| Revision as of 23:19, 10 May 2020 editJojhutton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,487 edits →New reversions: re← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:37, 17 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,731,362 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 8 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (210 intermediate revisions by 77 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ⚫ |
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchives=yes}} |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchives=yes}} |
|
{{American politics AE}} |
|
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |collapsed=yes |activepol=yes |blp=yes |1= |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=C |listas=Kavanaugh, Brett |politician-work-group=Yes |politician-priority=High |activepol=Yes}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=C |importance=High}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Donald Trump |class=C |importance=High}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Law |class=C |importance=High}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Maryland |class=C |importance=High}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Politics |class=C |importance=High |American=yes |American-importance=Mid}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject United States courts and judges |class=C |importance=High}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=High |DC=Yes |DC-importance=High |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=High}} |
|
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{ITN talk|6 October|2018|oldid=862823065}} |
|
{{ITN talk|6 October|2018|oldid=862823065}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |blp=yes |class=B|listas=Kavanaugh, Brett|1= |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=Yes |politician-priority=High }} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=High}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Law |importance=High}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Abortion |importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Maryland |importance=High}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=High |American=yes |American-importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject United States courts and judges |importance=High}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject United States |USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=High|importance=High |DC=Yes |DC-importance=High |USGov=Yes |USGov-importance=High}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
⚫ |
{{Press |
|
⚫ |
| title= Biden vs. Kavanaugh: How the #MeToo Numbers Stack Up |
|
⚫ |
| author= Kalev Leetaru |
|
⚫ |
| date= April 29, 2020 |
|
⚫ |
| url= https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/29/biden_vs_kavanaugh_how_the_metoo_numbers_stack_up_143065.html |
|
⚫ |
| org= ] |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
{{Annual readership|scale=log}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 23: |
Line 30: |
|
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=14|dounreplied=yes|small=yes}} |
|
{{Archives|search=yes|archive_age=14|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
|
|
|
{{Archives|search=no}} |
|
|
⚫ |
== "]" listed at ] == |
| ⚫ |
{{Press |
|
|
⚫ |
] |
| ⚫ |
| title= Biden vs. Kavanaugh: How the #MeToo Numbers Stack Up |
|
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14#Justice KegStand}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 22:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
| author= Kalev Leetaru |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
| date= April 29, 2020 |
|
|
|
== Church he attends is Blessed Sacrament in D.C. not Alabama == |
| ⚫ |
| url= https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/29/biden_vs_kavanaugh_how_the_metoo_numbers_stack_up_143065.html |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
| org= ] |
|
|
|
In the "personal life" section, the city where the church is located should be "in Washington, DC" not "Hanceville, Alabama." Here are two links to sources that verify this: |
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
|
|
https://www.ncronline.org/news/5-faith-facts-trump-s-supreme-court-pick-brett-kavanaugh |
|
|
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/07/655461791/brett-kavanaugh-s-church-community-reacts ] (]) 20:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Coincidentally, I fixed this the other day. That particular error came about in 2021 in an amusing pair of edits ] and then ]. ] <small class="plainlinks sysop-show extendedmover-show"></small> ] 06:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Remove Mention of Sexual Assault Allegations in Lede == |
|
|
{{u|Snooganssnoogans}} - There is no need to have mention of sexual assault allegations in the lede. That topic is covered in depth within the article. This is similar to the decision to remove language regarding Justice Sotomayor's controversial sexist, racist "wise Latina" statements from the lede in her article. Indeed, the argument for inclusion of the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh are weaker. |
|
|
:1. The allegations against Kavanaugh were unfounded, unproven, and lacked credibility; Sotomayor's "wise Latina" staements were very real - she made the statements repeatedly in speeches to a number of groups. While there is a lot of doubt that Kavanaugh did anything wrong, there is absolutely no doubt that Sotomayor made the statements. |
|
|
:2. The conduct alleged against Kavanaugh was far in his past; Sotomayor's "wise Latina" statements took place while she was a judge. |
|
|
:3. In both cases, the improprieties were front and center during Supreme Court confirmation hearings. |
|
|
In short, you cannot have it both ways - you argued that the controversial and very real "wise Latina" statements did not merit inclusion in the lede of the Sotomayor article, while you argue that the controversial yet unfounded sexual allegations against Kavanaugh need to be included in the lede for this article. The bottom line is that mention of the sexual allegations need to be removed from the lede in this article, or the "wise Latina" statements re-inserted into the lede in the Sotomayor article. ] (]) 13:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
