Talk:Brett Kavanaugh/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

This archive covers discussion from February 25, 2006 through June 17, 2006.

Talk archives for Brett Kavanaugh (current talk page)
<< 1          Archive 1 Archive 2 > 2 >>

Contents

February 25, 2006

On February 25, 2006 I edited the section about Kavanaugh's work for the Office of Independent Counsel. The edits I made were primarily directed at adding the last paragraph of that section (after the blockquote), and also expanding the material inside the blockquote in order to provide context.

Additionally, I added a "background" section following the section regarding Kavanaugh's work at the Office of Independent Counsel.

Ferrylodge February 25, 2006

April 22, 2006/Foster

On April 22, 2006 I edited this Wikipedia page to trim the obsessive focus on the Vince Foster suicide investigation, and to move the remaining paragraphs about that investigation to the end. All of that Foster stuff is based on the unproven and widely rejected notion that there was a murder coverup which Kavanaugh supported. If it were up to me, all of that material would be deleted from this Wikipedia entry, but the next best thing is to move it to the end of the entry. I also deleted namecalling (e.g. "polished yuppy") from this Wikipedia entry, and added some links.

Ferrylodge April 22, 2006

NPOV

I find this article is unabashedly supporting. It has weasel words and devote most of the article to heaping praise on the subject. Thusly, I have tagged it with the NPOV template. --waffle iron talk 14:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

No mention is made that Brett Kavanaugh is considered first and foremost a partisan loyal to very conservative interests. This needs to be mentioned as one of the reasons his nomination has been held up by the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate. It is somewhat atypical for a nomination to be held up as long as his has. The Judiciary Committee apparently has other concerns as well.

"First and foremost a partisan"? Any evidence for that statement besides "Ummm ... well, he works at the Bush White House?" I think Mr. Nameless here is the one who's "first and foremost a partisan." As to the specific charges, the fact that Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer use Kavanaugh's name as an excuse to make a beeline for the cameras doesn't mean anything. Political posturing by both parties is not only unsurprising, but routine. Does the routine now rise to the "encylopedic"? This is supposed to be an encylopedia, remember. Not talking points for the left or right.--Smashingworth 05:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It most assuredly is NOT NPOV worthy. Keep adding the tag? I'll keep deleting it. We can play this game as long as you want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Text97 (talk • contribs) .

Care to respond to my issues before doing that? --waffle iron talk 14:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There are criticisms of this ideologue out there: Here's a report on him by PFAW [1]. Since the article looked like it was written by a White House staffer, I added a section of criticism, from well-respected organizations like PFAW. If my new section is deleted it will only further prove that this article is NPOV. --24.199.67.217 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're section just got deleted. It was deleted because it was ridiculously inappropriate and NPOV. This is not the place to paste ideological talking points wholesale from PFAW. That's why they have their own website. Now, don't get all huffy about things. Why don't you just go ahead and place a link to your "criticisms" in the external links, and you can note in the article that "His nomination was criticised by liberal groups such as PFAW." Otherwise, forget it.--Smashingworth 02:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I also think the "Support" section should be removed in the same manner. Or else, we should have a "Support & Opposition" section, that briefly gives both sides. One paragraph each. I think the best is merely to present external links that can be labelled as support or opposition. I'm sure one of our more liberal editors would be only too pleased to make these changes.--Smashingworth 02:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I support deleting both. --waffle iron talk 03:12, 10 May 2006

-- why dont we call this what is really is, court packing. plain and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.195.77.219 (talk • contribs) 22:34 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely even his most ardent supporters or detractors would consider him other than meeting his nominator's fervent wishes to nominiate whomever he wants to as a federal judge, whether talented or a nincompoop. That is the executive's perogative after all, isn't it? Regarding the tag, is {{NPOV}} still appropriate? Would anyone object to it going away at this point? --Flawiki 23:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed it. Some parts need to be rewritten, but it's mostly style problems, not POV. --waffle iron talk 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
When Kavanaugh is confirmed in about two weeks, I look forward to overhauling this page to bring it in line with numerous other Circuit Juge pages. Wikipedia has several informative, succesful pages for such judges, even controversial ones like Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen. I should alert the other Wikipedia users, all that Indepedent Counsel stuff is something that will be targeted. WAY too much detail is given to an incident from years ago that is HIGHLY disputed and not borne out by the record. It's basically one interested guy's statement against the world. The days of this page being a plaything for partisans interested in poisoning Kavanaugh and Bush are coming to an end with his confirmation. Not meaning to be threatening or anything; just pointing out that once he's confirmed more people are going to take an interest in shaping this page up.--Smashingworth 03:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure every article can use some fixin up, but the IC stuff seems to be sourced and verified, albeit sort of long. I don't know enough about the facts to go in there with a big pair of scissors myself.
I found this article after reading early this week that judiciary comm. was going to reopen it again and that some ABA recommenders changed their votes on his qualifications. It was disappointing none of that was mentioned since it was a pretty big story (in a specialized, not so big topic...). If I can steal some time I'm going to take a swipe at adding one or two sections to document the confirmation happenings. There has been some interesting heat, for example the nominee's Tuesday refusal to answer at least one very general question, claiming executive privilege when asked if when he was on the nominee vetting committee in the white house if he'd ever even once offered a negative comment. --Flawiki 12:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what to say other than not giving Schumer what he wanted on that question was no big deal. Adversarial Senators do this all the time. They ask questions they know the nominee can't/won't answer, and then the Senator sits there and gets all huffy when they know all along the nominee wouldn't answer that. It's a set up. So Kavanaugh wasn't going to give Schumer the rope he was looking for. Well, it was a ridiculous question. As it was he said he disagreed with some things while he was there, but there's no way he was going to be specific on that. As to the ABA downgrading, the real story there is that the ABA did this for no reason whatsoever. That exposed the ABA, not Kavanaugh.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smashingworth (talk • contribs) 00:45 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Would you object if I were to add references with cites to reliable sources on those issues? My goal is to try to make the article more timely and complete with factual stuff, and let the chips fall where they may. --Flawiki 01:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
No, of course not. I look forward to your edits. If we all work in good faith, we should be able to make a really fact-filled page. The difficulty comes from how much emphasis a certain fact gets. For instance, I think the whole Independent Counsel thing is way overblown on this page. This one guy says all this stuff happened, and everybody else, including the court reporter's transcript, totally disputes this. That being the case, I don't think it's right to give this highly doubtful account such a huge chunk of space. That's more credit than it deserves, besides happening so many years ago and not having any apparent consequence to events of the world or Kavanaugh's life. In any case, I look forward to seeing how you incorporate this new stuff. But I do think that Kavanaugh's confirmation in a few weeks will make the way he answered Schumer's questions kind of an obscure and irrelevant point at that time. Kavanaugh's not the first nominee to have a difficult time with Schumer and Leahy, and as long as Bush keeps nominating Republican judges, he won't be the last.--Smashingworth 03:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV Foster material

Removed the following:

Moreover, even if the OIC was incorrect about whether such a question was asked by Kavanaugh, still Knowlton's own statement quoted above has Knowlton acknowledging that Kavanaugh did not formulate that particular question about touching. Given these facts about the Knowlton testimony, it is unclear why some people editing this Wikipedia page insist upon including this section regarding Knowlton's testimony.

