Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Trump should refuse this blackmail. McConnell should call for a vote and let Collins, Flake, Manchin and MurKowski vote no on the record. This will ensure the defeat of Manchin in November and Collins in 2020. The government can't function like this. The current process will not be fair to future nominees.

Actually this is precisely how our government should function. A senate that takes seriously its Constitutional duty to advise and consent - which involves an honest and thorough vetting of Supreme Court Justices.

No. The government shouldn't conduct public shaming hearings violating both Ford and Kavanaugh's privacy. The process should work like this -- Feinstein forwards the letter to the committee and FBI WHEN she received it -- FBI/committee conduct additional background checks in confidence ensuring anonymity for both the nominee and the accused. The current circus serve no purpose but give cover for career politicians trading favors.

How many times does it need to be pointed out that Feinstein guaranteed confidentiality to Dr Ford? She didn’t have the right to publicize that letter until getting Dr Ford’s go ahead. That didn’t happen until reporters discovered Dr Ford’s dentity and started harassing her.

They discovered her identity because her staff leaked the letter. Are you not aware of how this town works?

The media who discovered her identity have actually refuted this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Trump should refuse this blackmail. McConnell should call for a vote and let Collins, Flake, Manchin and MurKowski vote no on the record. This will ensure the defeat of Manchin in November and Collins in 2020. The government can't function like this. The current process will not be fair to future nominees.

Actually this is precisely how our government should function. A senate that takes seriously its Constitutional duty to advise and consent - which involves an honest and thorough vetting of Supreme Court Justices.

No. The government shouldn't conduct public shaming hearings violating both Ford and Kavanaugh's privacy. The process should work like this -- Feinstein forwards the letter to the committee and FBI WHEN she received it -- FBI/committee conduct additional background checks in confidence ensuring anonymity for both the nominee and the accused. The current circus serve no purpose but give cover for career politicians trading favors.

How many times does it need to be pointed out that Feinstein guaranteed confidentiality to Dr Ford? She didn’t have the right to publicize that letter until getting Dr Ford’s go ahead. That didn’t happen until reporters discovered Dr Ford’s dentity and started harassing her.

They discovered her identity because her staff leaked the letter. Are you not aware of how this town works?

The Intercept which broke the story about Ford's allegation have stated it WASN'T Feinstein or her staff. It was clear from yesterday's testimony that Dr. Ford confided in a number of friends over the summer as she learned that Kavanaugh was on the list of possible SCJ nominees. She mentioned several times that she spoke to friends at the beach and elsewhere who gave her advice on what to do. She interviewed multiple legal firms over the summer too The Intercept broke the story about her allegation. AFTER that Feinstein gave the letter to the FBI to be included in Kavanaugh's background file (which meant a large number of people could see it including which is presumably how Ed Whelan was able to try to find a fall guy and blamed a middle school teacher) and that is when the letter leaked.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6219515/New-questions-leaked-Christine-Fords-explosive-accusation-Brett-Kavanaugh.html

[Anonymous]

Despite what comes out in the FBI report, no Dems will vote for BK anyways.

Who really thinks that this BS calling for a FBI investigation will change anything.

So if the FBI clears him, then it will be we can’t vote for him cuz abortion, gun laws, etc.. it will then be another set off issues.

[Anonymous]

Are book sales going to go through the roof for Judge?

[Anonymous]

NARAL is already tweeting that even if the FBI clears him, he's guilty and unfit. Sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Despite what comes out in the FBI report, no Dems will vote for BK anyways.

Who really thinks that this BS calling for a FBI investigation will change anything.

So if the FBI clears him, then it will be we can’t vote for him cuz abortion, gun laws, etc.. it will then be another set off issues.

I agree. All that matters is what Collins, Murkowski, and Flake decide.

[Anonymous]

Has Graham commented on the latest development? Have all the senators gone home for the weekend since there will not be a vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Despite what comes out in the FBI report, no Dems will vote for BK anyways.

Who really thinks that this BS calling for a FBI investigation will change anything.

So if the FBI clears him, then it will be we can’t vote for him cuz abortion, gun laws, etc.. it will then be another set off issues.

Sadly Trump has politicized the FBI. Now Americans have no faith in our institutions. So yes, Kavanaugh will always have an asterisk, like Thomas. Kavanaugh also acted like an elitist, entitled asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite what comes out in the FBI report, no Dems will vote for BK anyways.