: What happens on other Misplaced Pages articles is irrelevant to what happens on this one. The "wise Latina" thing is a faux controversy which did not jeopardise her nomination nor has had any coverage since some opportunistic right-wing actors decided to make hay over it at the time. Rape is a felony, he was accused by several women, one of those women testified in front of Congress in a highly publicized manner, Kavanaugh responded by whimpering and lashing out at Democrats in front of Congress and the TV cameras, and his nomination was in jeopardy. ] (]) 14:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::There was zero substantiation of any of the "accusations," several fell apart when looked into, and one appears to have been completely fabricated by an attorney recently indicted for extortion and fraud. But you still somehow seem to really believe them, all of them, to be true. Fortunately for us and for the law, accusations need to be substantiated, so people aren't thrown in jail due to mob excitement, but none in this case were. Regarding Ford's accusation, every named witness denied Ford's account, including Ford's friend Keyser, who was to change her story to support Ford. Ford's lawyer her client wanted an asterisk next to Kavanuagh's name. Kavanaugh knew he was innocent of the smears and fought them hard. The topic itself is notable enough for the lead, since that is what dominated the topic, but we need to present the weaknesses in the accusations a bit better. Character assassination shouldn't be rewarded on Misplaced Pages articles. ] (]) 12:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* If we want to get into comparisons, seems the better would be ], where we definitely include Anita Hill in the lead, and have for almost a decade now. ]] 14:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{u|Snooganssnoogans}} -What happens in other Misplaced Pages articles is certainly relevant regarding the standard for inclusion of material in a lede. You keep calling the controversy regarding Sotomayor's "wise Latina" statements a "faux controversy" in a laughable effort to downplay the controversy, and you want to build up the allegations against Kavanaugh. Please, if you can, try to make your point without such obvious bias. We all know rape is a felony. But Kavanaugh was never charged with rape, much less convicted. These allegations against him, while controversial, were unproven, unfounded and in the opinion of many simply not credible. On the other hand, the statements by Sotomayor were also controversial, but in contrast to the Kavanaugh allegations they were indisputably real, and she made them repeatedly to a number of audiences. And - despite the controversies, both Sotomayor and Kavanaugh were confirmed. ] (]) 20:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Just gonna skip right over the Thomas thing then huh? ]] 20:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The real issue is that the Thomas article lede should include mention of Anita Hill, the Kavanaugh article lede should include mention of sexual assault allegations, and the Sotomayor article lede should include mention of her "wise Latina" remarks. I was just pointing out that there seems to be a different standard applied to Misplaced Pages articles on conservative vs. liberal justices.] (]) 22:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
| ⚫ |
:::::No, we treat real controversies different from faux controversies. That's the difference. – ] (]) 18:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Like it or not, the sexual assault allegations are a huge part of his biography. – ] (]) 18:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Ruling on Colorado/Trump == |
|
*Eh, for the moment I can see why it is there. It is certainly not a huge part of his biography as Muboshgu suggests, but it is something. Almost a whole paragraph might be a bit much tough. ] (]) 20:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Kavanaugh forget to insert the word eligible when expressing the people should have a choice. Mr. Trump should be ineligible due to the many choices he made to change the election results in this great country of democracy. ] (]) 18:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
There is no mention in the lead that no factual/proven evidence of the accusation was discovered. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Investigation into Kavanaugh by FBI was corrupted by Trump == |
| ⚫ |
== "Brent Kavanaugh" listed at ] == |
|
| ⚫ |
] |
|
|
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Please participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 04:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The report from a member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., criticized the FBI for not investigating more fully the claims of Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misconduct described by two women. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations. |
|
==Biased article== |
|
|
|
Whitehouse’s report said the FBI didn’t investigate thousands of tips it received, but passed them along to the White House. |
|
This article should be deleted; it's so biased. The Sexual Assault Allegations section is blatantly biased in favour of Christine Blasey's account. No mention that Leland Keyser stated she never even met Brett Kavanaugh before, let alone socialized with him and his friends and as far as she was concerned, neither had Christine Blasey. She stated months later that she doesn't believe the alleged attack happened. No mention of the scramble to hear her testimony as expeditiously as possible, Senator Chuck Grassley reported in the media offering to hear her testimony over the phone or Skype because Blasey claimed she was afraid of flying (because of phobias arising from the "attack"). Prosecutor Mitchell questioned Blasey about her surf holidays and long-distance flights to Hawaii and Tahiti and why hadn't she taken up their offer of remote testimony. She did not have a convincing response and many people believe the 'fear of flying' was a ploy to delay the hearings til beyond the midterms. No mention of her ex-boyfriend Brian Merrick's testimony under oath that she once flew in a turboprop plane with him in Hawaii without displaying any fear whatsoever. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
