Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What? Whose career is getting ruined, exactly? Cavanaugh has a lifetime judgeship, just not at the court he wants. You make it sound like he's about to go panhandle at the corner of 18th and K. He was fine before this nomination and he'll be fine after it. His children will retain their well fed look, I assure you.

That's what liberals tell themselves to assuage their guilt for destroying a man.

Sexual assault as a hobby => nope, no guilt about him not getting the job he applied for.

No evidence of that. That's why liberals feel guilty.....they know it. This is all about Roe v Wade.

Nah. Y'all just picked a bad one. Oh well, should've listened to McConnell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What? Whose career is getting ruined, exactly? Cavanaugh has a lifetime judgeship, just not at the court he wants. You make it sound like he's about to go panhandle at the corner of 18th and K. He was fine before this nomination and he'll be fine after it. His children will retain their well fed look, I assure you.

That's what liberals tell themselves to assuage their guilt for destroying a man.

Sexual assault as a hobby => nope, no guilt about him not getting the job he applied for.

No evidence of that. That's why liberals feel guilty.....they know it. This is all about Roe v Wade.

Again, plenty of evidence. The same kind of evidence that ultimately put Larry Nassar and Joe Paterno away.
Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make it not there.

[Anonymous]

Bottom line - even if the FBI FINDS NOTHING (but I believe they will) based on that frat bro, sophomoric, ugly teared, bombastic performance yesterday, he is not fit to be a supreme court judge let alone a traffic cop.

Or a teacher, or a basketball coach, or a reader at Blessed Sacrament.

This guy is a fraud and should be ashamed of himself.

Email from Blessed Sacrament today (Kav the choir boy's full-time church) announced a virtual town hall about the abuse and culture of secrecy that is shaking the Catholic Church. Kind of amazing timing, don't you think? BTW I am Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wouldn't it be smart for Kavanaugh to step down now? The FBI information could lead to stuff that could jeopardize his current position.


Only he knows. But I suspect so. He clearly doesn’t want an FBI investigation. If he’s going to withdraw, he better do it soon.

+1 I posted the question about what happens if the FBI finds out that he perjured himself? Can a sitting SJ go to jail for perjury? What is the ABA disbars him?

The ABA cannot disbar him so give up on that one. The ABA does not grant or deny a license to practice law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just picturing Brett Kavanaugh with a boombox standing outside Clarence Thomas's window, wearing a shirt that says I BELIEVE YOU.

Clarence Thomas replies #MeToo

[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.

No, that just means she believes what she says. It doesn't prove that she's correct. Otherwise, my neighbor can honestly think I was the one who robbed his house last night, testify to that and sound credible, and I'm convicted without evidence.

Well, if your competent and trustworthy neighbor who has socialized with you extensively says that she is 100% sure that you are the one who shoved her into a room and proceeded to grope her with your hand over her mouth in the daylight hours, she’s probably right.

Especially if you have a problem with drinking so much that it is all over your calendar!!!

[Anonymous]

I wonder if Ford is furious with the Democrats. She wanted to remain anonymous, and they leaked her letter to destroy Kavanaugh. But it's even worse. She had a chance to testify quietly, with the Republicans coming to her in a California. Instead, the Dems trotted her out to relive her experience on national TV, and her life will never be the same. It didn't have to be that way. But Dems don't care. They will bully, lie about, ridicule, or even destroy someone's reputation, whatever it takes, to see their political preferences put in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are really doubling down on how poor little Brett was affected by this. Come on guys! If that's what you're worried about, we know that means that you would never have brought May of this info forward. Ram him through, but don't pretend you ever had an open mind to believe that maybe, just maybe this guy did something so terrible and reckless, even in his youth, that would permanently disqualify him from a lifetime appointment to the SC.

Know what I think? You all are freaking terrified of what HS "hijinks" we would in your pasts if we went looking.

media will help paint him like scumbag, no worries.
has this Kav guy even worked before? He sounds like a privileged little prep boy hitting on poor defenseless girls and his whiteness got him any and all jobs he has ever had. no substance whatsoever. at least the media has told me there are any.

Like him or not, he is one of the most intelligent and accomplished people in this country. But jealous simpleton lefty hacks like you can chalk all of his success to his “whiteness.”

DP. He certainly didn't come across that way yesterday when he was going on about the Clintons and left-wing conspiracy theories, or when he repeatedly mischaracterized the statement made by Ford's friend, or when he danced around questions. Like it or not, he plays fast and loose with the facts - not something that anyone should want in a SCOTUS justice.

