Talk:Brett Kavanaugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Archive
Archives
  • Archive 1 - February 25, 2006 - June 17, 2006
  • Archive 2 - June 19, 2006 - August 4, 2006


Contents

[edit] The conspiracy theory will be left off

Thomist added in a conspiracy on Kavanaugh being linked to wrong doing in Feburary 2006,[1] it is now August 2006[2]. Since Feburary he has engaged in revert wars when he was told he must have WP:RS by numerous people. Recently, as noted above, by an adminstrator he must present well-sourced material as such or it will be removed.

As demonstrated above he was given the opportunity to give court docket numbers, report page numbers, media sources, etc. Instead of offering those relavant materials, Thomist has chosen to argue semantics, and play wikilawyer. I am not will not get into an arguing match, I don't have time nor interest.

If Thomist chooses to present WP:RS material, he will be fairly heard, but that hasn't happened. For six months he has kept garabage on with the justifcation that an appendix page presented by a conspiracy (fbicover-up.com) webpage here proves something the media, court system, and government have (as he believes) been overlooked.

Thus, the material will be left off the page. If Thomist choose to actually offer WP:RS instead of arguing he will be heard. As is, with the above argument, reasoning with him is going nowhere. C56C 21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Facts from the U.S. Court of Appeals to be included

Dear C56C:

You are being unfair trying to label the Official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals, "conspiracy theory." You are putting up straw men and knocking them down. You are trying to change the subject into a discussion about me. This should not be a discussion about me. This discussion concerns the source document I provided, the Official Report, specifically the Appendix to the Report on the death of Vincent Foster, Jr., made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Since you will not view the copy online, have you obtained a library copy so we can discuss the witness intimidation on pages 3 and 4 of the letter by Attorney John H. Clarke? Have you read about the mention of the "cover-up" in the Official Report?

Please be fair. Thomist 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

YOU HAVE STILL NOT OFFERED ANY WP:RS AS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED! AND YOU PUT THE GARABAGE IN SIX MONTHS AGO!
A link to a library catlog is not WP:RS for the conspiracy theory. What is the docket number, what's the court cases name, who were the judge(s), what's the decision citation? The claims are less than what youput in the article.
If any of this happened as you claim, then go to the court's webpage and give a link of the decision
How many more times should I ask for these citations? Pointing to an appendix page of an obscure record isn't convincing for these claims. For six months you were given the chance to source this better. This is not a debate class, give proof for your claims.
Oh yeah, please be fair to Brett Kavanaugh.C56C 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear C56C:

Obtaining a copy of the Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster, Jr., by the Office of Independent Counsel in Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association is not difficult. You have rejected online copies because you say they are a "conpiracy theory." The other option is to go to a public library.

Use the Find a Library site and simply enter your own postal zip code and you will be provided the nearest location with the Official Report.

The government has placed the document in libraries all over the country but not on line. This is not unusual. Demanding the document must be made availble at certain government web site is asking for something that is not available. WP:RS has stated, everything is NOT available on the Internet. This particular official document IS on the Internet, just NOT WHERE YOU WANT IT TO BE on the Internet.

Your unwillingness to obtain the public document issued by the Court of Appeals does not justify your claim that no source has been provided. I am surprised you are asking me to provide the names of the judges. They have been mentioned several times. Haven't you read this discussion page? I continue to give you the source and you continue to say that I have no source. Perhaps we should seek some mediation here.

The most authoritative source has been provided and it is available online or at a public library. Thomist 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

YOU HAVE STILL NOT OFFERED ANY WP:RS AS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED! AND YOU PUT THE GARABAGE IN SIX MONTHS AGO! It is not acceptable to just say, "read this book/report and you'll believe Kavanaugh is linked to a conspiracy."
A link to a library catlog is not WP:RS for the conspiracy theory. What is the docket number, what's the court cases name, who were the judge(s), what's the decision citation? The claims are less than what youput in the article. Any media sources? C56C 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear C56C

This discussion is about adding this statement to the article, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation of Vincent W. Foster's death headed by Mr. Kavanaugh."

Only the facts in the statement need a source. The sources for the facts have been provided. There is no need to provide a source for a fact not stated. There is no "conspiracy theory" stated. What is the conspiracy theory in the statement? Please explain. Thomist 18:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. However, as you have been told, the information as-is is not acceptable to be included. C56C 04:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear C56C:

Please explain why the statement is not acceptable? "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation of Vincent W. Foster's death headed by Mr. Kavanaugh."

