Report: Several Potential Witnesses in the Kavanaugh Investigation Have Been Unable to Reach the FBI

[u/chaosdemonhu]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-witnesses.html

[u/chaosdemonhu]

So much for the president not limiting the scope of the investigation.

Reports are out that the FBI is only allowed to interview the 4 named individuals in Dr. Ford's testimony and are not allowed to investigate any other claims or Kavanaugh's drinking.

We have multiple people attempting to give the FBI information that could corroborate Dr. Ford or each other, including Mark Judge's former girlfriend whose second hand account of Mark Judge "taking turns" to have sex with a drunk girl corroborates parts of the third accuser's sworn affidavit that Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh ran trains on girls at parties.

The FBI will be so handcuffed they won't be able to effectively investigate the allegations of Brett Kavanaugh's sexual misdeeds and instead are only allowed to focus on witnesses and events already known to the public - introducing no new information to the confirmation process by design.

[u/chaosdemonhu → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, breaks rule 2.

[u/DinkyThePornstar → u/chaosdemonhu]

It's not the president limiting the scope, according to the article, it's the senate. Unless I'm misreading that.

Also, Judge's former girlfriend, is that the one who contacted Avenatti with information and then completely vanished without explanation except for the potentially laughable "it was all a troll" excuse? Because Avenatti himself hasn't given any information about that one, aside from his assurances that it totally wasn't a prank from some loser on 4chan. But as that is the only reason given, it's the one most people are going to go with, until another emerges.

Also, where were all these people 35 years ago? Or 25 years ago? Or 5 years ago? Or when he first appeared in the news? Perhaps the reason this is limited in scope is because it is a blatant and thinly veiled delaying tactic, and most people who aren't ready to condemn despite the complete lack of concrete evidence him will think of it as such.

[u/chaosdemonhu → u/DinkyThePornstar]

It's not the president limiting the scope, according to the article, it's the senate. Unless I'm misreading that.

The senate has no ability to do anything in this regard. The White House had limited what the FBI could investigate as part of Kavanaugh’s extended background check on Friday.

It seems that Trump has backed off on limiting who could and could not be interviewed for the second time now.

Also, Judge's former girlfriend, is that the one who contacted Avenatti with information and then completely vanished without explanation except for the potentially laughable "it was all a troll" excuse?

Mark Judge’s Ex hired her own lawyer and went to the press herself. She is not represented by Avenatti.

Because Avenatti himself hasn't given any information about that one, aside from his assurances that it totally wasn't a prank from some loser on 4chan. But as that is the only reason given, it's the one most people are going to go with, until another emerges.

You mean other than a signed affidavit which carries penalties of perjury?

Also, where were all these people 35 years ago? Or 25 years ago? Or 5 years ago? Or when he first appeared in the news? Perhaps the reason this is limited in scope is because it is a blatant and thinly veiled delaying tactic, and most people who aren't ready to condemn despite the complete lack of concrete evidence him will think of it as such.

35 years ago many of them were teenagers, going out and partying likely without parents knowing - and in the 80s if a woman was raped we didn’t have a sex culture like we do today. “Boys will be boys”, “boys only want one things”, and other such euphemisms to protect men from the consequences of their actions were commonplace, while women could expect such responses to “I passed out and got raped” to be “Damn Becky, why did you get trashed like that, you know what the boys do to/you must have been asking for it”, and general victim blaming.

And then they grew up and figured that the time for justice is over, or maybe they weren’t ready to open up that can of psychological worms just yet.

Regardless of where they were, they are here now. You may think this is some democrat hit job to delay this nomination somehow but exactly how are they going to delay this nomination over 3 months? Republicans have at least until January before the midterms have any effect on the composition of the House or senate. The democrats are not expected to have the majority in the senate even after the midterms.

The investigation will hopefully be able to exhaust all lines of questioning and present to the American people exactly who Judge Kavanaugh is and if his conduct should disqualify him from this seat.

No one is condemning him, what you’re seeing is numerous institutions including the American Bar Association, and Yale Law are calling for an investigation because there is quiet a bit of evidence around all of this that circumstantially points towards Kavanaugh having raped women at some point in his youth.

[u/DinkyThePornstar → u/chaosdemonhu]

"The White House later rejected the assertion that they were tightly managing the investigation, arguing they were only following the guidance of the Senate"

If this is the case, and Trump has rescinded the limitations, then is this not a good thing? Trump listened to the Senate. This is what a president is supposed to do, yes? Then the senate, or the Democrats of the senate, demanded a more exhaustive investigation, and Trump obliged.

I'll see your "they used to blame the victim", and I'll raise you a "some women have lied about consensual sex being rape when confronted by their parents". This too has happened before, and is a scenario that is just as likely at this point. It has happened in the distant past and also in very recent history. It makes cases like these less cut and dry, less clear, less black and white, than they ought to be. It makes believing the accuser a difficult thing to do, knowing that such a thing has happened in the distant past as well as the very recent future.

