Herochat

Kavanaugh Investigation(s)

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« on: October 03, 2018, 10:50:54 PM »
This is just to separate this topic from the Trump antics and other partisan issues. Open question: any predictions on who will or should be investigated? And for what offenses?

I personally have a feeling that Julie Swetnick is now at risk:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/409199-dershowitz-if-third-kavanaugh-accuser-perjured-herself-there-should

Especially given that Chuck Grassley has already referred the Rhode Island guy for criminal investigation:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409107-judiciary-committee-refers-apparent-false-allegations-against-kavanaugh-for

And after the four witnesses Swetnick named to MSNBC turned out to be dead, unresponsive, or say they don't know her, Michael Avenatti has now trotted out a new declaration. The person behind it claims to have known both Swetnick *and* Ford for decades, vouches for them, and then basically repeats the Swetnick allegations:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36635/breaking-avenatti-releases-another-sworn-paul-bois

This time, Avenatti's upped the ante from 10 gang rape parties to 20 gang rape parties. The statement includes more details cut-and-pasted from recent news headlines ("incoherent and vomiting"), and more copying of Swetnick's declaration (directly saw Kavanaugh "spike the punch bowl" with "qualuudes and/or grain alcohol"). After the Swetnick MSNBC interview, Avenatti is now careful to have his "witness" add the caveat that he or she "understood" the punch spiking was done to facilitate gang rapes. Can't say that it *was* for that  purpose like he did last time, after Swetnick contradicted that statement in her MSNBC interview.

Frankly, I think there's a chance this ends in a state bar investigation of Avenatti (or worse). Both declarations he's come up with seem to amalgamate details and phrases ripped from the headlines. That makes it less believable that any misstatements are just errors in memory. 

Some have also called for Kavanaugh himself to be investigated for perjury, but I think most of those claims are based on a misunderstanding that is explained here:

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1038108259792519173

Now, if there's emails showing him scheming to intentionally cover up his high school yearbook slang (not just misremembering it or differing from current usage), then that may be different. While it's immaterial, I'm not sure materiality is a requirement for lies to the Senate to be prosecuted. 
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 10:56:10 PM by Rufio »

Propeus The Fallen

  • ******
  • 3546
  • +32/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2018, 11:58:14 PM »
Um, the FBI wasn't even allowed to talk to Ford. Brett's getting confirmed. I don't care what the FBI notes are, he's in. Shouldn't be after that hearing, but he will.

GeneralPresidentSkeletor

  • *
  • 29343
  • +81/-16
  • "He speaks so well!" - white people, everywhere
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2018, 12:46:45 AM »
Oh yeah, he’ll get the confirmation, which is fucking tragic. Any of us show up to a job interview, crying, yelling, abrasive and combative, talking about beer 146 times, there’s no fucking way we get that job!

Propeus The Fallen

  • ******
  • 3546
  • +32/-6
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2018, 02:21:49 AM »
Yeah, but at least it was a fair investigation...

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/409616-some-kavanaugh-witnesses-say-they-have-not-been-able-to-reach-the-fbi

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409824-fords-lawyers-profoundly-disappointed-in-fbis-kavanaugh-investigation

Okay, but I'm sure that we have support for Bret....

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/409775-national-council-of-churches-calls-for-kavanaughs-nomination-to

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409811-hundreds-of-law-professors-write-to-senate-to-oppose-kavanaugh

Well, all seems legit and everyone's onboard. :)

Heck, the FBI was banned from asking about Bret's drinking. This process is a sham. I'd like to say the GOP will pay for it come November--but I really have lost faith that things will be better.

AP

  • ********
  • 18533
  • +112/-56
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2018, 06:24:51 AM »
Oh yeah, he’ll get the confirmation, which is fucking tragic. Any of us show up to a job interview, crying, yelling, abrasive and combative, talking about beer 146 times, there’s no fucking way we get that job!

That's the thing a lot of people are forgetting.  It's not a trial.  It's a job interview.