I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS BEFORE. Page 137 of the report[3] does not say "U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up". Nor does it link the "witness intimidation" to Kavanaugh. You are taking elements of an appendix page, which lacks contextual information, and piecing a theory around that. You need WP:RS for your claims. C56C 07:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The facts in the statement are sourced to a Washington Post article (that Kavanaugh headed the investigation) and to the publicly available Official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals. Unless something in the statement is not supported by an authoritative source, it should be acceptable.

Please answer the previous question. You have said there is a conspiracy theory. Please explain what is the conspiracy theory in the statement as it is? Thomist 15:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear C56C:

You falsely stated the facts at 07:09, 9 August 2006. Exhibit 2 of the Appendix to the Official Report is not the source for the statement to be inserted. (you also incorrectly called Exhibit 2 "page 137" of the Official Report. You continually link to this one page of the Official Report to argue that it alone does not support the statement to be inserted. No one is arguing that Exhibit 2 is alone intended to support the statement. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY. The statement to be inserted does not state that Brett Kavanaugh was linked to witness intimidation therefore no source for such a link is needed. It only states, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation of Vincent W. Foster's death headed by Mr. Kavanaugh." This is a statement of the facts as they officially are according to the Report on the death of Vincent Foster, Jr., made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals. PLEASE do not insert that Mr. Kavanaugh was linked to the witness intimidation, which is not stated. You are being unfair to use something not stated in order to dismiss the statement.

It is self-evident that grand jury witness intimidation was included in the Official Report to anyone who has read the Appendix to the Report. You have not provided a valid reason not to include the statement.

Please respond to my previous question. You have said there is a conspiracy theory. Please explain what is the conspiracy theory in the statement as it is? Thomist 12:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in evidence. You have failed to provide any. C56C 21:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear C56C:

The publicly available Official Report from the Court of Appeals is the evidence. You have been told how to obtain a copy from your local library. You are ignoring the source provided and you have ignored my repeated question. Thomist 22:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

(See above in several sections for what you have been asked to provide.) C56C 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear C56C:

The section above shows you wrote: "A link to a library catlog (sic) is not WP:RS for the conspiracy theory."

A library source for the Official Report is a WP:RS because Wikipedia policy states at #7, "Until more authors publish online, and more material is uploaded, some of the most reliable and informative sources are still available only in printed form. If you can't find good sources on the web, try a local library or bookstore. Major university libraries usually have larger collections than do municipal libraries." # 7 Finding good sources may require some effort In addition an authoritative and qualified source has been provided on line which also meets WP:RS because Wikipedia policy states at 6.6, "Full-text online sources are as acceptable as offline sources if they are of similar quality and reliability." # 6.6 Online sources vs. offline sources

You asked, "What is the docket number, what's the court cases name?" The Official Report of the Independent Counsel does not have a docket number or case name. You have been told the OIC comes under the Ethics in Government Act and the Independent Counsel statute requires that the Independent Counsel be independent from the Justice Department. You insist that something be produced which does not exist because you lack the basic knowledge of the statute.


You asked, "who were the judge(s)? There were three and they have been named repeatedly on this discussion page, which you also apparently have not read. Your failure to grasp the basic facts in the official record does not constitute a failure on my part to provide the authoritative sources for the statement to be inserted. Your choice to remain ignorant of the facts does not justify your continuing to remove the facts from the article.


You wrote, "If any of this happened as you claim, then go to the court's webpage and give a link of the decision." Again please read WP:RS which states, "...some of the most reliable and informative sources are still available only in printed form."

The Washington Post article and the Appendix to the Official Report, which is available through a public library as well as on line provide WP:RS in support of the statement. Your demanding a "docket number" for a document mandated by the Independent Counsel statute only demonstrates your ignorance of the law and the purpose of the Ethics in Government Act.

You have consistently demonstrated you unwillingness to read the source documents and have even relied on book reviews as a substitute for reading books. Your lack of knowledge makes you poorly qualified to have a voice about what is appropriate in this article. I have been patient with you and tried to direct you to the public record. You choose to ignore the facts and dismiss them with prejudice that they are some sort of "conspiracy theory" which you have never explained. Please explain the "conspiracy theory" in this statement to be inserted, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh."

