Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don't understand is this. Surely we want the best possible people in leadership positions, not average people. A great man keeps his cool when all around him are losing them. So, the fact that you or I would become very emotional if accused of something horrible is not relevant, or just shows that we are not cut out to be a great leader.

Maybe I am an elitist, but I don't think average people should lead our government.

(and ya, the Clintons, one of whom is arguably not qualified to lead our country for other reasons, at least kept their cool when accused of organizing the rape of children and murdering Vince Foster. Makes me long for Obama. He always kept his cool and was a good man. He was accused of being born abroad on completely spurious grounds, but kept his cool. Not quite the same as rape, but still very frustrating. )

He was also accused of being a Muslim terrorist. Never sweated through his tan suit. Just sayin...

"Barack Obama was born in Kenya, or maybe not, because his father is actually an American Communist. Also, he’s gay, and maybe he was married to his roommate, and his wedding ring proves that he’s a Muslim. And there’s something suspicious in his college records. Plus, he once almost got divorced from Michelle."

And, you know, stuff about FEMA death camps.

Republicans can dish it out, but can't take it. Weak. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serena Williams is being held to a higher standard that Judge Kavanaugh.

100%

[Anonymous]

First time the Washington Post has opposed a supreme court nominee since 1987

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/23495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.f8c5a947bed4

[Anonymous]

Chuck Grassley: FBI 302s indicate other witnesses were pressured to lie to corroborate accusations.

Maybe this is the reason for this paragraph in his letter to Ford’s lawyers........

"I urge you once again, now for the third time in writing, to turn over the therapy notes, polygraph materials, and communications with The Washington Post that Dr. Ford has relied upon as evidence. In addition to the evidence I requested in my October 2 letter, in light of recently uncovered information, please turn over records and descriptions of direct or indirect communications between Dr. Ford or her representatives and any of the following: (1) U.S. Senators or their staffs, particularly the offices of Senators Feinstein and Hirono, other than your communications with me and my staff in preparation for the September 27 hearing; (2) the alleged witnesses identified by Dr. Ford (Leland Keyser, Mark Judge, and Patrick “P.J.” Smyth); and (3) Debbie Ramirez, Julie Swetnick, or their representatives.”

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/release...ut-never-provided-to-committee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford’s lawyers did her no favors refusing to supply her therapy notes, polygraph tests etc.

She agreed to supply those to the FBI, not the Senate, which is selectively leaking information. FBI chose not to accept her offer.

Do you have a cite for this? People send things like this to the FBI all the time and it would be unusual for them not to accept.

There have been over 100 news articles in the past 3 days about people who have been trying to get interviewed by the FBI over Kavanaugh. The FBI was instructed to limit the interviews to a select group of people. If you don't know this, then you are not getting your news from reliable sources.

Limited interviews--yes. But they were not instructed to limit receipt of written information.

The FBI would literally not accept information people were trying to drop at field offices. So, you are wrong.

Did someone outside the FBI instruct them to not accept or was this an internal FBI decision to avoid being deluged by a mountain of paper?

The White House controls the investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serena Williams is being held to a higher standard that Judge Kavanaugh.

100%

Thread is officially off the rails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First time the Washington Post has opposed a supreme court nominee since 1987

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/23495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.f8c5a947bed4

Newspapers have no business in either supporting or opposing SCOTUS nominees.
Newspapers should be reporting the news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford’s lawyers did her no favors refusing to supply her therapy notes, polygraph tests etc.

She agreed to supply those to the FBI, not the Senate, which is selectively leaking information. FBI chose not to accept her offer.

Do you have a cite for this? People send things like this to the FBI all the time and it would be unusual for them not to accept.

There have been over 100 news articles in the past 3 days about people who have been trying to get interviewed by the FBI over Kavanaugh. The FBI was instructed to limit the interviews to a select group of people. If you don't know this, then you are not getting your news from reliable sources.

Limited interviews--yes. But they were not instructed to limit receipt of written information.

The FBI would literally not accept information people were trying to drop at field offices. So, you are wrong.

Did someone outside the FBI instruct them to not accept or was this an internal FBI decision to avoid being deluged by a mountain of paper?

The White House controls the investigation.

No, it doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford’s lawyers did her no favors refusing to supply her therapy notes, polygraph tests etc.

She agreed to supply those to the FBI, not the Senate, which is selectively leaking information. FBI chose not to accept her offer.

Do you have a cite for this? People send things like this to the FBI all the time and it would be unusual for them not to accept.

There have been over 100 news articles in the past 3 days about people who have been trying to get interviewed by the FBI over Kavanaugh. The FBI was instructed to limit the interviews to a select group of people. If you don't know this, then you are not getting your news from reliable sources.

I clearly was not talking about interviews but about receipt of documents from relevant people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BK is obviously not suitable for the supreme court

The question is only.. how low will the senators go? Will they preserve the legitimacy of the supreme court or will they turn it into another partisan and untrustworthy branch of government?

Yeah because that didn't happen in 1987?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we truly believe the Supreme Court should be above politics and not subject to public whims, campaigning for the position should be disqualifying.

Up until now, it was

Good try but no. How about the three interviews RBG gave in July 2016, including with the NYT and CNN, disparaging Trump?

I’m a huge RBG fan, but that was bad. Full stop. If she was on a lower court, she would (and should) have been censured. If she had a nomination pending, it would have been pulled. And it was stupid for such a sharp woman. People will call on her to recuse from Trump related litigation. It’s going to continue to be an issue. And it will be bad for the Court. I really wish she hadn’t done that.

I will say it is a different situation. RBG is famous for having a good relationship with Republicans, including her BFF Scalia. She doesn’t have a problem with “conservatives” or “Republicans” she has a problem with one person. And her judicial temperament isn’t an issue. She kept her cool on the bench through two bouts of cancer and the death of her husband.

She was wrong. But two wrongs don’t make a right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First time the Washington Post has opposed a supreme court nominee since 1987

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/23495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.f8c5a947bed4

This says more about Washington Post than it does about Kavanaugh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First time the Washington Post has opposed a supreme court nominee since 1987

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/23495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.f8c5a947bed4

Newspapers have no business in either supporting or opposing SCOTUS nominees.
Newspapers should be reporting the news.

Editorial pages are there for expressing views of the editors. This is a long established practice. Fine if they take a stand on any nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First time the Washington Post has opposed a supreme court nominee since 1987

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/23495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.f8c5a947bed4

Newspapers have no business in either supporting or opposing SCOTUS nominees.
Newspapers should be reporting the news.

Kavanaugh supporters have a new line of attack -- editorial boards shouldn't exist!

[Anonymous]

It’s right out of the play book. Make false and and outrageous accusations then stand back when the person defends themselves and say : I’m calm you’re not.