“The supplemental background investigation was flawed and incomplete, as the FBI did not follow up on numerous leads that could have produced potentially corroborating or otherwise relevant information,” the report said. |
|
|
While “President Trump publicly claimed the FBI had ‘free rein’ to take any investigative steps it deemed necessary, the Trump White House exercised total control over the scope of the investigation, preventing the FBI from interviewing relevant witnesses and following up on tips,"the report concluded.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/10/08/sheldon-whitehouse-trump-accusations-brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation/75575277007/ ] (]) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
:Definitely relevant for ]. May not be relevant here. – ] (]) 16:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== New reversions == |
|
|
|
::This article mentions the contemporaneous questions about the FBI investigation. It's reasonable for that passage to at least mention the subsequent revelations on that subject, with a wikilink to a more detailed discussion at ]. ]<small> ] ]</small> 19:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::it’s completely relevant to both. this entry titled FBI investigation! |
|
|
::as is, this entry — in the absence of any other a entry with a title involving the FBI — gives what is now, by error of emission that only came to light in a US Court proceeding a week ago, a complete mischaracterisation of the FBI investigations into Brett Kavanaugh at the time of his nomination by former President Trump to the US Congress. |
|
|
::additional is the fact that much more may have come to light of Trump had not effectively shutdown the FBI investigations and lead gathering from a tip-off line. |
|
|
::the question for you is how are these recent revelations coming out of a US court not relevant to this entry when it’s : |
|
|
::# the only one on the Brett Kavanaugh page, or at least the Nomination to SC section with “FBI investigation” in the title. |
|
|
::# doubly so given that, as it standa today, this entry makes an unsubtle and direct implication that FBI found nothing of merit in any of the many public accusations and private tipoffs to FBI of statutory rape, violence related federal crimes, sexual predation (goes to character as well as criminality), a habit of D&D behaviour resulting in these crimes in his “salad days” |
|
|
::# this is all was lodged against Trumps preferred candidate (on potentially many still-unknown, un-investigated matters) therefore it goes directly to Brett Kavanaugh’s suitability or unsuitability to sit on one of the most powerful institutions of nation and state power in the USA. |
|
|
::# that Trump choose someone who had recently made clear in a legal opinion that he would drastically increase Presidential powers and immunity in USA and then in court tendered Federal evidence Trump acted as political fixer to effectively shutdown potential damming investigations only just begun by the FBI at his own request is nothing but damming in itself. it has immediate relevance to this entry about his nomination to Congress by Trump for the SOCUS, and really shed the entire page of “(curated) facts” on Brett Kavanaugh’s wikipedia page in a new light |
|
|
::# that trump also effectively got FBI to hoover up all potential incriminating accusations against his preferred candidate and then asked them to direct the file to the White House, prevented any part of the justice seeing any of it such a pivotal moment vis a vis his nomination to SCOTUS, potentials giving him huge leverage over Brett Kavanaugh a sC Judge to be in ways Trump has shown he’s not above abusing (almost on the daily according to many former colleagues and staff that Trump himself appointed) makes this entry completely misleading. |
|
|
::# the misleading nature of this entry is like this: Reporting the 1% we now know of the FBIs nomination precipitated process of investigation that’s arguably favorable towards Brett Kavanaugh and Donald Trump while omitting the remaining 99% of the story now in public domain with substantive evidence. |
|
|
::# i’m sure that inaccuracy or bais was ever the motivation for this entry or it’s title. however, we now know with the weight of Court tendered evidence that this entry on the FBI Investigation into BK has become wildly misleading by weight of omission. only in the last week has it become apparent. but non the less that is the public state of knowledge today. this knowledge points to the fact that this entry isn’t just bad today, it was (apparently) so badly written as to preclude fact that we now know to be true. Those facts include the following: a) the FBI was instructed to setup a character investigation into BK beyond what they might usually do. b) this was in the context of many in Congress unimpressed and what must be an unprecedented level of accusations from a range of credible and unmotivated people against BK as being unsuitable for the role of SCOTUS Judge. c) the broad mandate for FBI’s investigations were started in a very public way and shutdown behind closed doors by the POTUS. d) the FBI got shutdown in their preliminary investigations, no evidence seems to have been collected against BK by the FBI. e) the FBI ran an advertised tip-off line and collected a lot of accusations credible enough to pass them to the White House. f) Trump exploited the concern over his powers for what are transparently personal motivations to get a dirt file assembled on BK but cunningly played the FBI so it never could get to the point where anything FBI investigated could come back to bite either of them in public. in private it gave the POTUS incredible leverage over Kavanhaugh at the point of the nomination in soliciting any quid pro quo. g) whether or not Trump