MTL76

  • ********
  • 10148
  • +1136/-119
  • "What if I know all your secrets, Your Eminence?"
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2018, 06:56:33 AM »
Most job interviews don’t result in the applicant getting accused of gang rape on national television, or being referred to as evil by a sitting Senator. Job applicants don’t get their teen years dissected apart in front of the entire country. No, this isn’t a criminal trial, but please drop this pretense that this is a simple “job interview.” Anyone who feels Kavanaugh is guilty of what he’s been accused of should be pushing for his removal as a judge and disbarment. He’s already been forced out of his teaching position at Harvard, and had over forty sham Title IX charges brought against him. If he isn’t confirmed, do you think he’ll just go back to life as normal? You bet your ass he’s on trial.

It’s telling that as the sexual allegation charges have fallen apart, the case against him is now that he’s temperamental. Assuming he’s innocent, how do you expect a guy to respond to charges like this? I’d be furious too.

I’m not addressing his judicial qualifications as I know fuck-all about the law.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 07:03:21 AM by MTL76 »


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

NeoGreenLantern

  • ********
  • 16231
  • +91/-21
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2018, 10:09:27 AM »
I personally would rather we rewind back a few weeks and focus on all the other shady shit that screams unqualified and would be easier to prove so.

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2018, 10:11:12 AM »
Yeah, but at least it was a fair investigation...

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/409616-some-kavanaugh-witnesses-say-they-have-not-been-able-to-reach-the-fbi

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409824-fords-lawyers-profoundly-disappointed-in-fbis-kavanaugh-investigation

Okay, but I'm sure that we have support for Bret....

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/409775-national-council-of-churches-calls-for-kavanaughs-nomination-to

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409811-hundreds-of-law-professors-write-to-senate-to-oppose-kavanaugh

Well, all seems legit and everyone's onboard. :)

Heck, the FBI was banned from asking about Bret's drinking. This process is a sham. I'd like to say the GOP will pay for it come November--but I really have lost faith that things will be better.

Ford was interviewed by Mitchell for over an hour. Her lawyers refused to turn over her therapy notes until the start of another interview.  This is the same partisan activist lawyer who apparently failed to communicate the option of doing the hearing in private in California and suggested a polygraph be taken the day of or after her grandparent’s funeral. If Ford’s testimony is correct, her lawyer(s) may end up subject to a state bar investigation.

Ford should be interviewed again, but not by turning over the notes at the same time. The notes and related documents should be disclosed first so the investigative body has time to analyze them before any interview.

Unlike Avenatti and his clients, I think Ford really believes what she’s saying and has experienced a trauma. But given the involvement of a partisan lawyer, it is very odd that all of the changing details in her story have gone from making it more falsifiable to less falsifiable.

Rachel Mitchelll’s memo and timeline is pretty strong:

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosecutor-memo-2c3233cc-1d42-416b-af04-02700aa9a711.html

In USA Today and on Twitter, Margot Cleveland breaks down the switches from falsifiable details to non-falsifiable details a bit further:

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1497661002?__twitter_impression=true

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1046408449918218240

Ford’s evolving account has changed:

- The range of years (“mid eighties”) to 1982

- Her age (“late teens” to 15)

- The description of the house’s interior

- How close the house was to a specific country club (from “close” to about a 20 minute drive)

- The number of people (from her and “four others” in the letter to Feinstein to adding an unnamed fifth person)

The problem is that when we had a description of the house, near the country club, and it was only four individuals (Kavanaugh, Judge, Keyser, and Smyth), it would be possible to see if any of those individuals had a house near the country club that matched her description. By changing the description, moving the house’s location, and adding an unnamed fifth person, the story became vaguer and less susceptible to verification.

The other issue is that if this was the mid 80s while she was in her late teens, that would be her college years. And that timeline is consistent with her testimony that the trauma affected her as shown by her poor grades in college. She did not say that her grades the last two years of high school suffered.

As this guy has pointed out, Ford got several affidavits from friends who all said she mentioned an assault from a “federal judge” in 2016, at the time Trump was looking for a Scalia replacement:

https://mobile.twitter.com/kerpen/status/1044963251656830977

This PBS story shows that aspect of the story:

https://mobile.twitter.com/kerpen/status/1044963251656830977

But the problem is that Kavanaugh was not on Trump’s short list to replace Scalia:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/93964888

He was added in late 2017 during the search to replace Kennedy:

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/875983001?__twitter_impression=true

At the hearing, this part of the story disappeared ... Even though it’s part of sworn affidavits from her friends:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/

