Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I came across this article about Mark Judge, which I thought was really well written and thought-provoking:

https://www.thenation.com/article/i-went-to-georgetown-prep-and-knew-mark-judge-and-i-believe-christine-blasey-ford/

Thanks for linking to this article.

Before I read it I had already thought that Ford's story was believable because there was no good reason for her to name Judge as being in the room if it all didn't happen. He was Brett's best friend, why would she think he wouldn't back Brett's version? Why would she provide an extra witness who she knew would likely only be on Brett's side and back whatever Brett said? The only reason she would place Judge on the scene is if he was actually there and actually witnessed what happened.

She just thought, erroneously, that Mark Judge might actually tell the truth. Maybe the Mark Judge she remembered from high school would have.

But Brett and Mark could not possibly admit to this event if it might mean it cost Brett the appointment to the supreme court. So they didn't.

+1

I watched her testimony and my gut reaction as she spoke was that Mark's behavior was indicative of a decent kid trying to stop what was happening. According to the linked author, I was right. And I've never met anyone involved.

Right -- Judge stopped the action by jumping on top of both of them, causing them to tumble, then distracted Kav, allowing Ford to leave.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't say it was to get revenge somehow. I think she's beyond that and wanted to use her words to take down the republican party and his appointment at this point. I don't actually believe she's still hurt by him if it ever happened at all. If she was still seeking actual revenge for the crime, she would have pressed charges through law enforcement. she didn't because her motive was entirely to harm his reputation knowing she had no proof. She also understood that there was no way her words were going to have any effect on the nomination unless they went public. I think the real reason she spoke anonymously from the beginning was to see if she had enough democrats to rally around her to make the story public and go somewhere. It had nothing to do with the republican party at all. She was just doing a grassroots campaign first to get liberals on board.

You are doing a lot of speculating here but haven't provided any foundation for it. If you can point to any evidence to support this conclusion, I'm happy to discuss that.

Sure. There is the proof that she contacted the Washington post. That meant she wanted the story public somehow from the beginning. There is also the proof that she contacted her senator and that the senator was interested in the story. That shows that she wanted people voting for Kavanaugh to listen to her information when determining their voting decision. There is also proof that she was active in politics. Knowing this, she should have been able to understand that without some tarnish to his reputation through her words leaking out, she would have understood that republicans had the majority and he would have been confirmed. We recently had another supreme court justice confirmed the same way by a majority vote. There is also proof that she decided not to press charges through Montgomery County police. One speculation I have not confirmed is that she already contacted her friend about the incident at least sometime over the past 35 years and knew her friend wouldn't remember the event. I can't believe that wasn't known before she contacted Feinstein. She also would have known that Judge and Kavanaugh wouldn't support her story. And she knew she had no other proof because she didn't tell her parents or anyone during that time and had no recollection of the house or even the date.

From this I can gather that she realized she didn't have enough information for a criminal investigation. I can also gather that she did want to come forward to tarnish his name somehow because she knew she didn't want to press charges. However she understood she was accusing someone of a crime that could lead to an investigation if she wanted it. If she wanted the republicans to get on board right away and get the best possible investigation she would have been more public from the beginning. Because she and Feinstein waited, it tells me she and Feinstein wanted to rally their own party and/or wanted to make the biggest bang before the election.

This is, again, a lot of speculation. Yes, she participated in a Womens March and made some small-dollar political donations, but so have millions of other women (myself included) who didn't not make allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Why do you believe she's different?

The only point I was making was that she wasn't totally blindsighted that republicans had control of the nomination for supreme court at this time. Being that she was tuned into politics she would have watched Neil Gorush's confirmation process.

I looked up her friend and her friend says that Ford never contacted her about this incident ever. Imagine that. 35 plus years and she contacts the Washington Post and her congress person and senator to allege a crime but doesn't contact her best friend who would be a corroborating witness before doing so.

people can go years without telling anyone about their assault, then when ( and if) they finally start talking, they don't tell everyone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

Exactly.