It's POV, commentary by an editor, and self-referential to Wikipedia. I've retained Knowlton's quote and all the factual material.--MikeJ9919 06:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved Most of Associate Independent Counsel Stuff

I've gone ahead and removed somebody's pet conspiracy theory. But don't worry, it's not gone. I've just created a page for Miquel Rodriguez and pasted it over there since he and Knowlton are basically the only ones who keep pushing this theory. Whatever the merits, it belongs on a page for Foster, Rodriguez, and Knowlton, not Kavanaugh. I've reduced it to a slight mention, though I don't really think it deserves that much. But it's there and anyone interested in more can follow the link to Rodriguez page and read more, where it's actually relevant to the page.--Smashingworth 03:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Another note on this subject, since it's become clear that we have an anonymous contributor who is devoted to splashing block quotes from Miquel/Miguel Rodriguez and Patrick Knowlton all over this page. The material is highly questionable to begin with, basically a conspiracy theory, and it has little connection to Kavanaugh, and is of little significance to his life or career. Moreoever, the material is a wholesale copy of what has already been pasted on the Vince Foster page, where at least it is relevant to the subject of the article. I did not delete the material, but rather created a page for Miquel Rodriguez, since he's the one making accusations, and put it over there. I then left a note on this page with a wikilink to the Rodriguez page. A reader of this page will see that Rodriguez has made accusations against the Independent Counsel investigation, and can follow the link to either the Foster or Rodriguez page where the full conspiracy is included in detail with links. I think that is an entirely reasonable compromise that does not seek to eliminate the conspiracy theory and "cover it up" but merely places it in proper context, so that a minor incident in Kavanuagh's life spun by a far-out theory does not overwhelm this whole page.
Those are the reasons I moved the material, with directions to where it can otherwise be found, and that is why I will continue to revert the changes of an anonymous contributor who seeks to make this page an online repository of a pet conspiracy theory while accusing those who do not agree to be "vandals," despite the labor involved in making sure the conspiracy theory lives on, just not on a page where it does not belong. A personal obsession is not the proper editorial guide for Wikipedia.--Smashingworth 20:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous editor who is in love with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory is apparently devoted to cutting and pasting this stuff onto this page come hell or high water. This really needs to stop--his edits are full of wiki-disapproved block quotes, one-sided, and redundant since they are just swipes from the Vince Foster and Miquel Rodriguez pages. This is a page about a federal judge, not the place for spinning old and rejected allegations. Anybody know how I can go about reporting him to proper wiki authorities? The edits the user does to this page are all "he" does. He contributes nothing else to Wikipedia.--Smashingworth 23:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Restoring documented facts

Brett M. Kavanaugh’s 137-page report on the Death of Vincent Foster as Associate Independent Counsel for Kenneth Starr is available from the U.S. government printing office.Official Report It one of the most significant documents Mr. Kavanaugh has authored in his short career. It is a well-documented fact that the Court of appeals ordered that Kavanaugh’s report include comments from a grand jury witness.

The U.S. Court of appeals, on which Brett M. Kavanaugh now serves, dealt him a stunning defeat in 1997 when they ordered evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Official Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster authored by Mr. Kavanaugh. 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 his report. Wikipedia readers should not be denied the opportunity to know about this historic event in the career of Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The three-judge panel of the Special Division of the court of appeals ordered the following statements to be included by Patrick Knowlton’s attorney in Mr. Kavanaugh’s report:

"Prior to Patrick [Knowlton]’s [grand jury] appearance, OIC prosecutors [Brett M. Kavanaugh] had been fully appraised by counsel of Patrick’s reports of being harassed by 25 or more men. [Brett Kavanaugh] clearly appeared not to believe Patrick’s bizarre account of having been harassed, at one point asking him to ‘tell us about the alleged harassment,’ nor did Starr’s deputies [Brett Kavanaugh and John Bates] appear to believe much of anything Patrick had to say..."

"Because Patrick did not heed the warning regarding his grand jury testimony and continued to tell the truth, including his account of the bizarre harassment he suffered, his testimony was discredited. Patrick was harassed in an effort to make him look unbalanced or dishonest. Since that time, he has been defamed by numerous individuals, most of whom are journalists. He has been attacked as a delusional conspiracy theorist, a homosexual, and as an outright liar. Patrick has been fighting to reestablish his credibility for the past two years. Patrick did nothing to deserve the outrageous treatment he received at the hands of the OIC and its FBI agents. He did nothing to deserve being yanked into this FBI debacle, having his life turned upside down, and having to endure this fight for his reputation. Patrick's only 'crime' was reporting to the authorities what he had seen at Fort Marcy Park, consistent with his understanding of his duties as a good citizen.

"Patrick respectfully asks that the Division of the Court append this letter to the Independent Counsel's Report on the Death of Vincent Foster, Jr. to afford him a measure of fairness. A denial of this relief would augment the appearance of justice having not been done and would further frustrate legislative intent. Patrick should not have to go through the rest of his life labeled as a liar or some kind of nut. He has no remedy at law for injury to his reputation causally related to the subject investigations. Patrick Knowlton merely seeks to establish that he is telling the truth and that he is mentally stable."


Now here at Wikipedia, "Smashingworth" unfairly continues to call Mr. Knowlton a "conspiracy theorist." "Smashingworth" seeks to conceal Mr. Kavanaugh’s activities by hiding the evidence made public by the U.S. Court of Appeals on October 10, 1997, in support of Mr. Knowlton.

The court ordered comments regarding Mr. Kavanaugh’s misdeeds are also supported by former Associate Independent counsel Miquel Rodriguez in telephone conversations recorded by the late Reed Irvine, Chairman of Accuracy in Media.

The Official Report on the Death of Vincent Foster released by the Court of Appeals on October 10, 1997, supports the statements by the witness Patrick Knowlton regarding his experience in the grand jury with Mr. Kavanaugh.

Removing the documented information from the U.S. Court of Appeals about Mr. Kavanaugh’s role as Associate Independent Counsel is a disservice to Wikipedia users seeking to know Mr. Kavanaugh’s documented activities as Associate Independent counsel.

"Smashingworth" has unfairly characterized as "conspiracy theory," the Official Report on the Death of Vincent W. Foster, issued by the United States Court of Appeals.

"Smashingworth" unfairly uses name-calling rather than documented facts, calling assistant U.S. attorney Miquel Rodriguez and Mr. Patrick Knowlton "conspiracy theorists."

