Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

Brett Kavanaugh

Trying to make sense of a crazy world, with limited success mostly
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9859
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Brett Kavanaugh

#1

Post by AndyinPA »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... check-fake
The FBI is facing new scrutiny for its 2018 background check of Brett Kavanaugh, the supreme court justice, after a lawmaker suggested that the investigation may have been “fake”.

Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator and former prosecutor who serves on the judiciary committee, is calling on the newly-confirmed attorney general, Merrick Garland, to help facilitate “proper oversight” by the Senate into questions about how thoroughly the FBI investigated Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing.

The supreme court justice was accused of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford and faced several other allegations of misconduct following Ford’s harrowing testimony of an alleged assault when she and Kavanaugh were in high school.

:snippity:

The FBI was called to investigate the allegations during the Senate confirmation process but was later accused by some Democratic senators of conducting an incomplete background check. For example, two key witnesses – Ford and Kavanaugh – were never interviewed as part of the inquiry.
While they're at it, they could go back and do a more thorough search on Comey Barrett, too.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
Dave from down under
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:50 pm
Location: Down here!

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#2

Post by Dave from down under »

One at a time..,
And do it well.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#3

Post by Gregg »

Oh come the hell on! They did a Google search and read EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE on the first page!
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7542
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#4

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

:rotflmao:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
MsDaisy
Posts: 850
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 9:30 am
Location: Virginia
Occupation: Retired Medic
Verified:

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#5

Post by MsDaisy »

FBI director faces new scrutiny over investigation of Brett Kavanaugh
Claim that FBI lacked authority to conduct further investigation into Kavanaugh may be inaccurate
The FBI director, Chris Wray, is facing new scrutiny of the bureau’s handling of its 2018 background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh, including its claim that the FBI lacked the authority to conduct a further investigation into the then supreme court nominee.

At the heart of the new questions that Wray will face later this week, when he testifies before the Senate judiciary committee, is a 2010 Memorandum of Understanding that the FBI has recently said constrained the agency’s ability to conduct any further investigations of allegations of misconduct.

It is not clear whether that claim is accurate, based on a close reading of the MOU, which was released in court records following a Freedom of Information Act request.

The FBI was called to investigate allegations of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation process in 2018, after he was accused of assault by Christine Blasey Ford, a professor who knew Kavanaugh when they were both in high school. He also faced other accusations, including that he had exposed himself to a classmate at Yale called Deborah Ramirez. Kavanaugh denied both accusations.

The FBI closed its extended background check of Kavanaugh after four days and did not interview either Blasey Ford or Kavanaugh. The FBI also disclosed to the Senate this June – two years after questions were initially asked – that it had received 4,500 tips from the public during the background check and that it had shared all “relevant tips” with the White House counsel at that time. It is not clear whether those tips were ever investigated.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... -documents
User avatar
tek
Posts: 2250
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:15 am

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#6

Post by tek »

Chris Wray, arriving for the committee hearing
magoo1.jpg
magoo1.jpg (141.01 KiB) Viewed 1454 times
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#7

Post by raison de arizona »

Senators condemn protest at Kavanaugh’s home after Texas abortion law allowed to take effect

Senators from both political parties on Tuesday criticized an abortion rights demonstration outside the home of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh a night prior.

A group of about 50 people gathered at his residence in the D.C. suburbs to protest the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to block a Texas law banning abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy and called for Kavanaugh’s resignation.

Speaking at the start of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) called the protests “another blatant attempt to intimidate the judiciary” and anyone who “disagrees with the radical agenda.”

He was joined in his denunciation by Democratic senators Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Patrick Leahy (Vt.), who said those unhappy with the court’s action should express themselves at the ballot box or outside the courthouse.

Durbin called it “absolutely unacceptable to involve any major public figure’s family or their home” in the “name of freedom of speech.” There are “proper venues to express yourself,” he said. Leahy condemned the effort to “try to intimidate” Kavanaugh’s family.

On Monday night, abortion rights advocates carried a banner with the message “Repro Freedom for All” and signs calling for Kavanaugh’s resignation as they convened outside the justice’s home, according to a report from WTOP.