Neither does it support Ford. And that none of her witnesses remember such a gathering, or anything similar, does benefit Kavanaugh and hurt Ford.

Exactly. Ford was known as a binge drinker at Holton Arms.

And?

We will never know because it was never investigated. It certainly seens plausible. So they will both live in the shadow of uncertainty.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

They already had their testimony. I would imagine that without corroboration from the 4 named witnesses, there was nothing for them to return to Ford and Kavanaugh regarding. You clearly think there is some reason the FBI should have returned to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Is your contention that the 4 named witnesses, who were interviewed by the FBI, provided information that the FBI should have followed up on and didn't?

DP, but personally I think they should have interviewed Ford and Kavanaugh. I'm not an FBI investigator, but as an attorney I know that I never just rely on accounts taken by someone else, a document where someone wrote down information, etc., without actually talking to the person directly to confirm those accounts, fill in holes, and find any other relevant details that might not be apparent in the information someone else gathered for me. Maybe for something truly minor/insignificant/uncontroversial, but not for anything key to a matter. I have high regard for the FBI, and I believe that if they'd been allowed to interview Ford and Kavanaugh, they would have wanted to do so in order to ensure they'd done a proper investigation and not taken any shortcuts.

Would you ever work from another attorney's deposition? We don't just have interviews from Ford and Kavanaugh, their statements are official, on the record.

The background checks I've been involved with have not been multi-interview processes. I don't recall ever having had someone return to me to ask followup questions, not when I've been the one getting my background checked and not when I've been a part of someone else's background check. Without evidence that someone prevented the FBI from talking to Ford or Kavanaugh, my inclination is to assume the FBI felt their statements stood as they were.

I've never had a case where a witness was deposed without my team having an opportunity to participate in the deposition. There have been times where there's a joint defense agreement and one of the other party's attorneys will take the deposition for everyone, but that only happens with very minor witnesses, certainly not major ones. Also, when that happens we all conference in advance to provide the deposing attorney with the questions we want asked, and usually there are updates from that attorney during breaks about any significant developments that we might want to have him/her ask supplemental questions about. I'm hard-pressed to imagine circumstances in which I would just accept a deposition taken by someone else in which I'd had zero opportunity to participate without having at least a few items I'd want to follow-up on, especially not for a major witness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't say it was to get revenge somehow. I think she's beyond that and wanted to use her words to take down the republican party and his appointment at this point. I don't actually believe she's still hurt by him if it ever happened at all. If she was still seeking actual revenge for the crime, she would have pressed charges through law enforcement. she didn't because her motive was entirely to harm his reputation knowing she had no proof. She also understood that there was no way her words were going to have any effect on the nomination unless they went public. I think the real reason she spoke anonymously from the beginning was to see if she had enough democrats to rally around her to make the story public and go somewhere. It had nothing to do with the republican party at all. She was just doing a grassroots campaign first to get liberals on board.

You are doing a lot of speculating here but haven't provided any foundation for it. If you can point to any evidence to support this conclusion, I'm happy to discuss that.

Sure. There is the proof that she contacted the Washington post. That meant she wanted the story public somehow from the beginning. There is also the proof that she contacted her senator and that the senator was interested in the story. That shows that she wanted people voting for Kavanaugh to listen to her information when determining their voting decision. There is also proof that she was active in politics. Knowing this, she should have been able to understand that without some tarnish to his reputation through her words leaking out, she would have understood that republicans had the majority and he would have been confirmed. We recently had another supreme court justice confirmed the same way by a majority vote. There is also proof that she decided not to press charges through Montgomery County police. One speculation I have not confirmed is that she already contacted her friend about the incident at least sometime over the past 35 years and knew her friend wouldn't remember the event. I can't believe that wasn't known before she contacted Feinstein. She also would have known that Judge and Kavanaugh wouldn't support her story. And she knew she had no other proof because she didn't tell her parents or anyone during that time and had no recollection of the house or even the date.

