Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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)
Investigation into Kavanaugh by FBI was corrupted by Trump
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)
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. WideEyedPupil (talk) 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 William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 19 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)