Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MMW, one way or another, the report will leak out, and those who vote yes will have to explain.

Unless Mark Judge said something completely unexpected, I doubt the report says much since the scope of the FBI's investigation seemed to be very limited based on all of the people saying they wanted to provide information but were ignored.

The FBI interviewed Ramirez. By definition, she claimed sexual misconduct. So it would be a lie to suggest that the FBI investigation had no such claims. Where the report will fail is that the FBI did not interview the 20 or so people Ramirez specifically said could corroborate her claims. That is because the White House refused the FBI to be thorough.

OR maybe the FBI did not find her story credible. After they did initial interviews they were allowed to interview other people. There has not been one person who corroborated Ramirez's story. The story about him exposing himself to her. They were investigating the two alleged sexual assaults. They were not investigating his yearbook or drinking in HS and College. The Dems asked for an investigation into the sexual assault allegation and that is what they got. Because it was obvious there was nothing there they want to move the goal posts to his drinking and lying about his yearbook. If the Senators are concerned with his drinking and what he put in his yearbook they can vote no. They don't need an FBI investigation to vote no. Vote and move on.

Flake is not a Democrat. There are other problems with your post, but you seem to be off in your own reality, so I won't even bother to mention them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MMW, one way or another, the report will leak out, and those who vote yes will have to explain.

Unless Mark Judge said something completely unexpected, I doubt the report says much since the scope of the FBI's investigation seemed to be very limited based on all of the people saying they wanted to provide information but were ignored.

The FBI interviewed Ramirez. By definition, she claimed sexual misconduct. So it would be a lie to suggest that the FBI investigation had no such claims. Where the report will fail is that the FBI did not interview the 20 or so people Ramirez specifically said could corroborate her claims. That is because the White House refused the FBI to be thorough.

OR maybe the FBI did not find her story credible. After they did initial interviews they were allowed to interview other people. There has not been one person who corroborated Ramirez's story. The story about him exposing himself to her. They were investigating the two alleged sexual assaults. They were not investigating his yearbook or drinking in HS and College. The Dems asked for an investigation into the sexual assault allegation and that is what they got. Because it was obvious there was nothing there they want to move the goal posts to his drinking and lying about his yearbook. If the Senators are concerned with his drinking and what he put in his yearbook they can vote no. They don't need an FBI investigation to vote no. Vote and move on.

No one needs an FBI investigation to know Kavanaugh was lying about his yearbook and drinking habits. Anyone who votes to confirm him is openly endorsing dishonesty in our judiciary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MMW, one way or another, the report will leak out, and those who vote yes will have to explain.

Unless Mark Judge said something completely unexpected, I doubt the report says much since the scope of the FBI's investigation seemed to be very limited based on all of the people saying they wanted to provide information but were ignored.

The FBI interviewed Ramierez. By definition, she claimed sexual misconduct. So it would be a lie to suggest that the FBI investigation had no such claims. Where the report will fail is that the FBI did not interview the 20 or so people Ramierez specifically said could corroburate her claims. That is because the White House refused the FBI to be thorough.

They probably weren’t buying her story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The letter from the law professors who believe Kavanaugh should not be confirmed now has more than 1,700 signatures.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

How many law professors are there in the US? Like 2300 or so? This is pretty significant.

Totally irrelevant. Stop hanging your hopes on such nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MMW, one way or another, the report will leak out, and those who vote yes will have to explain.

Unless Mark Judge said something completely unexpected, I doubt the report says much since the scope of the FBI's investigation seemed to be very limited based on all of the people saying they wanted to provide information but were ignored.

The FBI interviewed Ramierez. By definition, she claimed sexual misconduct. So it would be a lie to suggest that the FBI investigation had no such claims. Where the report will fail is that the FBI did not interview the 20 or so people Ramierez specifically said could corroburate her claims. That is because the White House refused the FBI to be thorough.

Go read the latest New Yorker article and think about what it says. There IS no corroboration. Some reports say the FBI did contact others. All? Maybe not. But, enough.

Nope, not at all.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates/amp

You are lying.

[Anonymous]

Sigh. How disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FBI report must be pretty strong in favor of Kavanaugh.

I say this because we are no longer hearing a peep from Democrats about making all or part of it public.

Few of them have been able to see or read it. This one-at-a-time SCIF idea was brilliant if the intent was to prevent meaningful debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The FBI report must be pretty strong in favor of Kavanaugh.

I say this because we are no longer hearing a peep from Democrats about making all or part of it public.

Then why not make it public, redacting sensitive information? A single copy in a SCIF does not convey transparency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The letter from the law professors who believe Kavanaugh should not be confirmed now has more than 1,700 signatures.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

How many law professors are there in the US? Like 2300 or so? This is pretty significant.

Totally irrelevant. Stop hanging your hopes on such nonsense.

No, this is quite significant.