One new aspect Ford added was that she asked her husband to install a second door in the house due to her assault-induced trauma. That led to the therapy session in 2012. The problem is that the second door had existed since 2008 and it seems to serve other purposes that have nothing to do with claustrophobia:

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/02/records_raise_questions_about_fords_double-door_story__138225.amp.html

When asked what motives her friend Leland Keyser may have for saying she didn’t think she’d ever met Kavanaugh, Ford said Keyser was focusing on her health issues when her attorney wrote the statement. That would either mean that Keyser told the attorney to just write down whatever in reckless disregard for accuracy, or that the health issues affected Keyser’s memory. But Keyser’s own family members say her health problems are physical and don’t affect her memory:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6235463/amp/Christine-Fords-high-school-friend-blindsided-named-corroborating-witness.html

Then there’s the therapy notes, which apparently say her four attackers became “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” I don’t think that description fits the person she now says is the one other attacker, Mark Judge. But he’s convenient because he wrote two books that said he was a stumbling drunk the whole time he was in school, named Georgetown prep, and named a fictitious Kavanaugh.

I still think Ford is giving an accurate picture of her memory. However, her memory of core facts has been very inconsistent. And the inconsistencies all seem to go in the direction of dropping parts of her memory that are falsifiable. Given Dianne Feinstein’s role in linking her to a partisan attorney, this raises big issues.

Bottom line, I think if we’re going to destroy a judge’s reputation, you need an accusation that could meet the preponderance of the evidence standard in a civil court. That doesn’t exist here. I still don’t want Kavanaugh confirmed for other reasons. The Supreme Court is tilting too far in an anti-consumer direction. But this is an incredibly weak basis to destroy his reputation, leading to him being unable to return to teaching or possibly even the DC Circuit.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 10:24:19 AM by Rufio »

AP

  • ********
  • 18533
  • +112/-56
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2018, 10:31:26 AM »
Most job interviews don’t result in the applicant getting accused of gang rape on national television, or being referred to as evil by a sitting Senator. Job applicants don’t get their teen years dissected apart in front of the entire country. No, this isn’t a criminal trial, but please drop this pretense that this is a simple “job interview.” Anyone who feels Kavanaugh is guilty of what he’s been accused of should be pushing for his removal as a judge and disbarment. He’s already been forced out of his teaching position at Harvard, and had over forty sham Title IX charges brought against him. If he isn’t confirmed, do you think he’ll just go back to life as normal? You bet your ass he’s on trial.

It’s telling that as the sexual allegation charges have fallen apart, the case against him is now that he’s temperamental. Assuming he’s innocent, how do you expect a guy to respond to charges like this? I’d be furious too.

I’m not addressing his judicial qualifications as I know fuck-all about the law.

I agree that anyone would be angry at having allegations thrown their way.  I'm not criticizing him on that.

But these allegations are still a part of his judicial qualifications.  If he had a past of sexual molestation, could he be a proper SC judge?  While most job interviews are not on live television, SC judge hearings always are.  This one simply got a bit more publicity than the others.

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2018, 10:34:26 AM »
Most job interviews don’t result in the applicant getting accused of gang rape on national television, or being referred to as evil by a sitting Senator. Job applicants don’t get their teen years dissected apart in front of the entire country. No, this isn’t a criminal trial, but please drop this pretense that this is a simple “job interview.” Anyone who feels Kavanaugh is guilty of what he’s been accused of should be pushing for his removal as a judge and disbarment. He’s already been forced out of his teaching position at Harvard, and had over forty sham Title IX charges brought against him. If he isn’t confirmed, do you think he’ll just go back to life as normal? You bet your ass he’s on trial.

It’s telling that as the sexual allegation charges have fallen apart, the case against him is now that he’s temperamental. Assuming he’s innocent, how do you expect a guy to respond to charges like this? I’d be furious too.

I’m not addressing his judicial qualifications as I know fuck-all about the law.


He Both. He on Public Trial and its a Job interview. Since most Job interviews you dont risk commiting perjury (which by the way he totaly did multiple times)

Well Let me put it this way. If I hiring a Job for Principle (which is a goverment Job) and they gave me 25 picks. One of them happen to be accuse of fucking his student.  By the pure innocent till prove guiltiy principle..I guess I shouldnt have that factor in. But to be honest I an leaning toward the one who wasn't. Why die on that Hill. Thier other consevative assholes they could replace him with. I know they affraid of midterm and somehow think Dems going to go "You held our guy for 1 Year...where holding your up for 2 YEARS mother fuckers. You want to get nuts...LETS GET NUTS!!" . but everyone know Dems to much pussies to do that. They cant scream this unjust. Because Franken was force to leave for way fucking less.