A spokesperson for the Supreme Court declined to comment.
► Show Spoiler
:snippity:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Dr. Ken
Posts: 2450
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#8

Post by Dr. Ken »

ImageImagePhilly Boondoggle
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#9

Post by raison de arizona »

How convenient. Impeach.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7542
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#10

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

We knew they didn't investigate. Now there is proof.
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#11

Post by Kriselda Gray »

Frank Figluzzi, former something-higher-than-agent (Assistant Director, but I can't remember of what)) was just on MSNBC talking about this situation. He says that when it comes to REinvestigations of nominees for confirmation, the FBI is answerable to the White House and only the White House. They have to give all information they get to the WH and the WH sets the rules for what can or will be investigated or followed up on. This is the way the rules are written. He also said (*rough* paraphrase) that some might say the FBI should ignore the rules and investigate anyway, but that an FBI that feels it can ignore the rules it doesn't like isn't something we'd really want.

He noted that because Kavanaugh had been investigated for previous appointments to earlier judgeships, this was a reinvestigation and so it fell under the "White House is in charge" rules. He said the question that should be asked is why none of this stuff was found previously, when he was initially vetted for appointment.
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#12

Post by raison de arizona »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 6:02 pm Frank Figluzzi, former something-higher-than-agent (Assistant Director, but I can't remember of what)) was just on MSNBC talking about this situation. :snippity:
He knows what he is talking about. Quite interesting comments, thanks for sharing them.
Frank Figliuzzi is a national security contributor and regular columnist for NBC News and MSNBC. He was the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, where he served 25 years as a special agent and directed all espionage investigations across the government.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#13

Post by Kriselda Gray »

raison de arizona wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 6:12 pm He knows what he is talking about. Quite interesting comments, thanks for sharing them.
Frank Figliuzzi is a national security contributor and regular columnist for NBC News and MSNBC. He was the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, where he served 25 years as a special agent and directed all espionage investigations across the government.
Thanks for filling in his credentials!
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#14

Post by Ben-Prime »

Kriselda Gray wrote: Fri Aug 05, 2022 6:02 pm Frank Figluzzi, former something-higher-than-agent (Assistant Director, but I can't remember of what)) was just on MSNBC talking about this situation. He says that when it comes to REinvestigations of nominees for confirmation, the FBI is answerable to the White House and only the White House. They have to give all information they get to the WH and the WH sets the rules for what can or will be investigated or followed up on. This is the way the rules are written. He also said (*rough* paraphrase) that some might say the FBI should ignore the rules and investigate anyway, but that an FBI that feels it can ignore the rules it doesn't like isn't something we'd really want.

He noted that because Kavanaugh had been investigated for previous appointments to earlier judgeships, this was a reinvestigation and so it fell under the "White House is in charge" rules. He said the question that should be asked is why none of this stuff was found previously, when he was initially vetted for appointment.
Actually, three sets of questions should be asked:
  1. So nominations 12 years apart are considered reinvestigations? Where is *that* rules-as-written? Or did someone just decide this was a reinvestigation
  2. Why could the FBI not make this process clear at the time so that the harder question could be asked about changing the rule-as-written?
  3. And then, yes, why was none of this found at the initial investigation?
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.

- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
User avatar
Kriselda Gray
Posts: 3125
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2021 10:48 pm
Location: Asgard
Occupation: Aspiring Novelist
Verified:
Contact:

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#15

Post by Kriselda Gray »

Ben-Prime wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 1:23 am Actually, three sets of questions should be asked:
  1. So nominations 12 years apart are considered reinvestigations? Where is *that* rules-as-written? Or did someone just decide this was a reinvestigation
  2. Why could the FBI not make this process clear at the time so that the harder question could be asked about changing the rule-as-written?
  3. And then, yes, why was none of this found at the initial investigation?
As far as I could tell, Figluzzi was saying that if someone has had a background check done, *any* subsequent check is considered a reinvestigation. My presumption is that once they've done the huge background check at the beginning, the later reinvestigations are essentially checking for anything that might have happened since that first check (or a previous reinvestigation) was done. Since I have no idea how to check the rules-as-written, I have no idea how they're phrased, but if all it says is that checks for subsequent appointments are reinvestigations and handled this special way, then, yeah, even 12 years later that's how it would be done.

