Brett Kavanaugh now under FBI investigation

[RandomGuy]

• He said the word “boof” referred to flatulence. Again, no.

[RandomGuy]

• Then there was his assertion that his yearbook description of himself as a “Renate Alumnius” was meant only to signify his friendship with Renate Dolphin, a woman who attended another school and socialized with Kavanaugh. Other football players were described as “Renate Alumni.” We know what they intended to insinuate. You know what they meant to insinuate. Everyone knows. Senators may never be able to establish with forensic certainty that Kavanaugh’s entry was intended as a sexual boast, but they’re allowed to use common sense.

[boutons_deux]

Another Trump coverup? Former FBI agents question limits on probe of Kavanaugh.

The White House appears to be playing all kinds of crafty rhetorical games to obscure the answer to a simple question:

Has it deliberately placed limits on the scope of the FBI’s renewed background check into allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh, or not?

The New York Times reports that the

White House directed the FBI to interview only four people:

Mark Judge, who is alleged by Christine Blasey Ford to have acted as Kavanaugh’s accomplice in the sexual assault;

P.J. Smyth and Leland Keyser, who Ford claims were also in the house; and

Deborah Ramirez, who has accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her at Yale.

Meanwhile, The Post reports that

Kavanaugh will also be interviewed, but that

a third accuser — Julie Swetnick — will not be.

It’s also not clear whether Ford herself will be contacted — she has not yet been, according to her lawyer.

instead of providing clarity, White House officials have sown further confusion.

Sanders and Conway both also said terms are being dictated — by Republican senators.

CNN reports that the White House and GOP senators together developed those

limits with the aim of making them “as narrow as possible.”

Clear now? Of course it isn’t. Because that’s exactly how the White House and Republican senators want it.

“It’s not an investigation if the FBI is going to accept the dictates of the White House in terms of who you can interview and who you can’t,” John Mindermann, a former FBI special agent

a limited investigation is “ridiculous” and that if this holds, “it would be unprofessional, it would be grossly incomplete, and it would be unfair to the American public.”

Chad Ludington ... claiming that “on many occasions,” he personally witnessed Kavanaugh “staggering from alcohol consumption,” which made him “often belligerent and aggressive.”

limits imposed by the White House counsel on the FBI’s investigation preclude questioning former classmates

other former classmates who have tried to offer the FBI information about him tell the Times and the New Yorker that they haven’t been interviewed.

Kavanaugh’s drinking should be examined because his minimizing of it goes to the core of his credibility,

and at any rate, it appears central to the sexual assault allegations themselves.

a “complete investigation” would include talking to more people “in all of the venues in which Kavanaugh interacted — private school, parties, law school.”

if the FBI “did the job they should and can do, I would be

very surprised if they did not find relevant, very significant additional information about Kavanaugh.”

“The cir stances in this matter deal with allegations of extensive drinking and behavior while intoxicated. This would normally be an issue that is addressed.”

“An incomplete investigation could create more controversy than it resolves,”

for lawmakers making this enormously consequential decision about a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court,

it would be better to have more information at their disposal rather than less.

But it does not appear that the White House and Republican senators agree.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nl_most&wpmm=1

Repugs/Trash:

You, America

You, Dems

and above all

You, #MeToo, FemiNazis, feminists, so-called lying rape victims, ALL women, because White Males Rule Forever!

[RandomGuy]

Now, some of those might seem like ticky-tack kind of misstatements. But the pattern starts to look overwhelming. As former FBI director James Comey put it on Twitter: “Small lies matter, even about yearbooks.” The standard jury instruction, he noted, says: “If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter, you have a right to distrust such witness’ other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness.”

Kavanaugh’s pattern of dishonesty certainly affects how to view Ford’s accusation that he attacked her when both were in high school. She was highly credible as a witness, passed a polygraph, and, unlike Kavanaugh, has no demonstrated pattern of bending the truth.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...rett-kavanaugh



Lying under oath is pretty much a non-starter for a SCOTUS nominee.

