Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read through the whole thread so I apologize if this has already been asked. My post was deleted on there for reasons I don’t quite understand.

I am as anti-Trump is the next person. However, I do understand that people are convicting BK with little to no evidence. That said why don’t earth would she make it up? Her life is being threatened and obviously will never be the same, or at least not for a long while. It’s not like she claimed he raped her... So why would she make up this sort of middle of the road story? It’s not like she is some crazed Democrat and everyone knows that if this guy doesn’t make it there will be another one in line. So what would be her motive?

Her motive would be to keep an anti-abortion judge off the Court. She is a very liberal California professor who hired a well-known liberal activist to help her accomplish this.

She’s really not that liberal. And really has no background in politics. It’s a stretch to say that she would put her life and her family’s life on the line like this if there were no truth to it.

Plus there are dozens of people now coming forward to say that the Ramirez accusation is not at all out of character.

We shall see...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times does it need to be pointed out that the FBI (or anyone) can not investigate until the victim files a complaint, and even if they do file one the FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate?

At this point you want the FBI to investigate an assault that happened somewhere in Maryland, sometime in 1982ish. That'll be a short investigation.

Liar. Ford and Ramirez want the FBI in. Trump and Grabanaugh want the FBI out.

They can want them in all they want, but demanding the FBI investigate something is not the way it happens. You file a complaint with the people that have jurisdiction first.

I can demand the FBI look into my neighbor, but that does not mean they can...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read through the whole thread so I apologize if this has already been asked. My post was deleted on there for reasons I don’t quite understand.

I am as anti-Trump is the next person. However, I do understand that people are convicting BK with little to no evidence. That said why don’t earth would she make it up? Her life is being threatened and obviously will never be the same, or at least not for a long while. It’s not like she claimed he raped her... So why would she make up this sort of middle of the road story? It’s not like she is some crazed Democrat and everyone knows that if this guy doesn’t make it there will be another one in line. So what would be her motive?

Her motive would be to keep an anti-abortion judge off the Court. She is a very liberal California professor who hired a well-known liberal activist to help her accomplish this.

She’s really not that liberal. And really has no background in politics. It’s a stretch to say that she would put her life and her family’s life on the line like this if there were no truth to it.

Plus there are dozens of people now coming forward to say that the Ramirez accusation is not at all out of character.

We shall see...

Any cites for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times does it need to be pointed out that the FBI (or anyone) can not investigate until the victim files a complaint, and even if they do file one the FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate?

At this point you want the FBI to investigate an assault that happened somewhere in Maryland, sometime in 1982ish. That'll be a short investigation.

Liar. Ford and Ramirez want the FBI in. Trump and Grabanaugh want the FBI out.

They can want them in all they want, but demanding the FBI investigate something is not the way it happens. You file a complaint with the people that have jurisdiction first.

I can demand the FBI look into my neighbor, but that does not mean they can...

No. Grassley can request the FBI to investigate, just as Biden requested for Anita Hill. The Anita Hill investigation was done over the course of a weekend.

Why has Grassley not requested yet? You all keep ignoring this basic point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many times does it need to be pointed out that the FBI (or anyone) can not investigate until the victim files a complaint, and even if they do file one the FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate?

At this point you want the FBI to investigate an assault that happened somewhere in Maryland, sometime in 1982ish. That'll be a short investigation.

This is not true. The FBI can investigate any issues they want as part of a federal background/security clearance investigation; they certainly do not have to wait until the victim files a complaint to investigate. That would put our national security at risk. It is in the public interest for the a nominee to SCOTUS not to be vulnerable to blackmail. Having an sexual assault allegation in your background could make one vulnerable to blackmail unless investigated thoroughly and details brought forward to the FBI.

Bush had the FBI investigate Hill's allegations.

Or, read someone who handled nominations in the WH tell you the same:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/20/i-directed-white-house-nominations-course-fbi-can-check-kavanaugh-again/?utm_term=.26fd53561fa0

Clearly you are not a lawyer. So, stop dishing out legal opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Avenatti owes $5 million in taxes. Is he being funded by liberal money (like Soros) to take down Kavanaugh?

But you have no problem with $200k of Kavanaugh debt disappearing mysteriously?

I'm sure his parents paid it off for him. That's not the same as someone bribing someone to destroy a oerson's reputation.

Is it considered income if someone pays your debts? If his parents (or anyone else) paid of his debt, does he have to declare that as income and pay taxes on it?

It's income, but it wouldn't be taxable. It would go count toward the entire amount the estate that can pass tax-free, which is currently more than $5 million per person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not read through the whole thread so I apologize if this has already been asked. My post was deleted on there for reasons I don’t quite understand.

I am as anti-Trump is the next person. However, I do understand that people are convicting BK with little to no evidence. That said why don’t earth would she make it up? Her life is being threatened and obviously will never be the same, or at least not for a long while. It’s not like she claimed he raped her... So why would she make up this sort of middle of the road story? It’s not like she is some crazed Democrat and everyone knows that if this guy doesn’t make it there will be another one in line. So what would be her motive?

Her motive would be to keep an anti-abortion judge off the Court. She is a very liberal California professor who hired a well-known liberal activist to help her accomplish this.

She’s really not that liberal. And really has no background in politics. It’s a stretch to say that she would put her life and her family’s life on the line like this if there were no truth to it.

Plus there are dozens of people now coming forward to say that the Ramirez accusation is not at all out of character.

We shall see...

Any cites for this?