Your self-confidence that you are an "expert" is matched by your own admission that you haven't read much of anything related to official investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh nor have you bothered to read the Official Report of the investigation. You are admittedly ignorant of the facts, except that you read an online book review, yet you are adamant that your uninformed opinion is correct. Thomist 16:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What a joke. C56C 21:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear C56C:

Calling the Official Report from the U.S. Court of Appeals "a joke" is not a sufficient reason to reject this authoritative source.

This additional statement should also be included in the article to note the historic significance, "The inclusion of this evidence by Judges David Sentelle, John Butzner, and Peter Fay marked the first time in the history of the Independent Counsel statute that evidence of a cover-up by an independent counsel’s own staff was ordered included in an Independent Counsel's Report." Thomist 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Your responses, evasion of evidence, and diatribes are a joke. Not the official report. You stilll have not addressed issues from weeks back or sourced it better when you entered it into the article in Feb 2006. C56C 07:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear C56C:

Please do not change the subject. We are not discussing the article in Feb 2006. We are discussing adding this statement, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh." which is sourced to the Official Report and an article in the Washington Post. Using invectives like, "evasion," "diatribes," and "a joke" fails to address the officially documented facts. You have admitted not reading the source documents. Name-calling is not a substitute for scholarship and an insufficient reason to reject the insertion of the statement. Thomist 14:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Significant historic event should be in the article

Brett M. Kavanaugh conducted the investigation of the death of former deputy White House counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr.

Mr. Foster, the highest government official since John F. Kennedy to die a violent death, was found shot to death on July 20, 1993. Thousands of news reports over a span of five years reported the death and subsequent investigations. There were investigations by the Park Police and FBI, two independent counsels and two Congressional hearings into the White House and Park Police handling of the investigation. College history textbooks mention the event. Virtually every book written on the Clinton Presidency has an account of the death: “The Agenda,” Bob Woodward; “The Seduction of Hillary Clinton,” David Brock; “The System,” Haynes Johnson & David Broder; “Blood Sport,” James Stewart; “Unlimited Access,” Gary Aldrich; “Boy Clinton,” Emmett Tyrrell; “Spin Cycle,” Howard Kurtz; “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” Ann Coulter; “Discovering Clinton,” Michael Isikoff; “All Too Human,” George Stephanopoulos; “Truth to Tell,” Lanny Davis; “The First Partner,” Joyce Milton; “Front Row at the White House,” Helen Thomas.

The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh. This is the only time in the history of the Independent Counsel statute that evidence of a cover-up by an independent counsel’s own staff was ordered included in an independent counsel's report.

In the brief career of Judge Kavanaugh, what has been more significant than his investigaton of Vincent Foster's death? Yet his role in heading the investigation of Vincent Foster’s death is conspicuously absent from his official judicial biography, his official White House biography, and his official Department of Justice resume. Judge Kavanaugh's significant role in American history should not be absent from his Wikipedia article. Thomist 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It can't be included, see above. C56C 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
C56C, I applaud your steadfastness in maintaining this page.--Smashingworth 03:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. If it's not in the biographies, it's not verifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 08:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


This statement is not true, "If it's not in the biographies, it's not verifiable." Senator Orrin Hatch stated at Judge Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearing that Mr. Kavanaugh conducted the investigation into the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster. Clearly it is verifiable that Mr. Kavanaugh did conduct the Foster death investigation even though it is not stated in Mr. Kavanaugh's biographies. The goal is not to right a great wrong but only to state the facts that officially are true. Thomist 14:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions his work with Starr, the objections are with the other claims you wish to add. C56C 23:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone object to adding this single statment to the article? Everything stated is officially true based on the statement by Sen. Hatch.

Associate Independent counsel Brett M. Kavanaugh conducted the investigation into the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr. Thomist 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It is already in there! The last paragraph reads:

Prior to his service in this Administration, Kavanaugh was a partner at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, where his practice focused on appellate matters. Kavanaugh also served as an Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel', where he handled a number of the novel constitutional and legal issues presented during that investigation and was a principal author of the Starr Report to Congress on the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton and Vincent Foster investigation.

C56C 01:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for adding that phrase, do you think it should have a reference to his confirmation hearing? Thomist 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)