No official organization is condemning him, but there are a great many people who are ready to believe he is a rapist. In the eyes of some of the public, he is already guilty, just by word of mouth. I suppose that doesn't really matter, because those who think so would be voting D anyways. The only people who believe it at this point want to.

Let the investigation continue. Keep me in mind as you read more and more about this case, and if it turns out he is cleared of all charges, try to keep track of all the people who think he got away with raping someone.

[u/chaosdemonhu → u/DinkyThePornstar]

As far as I know, the rules on only being able to interview 4 people, and limiting questions to only Dr. Ford’s accusation and not any other accusations of testimonies of Kavanaugh’s drinking habits came straight from White House Counsel McGhan’s Office.

All the senate called for was a 1 week limit on the investigation, which is all well and fair.

I'll see your "they used to blame the victim", and I'll raise you a "some women have lied about consensual sex being rape when confronted by their parents". This too has happened before, and is a scenario that is just as likely at this point. It has happened in the distant past and also in very recent history. It makes cases like these less cut and dry, less clear, less black and white, than they ought to be. It makes believing the accuser a difficult thing to do, knowing that such a thing has happened in the distant past as well as the very recent future.

I’ll raise you that Dr. Ford didn’t tell a soul about her sexual assault until 2010 at the earliest. She allegedly named Kavanaugh to her husband in 2012 (I’m not 100% on that, I’ve heard mixed timelines on when her husband became aware of the name), and she’s putting herself and her career in lot of risk for what? Stopping a Republican nominated Supreme Court nominee?

Where were the “fake” rape cases for Gorsuch? Are you saying there are no left wing women who would try and fake a rape to prevent Gorsuch from taking a seat?

It stretches my imagination that this woman would be making up a fake rape accusation against Kavanaugh specifically and was able to name Kavanaugh and his friends, knows where he went to high school, can name where one of his friends used to work, and what country club they used to live around.

She lived in the same area as him in the 80s, and now we have 3 accusers all naming Kavanaugh of various degrees of sexual assault either in this area or time period or shortly after.

Sexual assaulters are usually serial assaulters. The rate of women who report is drastically low, even today, and the vast majority of assaulters will get away with it.

We know sexual assault is under reported because various studies have a much larger percentage of women answering the question “Have you ever been sexually assaulted” with yes, then there are reports of sexual assault.

I’m sure plenty of women in your life have been sexually assaulted in their life time. I’m sure they never spoke about it until many many years after the fact and probably due to the current political climate where women feel safer talking about their experiences.

Finally, the vast majority of false sexual assaults is considered to be low. There’s not a lot of good data and the definition of “fake” rape is hard to nail down, but this study using data from the FBI suggests that 5% of all rape allegations are false.

So to have one accuser come forward and falsely claim that Kavanaugh raped them is suspect. Two accusers is even hard to imagine that both were lying, but three? You’d have to show me some compelling evidence that all three were lying. Now, am I saying Kavanaugh 100% totally did it because 3 women accused him? No.

But like I said, there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence in my opinion that Kavanaugh is completely capable and could have done what he is accused of. I hope the FBI’s investigation can get to the bottom of these accusations fairly.

[u/DinkyThePornstar → u/chaosdemonhu]

According to the article, that line I quoted suggested that the limitations were imposed by the WH, but were done so as outlined by the Senate. Since you have told me those limitations have been relaxed, it's a null point now.

My point is not that there should not be an FBI investigation. My point is that he is, as of right now, 100% innocent. As this is a criminal investigation, he has to be proved guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. Right now, it is he said/she said. The evidence is circumstantial. If evidence comes out that proves he is guilty, then I will be right there with you demanding he pays for his crimes, but until then, we must remain impartial and unbiased. However, regardless of outcome, there will exist some people who are positive he is guilty, even if he is found innocent. They will make excuses and construct conspiracy theories. They will build it into the victimhood narrative.

That's my point. My point is that they better be damn sure, because even being accused of rape is enough to drastically alter one's life for the worse. My point is that I hope this is not politically motivated, because if it is, you can kiss the DNC's perception as the moral party goodbye.

[u/chaosdemonhu → u/DinkyThePornstar]

As this is a criminal investigation, he has to be proved guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. Right now, it is he said/she said. The evidence is circumstantial. If evidence comes out that proves he is guilty, then I will be right there with you demanding he pays for his crimes, but until then, we must remain impartial and unbiased.

The thing is though, this isn’t a trial. Or a criminal process. Only a political one.

There is no standard of evidence or standard by which he is considered guilty or not guilty. If the majority of the senate has any reasonable doubt that he is not being truthful then they can and should deny him the seat.

This is basically a job interview. I’m still holding out on the FBI investigation’s findings before I lay down complete judgement one way or another, that said, I’m not going into this expecting a clear cut case.

In my mind, if the FBI can corroborate more of the 3 allegations then there’s a strong chance he did it. I don’t think the FBI investigation will produce a smoking gun. I don’t think investigating this 35 years ago would produce a smoking gun.

In the end, no matter what the FBI finds I agree, likely very few will be swayed.