"Smashingworth" removed almost an entire category built by others, characterizing it as "independent counsel stuff" and then renamed the section "independent counsel controversy" as if the true facts about Brett Kavanaugh’s activities are unknown. This is a impudent attempt to hide the true facts.

Removing documented information from Wikipedia destroys the contributions of others. "Smashingworth" has concealed the important U.S. Court of appeals addition to the official report authored by Mr. Kavanaugh by misplacing this information at a newly created page titled "Miquel Rodriguez." This only makes it more difficult for researchers seeking to know the background of Mr. Kavanaugh.

-Thomist May 31, 2006

The only thing being "unfairly characterized" is my attempt to make this page NPOV and clean it up. To that end I have organized and wikified, and moved some material. That which I could not rewrite in a NPOV manner was moved to another page and preserved there, where it was more appropriate.
How can I have removed the information if I actually went to the trouble of creating a page for Miquel Rodriguez and placing it there? You therefore contradict yourself when you say I have "remov[ed] documented information from Wikipedia." Rather, I have reduced its gigantic presence on this page to a more manageable and proper size, along with external links and wikilinks to the more detailed passages you are in love with, which are included under "Independent Counsel Controversy" and "External links." The trouble is not with the information itself but its disproportionately large placement on this page, as well as being copied verbatim on the Vince Foster and Miquel Rodriguez pages.
As for the conspiracy theory, that's all this is at this point. Nobody takes seriously Rodriguez' claims that the investigation was a sham and that Foster was murdered. Why don't you go to the NASA page and write a huge, huge section on the faking of the moon landing? It would be out of proportion to give all the space to an out-there theory at the expense of everything else.
Moreover, your "documented facts" do not extend beyond the "he said-she said" or "my word against yours" variety. Until you can write the section in a way that recognizes how thin a reed this whole theory hangs on, then it must be removed from the Kavanaugh page. I note once again, the material--which is inappropriately non-NPOV and voluminous with flagrant use of selective non-NPOV block quotes--is out of proportion with the subject of this page and is completely available VERBATIM on the Foster and Rodriguez pages.
Re-write and reduce the section, or it must be moved from this page. I do not have the time to do that work for you. If you're such an expert on this theory, then write it in a way that doesn't overwhelm everything else and only offers one side of the argument, however fringe it may be.--Smashingworth 19:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Readers should decide how they wish to interpret the facts. People do not need "Smashingworth" to decide which facts are appropriate for them to read. If an article is biased readers are intelligent and will see it. Just because some facts are unfavorable about Judge Kavanaugh does not justify taking them down. Why not add more positive facts if you want more balance?

Your point of view that the Official Report made public by the Special Division and the U.S. Court of Appeals is "conspiracy theory" is not a NPOV. The Official Report represents a significant work product, if not the most significant work product in the short career of Judge Kavanaugh. Continuing to take information about this document down is vandalism.

You are apparently a supporter of Judge Kavanaugh with a personal interest to conceal the fact that the court where Judge Kavanaugh now serves, ruled against him on a very serious matter. This fact was a significant event in American history as well as Judge Kavanaugh's career. This fact is documented with links provided. Have you read the official 137-page report that you keep calling "theory"? The neutral history of Judge Kavanaugh's time as Associate Independent counsel with the good facts and the bad facts about Judge Kavanaugh should remain as long as links to sources are provided.

History should not be hidden from the public. This is not a case of "he said, she said" as you claim. The Official Report is what it is and that it exists cannot be denied.

-Thomist may 31, 2006

No one denies that the Report exists. How could they? But the allegations by Knowlton and Rodriguez remain at the level of "he-said, she said". There was no legal conclusion that Kavanuagh did participate in witness intimidation, or that the whole Vince Foster investigation was a sham. No court of law has ever reached that conclusion as a matter of law, nor apparently taken it seriously at all. Just because the judges appended one witness' letter means little. So they included it, big deal. They didn't issue a judgment on that issue. They merely made sure that Mr. Knowlton's allegations became public knowledge through the publication of the Report. That's all they ever have been--allegations. Thus, it remains an unproven theory. Nothing more. Maybe you should re-read that Report you're so fond of.
As it is, this is not about my bias (or yours, which is very clearly in favor of the conspiracy). It is about keeping that bias from the article itself. Contrary to your desire to smear Kavanaugh with your bias "and let the readers sort it out," Wikipedia policy mandates that pages maintain a Neutral Point of View. For all I care, you can push your biased "facts" onto the Vince Foster and Miquel Rodriguez pages, and good riddance. It will not be tolerated here.
I have not deleted the material, merely redacted and relocated most of it. It has all been done in an attempt to fairly include the information in a neutral way so that readers are aware of it and can investigate it further. As it is, I have made sure the controvery and the allegations are mentioned, and the external links to the info and the "cover up" site remain and are clearly identified. Wikilinks will take readers to the more detailed Foster and Rodriguez pages. So your claim that the facts have been "hidden from the public" merely exposes your hysteria. You know very well the material is all over Wikipedia; anyone can look at your contributions and see that you've made sure of that. But this page will not be smeared with that biased material. No one is preventing your from including some kind of reference to those allegations--my edit preserves those, but without the bias.
If you want to expand it, fine. Re-write it more concisely and without the smearing agenda, and it will remain on the page for as long as you like. Until then all biased non-NPOV material will be removed from this page.--Smashingworth 00:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In the rv/rv'd material is one passage right up at the top that in one version states that "Kavanaugh was the primary author of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report on Foster's death" and in the alternative passage states that "Kavanaugh would have been the primary author of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's report on Foster's death." I don't have a dog in the fight on preserving the bulk of the material but I do have a minor issue with the disparity here. If the alternative passage that he would have been a primary author is correct then it ought to be verified. Otherwise, this seems to me to be verboten weasel wording and ought not be reverted to. --Flawiki 00:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I wish I knew the answer too. If our experts could come in a clear that up, and somehow do it without just smearing Kavanaugh, it would be appreciated.--Smashingworth 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It is significant that the Office of Independent Counsel portion of the Offical Report on the Death of Vincent Foster is unsigned and no one put their name anywhere on the document. I recall the press did report that Brett Kavanaugh was the author and this may have also been noted in underlying documents from the Office of Independent Counsel. I will do some research to help resolve this. There is no question Kavanaugh was in charge of the investigation according to the Washington Post. -Thomist June 1, 2006


Please specify and do not characterize. No one is "smearing" Judge Kavanaugh, unless you think the Court of Appeals smeared Mr. Kavanaugh when they included evidence WITH PROOF that contradicted Kavanaugh's conclusions as well as evidence of witness intimidation by the Office of Independent Counsel.