As for spazing out. It not just spazing out its the partisan way he did. The whole clinton conspiry thing. If he just said the democrats he may of slid. Since the dems did release this at the time that would fuck them the most.  How would I react if I was accuse of rape. I would like to think my Lawyer or Advisor would tell me not to do that..because I sound like a maniac. But if I went on my own. I may yell scream...tell people to fuck off

But that why you dont hire me to the supreme court. Because I don't have the maturity or Gravitas for that LIFETIME...super powerfull appointment

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2018, 10:39:19 AM »
Ironic poll data on the effects this is having on the midterms:

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654015874/poll-amid-kavanaugh-confirmation-battle-democratic-enthusiasm-edge-evaporates

Since the Kavanaugh issue came up, Democratic men have become more enthusiastic about the midterms, but Democratic women are less enthusiastic than they were. On the flip side, Republican women have been more energized by this than Republican men.

If this isn’t pure coincidence, my wild guess is that voters are worrying more about their significant others than they are about themselves.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 10:49:22 AM by Rufio »

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2018, 10:44:48 AM »
The case I think depends if they count the Perjury thing

And if they go after the little perjury thing

Like saying the Devil triangle a drinking game. Clearly not. But that a small bs some might let slide

But other stuff, like reather he was inform about Ramierz..before the leak..may not be


Ironic poll data on the effects this is having on the midterms:

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654015874/poll-amid-kavanaugh-confirmation-battle-democratic-enthusiasm-edge-evaporates

Since the Kavanaugh issue came up, Democratic men have become more enthusiastic about the midterms, but Democratic women are less enthusiastic than they were. On the flip side, Republican women have been more energized by this than Republican men.

If this isn’t pure coincidence, my wild guess is that voters are worrying about their significant others than they are about themselves.


What interesting is I dont think Dems vote with the supreme court in mind as much as the Republicans. So this may favor republicans. That why holding up Garlan may of helped the republicans instead of hurt them like some people thought.

Some Democratic women may figure whats the point at this point..since its a deffinate he getting in

Some republican women may just be very pro life

One interesting...is turns out of progressiver voters that normal don't turn out
But may not be a huge increase in women..since they were already as pissed off as they going to get

of course who knows how things will change if Kav picked or not before the vote

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2018, 10:48:53 AM »
Most job interviews don’t result in the applicant getting accused of gang rape on national television, or being referred to as evil by a sitting Senator. Job applicants don’t get their teen years dissected apart in front of the entire country. No, this isn’t a criminal trial, but please drop this pretense that this is a simple “job interview.” Anyone who feels Kavanaugh is guilty of what he’s been accused of should be pushing for his removal as a judge and disbarment. He’s already been forced out of his teaching position at Harvard, and had over forty sham Title IX charges brought against him. If he isn’t confirmed, do you think he’ll just go back to life as normal? You bet your ass he’s on trial.

It’s telling that as the sexual allegation charges have fallen apart, the case against him is now that he’s temperamental. Assuming he’s innocent, how do you expect a guy to respond to charges like this? I’d be furious too.

I’m not addressing his judicial qualifications as I know fuck-all about the law.


He Both. He on Public Trial and its a Job interview. Since most Job interviews you dont risk commiting perjury (which by the way he totaly did multiple times)

Well Let me put it this way. If I hiring a Job for Principle (which is a goverment Job) and they gave me 25 picks. One of them happen to be accuse of fucking his student.  By the pure innocent till prove guiltiy principle..I guess I shouldnt have that factor in. But to be honest I an leaning toward the one who wasn't. Why die on that Hill. Thier other consevative assholes they could replace him with. I know they affraid of midterm and somehow think Dems going to go "You held our guy for 1 Year...where holding your up for 2 YEARS mother fuckers. You want to get nuts...LETS GET NUTS!!" . but everyone know Dems to much pussies to do that. They cant scream this unjust. Because Franken was force to leave for way fucking less.