Unless you are a Republican. Then it's ok, right?

[RandomGuy]

The Dems were focused on getting him to confess to "blacking out". They never asked "how much" or "how often". He said that he sometimes drank "too much". The only thing he denied was blacking out, that I remember.

Because he didn't want to be asked, under oath:

"is it possible you don't remember this, because you were drunk".

Pretty obvious why he would lie about that, if he was, as other accounts corroborate, an aggressive mean drunk.

"Bart O'Kavanaugh"... from Judge's book detailing the heavy drinking they did.

[RandomGuy]

Yes.

Does his friend have the potential motive of not wanting to be drawn into the public circle, so that you left wingers can dox him with death threats, like his friend, yes or no?

Yes, indeed.

Does his friend detail a book where he describes his heavy drinking with his friend "Bart O'Kavanaugh"? yes or no?

[Chucho]

• He said the term “devil’s triangle” in his yearbook entry referred to a drinking game. Google it. It doesn’t.

You go and list a load of relevant things to show he's a liar and throw this turd in there. There are probably a billion things Google doesn't know, and of them I'd wager "names for drinking games from 40 years ago" is one of those billion things.

[TSA]

Yes, indeed.

Does his friend detail a book where he describes his heavy drinking with his friend "Bart O'Kavanaugh"? yes or no?

I haven’t read the book, but I will assume it does.

When the FBI completes its investigation and can not corroborate anything Ford has claimed what’s the next step for the Resistance?

[boutons_deux]

"When the FBI completes its investigation"

the WH/Repug limited investigation is fraudulent, inconclusive, a ing coverup

Ford's claim that K and Judge roughed her up, attempted to rape her is now secondary.

K's proven repeated lying years ago to Congress (claiming he didn't read Miranda's stolen Dem docs, didn't work on Yoo's torture docs) while nominated for Federal judgeship, and repeated lying now, is the overwhelming, fatal objection for his nomination now.

Then throw in the whining, anger, petulance, sniffly crying, the paranoid partisan conspiratorial attacks on Clintons ,

and we see exposed a REALLY TY excuse of a really dumb, stupid, immature human being, never mind a SCOTUS for life.

[RandomGuy]

You go and list a load of relevant things to show he's a liar and throw this turd in there. There are probably a billion things Google doesn't know, and of them I'd wager "names for drinking games from 40 years ago" is one of those billion things.

Most people my age or so are familiar with this. I remember the slang of my teenage years well enough. It is a sex act, in case you are wondering.

[RandomGuy]

Bart O'Kavanaugh is just a made up character

... based on RL. book was horrible, btw.

[RandomGuy]

His testimony backfired. Now you have classmates of him calling in networks to call on his bull .

Eyup.

Everyone he grew up with knows what the culture was. Stupid, stupid thing to lie about.

[monosylab1k]

bok bok bok bok Ba-Gawk!
'slob rolls over on the couch.

Fapps’ bluff gets called, so he deflects instead.

[RandomGuy]

I haven’t read the book, but I will assume it does.

When the FBI completes its investigation and can not corroborate anything Ford has claimed what’s the next step for the Resistance?

I find her testimony credible. She is not out to make things up, and is telling the truth. His drunkenness, as well as Judge's doesn't preclude either of them from not remembering, and truthfully saying "I don't remember, and I never saw."

People have been given the death penalty on the same amount of evidence, so I am comfortable with simply wanting him not confirmed.

He is a lying, hyper-partisan bag. Just the kind of person you guys like.

[Spurs Homer]

Trump: "the scope of this investigation is up to the Republican senators"

The same Republican senators who began this Supreme Court Confirmation cover-up.

Where is the outrage?

[Spurs Homer]

Has ANYTHING Ford said been corroborated yet?

Yes.