In an attempt to dismiss this evidence you do not like, you have misused the term "allegations." An allegation is an assertion without proof. But the Official Report on the Death of Vincent Foster includes proof of misdeeds by the OIC. The three judge panel of the Court of Appeals included 9 pages of exhibits drawn from 23 pages of the official investigative record including Senate depositions, the official autopsy, Police Reports, the Fiske Report, the Medical Examiner's Report, and FBI Reports. You have ignored the proof.

Please read the official record and see the evidence in the final nine pages of the Official Report.

It may be proof to you, O Anonymous Conspiracy Theorist, but it is not to me, nor was it intended to be so by the Court. It was appended at the request of Knowlton's attorney and presents his side of the story. Nothing more. Again, that makes it an assertion of the "he-said, she said" kind. It's nice that there is documentation to support his statement, but that is not proof either. Just evidence. Contrary to your dogma, nothing has been proven, and until it has this page will not say otherwise.
I have only removed the biased material. I have left everything else. I have invited you to re-write it in a more neutral and concise manner. You ignore that request. There's nothing else I can do other than continue to delete the biased material you post to smear Kavanaugh. There's no place for those extensive quotes on this page. The link to the Report is fine, but reprinting it will not do. Sorry.--Smashingworth 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


If we are going to have a discussion let's agree to be polite. Calling people names like "conspiracy theorist" and continuing to take down facts you personally do not like is inapproprate. The public is entitled to know ALL the facts made public by the U.S. court of Appeals. Why not let the public have all the facts about Judge Kavanaugh's history, the positive and the negative?

Judge Kavanaugh's part of the official report presents "his side of the story, nothing more" but the Court of Appeals wanted to the public to have the full story so they added more to the Official Report to make it fair and complete. Why not follow the example of the Court of Appeals and let the public to know all the facts in the official record?

-Thomist June 1,2006


Dear Smashington:

You wrote, "Contrary to your dogma, nothing has been proven, and until it has this page will not say otherwise."

What do you mean by the term "proven"? Please define.

Thomist June 1, 2006

Nothing has been proven as a matter of law, the way it is proven someone is "guilty" or "not guilty" at the end of a trial. That's legal proof. And we're dealing with a legal investigation and a legal document are we not? The Report represents the findings of the Independent Counsel investigation, along with the appended statement by an advocate for Knowlton. It is all evidence, but there has been nothing proven. The Court never made any legal findings, conclusions, or judgments.
Like I said, it may be proof to you, but it is not to me, and it has not been proof to countless other citizens, legal analysts, and reporters who have covered this story. So, I'd say you're in the minority on what exactly is "PROOF." That makes your passion about such proof a little heavy-handed. You think it's proof, and it's not. It's not proof to anyone who says it's not, and it's not proof to the objective courts of law either. Bottom line: just because you think it's proof doesn't make it so.
There is no attempt to remove "facts" harmful to Kavanaugh. My edit preserves them--perhaps not in the mind-numbing detail you prefer with all of its attendant exaggerations, such as the "stunning defeat to Kavanaugh"--but it preserves the facts of the controvery nonetheless, just without the hyperbole. Links to hyperbole have been provided as well. That should be enough for an interested reader.
But it is unfortunately not enough for you. So RE-WRITE IT IN A NEUTRAL AND MORE CONCISE MANNER! How hard can that be? You're the expert after all, right? Your first edit, which I think is a smear and you think is cold hard proof, will not stand. So rewrite, please.
And if you don't like being called "O Anonymous Conspiracy Theorist," then simply sign your posts. I won't have to be creative then.--Smashingworth 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Smashington:

I asked you to plese define your term "proven" after you wrote, "nothing has been proven, and until it has this page will not say otherwise."

In your response you wrote in part, "...You think it's proof, and it's not. It's not proof to anyone who says it's not..."

Apparently only what you believe and deem acceptable can remain at Wikipedia. It should be noted that the genuinely known is not the same as the believed and acceptable.

At your suggestion I did remove the word "stunning" although it remains a fact that having evidence that contradicted the conclusion of his report included in the report by the court of appeals was a defeat for Mr. Kavanaugh. The Office of Independent Counsel filed a motion asking the court to reconsider, which the court denied THE VERY NEXT DAY, so that the other side did not even have to file a motion to oppose the OIC motion to reconsider. It was an embarrassing defeat. -Thomist, June 5, 2006

Thomist, I no longer have any interest in trying to be fair and patient with you. You ignore my reasons and suggestions. Rather, you choose to continue smearing me with this nonsense that I'm censoring you instead of working together to create a fair compromise. I have no choice to but to continue removing the junk you've been putting up here. If you somehow end up contributing something that is not a smear campaign (whether of Kavanaugh or me) that of course will not be removed. Until then, I'm not going to waste any more time on you. By the way, you need to improve your reading as well as your writing. It's not SmashingTON.--Smashingworth 04:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Dear Smashingworth,

You have admitted that you have no interest in being fair and you continue to characterize what is genuinely known as "nonesense" based solely on your personal opinion. You unfairly deny Wikipedia readers from knowing the history of Mr. Kavanaugh.

-Thomist June 6, 2006


Dear Smashingworth,

Please consider that the Wikipedia information about Judge Kavanaugh is not to be limited only to his success. Judge Kavanaugh's public record includes both his success and his failures. Brett Kavanaugh's activities as Associate Independent Counsel are a permanent part of the public record released by the U.S. Court of Appeals and it includes evidence of witness intimidation. My friend, your attempts to conceal the criminal activity by the Office of Independent Counsel is like hiding air bubbles in a pond, they will always bubble up to the surface.

Thomist June 6, 2006

From Rfc

First, everyone editing here should keep in mind WP:3RR and WP:SOCK and do your best not to violate these policies. Second, please take a look at the following relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies: Reliable sources, neutral point of view (especially the section on undue weight), and what Wikipedia is not. Sources like "fbicover-up.com", a personal webpage, and possibly "aim.org" do not comport with the reliable sources guideline. The section of text that has been added is not written in a neutral point of view, and, in any event, gives undue weight to a small minority viewpoint in violation of the undue weight portion of that policy. Finally, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Simply put, the text as written does not belong on Wikipedia. I recommend working out a compromise if one can be reached. - Jersyko·talk 13:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