From this I can gather that she realized she didn't have enough information for a criminal investigation. I can also gather that she did want to come forward to tarnish his name somehow because she knew she didn't want to press charges. However she understood she was accusing someone of a crime that could lead to an investigation if she wanted it. If she wanted the republicans to get on board right away and get the best possible investigation she would have been more public from the beginning. Because she and Feinstein waited, it tells me she and Feinstein wanted to rally their own party and/or wanted to make the biggest bang before the election.

This is, again, a lot of speculation. Yes, she participated in a Womens March and made some small-dollar political donations, but so have millions of other women (myself included) who didn't not make allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Why do you believe she's different?

The only point I was making was that she wasn't totally blindsighted that republicans had control of the nomination for supreme court at this time. Being that she was tuned into politics she would have watched Neil Gorush's confirmation process.

I looked up her friend and her friend says that Ford never contacted her about this incident ever. Imagine that. 35 plus years and she contacts the Washington Post and her congress person and senator to allege a crime but doesn't contact her best friend who would be a corroborating witness before doing so.

None of this undermines her claims.

I really don't understand your logic at all. She sought no witnesses before making accusations. She knew she had no one to corroborate her story. She made a claim about a crime someone committed. To me that tells me all she wanted to do was tarnish his reputation through her claim knowing her claim was not able to be proven credible. I gave you my logical reasoning. What is yours?

If anything, that bolsters her credibility to me. If she wanted to make up a false allegation, she'd either only name witnesses she'd already conspired with to back her up, or she'd place no witnesses there at all - no one else in the room, she didn't remember which friends were there with her, no one to contradict her story. I highly doubt she expected Mark Judge to spill his guts and confess everything (especially is the story were false), so there was no reason for her to say he was there unless he was, in fact, there and claiming otherwise would have been a lie.

[Anonymous]

So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

16:36 here. As long as they are telling the truth, I think a victim can tell their story whenever they choose. Not having proof doesn't make your claim untrue.

[Anonymous]

This article is illogical. He finds Ford credible, not because he thinks Kavanaugh is the kind of
Guy to do it, or that he witnessed similar behavior by Kavanaugh and so forth. But because Judge was a clown and he is the type of person to jump on you. Wow. Not good logic from a Prep grad.

Who knows what happened or if it happened. But this article is stupid and just another effort by people with some minor connection to the players to get some attention.

[Anonymous]

Also, Ford knew Judge and knew he was a clown. So it doesn’t make her story any more credible that she described him as a clown. Maybe if she never knew him before or after, that would be a different story and it would “reasonate”.

One more reason this article is illogical. Again, maybe it did happen but this article makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

Exactly.

Neither does it support Ford. And that none of her witnesses remember such a gathering, or anything similar, does benefit Kavanaugh and hurt Ford.

Exactly. Ford was known as a binge drinker at Holton Arms.

And?

We will never know because it was never investigated. It certainly seens plausible. So they will both live in the shadow of uncertainty.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

They already had their testimony. I would imagine that without corroboration from the 4 named witnesses, there was nothing for them to return to Ford and Kavanaugh regarding. You clearly think there is some reason the FBI should have returned to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Is your contention that the 4 named witnesses, who were interviewed by the FBI, provided information that the FBI should have followed up on and didn't?

I dont have to be an FBI agent to know that I cant imagine being tasked with investigating this incident without personally interviewing those two people. I want to ask the questions I want to ask and I certainly dont want some 5 minute time limit construction imposed on each question. Prepared statements are fine only if I get to follow that up with whatever questions I need to ask.

Director Wray testified today that their investigation was typical....”the usual process was followed.” They had hours - HOURS - of sworn testimony from both Ford and Kavanaugh. The only reason to re-interview them would be to set either up for a “perjury trap.”

Yep. Unfortunately, the only thing a more thorough investigation by the FBI would reveal would be more holes and inconsistencies in Ford's allegation and testimony, which was already becoming apparent in the last few days before the vote. The letter from her previous boyfriend was pretty damning in pointing out behaviors completely out of sync with what Ford claimed to suffer from. An investigation would have only revealed more inconsistencies. I'm surprised that Ford's supporters don't realize that a more thorough investigation would have only damned Ford more.