Flake agreed to the FBI investigation because our country "was being torn apart." Well, a white wash of an investigation is only going to make that worse.

The Supreme Court is the one institution that we need to stay above the fray. As someone said better than I

His scornful demeanor, his claim that he was a victim of “revenge” and his threatening reference that “what goes around comes around” combined to reveal Judge Kavanagh’s intent to serve as a political hatchet man bent on lashing out against perceived enemies for however long he serves.

This will do great damage to the Court as an institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MMW, one way or another, the report will leak out, and those who vote yes will have to explain.

Unless Mark Judge said something completely unexpected, I doubt the report says much since the scope of the FBI's investigation seemed to be very limited based on all of the people saying they wanted to provide information but were ignored.

The FBI interviewed Ramirez. By definition, she claimed sexual misconduct. So it would be a lie to suggest that the FBI investigation had no such claims. Where the report will fail is that the FBI did not interview the 20 or so people Ramirez specifically said could corroborate her claims. That is because the White House refused the FBI to be thorough.

OR maybe the FBI did not find her story credible. After they did initial interviews they were allowed to interview other people. There has not been one person who corroborated Ramirez's story. The story about him exposing himself to her. They were investigating the two alleged sexual assaults. They were not investigating his yearbook or drinking in HS and College. The Dems asked for an investigation into the sexual assault allegation and that is what they got. Because it was obvious there was nothing there they want to move the goal posts to his drinking and lying about his yearbook. If the Senators are concerned with his drinking and what he put in his yearbook they can vote no. They don't need an FBI investigation to vote no. Vote and move on.

No one needs an FBI investigation to know Kavanaugh was lying about his yearbook and drinking habits. Anyone who votes to confirm him is openly endorsing dishonesty in our judiciary.

Or the debt related to housing renovations, given the lack of building permits - unless he did the renovations illegally. Which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI report must be pretty strong in favor of Kavanaugh.

I say this because we are no longer hearing a peep from Democrats about making all or part of it public.

Then why not make it public, redacting sensitive information? A single copy in a SCIF does not convey transparency.

Don't worry; the report will be leaked immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MMW, one way or another, the report will leak out, and those who vote yes will have to explain.

Unless Mark Judge said something completely unexpected, I doubt the report says much since the scope of the FBI's investigation seemed to be very limited based on all of the people saying they wanted to provide information but were ignored.

The FBI interviewed Ramirez. By definition, she claimed sexual misconduct. So it would be a lie to suggest that the FBI investigation had no such claims. Where the report will fail is that the FBI did not interview the 20 or so people Ramirez specifically said could corroborate her claims. That is because the White House refused the FBI to be thorough.

OR maybe the FBI did not find her story credible. After they did initial interviews they were allowed to interview other people. There has not been one person who corroborated Ramirez's story. The story about him exposing himself to her. They were investigating the two alleged sexual assaults. They were not investigating his yearbook or drinking in HS and College. The Dems asked for an investigation into the sexual assault allegation and that is what they got. Because it was obvious there was nothing there they want to move the goal posts to his drinking and lying about his yearbook. If the Senators are concerned with his drinking and what he put in his yearbook they can vote no. They don't need an FBI investigation to vote no. Vote and move on.

No one needs an FBI investigation to know Kavanaugh was lying about his yearbook and drinking habits. Anyone who votes to confirm him is openly endorsing dishonesty in our judiciary.

Or the debt related to housing renovations, given the lack of building permits - unless he did the renovations illegally. Which is it?

Trump's federal judge sister seems to have been involved in all sorts of illegal, fradulent tax stuff. No one cared then. No one cares now. Or at least, no GOP Senator cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI report must be pretty strong in favor of Kavanaugh.

I say this because we are no longer hearing a peep from Democrats about making all or part of it public.

Then why not make it public, redacting sensitive information? A single copy in a SCIF does not convey transparency.

Don't worry; the report will be leaked immediately.

Probably by a Grassley staffer. Those guys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI report must be pretty strong in favor of Kavanaugh.

I say this because we are no longer hearing a peep from Democrats about making all or part of it public.

Then why not make it public, redacting sensitive information? A single copy in a SCIF does not convey transparency.

It is not intended to be transparent. The goal is to provide cover to those on the fence to support confirmation. Democrats were going to vote against him in any event.

And it looks like the Republicans succeeded in achieving their goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI report must be pretty strong in favor of Kavanaugh.

I say this because we are no longer hearing a peep from Democrats about making all or part of it public.

Then why not make it public, redacting sensitive information? A single copy in a SCIF does not convey transparency.

It is not intended to be transparent. The goal is to provide cover to those on the fence to support confirmation. Democrats were going to vote against him in any event.

And it looks like the Republicans succeeded in achieving their goal.

As soon as I heard that it was going to be in a SCIF, I knew that the logical assumption is that it will get leaked. Leaks take time and comes out over time, so their intent is to drag this out. Gee I wonder why they want to drag this out...