Who really thinks that this BS calling for a FBI investigation will change anything.

So if the FBI clears him, then it will be we can’t vote for him cuz abortion, gun laws, etc.. it will then be another set off issues.

I agree. All that matters is what Collins, Murkowski, and Flake decide.

Yes, agree. If report clears him, it will allow them to vote for his Nomination.

Even so, every liberal and activist will always see him as Guilty regardless of the investigation.
How much can they investigate into an incident over 30 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Trump should refuse this blackmail. McConnell should call for a vote and let Collins, Flake, Manchin and MurKowski vote no on the record. This will ensure the defeat of Manchin in November and Collins in 2020. The government can't function like this. The current process will not be fair to future nominees.

Actually this is precisely how our government should function. A senate that takes seriously its Constitutional duty to advise and consent - which involves an honest and thorough vetting of Supreme Court Justices.

No. The government shouldn't conduct public shaming hearings violating both Ford and Kavanaugh's privacy. The process should work like this -- Feinstein forwards the letter to the committee and FBI WHEN she received it -- FBI/committee conduct additional background checks in confidence ensuring anonymity for both the nominee and the accused. The current circus serve no purpose but give cover for career politicians trading favors.

How many times does it need to be pointed out that Feinstein guaranteed confidentiality to Dr Ford? She didn’t have the right to publicize that letter until getting Dr Ford’s go ahead. That didn’t happen until reporters discovered Dr Ford’s dentity and started harassing her.

They discovered her identity because her staff leaked the letter. Are you not aware of how this town works?

What does that have to do with “she should have released the letter when she received it”?

[Anonymous]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/flake-coons-deal-renews-fbi-review-kavanaugh/571705/


A nice article on the Coons-Flake agreement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Trump should refuse this blackmail. McConnell should call for a vote and let Collins, Flake, Manchin and MurKowski vote no on the record. This will ensure the defeat of Manchin in November and Collins in 2020. The government can't function like this. The current process will not be fair to future nominees.

Actually this is precisely how our government should function. A senate that takes seriously its Constitutional duty to advise and consent - which involves an honest and thorough vetting of Supreme Court Justices.

No. The government shouldn't conduct public shaming hearings violating both Ford and Kavanaugh's privacy. The process should work like this -- Feinstein forwards the letter to the committee and FBI WHEN she received it -- FBI/committee conduct additional background checks in confidence ensuring anonymity for both the nominee and the accused. The current circus serve no purpose but give cover for career politicians trading favors.

How many times does it need to be pointed out that Feinstein guaranteed confidentiality to Dr Ford? She didn’t have the right to publicize that letter until getting Dr Ford’s go ahead. That didn’t happen until reporters discovered Dr Ford’s dentity and started harassing her.

They discovered her identity because her staff leaked the letter. Are you not aware of how this town works?

The Intercept which broke the story about Ford's allegation have stated it WASN'T Feinstein or her staff. It was clear from yesterday's testimony that Dr. Ford confided in a number of friends over the summer as she learned that Kavanaugh was on the list of possible SCJ nominees. She mentioned several times that she spoke to friends at the beach and elsewhere who gave her advice on what to do. She interviewed multiple legal firms over the summer too The Intercept broke the story about her allegation. AFTER that Feinstein gave the letter to the FBI to be included in Kavanaugh's background file (which meant a large number of people could see it including which is presumably how Ed Whelan was able to try to find a fall guy and blamed a middle school teacher) and that is when the letter leaked.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6219515/New-questions-leaked-Christine-Fords-explosive-accusation-Brett-Kavanaugh.html

Just because the Intercept did not get it from a member of Feinstein’s staff, that doesn’t mean that one of her staff did not give it to another staffer, in another office, to leak. Or, Anna Eschoo’s office. It is one or the other.

This is all a game to the Dems. And, don’t tell us that you actually care about women after this. Leaking the letter.... then, the fact that SHE DID NOT KNOW THE SENATE WOULD COME TO HER. That is on the Dems and her attorneys. And, why, you ask, did they not tell her? They wanted this circus. They wanted this played out in public at Dr. Ford’s expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite what comes out in the FBI report, no Dems will vote for BK anyways.

Who really thinks that this BS calling for a FBI investigation will change anything.

So if the FBI clears him, then it will be we can’t vote for him cuz abortion, gun laws, etc.. it will then be another set off issues.

I agree. All that matters is what Collins, Murkowski, and Flake decide.

Yes, agree. If report clears him, it will allow them to vote for his Nomination.

Even so, every liberal and activist will always see him as Guilty regardless of the investigation.
How much can they investigate into an incident over 30 years ago?

Hopefully as much as Benghazi!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: KAVANAUGH'S CLASSMATE SAYS SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS 'BLATANTLY LYING'

Brett Kavanaugh’s Yale University classmate ripped into the Supreme Court nominee for “blatantly lying” during his Senate Judiciary hearing yesterday.

After Kavanaugh spoke at the hearing on Thursday, Lynne Brookes, a self-identified Republican who said she was the roommate of Deborah Ramirez, the second Kavanaugh accuser who claimed the judge once exposed his genitals to her at a dormitory party, told Chris Cuomo on CNN that she and some of her fellow Yale colleagues were “extremely disappointed in Kavanaugh’s characterization of himself and the way he evaded his excessive drinking questions.

“There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale he was a big partier, often drank to excess,” she said.

“And there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember. In fact, I was witness to the night that he got tapped into that fraternity, and he was stumbling drunk in a ridiculous costume saying really dumb things. And I can almost guarantee that there’s no way that he remembers that night.

“There were a lot of emails and a lot of texts flying around about how he was lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today,” Brookes continued.

Brookes also told Cuomo that she had drank to “excess many nights with Brett Kavanaugh” and spoke about a particular incident in which the Supreme Court nominee and a friend allegedly barged into a room “where a guy and girl had gone off together and embarrassed that woman.”

“They thought it was funny. The girl was mortified,” she said, before accusing Kavanaugh of “blatant lying.”

When there is so much smoke, how do you ignore it?

They need to investigate Kavanaugh's lying about his drinking.

And what he was spending all that money he owed on, and who payed his bills for him before he was nominated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once more:

No place.
No time.
No date.
Prior to yesterday, the party developed at the country club--yesterday--not sure.
Doesn't know how she got home.
Told no one until 2002.
Told only therapist and husband in 2012 and had never told anyone else--until we found out yesterday that she told others in recent years.
WAPO reported on therapist notes--but she can't remember if she shared the notes with them or just told them (@2 months ago). Funny, we did not see those notes in the evidence.# of people varied from therapist, WAPO story, and testimony.
All people named have denied any recollection. Her friend said she did not know Kavanaugh.

Lawyer issues:
Lawyers said she couldn't come when they asked because she doesn't fly. (This is a lie.)
She was not aware that the committee had suggested they would come to her --lawyers did not share this with her.
Lawyer ( a noted Dem active and resister) was recommended by Feinstein.

Biggest problem: Feinstein should have turned this over in July.
FBI could have done an investigation and not exposed Ford. They WANTED Ford to testify.

And, by the way, lots of trauma victims get confused--even about who the perp was. Sometimes, you don't want to admit it was someone you cared about.
And, she was scared --but, she was NOT raped. We don't even know if it was an attempted rape by whomever did this.

The woman is sincere and fragile. She also could be delusional. Has anyone looked into her background? Why didn't she turn over the therapist notes?

Agree--the FBI investigation should cover both Ford and Kavanaugh.

I am getting skeptical about the two doors. The permit was in 2008, not 2012. That permit included a door out of the master bedroom. This is pretty common in California if it is a sliding glass door, but not if it's an ordinary door. Friends had commented in the press about the door in her bedroom, pointing maybe to an ordinary door, which would be unusual.

Yesterday, she said two front doors. That actually makes little sense in terms of her assault story--why would another front entrance help one escape? A door in a different area of the house would make more sense, and a door out of the bedroom would make even more sense.

The only picture of her house I could find isn't that clear about the door situation. The house has an outer entrance with a very large doorway through an outer wall but no door. The gateway leads into a small outer courtyard. You can see through the large outer doorway to the front door. No second front door is in evidence, but then it wouldn't be seen because of the outer wall.

Does the house have a second front door? Is the outer gateway considered a second door? If so, why was her DH disagreeing with this? An outer courtyard is not unusual in California. Does her bedroom have a door and is it a regular door or a sliding glass door?

Finally, if the permit was made in 2008, how did an argument over residential architecture persist for four years before a couple seeks therapy to resolve?