Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not against an FBI invest. But I’m confused on a few points
-I thought they, the FBI, had considered and decided no. I brought this up yesterday but it got lost in the massive Part 2 thread.
-as I’ve heard legal experts suggest (liberal ones too!), the FBI doesn’t judge on the matter. You will still have 98% probability that no conclusion will be made. The 2% chance is worth it I suppose but as I heard someone on LRC put it, the FBI isn’t “magical.”
-what is their exact jurisdiction on this? In the way they investigate cases, they don’t usually take on 35yo cases in which no charges were filed. (Educate me here)

The FBI wasn't asked after these allegations were made and (like in the Anita Hill case asked by Pres Bush) they would conduct an investigation if the president asked
They don't reach conclusions but would corroborate or refute what the allegations are... adding proof to her case or not, which would help Senators decide which way to vote.

Here’s the deal: there is no proof. They would interview BK CBF, Judge, Leland keyser. That’s been done. What proof? What proof exists after 36 years?

No it hasn't. And now there is contemperaneous evidence by virtue of Kavanaugh's calendar.

Again, the same types of written testimonies were used to get the FISA warrants. You know that, right?

one page, two paragraph letter signed by outside counsel on their letterhead? No, sweetie, you are not right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Ralph Waldo Emerson, stirred the ghost of John McCain in Senator Flake.

Wish McCain’s ghost would find Graham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever you believe there is one thing I take away from this:

I'm scared to live in a world where we will believe something just because someone says it (whether you believe Ford or Bk). There is literally no proof in either direction. No witnesses really saying anything substantial on either side.

But regardless half are believing one side and the other half are believing the other side. With literally no proof. Am I the only one who finds this terrifying?

You've never been in court before, I'm guessing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever you believe there is one thing I take away from this:

I'm scared to live in a world where we will believe something just because someone says it (whether you believe Ford or Bk). There is literally no proof in either direction. No witnesses really saying anything substantial on either side.

But regardless half are believing one side and the other half are believing the other side. With literally no proof. Am I the only one who finds this terrifying?

You don't seem to know what proof is. In the real world, a lot is decided only on the basis of witness testimony, it is entirely a credibility determination.

Yes, but there are no witnesses coming forward. So that is the problem.

Give the dems a week.....

[Anonymous]

Time for all of Gtown Prep, Holton Arms, Yale to come forth and take sides. Go at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not against an FBI invest. But I’m confused on a few points
-I thought they, the FBI, had considered and decided no. I brought this up yesterday but it got lost in the massive Part 2 thread.
-as I’ve heard legal experts suggest (liberal ones too!), the FBI doesn’t judge on the matter. You will still have 98% probability that no conclusion will be made. The 2% chance is worth it I suppose but as I heard someone on LRC put it, the FBI isn’t “magical.”
-what is their exact jurisdiction on this? In the way they investigate cases, they don’t usually take on 35yo cases in which no charges were filed. (Educate me here)

The FBI wasn't asked after these allegations were made and (like in the Anita Hill case asked by Pres Bush) they would conduct an investigation if the president asked
They don't reach conclusions but would corroborate or refute what the allegations are... adding proof to her case or not, which would help Senators decide which way to vote.

Here’s the deal: there is no proof. They would interview BK CBF, Judge, Leland keyser. That’s been done. What proof? What proof exists after 36 years?

No it hasn't. And now there is contemperaneous evidence by virtue of Kavanaugh's calendar.

Again, the same types of written testimonies were used to get the FISA warrants. You know that, right?

one page, two paragraph letter signed by outside counsel on their letterhead? No, sweetie, you are not right.

Actually I am correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems significant...

Wall Street Journal: Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her about July 1, 1982 entry on his calender. Maryland statutes was last question she asked, then break was called..

I don’t think this was true; couldn’t find on the WSJ website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we ought to thanks the women who confronted Flake in the elevator this morning. I have to believe their voices made the difference.

And to the journalists who showed us that.

Yes! So glad they covered that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford DATED the Kavanaugh look-alike. The FBI should investigate that.

Because?

I mean, the only reason he came up was because:

https://twitter.com/WarfareNavel/status/1043257382015524864

Ed Whelan tried to blame another guy, but it was a guy she was friends with and close to.

This whole Judicial Network thing needs to be investigated as well.

So apparently the guy Whelan tried to blame is Squi, the guy at the 1 July party?! Did we know this already?

I used to think K was honest in his denials in that he was so drunk he just didn’t remember the assault. Now I’m thinking he remembers it and helped Whelan with the misdirection. (I’m totally spinning conspiracies now because I’m bored, but I think there’s more than enough for the FBI to dig into here, just like Mitchell was starting to before Graham cut her off and distracted with crazy.)

After seeing how inappropriately angry and mean he was yesterday, I don't believe he has to be blackout drunk to be violent. I think he remembers. He lies as easily as he breathes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time for all of Gtown Prep, Holton Arms, Yale to come forth and take sides. Go at it.

yale law already said that the allegations against Kavanaugh warranted a delay to investigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever you believe there is one thing I take away from this:

I'm scared to live in a world where we will believe something just because someone says it (whether you believe Ford or Bk). There is literally no proof in either direction. No witnesses really saying anything substantial on either side.

But regardless half are believing one side and the other half are believing the other side. With literally no proof. Am I the only one who finds this terrifying?

To quote Stephen King:

"Ask yourself who has more motivation for lying: the professor who's had her whole life turned upside down, or the judge who stands to land a lifetime job at a quarter-mill a year, plus bennies the ordinary Joe can only dream about?"

[Anonymous]

Big Brain Brett

https://www.instagram.com/p/BoQ3RYIFEGB/?taken-by=elarapictures

[Anonymous]

Regardless of assault or ideological disagreements,

He lied so many times during his confirmation hearings. That should be disqualifying.

He was angry, unhinged and partisan yesterday (and a long history of partisan behavior with Starr and Bush). That should be disqualifying.

My prediction: Rs will plow right through and confirm him anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever you believe there is one thing I take away from this:

I'm scared to live in a world where we will believe something just because someone says it (whether you believe Ford or Bk). There is literally no proof in either direction. No witnesses really saying anything substantial on either side.

But regardless half are believing one side and the other half are believing the other side. With literally no proof. Am I the only one who finds this terrifying?

The hearing was framed as if only that single afternoon in the summer before (or after, whatever) BK's senior of high school was important. In that light, if everything happened exactly as Ford said, no, I don't think it would be decisive. But Ford has the weight of MeToo behind her and Kavanaugh has the weight of his past testimony, his past behavior during high school and college, his evasiveness under oath, his aggressive behavior yesterday, and tellingly the absence of his friend Judge. It's more than just a single afternoon in '82.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford DATED the Kavanaugh look-alike. The FBI should investigate that.

Because?

I mean, the only reason he came up was because:

https://twitter.com/WarfareNavel/status/1043257382015524864

Ed Whelan tried to blame another guy, but it was a guy she was friends with and close to.

This whole Judicial Network thing needs to be investigated as well.

+1
Why were they ther yesterday?