2002 - she told her husband - he can testify - Republican senators refuse to hear his testimony.
2012 - Dr. Ford - told her therapist - Repukes refused to allow the therapist testimony
2018 - Dr. Ford took and passed a polygraph - Repukes refused to allow her full polygraph report to be introduced at hearing

Friends that she confided in YEARS BEFORE KAVANAUGH was even in the news - were not allowed to testify - by - yup - Repuke senators

So, Chucho/DMC -
yep plenty of corroboration - but the cover up goes on.

[TSA]

I find her testimony credible

of course you do

Sex-Crimes Prosecutor Details 12 Massive Inconsistencies In Kavanaugh Accuser’s Story
http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/01/...ccusers-story/

[TSA]

Yes.

2002 - she told her husband - he can testify - Republican senators refuse to hear his testimony.
2012 - Dr. Ford - told her therapist - Repukes refused to allow the therapist testimony
2018 - Dr. Ford took and passed a polygraph - Repukes refused to allow her full polygraph report to be introduced at hearing

Friends that she confided in YEARS BEFORE KAVANAUGH was even in the news - were not allowed to testify - by - yup - Repuke senators

So, Chucho/DMC -
yep plenty of corroboration - but the cover up goes on.

None of that is corroboration.

[Spurs Homer]

of course you do

Sex-Crimes Prosecutor Details 12 Massive Inconsistencies In Kavanaugh Accuser’s Story
http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/01/...ccusers-story/

If I ever needed to find a few people that could be easily brainwashed and used as useful idiots -


boy - I would hit payload on this forum!

[TSA]

If I ever needed to find a few people that could be easily brainwashed and used as useful idiots -


boy - I would hit payload on this forum!

Mitc summarized her report for the committee.

"In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that," she wrote. "Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/30/pol...9%26page%3D156

[Winehole23]

He misrepresented his drinking habits

Bill Clinton lost his law licence for misrepresenting an aspect of his personal life under oath, and rightly so. Doesn't an oath mean anything?

[Spurs Homer]

None of that is corroboration.

All of that is corroboration - when the FBI is allowed to freely chase down those leads and possibly connect the dots.
Who knows where those leads - end up?

Who knows if the accomplice - after being presented with damning corroborated evidence against him - decides to take a plea to save his own ass and throw the main assaulter under the bus?
"I tried to stop him" "GOP paid me to be quiet"

Or -

those leads could exonerate Kavanaugh and maybe even expose Dr. Ford as some fraud paid by left wing donors and she could be exposed for fraud and prosecuted.


But -


that would mean that the investigation would be allowed to continue until this truth could be exposed - and YOU surely do not want that. Republican Senators do not want that because that would mean that the elections would arrive before their master plan is put into place.
Trump would not want that because the ONE guy that thinks the president is above the law would be disqualified.

[RandomGuy]

of course you do

Sex-Crimes Prosecutor Details 12 Massive Inconsistencies In Kavanaugh Accuser’s Story
http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/01/...ccusers-story/

As she mentioned in her testimony, as her own expert witness, missing the little details is exactly what one would expect from anybody, especially trauma victims.

The relevant part... is crystal clear.

In fact, yes or no, can trauma victims not remember some less relevant details, but have fully accurate memories from the event itself?

[Reck]

negatively corroborated

Mitc summarized her report for the committee.

"In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A 'he said, she said' case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that," she wrote. "Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard."

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/30/pol...9%26page%3D156

Lying sack of .

Multiple classmates of him have already said he was lying about not being a drunk, which ford testified to.

That itself is a corraboration.

And that's funny you're quoting a lady that by her own admission said 5 minute increments wasn't enough to conduct an interview.

I also find it peculiar how she's all in on how Ford's allegations are weak and not prosecutable but is quiet on anything regarding Kavanaugh. Partisan hacks.

[Winehole23]

Doesn't an oath mean anything?

as recently as 1998 perjury was an impeachable offense