As for spazing out. It not just spazing out its the partisan way he did. The whole clinton conspiry thing. If he just said the democrats he may of slid. Since the dems did release this at the time that would fuck them the most.  How would I react if I was accuse of rape. I would like to think my Lawyer or Advisor would tell me not to do that..because I sound like a maniac. But if I went on my own. I may yell scream...tell people to fuck off

But that why you dont hire me to the supreme court. Because I don't have the maturity or Gravitas for that LIFETIME...super powerfull appointment

Rock, name the perjury.

The claims that he perjured himself with regard to his drinking or the Ramirez story are incredibly weak. Some of the reporting on those claims has been outright deceitful.

Far as I can tell, the only remotely plausible accusations of perjury are those that revolve around his yearbook entries. Clearly, some of the slang he used doesn’t have the same meaning today that he attributed to it having then. Those claims of perjury face some large hurdles: (1) the meaning of a slang term today doesn’t mean it didn’t have a different meaning at his high school over 30 years ago; (2) it’s unikely that his memory of each in-joke is acccurate after all this time; and (3) he’s more likely to get sloppy and express a false memory without the proper qualifiers (“it’s been 30 years, but I think that meant ...”) while in a state of rage over the media and senators accusing him of gang rape, rape on a Rhode Island boat, etc.

Unless there’s an email or witness who can prove he intentionally schemed to give false answers, it’s not very likely that he committed perjury on the yearbook answers.

therock

  • ********
  • 8764
  • +48/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #13 on: October 04, 2018, 11:02:58 AM »
Well I mention some of the perjury in the post above you. Which why I said depends if they want to go after the little stuff

Which why I said the devil triangle thing they may just let slide. Even though think even at the time that meant two guys fucking a girl and not a drinking game. Unless it only involve 3 people drinking. Which if not why would it be called that.

Here the thing with Rameriz..there actully Text message prior to the new York story. Where he reach out to them about Ramerez. Then he said he didn't know about it. Which is clearly a lie then. Since he said new york article was the FIRST time he heard about it. It was to get him to go against her.

Also shows they knew about that one at least for months.and thus didn't spring out of thin air
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 11:20:15 AM by therock »

Rufio

  • ****
  • 769
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #14 on: October 04, 2018, 11:03:34 AM »
Most job interviews don’t result in the applicant getting accused of gang rape on national television, or being referred to as evil by a sitting Senator. Job applicants don’t get their teen years dissected apart in front of the entire country. No, this isn’t a criminal trial, but please drop this pretense that this is a simple “job interview.” Anyone who feels Kavanaugh is guilty of what he’s been accused of should be pushing for his removal as a judge and disbarment. He’s already been forced out of his teaching position at Harvard, and had over forty sham Title IX charges brought against him. If he isn’t confirmed, do you think he’ll just go back to life as normal? You bet your ass he’s on trial.

It’s telling that as the sexual allegation charges have fallen apart, the case against him is now that he’s temperamental. Assuming he’s innocent, how do you expect a guy to respond to charges like this? I’d be furious too.

I’m not addressing his judicial qualifications as I know fuck-all about the law.

I agree that anyone would be angry at having allegations thrown their way.  I'm not criticizing him on that.

But these allegations are still a part of his judicial qualifications.  If he had a past of sexual molestation, could he be a proper SC judge?  While most job interviews are not on live television, SC judge hearings always are.  This one simply got a bit more publicity than the others.

I think there’s a big difference between contemporaneous allegations and allegations that spring up conveniently during the confirmation process.

If you set a precedent of being able to derail nominations with vague, infalsifiable allegations with shifting details, what’s to stop it from happening again and again? Imagine if the Vince Foster story had succeeded. Or imagine if a Muslim judge’s nomination could get derailed by an unfasifiable, uncorroborated, vague accusation that 20 years ago, he detailed his plans to be involved in a Jihadist plot that didn’t succeed.

Once the Ford story became public, at least 3 others jumped on the bandwagon by making accusations that are almost certainly false (Swetnick, Rhode Island guy, and anonymous acccusation about 1998 assault of his girlfriend). If this succeeds, it creates perverse incentives for future political activists who think they can craft an unfalsifiable story and sound convincing on camera. I don’t want him on the Supreme Court, but I also don’t want to set this precedent.