One of your edits earlier today indicated an RFC was in play, do you have a link to it? Thanks --Flawiki 13:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Rfc post. I'd also like to note that my comment above in no way is meant to discourage expansion of the independent counsel controversy section. My point is merely that reliable sources need to be used and the material needs to be written in an neutral manner manner, excluding the conspirational, speculative stuff. - Jersyko·talk 14:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments. I hope that many users are able to make valuable contributions to this page instead of the vandalism and partisan material that has been posted lately. In my edits, I have left the "Independent Counsel" section on the page and even made improvements to it in an attempt to compromise with some of our "true believers," but those have been ignored and deleted repeatedly. That sort of behavior flies in the face of compromise.--Smashingworth 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I thank Jersyko for the thoughtful comments and suggestions. The most significant document regarding Judge Kavanaugh's role as Associate Independent counsel was the final report of the investigation he led. This historic document is continually deleted from the article page. How would it best be referenced? The document is listed, but "out of print," at the Government Printing Office site. The document is in the Washington State University collection. It is a public document available at the National Archives but not online. Online the official document can only be viewed at a personal website. In regard to undue weight being given the minority view, this is a very significant minority, three federal judges on the second highest court in the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals decision is the most authoritative but at the same time not popular for the simple reason that their judgment has never been publicized in any newspaper. It noteworthy that the Washington Post falsely claims to have the "full text of the Report," but the Post conceals the final 23 pages added by the Court of Appeals. The Court clearly handed down a hot potato. Thomist June 8, 2006
The Report has never been deleted from the article page, as it has always continued to be available via the External links section. To say otherwise is simply untrue. And to say that the inclusion of Knowlton's complaints in the Report by order of the judges represents "a very significant minority" shows an utter miscromprehension of what the panel did. It merely allowed Knowlton's complaint to be made public. It did not endorse or accept those complaints in any way! Get that through your head.--Smashingworth 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do not shout at me Smashingworth. The Independent Counsel statute permits the court to include submissions from individuals named in the final report, in whole or in part, at the court's discretion, to ensure that the report is fair and complete. Have you read the statute that created the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC)? Have you read the entire 137-page Report of the investigation led by Mr. Kavananaugh? It may be more accurate to conclude that the court did not endorse the official conclusion reached by the official investigation since the court, over the objection of the OIC, included considerable evidence of foul play by the OIC staff, like Mr. Kavanaugh. And the judges chose to include considerable evidence that contradicted the official conclusion. The court ruled in favor of a grand jury witness who provided evidence of witness intimidation by the OIC. Please read the court order of September 30, 1997, "ORDERED that motion of the Independent Counsel for reconsideration is denied." That order by the three judges dealt a huge defeat to Brett Kavanaugh, Kenneth Starr, and the American press, who to this day will not report it! --Thomist June 8, 2006
I agree with you that any link to the Report should link to the full, uncensored report, but you just don't know what you're talking about when you conclude that the Court of Appeals was pursuing some sort of agenda by allowing Knowlton's allegations to be included. They allowed both sides of the story to be made public. That's all. To interpret it as the Court buying Knowlton's allegations as truth, or of wanting to "deal a huge defeat to Brett Kavanaugh, Kenneth Starr, and the American press" is to just be flat wrong and hyperbolic. Every court opinion or order includes the allegations and arguments of both sides. The court did an entirely routine and mundane thing by making Knowlton's allegations, no matter how far-fetched and fringe, public.--Smashingworth 19:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The current version of the article looks fine. The previous versions obviously gave far too much weight to the AIC issue - grossly too much weight (I second everything Jersyko said above). Given how small the general biography is, there is little justification to adding anything more to the AIC section. - Merzbow 05:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The previous questions have not been answered. Have you read the statute that created the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC)? Have you read the entire 137-page Report of the investigation led by Mr. Kavananaugh? Editing the AIC section should at the least require a basic knowledge of the official documents rather than opinion. For example, the court added 9-pages of exhibits of excerpts from twenty-four documents from the investigative record. This evidence contradicted the OIC part of the report on every key issue and cast doubt on the official conclusion. To dismiss this evidence as "Knowlton's allegations" is disingenuous. The court attaced EVIDENCE of misconduct, including witness intimidation by the OIC and Judge Kavanaugh in particular. The court could not have done anything more discrediting to the OIC than it did by denying Judge Starr's motion to reconsider attaching the evidence of OIC misdeeds. No weight has been given to this historic event. --Thomist June 11, 2006
Nobody is arguing that this shouldn't be addressed in the article. But it should not constitute the vast majority of the article. I suggest you consult the WP:BLP guideline to familiarize yourself with the reasons why Wikipedia very heavily frowns upon overloading a person's biography with criticism. It clearly states that:

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

- Merzbow 17:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Likewise nobody is arguing the historic decision by the Court of Appeals should constitute the vast majority of the article. Wikipedia guidelines do not exclude from the article any mention of the controversial final Report on the investigation led by Mr. Kavanaugh. The Court of Appeals decision to add evidence of a cover-up by the OIC is the most notable and authoritative source. --Thomist June 12, 2006
Really? Your edit history to the article shows otherwise. Have you changed your mind? - Merzbow 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Why not? I think it would be fair to offer a shorter summary. -- Thomist June 12, 2006
OK, but that section should certainly not be larger than the 'Background' section, since your view that this stuff is of greater importance than the rest of his career is a minority viewpoint. - Merzbow 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed a dead link from the Preview section. The section on Judge Kavanaugh’s period as Associate Independent Counsel has been tightened with supporting footnotes added. The word "controversy" was removed from the heading since the facts as presented are either supported by the public record or they are not. I welcome questions or suggestions to continue to improve this section.Thomist 02:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Your most recent edit was miles better than your previous ones, but still had some non-NPOV and misleading statements. The "historic" importance you add to the inclusion of the Knowlton statement is overblown, so I have removed that spin on the fact. "Controversy" has been added back to the title because obviously there is disagreement about what happened. That's what makes it a controversy. As I look further into this, I am at a loss to see what this has to do with Kavanaugh. I have not seen evidence that Kavanaugh "replaced" Rodriguez. How could he since Rodriguez talks about Kavanaugh as if they worked together? Nor have I read that Kavanaugh was the lead guy on the Foster investigation. Is that in the official Report?--Smashingworth 04:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Smashingworth,
Thank you for saying my recent edits were "miles better." I wish you had not removed them.
The controversy appears to be over what NPOV means to you. For example, you simply choose not to accept the fact that Brett Kavanaugh headed the investigation so you removed it. I provided a footnote to a Washington Post article by Al Kamen that stated Mr. Kavanaugh "headed the investigation." I could provide more sources like Dana Milbank’s Washington Post article from November 18, 2002 which said Mr. Kavanaugh "led Starr’s investigation into the death of Foster." By your own admission you wrote, "I have not seen evidence" and "nor have I read." You asked, "Is that in the official Report?" If you have not read the 137-page Report or any of the footnotes I provided what makes you qualified to edit this section? In good faith I have provided the facts that are well documented in the public record. You admit you have not read the footnotes or offical record.
The word "evidence" seems to trouble you and you keep replacing it with the word "allegation." Evidence is an indication, a sign that makes another thing evident. The official Report, which you admit not reading, has nine pages of evidence with exhibits to excerpts from 24 documents in the official investigative record. The evidence includes, U.S. Senate depositions, police reports, EMS reports, FBI reports, autopsy report, medical examiner’s report and so on. An allegation is an assertion without proof. In law, its maker proposes to support the allegation with evidence. The court attached allegations AND supporting evidence. Your POV is to acknowledge the allegations and ignore the evidence. The evidence of witness intimidation and cover-up should remain because these are the facts in the public record. I have provided links to the evidence. Please do not remove things without evidence to show the facts are unsupported by the public record.
Lastly your admitted confusion over how Brett Kavanaugh and Miquel Rodriguez could have worked together demonstrates your lack of knowledge of Starr’s Office of Independent Counsel. Do you know how many Associate Independent Counsels worked in Starr’s OIC? How many can you name? You are unfairly taking down the facts and supporting footnotes because they are facts you do not know and have chosen not to know. Thomist 12:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
SmashingWORTH here, for those who are more interested in blindly attacking without bothering to even properly name their intended victim. Once again, I am forced to police this page and clean up the mess you make and then return to the Discussion page in order to defend myself from your conspiratorial implications and attempt to calmly respond to your attacks on me and my motivations. I frankly admit to not believing the Knowlton side of things. Big deal. But I have never removed the bare facts from this page, only attempted to preserve them free of your overblown kool-aid drinking spin about their undeniable truth. I disagree that I lack the expertise to remove your spin cycles. Nobody needs to read a hundred something page Report to recognize someone taking sides in a forum that is supposed to be non-NPOV. It is clear to everyone but yourself that you violate Wikipedia policy with your edits by using non-NPOV and misleading statements, and by attempting to give disproportionately undue weight to the whole section. Nor does my inability to name every associate counsel in the whole office make any difference to my problem with the claim that Kavanaugh replaced Rodriguez. I did not say they never worked together. Rather, the fact that they worked together undermines the claim that one replaced the other. Where is your source for this? You do not appear to have one, and you do not bother to answer the question in the first place. Rather, you chide me for not being able to name every lawyer associated with the investigation (something I doubt anybody could readily do) as a reason I should not be allowed to touch your expert opinions. Why don't you try filling in some blanks here instead of attacking those who question you as merely ignorant or prejudiced?
However, in my latest edit I have restored your claim that Kavanaugh headed the investigation, though why I rely on your good faith after your continuous smearing of me is beyond my understanding. I cannot rely on your footnote because it is not a link. I must trust that it says what you say it does, though I have not found that to be true much else you have said. For instance, I never removed remove a single one of your footnotes, so quit complaining about imaginary wounds. Try and stick to facts. Just because you believe in the Foster conspiracy doesn't mean everyone else is in a conspiracy against you. It's a wonder your spin on this whole affair is tolerated at all on this website. Be thankful that it is.--Smashingworth 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Smashingworth,
I am sorry I misspelled your name. My error was not intentional and not part of some plot to smear you. I corrected my error.
Rather than continuing to revert the page I suggest we pause to discuss the facts. I am agreeable to leaving your version up while we discuss the facts.
Regarding Brett Kavanaugh replacing Miquel Rodriguez you asked, "How could he since Rodriguez talks about Kavanaugh as if they worked together?" They did work together and it is not uncommon for a subordinate to replace his superior in the workplace if his superior resigns.
You also asked, "Rather, the fact that they worked together undermines the claim that one replaced the other. Where is your source for this?" Mr. Rodriguez had been in charge of the Foster death investigation from the time he was summoned by Kenneth Starr in the fall of 1994 to review Foster’s death until he resigned in March of 1995. Mr. Kavanaugh replaced him. This is not a controversy. See the Washington Times, Jan 13, 1995, Page A8, The Secret Life of Bill Clinton by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Regnery 1997, page 111, and The Strange Death of Vincent Foster by Christopher Ruddy, Free Press 1997, page 216.
I am sorry the source articles I gave for the Washington Post are not able to link on line. Everything published is simply not readily available on line with a link. The sources I have given can be found at any public library. I do not expect you to believe what I say, I invite you to check the facts. The truth is not something we find alone, but we find it with others.
You have inserted this statement into the article, "Former Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez has since claimed that there was a conspiracy..." You support this with a link to footnote three. A check of the comments of Mr. Rodriguez shows he has never said there was a "conspiracy." In fact, he said the opposite. Your statement is not supported by the footnote. Do you have any evidence to support your statement?
On the other hand, the footnote did support the statement by Mr. Rodriguez that witnesses "were being inappropriately treated." You have taken down that statement from the article. Why?
On this discussion page you have continually thrown out the word "conspiracy," for example, "pet conspiracy theory," "basically a conspiracy theory," "the full conspiracy," "the conspiracy theory," "the Vince Foster conspiracy theory," "the conspiracy theory," and "O Anonymous Conspiracy Theorist." Most recently you wrote, "Just because you believe in the Foster conspiracy doesn't mean everyone else is in a conspiracy against you." Please provide evidence to support your allegation that I believe in "the Foster conspiracy?" I have never said there was a "conspiracy." Why do you keep saying I have a "conspiracy theory?"
The Court of Appeals ordered the Report to include allegations and supporting evidence submitted by a grand jury witness. Can we agree to mention both the allegations and the evidence in the article? The evidence of witness intimidation and cover-up should remain because these are the facts in the official Report. I have provided links to the evidence. For example, is this evidence? Why or why not? Please explain.
You wrote, "Nobody needs to read a hundred something page Report to recognize someone taking sides in a forum that is supposed to be non-NPOV." The 137-page final Report of the Office of Independent Counsel investigation headed by Brett Kavanaugh is crucial to understanding the facts. By your own admission you have chosen not to read the Report. As I said before you are unfairly taking down the facts with supporting footnotes because they are facts you do not know and have chosen not to know. Thomist 00:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I am pleased that we can take a breath from constantly reverting each other's edits. I once again reject the charge that I am "unfairly taking down the facts with supporting footnotes." The facts remain. The links remain. Perhaps not in as much detail as you prefer, nor with the emphasis and spin you prefer, but the facts ARE there. And everyone one of your footnotes. And everyone of your external links. You mischaracterize what I have done here by suggesting I'm removing facts and footnotes. I have done neither. Though I have re-written some of your edits to make them more neutral, I haven't touched a single one of your documenting links. I don't know why you persist in claiming otherwise.
"Conspiracy" is an entirely appropriate word to describe the claim that Kavanaugh participated in a massive cover-up of Foster's death. Rodriguez alleges that evidence was buried and witnesses were intimidated all with the goal of hiding key facts and fixing the result. I call a spade a spade, and I call a cover-up of the truth through witness harassment, threats, and evidence manipulation and destruction by the FBI a conspiracy. A huge conspiracy; a massive conspiracy. If that doesn't qualify as a conspiracy, it would be hard to imagine what would qualify.
As to the claim of evidence, when you write things like the letter contains evidence of whatever, that has the appearance of accepting the truth of the charges made. They remain allegations because they have never been proven, whatever statements, documents, or charts have been offered to back them up. If there was some way to write that the letter contained appendices or something without making it sound as if we were taking sides, then that would probably be fine. The other problem though is that lends itself to going into too much detail and placing too much emphasis on the subject.
And we don't need too much emphasis on this page. We don't need quotes from Rodriguez, or quotes from the Report and all that. Not on this page. I note that you did not bother to create a Rodriguez page to air his charges there in more detail. I did that. Nor have you bothered to create a page for Knowlton. They're the ones making the charges; it should be detailed on their pages. Not on this page. It is enough that the record shows the charges were made. That satisfied the Court of Appeals, and I think it should satisfy the editors of this page.--Smashingworth 01:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Dear Smashingworth,
A while ago I asked you what you meant by the term "proven." You said, "Nothing has been proven as a matter of law, the way it is proven someone is 'guilty' or 'not guilty' at the end of a trial." You seem to have set a high standard for facts to be posted at Wikipedia. What in your current Brett Kavanaugh article has been "proven?" And how was it "proven?"
If there is a cover-up of the murder of Vincent W. Foster it does not necessarily follow that there must be a huge conspiracy. This is a popular myth. If there was a cover-up it would seem reasonable that the lead investigator, Associate Counsel Miquel Rodriguez, would have known about it. Mr. Rodriguez did not describe a huge conspiracy but something different. These are his own words:

There's not that many people who know these things really. You don't need a lot of people to know what's going on. In fact, you don't need many at all. Everyone makes a very big mistake when they believe that a lot of people are necessary to orchestrate some kind of – some result here. Very few people need to know anything about anything, really. All, all people need to know is what their job is, not why – be a good soldier, carry out the orders.

And there are a lot of people from – starting at the very night that the body was investigated, all the way down the line, there were, there were, people told to do certain things and they didn't – and their explanation now is, that they were following orders, being told what to do.

Nobody, ah, and this goes for, the FBI agents – they all, they don't necessarily know the big picture – they don't know what other people are writing in their reports. When you write a report all you have to do is make sure that it's consistent with – the most innocuous thing is to make sure it is consistent with the result that you ultimately want to get, which is not embarrass your other colleagues who have made their conclusions already.

It's a motivation which is that simple and, and, you know all of a sudden your notes don't exactly reflect what other people have said. It's very simple. It's a very, a very, ah, clean formula to achieve the result. You don't have to know the big picture. All you need to do is just have a couple of people involved.

In other words, if Braun and, you know, two or three others are out there assisting and making this all go smoothly, right, then they're the ones who ultimately collecting all the notes of the other officers, right, then they, all they do is submit their own notes and their final report. You see, very few people, okay, they've sent people out there and you, you, ah, talk to those people, interview 'em and I'll be over in a little while. You know, you come over, you get their notes and you write your report. Your report's wrong, you hope nobody's gonna catch you on it but if they do so what. It gets obscured and obscured and obscured because you, you control the central figures in the investigation. You don't need all these Park Police and all these FBI agents to know the overall scheme.