What I'm wondering is who decided it made any kind of sense to have these reinvestigations be run by the White House that's doing the appointing. From what Figluzzi said, these are the ONLY investigations of any kind that are handled this way, and it just seems to me to be asking for exactly this kind of trouble.

As for the FBI making this known at the time, maybe they didn't think it was necessary since the people who mattered - Congress, the WH and the nominee - all knew what was happening. Its certainly not the first time that no one's thought of telling the people asking questions what the real answer is and just let everyone get all worked up about it instead. :roll:

I suspect that part of the answer for #3 is that when Kavanaugh was first nominated for some position requiring a background check, things were a lot different. Complaints about "a (frat)boy being a (frat)boy" wasn't considered nearly as big of a deal as it is now, and a lot of people who had known him during those years might not have even thought it mattered, so they didn't bring it up. :doh:

Even given all of that, however, this whole this is still totally fucked up and inexcusable. The biggest problem in my eyes is the idea of letting the WH be in charge of the reinvestigations. They're the ones who want the person confirmed, so of course they're going to shield them as much as possible. The investigations for subsequent nominations should be handled the same way as the initial one. Perhaps they don't need to redo everything from that initial check again, but they should at least be checking back with the people they spoke to before and ask if they have any relevant info they hadn't known of or mentioned before. And every tip they get should be followed up on.
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6695
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#16

Post by pipistrelle »

So I could be investigated, found okay, then commit all kinds of infractions that aren't quite illegal enough to get arrested/convicted for, or things that weren't found during the initial investigation surface. And the people who really want me in office get to decide what comes to light. Then I'm good to go for SCOTUS. Got it.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#17

Post by Gregg »

Yeah but if you say, suddenly paid off your $300K mortgage in 6 months they'd catch that, right???
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6695
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#18

Post by pipistrelle »

Gregg wrote: Sat Aug 06, 2022 12:07 pm Yeah but if you say, suddenly paid off your $300K mortgage in 6 months they'd catch that, right???
Sure. :blackeye:
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5387
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#19

Post by bob »

I generously assumed Figluzzi was referring to the investigation when Kavanaugh was nominated to SCOTUS.

Because Figluzzi should know that circuit judges aren't investigated that strenuously. Sure, look at taxes, maybe knock on a few doors.

But to characterize a slew of new, different, and more serious allegations as a "reinvestigation," is agenda pushing.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17657
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#20

Post by raison de arizona »

So what are the chances that the FBI didn’t want to get in tfg’s crosshairs, so they punted it across to the WH, knowing that if the WH didn’t tell them to investigate it, they could just throw up their hands and point at the WH?

As opposed to some weird assed reinvestigation protocol.
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#21

Post by Gregg »

I think it's just more of a policy procedure thing. They're not doing the normal "screen before granting a security clearance" thing they normally do thousands of times a week for various government offices. They are doing a pre-employment screening" for the White House before the White House makes an appointment, and therefore they don't see it as something that they have any discretion over, they're just providing information.

First, as a matter of policy they wouldn't want to take any action beyond gathering information because if someone wasn't chosen (and that happens more than we will ever know because they don't announce the ones they don't ultimately choose) that's private information that leaking kind of infringes on a person's right to privacy (which used to exist in this country).

Second, it has not been nearly as common for the people being considered for Judicial appointments and Cabinet officers and other sundry people who must be confirmed by the3 Senate to be potential felons, rapists and the guy who steals lunches from the office refrigerator.