He really lost me there. That was ridiculous. But either that was some sort of weird shadow projection, in which he assumes that since he was so obsessed with prosecuting them people remember his major role in that (which I honestly doubt most liberals give a s*it) . . . or it was mere pandering to Trump's base and their delusions about how much Clinton love there is among the left. I think most liberals view Clinton (Bill) as a good but also in many ways problematic president, and I don't think they idolize him at all. That comment does nothing but fan the flames of the radical right. Not SJC material.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Again, plenty of evidence. The same kind of evidence that ultimately put Larry Nassar and Joe Paterno away.
Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make it not there.

Yeah, definitely the same kind of evidence:

In November 2016, Nassar was indicted on state charges of sexual assault of a child from 1998 to 2005; the crimes allegedly began when the victim was six years old.[32] Ultimately, he was charged with 22 counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with minors: fifteen in Ingham County and seven in neighboring Eaton County.

The allegations asserted that Nassar had molested seven girls under the guise that he was providing legitimate medical treatment at his home and at a clinic on the MSU campus.[33]

Nassar was arrested by the FBI in December 2016 after agents found more than 37,000 images of child pornography and a video of Nassar molesting underage girls.[34] On April 6, 2017, his medical license was revoked for three years.[35]

On July 11, 2017, Nassar pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography in 2004, possession of pornographic images of children dating from 2004 to 2016, and tampering with evidence by destroying and concealing the images. On December 7, 2017, U.S. District Judge Janet T. Neff sentenced Nassar to 60 years in federal prison.[5] If he survives that sentence, he will be on supervised release for the rest of his life.[5]

On November 22, 2017, Nassar pleaded guilty in Ingham County Circuit Court to seven counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with minors under the age of sixteen. He admitted molesting seven girls, three of whom were under the age of thirteen. On November 29, he pleaded guilty to an additional three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in Eaton County.[36] As of January 18, 2018, 135 women had accused Nassar of sexual assault while he worked for USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University.[37] During the following week, the number rose to 150.[38] In a lawsuit that was filed in April 2017, a woman claimed that Nassar had sexually assaulted her while he was still in medical school in 1992.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Nassar#Sexual_assault_accusations_and_convictions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Ford is furious with the Democrats. She wanted to remain anonymous, and they leaked her letter to destroy Kavanaugh. But it's even worse. She had a chance to testify quietly, with the Republicans coming to her in a California. Instead, the Dems trotted her out to relive her experience on national TV, and her life will never be the same. It didn't have to be that way. But Dems don't care. They will bully, lie about, ridicule, or even destroy someone's reputation, whatever it takes, to see their political preferences put in place.

I don't think so. She originally sent her letter to be heard. When she and Feinstein decided it wouldn't be influential, then they decided to let it go. Once the letter became public, then a public hearing would be the most effective way to make her voice heard, by far. Her lawyers got her exactly what she wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Ford is furious with the Democrats. She wanted to remain anonymous, and they leaked her letter to destroy Kavanaugh. But it's even worse. She had a chance to testify quietly, with the Republicans coming to her in a California. Instead, the Dems trotted her out to relive her experience on national TV, and her life will never be the same. It didn't have to be that way. But Dems don't care. They will bully, lie about, ridicule, or even destroy someone's reputation, whatever it takes, to see their political preferences put in place.

That's weird. Wouldn't she be most furious with Brett and those defending him? I think she understands that this is the nature of the political process. She didn't go to the Republicans with the information.

[Anonymous]

I for one and glad that the FBI will investigate. If they find evidence the assault occurred, he's gotta go. If not, confirm him.

[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.

No, that just means she believes what she says. It doesn't prove that she's correct. Otherwise, my neighbor can honestly think I was the one who robbed his house last night, testify to that and sound credible, and I'm convicted without evidence.

Well, if your competent and trustworthy neighbor who has socialized with you extensively says that she is 100% sure that you are the one who shoved her into a room and proceeded to grope her with your hand over her mouth in the daylight hours, she’s probably right.

Just because she says so, she's probably right? Why aren't I probably right when I say I didn't? Why believe her without any evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm just picturing Brett Kavanaugh with a boombox standing outside Clarence Thomas's window, wearing a shirt that says I BELIEVE YOU.

Clarence Thomas replies #MeToo

LOL . . . PP here. I don't know you, but if I did we would be friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, that just means she believes what she says. It doesn't prove that she's correct. Otherwise, my neighbor can honestly think I was the one who robbed his house last night, testify to that and sound credible, and I'm convicted without evidence.

Well, if your competent and trustworthy neighbor who has socialized with you extensively says that she is 100% sure that you are the one who shoved her into a room and proceeded to grope her with your hand over her mouth in the daylight hours, she’s probably right.

Especially if you have a problem with drinking so much that it is all over your calendar!!!

And he wrote on his calendar that he was visiting you that day, but he later lied and he didn't plus claimed he only makes social calls on weekends.