only not be a Supreme Court Judge, he won’t ever get a teaching gig outside of Liberty or Ave Maria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Translation: Feinsten doesn't want the results to be made public because she wants to keep the 'Trump fixed it' narrative alive

[Anonymous]

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've heard it explained, and it could probably be found written better than this, but this is the best I could find quickly.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/1/17916254/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-ford-trump"

"With a background check for a Supreme Court nominee, the FBI is much more limited by the White House, its effective client. The White House sets the parameters: who the FBI interviews, the scope of an investigation, what specific allegations the FBI is expected to look into, and how long the background check can take. All of this makes it much more difficult for the FBI to get to the bottom of a case.

“The White House is in control of this. They might make decisions under pressure from the Senate, but they, ultimately, are in control of this,” Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent, told Sean Illing at Vox. She added, “If the White House shuts it down, there’s nothing the FBI can do. This will be over, no matter what the investigators discover. Because this isn’t a typical criminal investigation, the FBI doesn’t have any independent authority here.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote set for Friday.

Yup.

I think there will be an actual impeachment effort if it happens, and ultimately? May take a year or more but Kavanaugh may not only not be a Supreme Court Judge, he won’t ever get a teaching gig outside of Liberty or Ave Maria.

Haha haha - keep thinking that.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
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?

What I am telling you is that my personal experience undergoing a background investigation was more stringent than the one that Kavanaugh just underwent. Why are you discounting my experience? You, by your own admission, have no similar experience. Moreover, anyone who has been in DC any length of time has probably been contacted by the FBI as part of someone else's background investigation. I have been contacted multiple times (and even more times by non-FBI investigators). Ignoring obvious leads is just not normal. Why is that hard for you to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote set for Friday.

Yup.

I think there will be an actual impeachment effort if it happens, and ultimately? May take a year or more but Kavanaugh may not only not be a Supreme Court Judge, he won’t ever get a teaching gig outside of Liberty or Ave Maria.

The vote is set for Saturday. Friday is a procedural vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don't have that information. I do know that Garland didn't get the consideration from the Republicans that the Democrats gave Thomas.

[Anonymous]

For those who don’t understand Kavanaugh’s lies about the stolen emails, here’s a tweet thread from Senator Leahy https://mobile.twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/1047610549100580869

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Nominees after Cleveland's:

Harding (Republican) nominated one (confirmed after second attempt)
Hoover (Republican) nominated one (rejected), nominated a second (confirmed)
Eisenhower (Republican) nominated one (confirmed on second attempt)
Johnson (Democrat) nominated one (rejected)
Nixon (Republican) nominated one (rejected), nominated a second (rejected), nominated a third (confirmed), he then nominated two more for two more open positions (confirmed)
Reagan (Republican) nominated one (rejected), nominated a second (confirmed)
Bush (Republican) nominated one (confirmed)
Obama (Democrat) nominated one (expired)

PP was attempting to make it seem like Republican Senates were being terribly mean to Democratic nominees. The actual facts don't support that insinuation.

[Anonymous]

National council of churches asks for Kavanaugh's nomination to be withdrawn https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/national-council-of-churches-calls-for-kavanaughs-nomination-to-be-withdrawn/ar-BBNTuVp?ocid=spartandhp

[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?

So there is no difference between a background investigation for a federal appointment vs a security clearance? When undergoing a background investigation you list people as character witnesses. These are the people the FBI interview and these names are genorated by the appointee/nominee. The agancy requesting the background investigation can request others be interviewed also.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has, in the past, performed the majority of background checks and overseen 90% of the federal government’s investigations for over 100 federal agencies. Investigations that require other record checks, reference interviews, or subject interviews are sent to field investigators, either federal agents or contract investigators. Some agencies, notably the CIA and Department of Defense (DOD), have jurisdiction to conduct their own investigations; the DOD investigations are conducted by its Defense Security Service. The FBI conducts agency BI investigations as well as investigations on high level Presidential appointments, cabinet officers, agency heads, and White House staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote set for Friday.

Yup.

I think there will be an actual impeachment effort if it happens, and ultimately? May take a year or more but Kavanaugh may not only not be a Supreme Court Judge, he won’t ever get a teaching gig outside of Liberty or Ave Maria.

Haha haha - keep thinking that.

Can't imagine who would take his class

[Anonymous]

Kav’s Go Fund Me up to 500k! Gotta respect that!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

What I am telling you is that my personal experience undergoing a background investigation was more stringent than the one that Kavanaugh just underwent. Why are you discounting my experience? You, by your own admission, have no similar experience. Moreover, anyone who has been in DC any length of time has probably been contacted by the FBI as part of someone else's background investigation. I have been contacted multiple times (and even more times by non-FBI investigators). Ignoring obvious leads is just not normal. Why is that hard for you to understand?

NP here - isn't this just a supplemental to the original background investigation, which presumably was quite thorough?