I don't see a scandal here from the FBI, the scandal is the White House wanting willful ignorance and the criminals Trump was appointing. It MIGHT be argued that the Senate had a right to the information but A) they have hearings and all and that's on them and B) Separation of Powers, see A).
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#22

Post by Ben-Prime »

Gregg wrote: Sun Aug 07, 2022 1:29 am I think it's just more of a policy procedure thing. They're not doing the normal "screen before granting a security clearance" thing they normally do thousands of times a week for various government offices. They are doing a pre-employment screening" for the White House before the White House makes an appointment, and therefore they don't see it as something that they have any discretion over, they're just providing information.

First, as a matter of policy they wouldn't want to take any action beyond gathering information because if someone wasn't chosen (and that happens more than we will ever know because they don't announce the ones they don't ultimately choose) that's private information that leaking kind of infringes on a person's right to privacy (which used to exist in this country).
Except if they don't even DO the screening, then they aren't providing that information. I think the concern is that this is what's happening here, that in these cases, they aren't even looking since the White House gets to decide if they even look at some of these people with prior clearances.

I have to have my clearance re-checked every 6 years, myself. The paperwork to maintain is exhausting. I know this isn't security clearance, but it's fundamentally a check for the same kinds of soundness vs lack-of-fitness.
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.

- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Brett Kavanaugh

#23

Post by Gregg »

My point is, they are giving the White House everything the White House wants them to give, and nothing more. As a matter of procedure it should be made law that IF the FBI does a background check for Senate confirmed positions, there is a standard and mandatory check that must be done and the requesting authority does not have discretion to limit that check to "only find good things" or "we're looking for a way to say yes" kind of check.
Further, the Senate Committee should have access to all the information the FBI turns up, not just what the White House decides to give them.

It's been a process that worked for the last 50 years or so since Watergate because we've had a surprising lack of criminals running the Executive Branch. Trump has taught us that we can no longer assume someone nominated for the job isn't at least not a criminal.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9859
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

Brett Kavanaugh

#24

Post by AndyinPA »

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2023/j ... m-festival
A secretly made documentary expanding on allegations of sexual assault against supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh has premiered at this year’s Sundance film festival.

Justice, a last-minute addition to the schedule, aims to shine a light not only on the women who have accused Kavanaugh, a Donald Trump nominee, but also the failed FBI investigation into the allegations.

“I do hope this triggers outrage,” said producer Amy Herdy in a Q&A after the premiere in Park City, Utah. “I do hope that this triggers action, I do hope that this triggers additional investigation with real subpoena powers.”

The film provides a timeline of the allegations, initially that Kavanaugh was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of sexual assault when she was 15 and he 17. She alleged that he held her down on a bed and groped her, and tried to rip her clothes off before she got away. Kavanaugh was also accused of sexual misconduct by Deborah Ramirez, who alleged that he exposed himself and thrust his penis at her face without her consent at a college party.

Kavanaugh denies the allegations. He turned down requests to take part in the documentary.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
Lani
Posts: 2507
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:42 am

Brett Kavanaugh

#25

Post by Lani »

Moar:

‘Justice,’ Surprise Sundance Doc on Brett Kavanaugh, Reveals New Allegations Against Supreme Court Judge
https://www.thewrap.com/sundance-doc-br ... legations/

:snippity:

Ramirez was clearly traumatized by what she remembers happening. Her humiliation for Kavanaugh’s amusement sounds eerily similar to the testimony of Christine Blasey-Ford before the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which Blasey-Ford recalled Kavanaugh laughing while attempting to force himself on her at a teenaged party. She escaped the room and fled, but never forgot the attack. Kavanaugh denied that the incident ever occurred.

The film also surfaces a smoking gun: Max Stier, a suitemate of Kavanaughs’ at Yale, left a phone recording for the FBI, played in the documentary, in which he recalled learning at Yale of a incident involving a “very drunk” Kavanaugh with his pants down, having a female freshman hold his penis, while laughing.

:snippity:

Meanwhile, the film shockingly reveals that the FBI, which was mandated to investigate Kavanaugh for a week while the Senate waited to vote, in fact did nothing with 4,500 leads that came into field offices and tip lines. Instead, those tips were handed to the White House.
Image You can't wait until life isn't hard anymore before you decide to be happy.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Politics”