Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[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.

The FBI was tasked with doing a background investigation. Do you think the FBI does not know how to do that?
Do you have evidence that the FBI was prevented from interviewing Ford or Kavanaugh if they had felt it would have been a useful addition, on top of what had already been done in the Senate hearing?

DP...proof? Yes, FBI Director's testimony today that was specific in the White House placing limits on the background review conducted last week.

You know what else? The FBI is still investigating Kavanaugh.

LOL, this is all going to drip out and the GOP are going to look awful.

Yes, his testimony was that it was limited in line with what is typical for a background investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I had the same reaction to the article. I can’t believe someone actually printed that speculative piece of garbage.

[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?

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.

It was a background investigation. You may have wanted it to be more than that, but it wasn't. The FBI was tasked with compiling a background investigation on Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting that Roberts referred charges back in September before the Ford hearings. The courts managed to stall them by passing them around until he got confirmed. This whole rushed confirmation stinks to high heaven.

[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:

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.

It was a background investigation. You may have wanted it to be more than that, but it wasn't. The FBI was tasked with compiling a background investigation on Kavanaugh.

Everyone, except those who wanted to push him through no matter what, wanted a full investigation. Not that sham.

[Anonymous]

There was nothing more to investigate regarding Ford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was nothing more to investigate regarding Ford.

Bullshit.

My representatives who saw the report said the investigation was a sham. I’m going to have to take their word since it was never made public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was nothing more to investigate regarding Ford.

Bullshit.

My representatives who saw the report said the investigation was a sham. I’m going to have to take their word since it was never made public.

Well if your democratic rep said it was a sham then... No one needs to see a report. There were no witnesses. There is no evidence. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am 16:36, and you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said the victim's story alone should be dispositive for a criminal conviction (which is where innocent until proven guilty comes into lay), I just said that as long as a victim is telling the truth, I'm okay with them sharing their story whenever they choose rather than being barred by some social, rather than legal, statute of limitations. I have zero sympathy for a perpetrator who thought they were getting away with something because the victim didn't report it right away, only to suffer some reputational harm but no criminal culpability when their misdeeds are revealed years later. Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth.

Remember, though, I said as long as the victim is being truthful. Obviously in a case like this, there is no way for any of us who weren't there to know for certain what did or did not happen, all we can do is weigh everything we've learned and see what feels more likely or plausible to us. But just as I can't know for certain Ford is telling the truth, you cannot know for certain that she is not (a fact I hope we both can agree on). Thus, neither of our opinions of what is more or less likely is determinative of whether Ford is telling the truth

This statement is basically saying your view your own opinion or feeling as more important in determining the truth than facts and innocent until proven guilty.

I really haven't put much stock into whether Kavanaugh is telling the truth about the event or even if Ford is. In my eyes the accusation was for Dr. Ford to prove, not for him to defend or for me to believe her based on her words. I just don't see that Ford has given evidence to her claim. That makes Kavanaugh innocent in my eyes because I believe innocent until proven guilty. It's about facts not belief.

[Anonymous]

he would have been confirmed even if there was evidence to prove the truth of the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:he would have been confirmed even if there was evidence to prove the truth of the story.

Maybe. Maybe not. That didn't happen. There was never evidence.
If you believe that though, then you have to believe Ford only did this to defame Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting that Roberts referred charges back in September before the Ford hearings. The courts managed to stall them by passing them around until he got confirmed. This whole rushed confirmation stinks to high heaven.

Political shots and nothing more....“The complaints do not pertain to any conduct in which Judge Kavanaugh engaged as a judge. The complaints seek investigations only of the public statements he has made as a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States,”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:he would have been confirmed even if there was evidence to prove the truth of the story.

Let's say that he did what she said...do you disqualify a person for an offense that was 35 years ago when they were a teen when as an adult there isn't a single compliant by any woman he has worked with or known socially but in fact gets high compliments from?

The women he hired recently, do you think they sold themselves? How could they possibly work for him? Why isn't there an outcry against them for working with him?

[Anonymous]

I still don't understand why Ford did not report this to the Montgomery County police when she decided to come forward. Certainly a police department would do more investigation than a FBI background check.