The New Yorker article quotes at least half a dozen people who are saying they could envision this happening and that Ramirez was a quiet, shy outsider who often got taken advantage of in situations like these.. Combine that with those who talk about what kind of crew he ran with at GP - and the yearbook stuff - and it does look somewhat incriminating.

I absolutely admit there are a lot of others who say they can’t envision it. I just find it very unlikely that either of these women made these stories up. It just makes no sense that they would have.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone really believe Kavanaugh has calendars from his high school days?

[Anonymous]

Mark Krasberg, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico who was also a member of Kavanaugh and Ramirez’s class at Yale, said Kavanaugh’s college behavior had become a topic of discussion among former Yale students soon after Kavanaugh’s nomination. In one e-mail that Krasberg received in September, the classmate who recalled hearing about the incident with Ramirez alluded to the allegation and wrote that it “would qualify as a sexual assault,” he speculated, “if it’s true.”

So this is it? He doesn't bring up what Ramirez alleges happened in this email chain until this month despite months of emails back and forth about behavior that didn't include this incident? I wonder what day he sent the email and from whom he heard this when he's the only person who claims to have heard about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times does it need to be pointed out that the FBI (or anyone) can not investigate until the victim files a complaint, and even if they do file one the FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate?

At this point you want the FBI to investigate an assault that happened somewhere in Maryland, sometime in 1982ish. That'll be a short investigation.

This is not true. The FBI can investigate any issues they want as part of a federal background/security clearance investigation; they certainly do not have to wait until the victim files a complaint to investigate. That would put our national security at risk. It is in the public interest for the a nominee to SCOTUS not to be vulnerable to blackmail. Having an sexual assault allegation in your background could make one vulnerable to blackmail unless investigated thoroughly and details brought forward to the FBI.

Bush had the FBI investigate Hill's allegations.

Or, read someone who handled nominations in the WH tell you the same:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/20/i-directed-white-house-nominations-course-fbi-can-check-kavanaugh-again/?utm_term=.26fd53561fa0

Clearly you are not a lawyer. So, stop dishing out legal opinions.

This article would indicate only the president can order the FBI to investigate. In the Hill case, Bush ordered it.


https://www.axios.com/white-house-fbi-investigation-kavanaugh-894cb1ca-e509-4054-8aab-65669ab1ab85.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Avenatti owes $5 million in taxes. Is he being funded by liberal money (like Soros) to take down Kavanaugh?

But you have no problem with $200k of Kavanaugh debt disappearing mysteriously?

I'm sure his parents paid it off for him. That's not the same as someone bribing someone to destroy a oerson's reputation.

Is it considered income if someone pays your debts? If his parents (or anyone else) paid of his debt, does he have to declare that as income and pay taxes on it?

It's income, but it wouldn't be taxable. It would go count toward the entire amount the estate that can pass tax-free, which is currently more than $5 million per person.

But he claims that the 200k were Nats tickets for "friends". If his parents paid that off, it means his "friends" got a big gift from the judge ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many times does it need to be pointed out that the FBI (or anyone) can not investigate until the victim files a complaint, and even if they do file one the FBI has no jurisdiction to investigate?

At this point you want the FBI to investigate an assault that happened somewhere in Maryland, sometime in 1982ish. That'll be a short investigation.

This is not true. The FBI can investigate any issues they want as part of a federal background/security clearance investigation; they certainly do not have to wait until the victim files a complaint to investigate. That would put our national security at risk. It is in the public interest for the a nominee to SCOTUS not to be vulnerable to blackmail. Having an sexual assault allegation in your background could make one vulnerable to blackmail unless investigated thoroughly and details brought forward to the FBI.

Bush had the FBI investigate Hill's allegations.

Or, read someone who handled nominations in the WH tell you the same:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/20/i-directed-white-house-nominations-course-fbi-can-check-kavanaugh-again/?utm_term=.26fd53561fa0

Clearly you are not a lawyer. So, stop dishing out legal opinions.

This article would indicate only the president can order the FBI to investigate. In the Hill case, Bush ordered it.


https://www.axios.com/white-house-fbi-investigation-kavanaugh-894cb1ca-e509-4054-8aab-65669ab1ab85.html

Axios is the organization that said Rosenstein had resigned. They're great!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Just no. Why should they put forward a new nominee just because the Democrats have their panties in a bunch over this one and are trotting out extremely questionable allegations only to derail this nominee?

You guys are such a dishonest people.

You were content to ignore the debts and perjury., and then word surfaced of a woman accusing Brett of sexual assault. You said it didn’t matter because she was anonymous. Then she came forward and you said it didn’t matter because she wouldn’t speak under oath. Then she said she would speak under oath and could the FBI please investigate and you said it wasn’t in their scope and her accusations didn’t matter because there was only one and it wasn’t rape. So more women come forward, one possibly a victim of a gang rape involving Brett and you guys still don’t care. There’s no sexual assault you believe because you don’t think women are human.

Very well-stated, thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know who to believe and I don't understand how people can staunchly defend him or her with out facts . I'm looking forward to an investigation to see what that brings out.

One sane voice on DCUM! Welcome! We don’t see many of your type in these parts! ;-?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone really believe Kavanaugh has calendars from his high school days?

I'm agnostic as to whether he has some. It would be maybe a little odd, but it's not impossible. What is thoroughly unlikely is that he has calendars with anything probative to say about the party where he allegedly held Professor Ford down, ground himself against her, and covered her mouth to muffle her screams.