Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.



How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.


Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.


I found her credible. I also think she is very troubled woman, based on her testimony. Even she outlined all the emotional issues she suffers from.
I think her memory from 36 years ago has failed her. Something happened, just not the way she remembers.

And, it really is incumbent upon her to prove guilt. He should have the presumption of innocence. But not in liberal world.


This is not a criminal trial. It’s a job interview. And even if he is innocent of the charge, he lied multiple times under oath. That’s enough to vote no.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.



How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.


Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.


I found her credible. I also think she is very troubled woman, based on her testimony. Even she outlined all the emotional issues she suffers from.
I think her memory from 36 years ago has failed her. Something happened, just not the way she remembers.

And, it really is incumbent upon her to prove guilt. He should have the presumption of innocence. But not in liberal world.


This is not a criminal trial. It’s a job interview. And even if he is innocent of the charge, he lied multiple times under oath. That’s enough to vote no.


Nice try, but no.
Anonymous
Wonder if Dr. Ford will be donating the $500k and growing GoFundMe money to the metoo movement?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

This is not a criminal trial. It’s a job interview. And even if he is innocent of the charge, he lied multiple times under oath. That’s enough to vote no.


Nice try, but no.


Huh? You want to put a perjurer on our supreme court?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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.



How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.


Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.


So are you saying that an allegation, even if the person making it sounds credible, is sufficient to ruin someone’s career? Do you realize what that opens the door for? She essentially has no corroborating evidence, and the people she identified as being in a position to support her accusation either denied knowledge or outright refuted it. I can’t understand how so many are willing to destroy this guy (or anyone) over an unsubstantiated allegation. I guess I do understand - you hate his politics and/or the person who nominated him.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Ford’s attorneys have issued a statement that says there should be no artificial constraints on time or scope.

Sorry, you are not members of the Senate and you don’t get to make the calls.


They are surely allowed to voice their opinions? Are you against the idea of saying no artificial constraints?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Lots of things for FBI to look into when it comes to all the false statements

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/28/brett-kavanaugh-testimony-falsehoods-character-questions-court-fbi-investigation-column/1455205002/


"Indeed, an FBI background check is standard operating procedure for reviewing allegations of misconduct against candidates for top government positions. The FBI investigated claims about John Tower’s drinking habits when the Senate was considering his nomination by President George H.W. Bush to be Secretary of Defense — and in a step Republican Senator Orrin Hatch at the time called “the very right thing to do,” the FBI also examined alleged sexual misconduct by Clarence Thomas during his Supreme Court nomination proceedings."

Any senator who opposes an FBI investigation doesn't deserve to serve on this committee. The way these senators change their tune to suit their narrative is deplorable. They have no moral compass whatsoever.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Wonder if Dr. Ford will be donating the $500k and growing GoFundMe money to the metoo movement?


She has to pay for security so some right wing idiot doesn't kill her or her kids. Remember that?
Anonymous
When will get to see teary Brett weep again? When we withdraws, or is withdrawn? When he talks of his deep love for his family and/or calendaring? When he is disbarred? When?!?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.



How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.


Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.


So are you saying that an allegation, even if the person making it sounds credible, is sufficient to ruin someone’s career? Do you realize what that opens the door for? She essentially has no corroborating evidence, and the people she identified as being in a position to support her accusation either denied knowledge or outright refuted it. I can’t understand how so many are willing to destroy this guy (or anyone) over an unsubstantiated allegation. I guess I do understand - you hate his politics and/or the person who nominated him.



Credible allegations are why Paterno, Cosby and Larry Nassar have destroyed careers and they ARE IN JAIL. They are why Matt Lauer's and Harvey Weinstein's careers are over.
YES THIS IS HOW IT WORKS.

OMG what is the solution???
don't rape people, that is the solution.

By arguing this you are saying we should let Paterno, Cosby, Nassar, Lauer and Weinstein off the hook. Is that what you want? Is Kavanaugh THAT big a deal to you?
Hell no
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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.



How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.


Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.


She sounded emotional and compelling. However, the gaps, inconsistencies and lack of corroboration are overwhelming. She suffers the most traumatic event of her life and can't recall how she got home despite being stranded miles from home in the pre-cell phone age yet specifically remembers she had a single beer? Not credible.
Anonymous
From a political standpoint, it would seem logical that Republicans would want to tank him. It would give their base a reason to come out for the mid terms. If the court is already set the base wont care. It could mean the difference between keeping and losing the Senate. Its even riskier for the Republicans to put him on from a legal standpoint. Wouldn't it be better for the Republicans to let him go, retain the Senate and pick a more upstanding conservative jurist? Even if the Republicans still lost the Senate I don't think this group would have any reservations about appointing and confirming someone as lame ducks.

I don't get why they are digging in.

From a legal standpoint what happens if the FBI finds out that Brett Kavanaugh perjured himself in his testimony or enough people come forward making statements that he lied under oath? Is the Justice department required to prosecute him for perjury? Can a supreme court justice be sent to jail? What if the ABA disbars him? Can a sitting SJ remain on the court if he's been disbarred for perjuring himself during the nomination period?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.



How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.


Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.


She sounded emotional and compelling. However, the gaps, inconsistencies and lack of corroboration are overwhelming. She suffers the most traumatic event of her life and can't recall how she got home despite being stranded miles from home in the pre-cell phone age yet specifically remembers she had a single beer? Not credible.



Yes, this is how trauma works. Have you not been paying attention?!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.



How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.


Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.


I found her credible. I also think she is very troubled woman, based on her testimony. Even she outlined all the emotional issues she suffers from.
I think her memory from 36 years ago has failed her. Something happened, just not the way she remembers.

And, it really is incumbent upon her to prove guilt. He should have the presumption of innocence. But not in liberal world.


This makes sense. She was a victim and her memory failed her. Much more sense than the raging drunk belligerent entitled frat boy asshole raped her and doesn't remember.
Yep
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:NARAL is already tweeting that even if the FBI clears him, he's guilty and unfit. Sigh.


Of course. They’re about as partisan as they come.
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: