Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[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.

Ugh, for the last time, forget it!

Graham kept her from getting the FBI investigation where her claims would be investigated by nonpartisan trained investigators in a confidential way. That was STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE for every past nominee where something questionable came up. The GOP screwed her. You are saying, she should have just whispered in Graham's ear and he would have looked in to it. Give it up.

[Anonymous]

Liberals have turned the entire idea of presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise on its head. Apparently, people are presumed guilty.....if it's politically convenient. Evidence not required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ugh, for the last time, forget it!

Graham kept her from getting the FBI investigation where her claims would be investigated by nonpartisan trained investigators in a confidential way. That was STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE for every past nominee where something questionable came up. The GOP screwed her. You are saying, she should have just whispered in Graham's ear and he would have looked in to it. Give it up.

Feinstein had an obligation to either the background investigators and/or the committee of the allegations which would have allowed them to do what they always do when there are sensitive allegations involving a nominee: quietly and confidentially investigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals have turned the entire idea of presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise on its head. Apparently, people are presumed guilty.....if it's politically convenient. Evidence not required.

That, and women should be believed at all costs. If they say they were assaulted, they were. Absolutely. 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ugh, for the last time, forget it!

Graham kept her from getting the FBI investigation where her claims would be investigated by nonpartisan trained investigators in a confidential way. That was STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE for every past nominee where something questionable came up. The GOP screwed her. You are saying, she should have just whispered in Graham's ear and he would have looked in to it. Give it up.

Feinstein had an obligation to either the background investigators and/or the committee of the allegations which would have allowed them to do what they always do when there are sensitive allegations involving a nominee: quietly and confidentially investigate.

Feinstein had an obligation to inform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ugh, for the last time, forget it!

Graham kept her from getting the FBI investigation where her claims would be investigated by nonpartisan trained investigators in a confidential way. That was STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE for every past nominee where something questionable came up. The GOP screwed her. You are saying, she should have just whispered in Graham's ear and he would have looked in to it. Give it up.

Do you think you are talking to a single conservative? What's the "for the last time" crap?

She did NOT want to be known. She was outed. Long before any talk of another FBI investigation arose. The despicable Democrats didn't care about this woman. She was a means to an end, and that's all.

And the FBI investigation was only about delay.....delay......delay. They need more time to dredge up liberal martyrs. Expect a ton of false accusations to come out in the next week.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals have turned the entire idea of presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise on its head. Apparently, people are presumed guilty.....if it's politically convenient. Evidence not required.

This is really rich coming from a group that launched countless investigations into Hillary Clinton that came up empty, but still went around shouting "lock her up". Your Dear Leader is a man who once took out a full page ad in the New York Times calling for the death sentence for a group of young men who were later found innocent. Your commitment to a presumption of innocence is well known.

[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.

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?

Question is...why would neighbor say it if it weren’t true. Just messing with you? Decided to create drama and picked you (and not the other 8 neighbors)? Bored?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Cute! Do you really think they will do away with Roe v. Wade? What would mobilize Republicans to vote? What could they possibly use to generate the money they make from angry conservatives? Same with gun rights! They always have to paint Liberals as foaming at the mouth to take all guns away from conservatives. This is how they get you to the polls to vote and send them what little money you have left to them. They are not rescinding Roe v Wade. Racism, while attractive, doesn't generate the cash like Roe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Thank you proving my point! Originally there were only the allegations. The victims statements were considered evidence. Then they investigated. THEN he was tried and went to jail. Brett Kavanaugh was not at risk of jail, this was to see if he should move from one cushy federal judgeship that is a lifetime appt to his dream job. In this we got the victim statements and his own calendar that corroborates. Now is the time for the INVESTIGATION BY PROFESSIONALS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ugh, for the last time, forget it!

Graham kept her from getting the FBI investigation where her claims would be investigated by nonpartisan trained investigators in a confidential way. That was STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE for every past nominee where something questionable came up. The GOP screwed her. You are saying, she should have just whispered in Graham's ear and he would have looked in to it. Give it up.

Do you think you are talking to a single conservative? What's the "for the last time" crap?

She did NOT want to be known. She was outed. Long before any talk of another FBI investigation arose. The despicable Democrats didn't care about this woman. She was a means to an end, and that's all.

And the FBI investigation was only about delay.....delay......delay. They need more time to dredge up liberal martyrs. Expect a ton of false accusations to come out in the next week.

DP. Flake is a Democrat now? Murkowski is?

[Anonymous]

This ballgame turns on what Garrett will or won’t say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals have turned the entire idea of presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise on its head. Apparently, people are presumed guilty.....if it's politically convenient. Evidence not required.

Not a liberal here but, I didn’t think this was a crimina trial where there is a presumption of innocence. I thought it was a hearing as part of a process to determine if the candidate shows himself worthy of a lifetime appointment to the highest court. A mind we want deciding our biggest legal issues with intellect and professional, honest demeanor. Anyone who expected firm evidence of guilt or innocence was bound to be disappointed unless their mind was already made up.

[Anonymous]

There has to be someone on this blog who went to high school with Dr. Ford. Interested in her personality and what she was like in high school? If Judge Kavanaugh’s career and reputation are on the line because of what he did in high school (sorry can’t convince me he raped anyone, referring to drinking) then shouldn’t we evaluate Dr. Ford’s high school experience reputation too? I thought her testimony was compelling but I don’t know her nor do I know anyone who does. I do however know a few who went to high school with Judge Kavanaugh and have spoken very highly of him, even liberals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This ballgame turns on what Garrett will or won’t say.

Garrett? Not Judge? Or Rasor, or Swetnick, or even Brookes?