may have at some point intended to use this dirt file as leverage over BK prior to nomination being passed by congress or just as insurance a few years or two decades later when Trump is facing serious felony convictions (as we’ve seen SCOTUS intervene with radical interpretations of constitutional law in existing trump trials); it’s an abuse of process and power of office by Trump. the question becomes why would he bother and how does that reflect well on BK as a man of good character suitable for the job? if or when Trump may have sough a favour is a matter of opinion but there’s a lot of character evidence around both of them in the last year of Federal and State prosecutions against Trump. that i’m swayed by the excessive activist interpretations that conveniently rise to rescue Trump numerous times in the last year as a civilian being prosecuted for very serious crimes against of state As to Trump’s reputation, how many former staff chosen and appointments to very senior roles by Trump as President who once were loyal defenders of his excesses now actively warn US voters about how corrupt the man is. as high as his former VP down to ex-lovers who he cheated on his wife with. half the Trump white house and top brass military no longer serving are warning about his bad character. that Trump would use the FBI to effectively bury broad and very serious public concerns about his preferred nomination to the SCOTUS to me is very small potatoes in comparison. that’s he’d consider using a dirt file he had no legitimate reason to come into possession of is to me obvious.. it gave him leverage over BK and in effect potentially the entire SCOTUS. also his ongoing career and life out of jail if the accusations were investigated and the evidence come to light in publicly. . don’t forget if Trump ordered the FBI to investigate its leads or even just not actively block them from doing so, he’d potentially have startes the wheels turning in a process that not only would have embarrassed himself and Kavanagh, potentially Kavanagh out of his existing job and potentially landed him in jail for a serious term or many terms. until th e investigation continues, we will never know. the Democrats under Biden or Harris have been and will continue to be unlikely to restart that FBI investigation process unless a judge in some other court formally requests it. the FBI have much greater investigative powers in many ways than a DA, |
|
|
::There’s.literally no excuse for not rewriting the title and content of this section around his Nomination to SCOTUS, the entry of his decisions as a SCOTUS, and specifically the only entry around the FBI investigation into him at the time of his nomination or immediately prior to it. |
|
|
::all we have here is one potentially fraudulent accusation against him (or retracted under some kind of coercive force once her name became public domain, we’ve seen how motivated MAGAs can get towards violence and harm occasionally). it’s less than 1% of the FBI story vis a vis Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination. ] (]) 07:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article already says ''Democrats called the FBI investigation incomplete, a "farce", a "sham" and "a horrific cover-up" that omitted key witnesses at the White House's direction''. There's very little point adding yet another Dem saying the same thing ] (]) 18:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
I've made some recent reversions attempting to pare down the Blasey Ford section. It was way too long given how long Kavanaugh's been in public life (WP:UNDUE). I think the current section still describes nearly all of the relevant details, after some of the superfluous was filed down. The other 2 allegations are only a paragraph each in length (6 paragraphs), so I think the new length maintains a decent balance. ] (]) 10:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your reversions have only damaged the article, which appears to be your intent. ] (]) 03:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::The ] argument seems quite reasonable. Do you have evidence that the intent is to damage the article? Or is it just speculation?--] ]</font> 04:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Their record of contributions makes it pretty clear that their motivations are not pure. Judge for yourself. ] (]) 00:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Please provide links to evidence of unpure motivations.--] ]</font> 23:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
Mr. Kavanaugh forget to insert the word eligible when expressing the people should have a choice. Mr. Trump should be ineligible due to the many choices he made to change the election results in this great country of democracy. 174.124.223.4 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The report from a member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., criticized the FBI for not investigating more fully the claims of Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misconduct described by two women. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.
Whitehouse’s report said the FBI didn’t investigate thousands of tips it received, but passed them along to the White House.
“The supplemental background investigation was flawed and incomplete, as the FBI did not follow up on numerous leads that could have produced potentially corroborating or otherwise relevant information,” the report said.
While “President Trump publicly claimed the FBI had ‘free rein’ to take any investigative steps it deemed necessary, the Trump White House exercised total control over the scope of the investigation, preventing the FBI from interviewing relevant witnesses and following up on tips,"the report concluded.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/10/08/sheldon-whitehouse-trump-accusations-brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation/75575277007/ 2601:280:8100:9850:6986:7402:30AB:268F (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
.svg)
The redirect Justice KegStand has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 14 § Justice KegStand until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)