But as we know, it really doesn't matter. The truth does not and has never mattered here.

On the contrary, I’d welcome the results of a thorough investigation. Either to clear him so we can move on or to support her allegation and proceed accordingly.

Guess we will never know. Like you said, the truth doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

Exactly.

Neither does it support Ford. And that none of her witnesses remember such a gathering, or anything similar, does benefit Kavanaugh and hurt Ford.

Exactly. Ford was known as a binge drinker at Holton Arms.

And?

We will never know because it was never investigated. It certainly seens plausible. So they will both live in the shadow of uncertainty.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

They already had their testimony. I would imagine that without corroboration from the 4 named witnesses, there was nothing for them to return to Ford and Kavanaugh regarding. You clearly think there is some reason the FBI should have returned to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Is your contention that the 4 named witnesses, who were interviewed by the FBI, provided information that the FBI should have followed up on and didn't?

Again, you’re being ridiculous. Go educate yourself instead of posting rhetorical questions.

They aren't rhetorical.

I am of the opinion you have no idea what an FBI background investigation is, and I'm trying to figure out where you think it went wrong.

That you can't articulate where you think it went wrong reinforces my opinion.

“Background investigation”? It was more than that. But you know that and are being ingenuous.

[Anonymous]

^ clarification: SHOULD HAVE BEEN more than that.

[Anonymous]

Chief Justice Roberts has referred more than a dozen judicial misconduct charges against Justice* Kavanaugh to a federal appeals court in Colorado.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/roberts-refers-judicial-misconduct-complaints-against-kavanaugh-to-federal-appeals-court-in-colorado/2018/10/10/34298534-ccc3-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chief Justice Roberts has referred more than a dozen judicial misconduct charges against Justice* Kavanaugh to a federal appeals court in Colorado.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/roberts-refers-judicial-misconduct-complaints-against-kavanaugh-to-federal-appeals-court-in-colorado/2018/10/10/34298534-ccc3-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html

Gulp. Just kidding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So 16:25 and 16:36. Both of you are perfectly fine with people telling stories years later that trash another human being knowing they have no credible sources to verify their information? So if I see someone shoplifting and know who it is, I can spill my guts 35 years later without having any proof just to make sure that person's reputation was smeared? I actually did observe someone shoplifting as a child and can vaguely pinpoint where it was and what time of year and I know who did it. Do I know the shop? Nope. Did I say anything at the time? Only to a friend who I haven't contacted. Maybe I should look up the shoplifter and let everyone they currently work with know of this observation from so many years ago just to be sure they don't get elected to a high position.

Does this make any sense for me to do? Does this action leave me blameless? Am I not just as guilty for bringing up this issue from the past that I have no proof of?

Not either of those posters, but sure, go ahead and take a polygraph. Have you mentioned it to anyone in prior years? That would help corroborate your case. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor, though. Not quite as serious as sexual assault. Unless you're a republican, apparently. To them, sexual assault seems to be no big deal, and the victim is the one who gets punished.

Apparently for a liberal it's no big deal either because all that matters according to 16:36 is that the victim is ready to report it. all that is needed of us is to believe the victim. No proof necessary or need for any witnesses. Just a feeling like the accusation is correct like reading a Huffpost or Breibart article without fact checking it. Innocent until proven guilty isn't a belief for 16:36 which is all the more ironic since we're talking about the hiring of a judge. Also ironic because there are people saying well if only the FBI investigated further. What further investigation do you think they could do regarding an allegation from 35 years ago that the victim can't even remember basic event details? From the beginning it was obvious that the key people weren't supporting the allegation and there was nothing the FBI could do further.

Do you really think a polygraph test is enough to convict someone, particularly one done by a private hire? Kavanaugh is still innocent until proven guilty and it was known from the beginning that Ford didn't have anyone else to corroborate her story. She knew from the beginning what the result would be, so then what is the motive other than to defame him? I disagree that I'm just a victim when I decide to come forward with an allegation with no proof. I then become an accuser and an alleged victim and should be dealt with accordingly. She deserves the same.