from Accuracy in Media
In the current version of the article you wrote, "Former Associate Independent Counsel Miquel Rodriguez has since claimed that there was a conspiracy..." Do you still think that statement is accurate?Thomist 02:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Dear Smashingworth,
My version of the article from June 15 is more accurate than the current version in several ways. For example, I accurately wrote Mr. Foster's name, "Vincent W. Foster" and his job title, "Deputy White House Counsel," while the current article has changed this to "White House attorney Vince Foster." I have been equally careful with all the facts in my version from June 15th which you have removed. My first sentence stated, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence[2] of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report[3] of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh.[4]" Please note that I did not say the court included "proof" of witness intimidation and a cover-up only that the court included "evidence." The sentence is accurate and supported by three footnotes. By arguing it has "never been proven" you are dismissing something that was never stated.Thomist 09:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thomist, I specifically based my writing on that very excerpt from Rodriguez's transcripts, so this is not a case where you're catching me off-guard. I have already read that. Rodriguez is still alleging a conspiracy when he talks about "orchestrating" things to reach a "result." It's a huge conspiracy because, in Rodriguez's words, because a few "central figures" are controlling the actions of many, "who don't know the big picture." But "the big picture" is the conspiracy. That is what conspiracy is! A secret agreement to achieve a particular result, usually unlawful or wrong. I'm sure you agree with me that manipulation and cover-up over evidence that reveals the truth by the very people who are oathbound to discover and reveal the truth would be "unlawful." Thus, Rodriguez charges that certain people in charge of the investigation intentionally and secretly agreed to change the findings of the investigation in order to achieve a particular result, i.e. the cover up of how Foster really died. Rodriguez has therefore charged a "conspiracy."
As to what the Court did, I think my edit is much more accurate. The court included a letter from Knowlton's attorney over the objection of the Independent Counsel. That's entirely true without taking sides, as your edit unfortunately appears to do. The letter is linked and anyone can read it for themselves. There is no need (and it is inappropriate to do so) to advocate for the public to go read 100 page documents and other orders and make up their own minds. The links are there and people can read them or not. It is non-NPOV to implore readers to read further so that they may discover the truth.
I assure you, removing Foster's middle initial, and calling him White House attorney were not attempts to obscure facts. I didn't think the "W" was needed, since the link works without it, and I honestly couldn't remember his exact title at the time of the edit so I wrote a statement that was true, though not as specific as possible. Fortunately, you are here to improve that. That's exactly the kind of work that makes you valuable. Changes that go beyond that and attempt to "prove" what has never been proven, however, are inappropriate with the prohibitions against "undue weight" and "non-NPOV."
Further, why do you not content yourself with the Knowlton and Rodriguez pages as a place to expound your theories? This page links to them, and any reader could thereby found out all you want him or her to find out. But you have not even done anything with those pages. Instead, you insist upon staking out your turf here? Why? This page contains the facts and all the links you have installed. Why is that not enough for you?--Smashingworth 14:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Dear Smashingworth,
You asked, "This page contains the facts and all the links you have installed. Why is that not enough for you?" It is not enough because we should make the article as accurate as possible.
The current article has retained the previous links but you removed the previous facts and inserted your own. For example, you inserted your point of view that Rodriguez "claimed there was a conspiracy." You then improperly used my original footnote, as support for your POV statement. But Rodriguez never actually said there was a conspiracy, it is your interpretation of what he has said, in other words your point of view. Your POV may be correct, but it is still your POV.
Mr. Rodriguez actually said that witnesses "were being inappropriately treated." This is not my point of view of what he said, but what he actually said and this fact was supported by the footnote which you took to improperly use to support something he never said.
I never said your spelling of Mr. Foster’s name was an attempt to obscure the facts. Please do not suggest that I did that. My interest is in accuracy. I have tried to improve the article by getting each detail correct, including the correct name and title of persons in the article. I have tried to include the straight facts as accurately as possible, without my opinions of what I thought someone said.
I would politely disagree that your version is more accurate. Compare this sentence, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence[2] of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report[3] of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh.[4]"
with your substitute sentence, "The federal court supervising the Independent Counsel appended a letter from Knowlton's attorney to the Report[5], over the objection of the Office of the Independent Counsel, alleging[6] grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up.[7]"
The second sentence fails to accurately name the federal court. The second version states a letter was appended to the Report but actually three letters were appended. The second version fails to state the important fact that evidence of witness intimidation and a cover-up was appended. Instead the second sentence describes the mundane, by stating "a letter from Knowlton’s attorney" was included. If this were significant one might add that letters from the Kevin Fornshill’s attorney and Helen Dickey’s attorney were also appended. But letters being appended per se is not really worthy of being noted.
The second sentence in substituting a mundane fact for the significant facts, retained the original footnotes which really no long fit, since they were intended for the original sentence. And to be more accurate the Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr filed the motion to reconsider, which was denied. Therefore it is more accurate to say the evidence was included "over the objection of Kenneth Starr" than as worded in the second sentence, "over the objection of the Office of Independent Counsel."
I asked what you meant by the term "proven." You said, "Nothing has been proven as a matter of law, the way it is proven someone is 'guilty' or 'not guilty' at the end of a trial." You seem to have set a high standard for facts to be posted at Wikipedia. What in your current Brett Kavanaugh article has been "proven?" And how was it "proven?"
This earlier version of June 15 is more accurate in: 1) the correct name of Mr. Foster, 2) Mr. Foster's correct job title, 3) that evidence was included in the Report, 4) that it was the motion of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr which was denied, 5) the correct name for the U.S. Court of Appeals, and 6) precisely what it was that former Associate Independent Cousel Miquel Rodriguez said. The more accurate version should replace the current less accurate version of the article. I took time to improve the article and get the accurate facts. Now it is your turn. For the time being we should put up the best available article. If you can turn out something better later we can add more improvements. Together we can make the article better. Thomist 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, my version more accurately states what was included. A letter from Knowlton's attorney was attached. The edit reflects that in a way your's did not. Who's presenting the allegations is very important, but you ignore that. Moreoever, your link only goes to a letter from Knowlton's attorney. There's no link nor mention of anything from anybody else. As to who signed the motion, that is not of any particular consequence. The head attorney would routinely sign such a motion though he may not have been the author. In any case, the section already points out that Ken Starr was the Independent Counsel. Obviously, the motion to reconsider reflected his will. Which once again raises the specter of why the hell we're arguing about Ken Starr's signature on a Brett Kavanaugh page? And you're nitpicking things like whether the court is identified? The link is provided for crying out loud! There is no pleasing you on this subject. You care so much about this page's accuracy (which you have no ability to maintain impartially), and yet you don't edit pages for Rodriguez or Knowlton. You care about smearing Kavanaugh over something he is at best tangentially connected with, not with putting the facts where they belong. I see no reason to make any other changes.--Smashingworth 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
And if you're unhappy with the footnotes, then re-arrange them. But if you edit the words again to reflect bias, I will again change it.--Smashingworth 19:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Dear Smashingworth,
I am sorry you feel that I am nitpicking. I am only trying to be accurate. I am still curious as to what in your current Brett Kavanaugh article has been "proven?" And how was it "proven?" I would like to help improve this page with you.
Can you please explain what specifically you consider bias in this earlier version of June 15 of the article. I recall you wrote earlier, "As to the claim of evidence, when you write things like the letter contains evidence of whatever, that has the appearance of accepting the truth of the charges made. They remain allegations because they have never been proven, whatever statements, documents, or charts have been offered to back them up." You seem concerned about the mention of the evidence in support of the allegations being included in the Report. Am I right? You seem to be saying that the mention of the evidence being included in the Report may make it appear the allegations were proven. Is that right? You are certain that the allegations are not true, correct? You don't see any need to read the official Report of the investigation led by Associate Independent Counsel Brett M. Kavanaugh which is the subject of our discussion. Right? Thomist 21:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There are no other facts on this page in dispute other than your section. Everything that you are trying to push is disputed and generally discredited. And, once again, NO I don't need to read over a hundred pages in order to spot bias in your edits.--Smashingworth 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Dear Smashingworth,
On June 7, User Jersyko was kind enough to stop here and suggest we work out a compromise. I think it was good advice. I stopped posting and took some time to write a better article. I was working on a compromise to your concerns, one of which was "undue weight." I shortened the article. You even praised my June 15 edit saying, "your most recent edit was miles better than your previous ones." I am trying to have a dialog with you to discuss your other concerns. You did not respond to my previous questions. By saying "everything that you are trying to push is disputed and generally discredited," you are not being specific. In the first sentence from my earlier edit June 15 what exactly is "disputed and generally discredited?" Please be specific regading the sentence, "The U.S. Court of Appeals ordered, over the objection of Kenneth Starr, evidence[2] of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up to be included in the Report[3] of the investigation headed by Mr. Kavanaugh.[4]"
I hope we can work this out. Thank you. Thomist 01:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thomist,
That sentence has two misleading elements. The first is "the objection of Kenneth Starr" which makes it sound like something personal to him, as if he were in court and personally objected. He may or may not have authored that motion, so I prefer "the objection of the Independent Counsel" which encompasses Ken Starr and the institution itself. Ken Starr is previously identified as the Independent Counsel so I see no problem with this. He is not absent from the facts.
Also, "evidence of grand jury witness intimidation and a cover-up" is an objective statement that implies the plain meaning--a reader would think "Man, there was evidence of a cover up." But whether what was included was evidence or merely ludicrous overstatements or whatever we have no way of knowing. A person would have to read and make up their own mind. So I prefer my edit which accurately states exactly what was included--a letter from Knowlton's attorney. Not only is this accurate, but it is essential because it provides context. For instance, knowing who it is from allows the reader to immediately understand that it cannot be an objective source because an attorney represents a client and must always seek to fulfill his client's ends, whether it may or may not be true. That context is important for the reader when hearing that charges have been made. My edit preserves the fact that charges were made, identifies who made the charges, identifies what exaclty was appended to the Report, and provides links to that material. It is more specific, accurate, and neutral then a blanket and vague assertion that "evidence of a cover up was attached." That is why my edit should be preserved over yours.
Moreover, you are mistaken to think that there is supposed to be a compromise between your edit and my edit. The compromise is to have any section at all. I think the whole thing should be deleted, but in order to compromise with your edits which were inappropriate, I edited them to preserve the facts but remove misleading elements, undue emphasis, and bias. So that edit, rather than your edit or removal of the whole thing, is the compromise.

--Smashingworth 17:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)