Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Nope. Garrett. This is all about the July 1 calendar entry now.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

The analogy only applies if I am running for the homeowners association and want to put forward policies or requirements she disagrees with and will do whatever it takes (to quote Schumer) to see I don't get a spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Nope. Garrett. This is all about the July 1 calendar entry now.

Squi's staying mum! He needs the cash he got!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

Let me throw a little knowledge on you ladies. Whether or not you agree that this a job interview, which it ultimately is - like any other Senate confirmation - this is NOT a criminal trial or even a civil trial. The rhetoric of presumed guilty just makes you look partisan.

Second, based on myriad crime data in the U.S., UK, and Australia, false reporting of sexual assault occurs approximately 2-6% of the time, very similar to other crimes. There is no other crime where accusers are so doubted, thus the push to believe victims were abused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

If you truly are Catholic then I suggest you go to reconciliation because no decent person, let alone a decent Catholic, would talk about anyone the way you just did. You need to examine your conscience.

[Anonymous]

And don’t forget about the whole Whelan thing. That’ll get looped back in.

[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.

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.

First of all you're mixing up Joe Paterno and Sandusky
Second off, I hope if you believe the bolded part is true in comparison to Ford's evidence on BK, you never get to serve on a jury

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

Let me throw a little knowledge on you ladies. Whether or not you agree that this a job interview, which it ultimately is - like any other Senate confirmation - this is NOT a criminal trial or even a civil trial. The rhetoric of presumed guilty just makes you look partisan.

Second, based on myriad crime data in the U.S., UK, and Australia, false reporting of sexual assault occurs approximately 2-6% of the time, very similar to other crimes. There is no other crime where accusers are so doubted, thus the push to believe victims were abused.

It’s more than a job interview, bot.

[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?

Yes, I would say in the above scenario, where your competent and trustworthy neighbor who knows you HONESTLY THINKS (not my words) that you are the one that she clearly saw on top of you, groping her while your other known neighbor, who she can also identify, was egging you on, she’s probably right. Her accounting of the event IS evidence, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

Let me throw a little knowledge on you ladies. Whether or not you agree that this a job interview, which it ultimately is - like any other Senate confirmation - this is NOT a criminal trial or even a civil trial. The rhetoric of presumed guilty just makes you look partisan.

Second, based on myriad crime data in the U.S., UK, and Australia, false reporting of sexual assault occurs approximately 2-6% of the time, very similar to other crimes. There is no other crime where accusers are so doubted, thus the push to believe victims were abused.

It’s more than a job interview, bot.

Please elaborate. And did you just call me a bot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Nope. Garrett. This is all about the July 1 calendar entry now.

Squi's staying mum! He needs the cash he got!

They went to Timmy's house on July 1? Any idea where Timmy's house was?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

Let me throw a little knowledge on you ladies. Whether or not you agree that this a job interview, which it ultimately is - like any other Senate confirmation - this is NOT a criminal trial or even a civil trial. The rhetoric of presumed guilty just makes you look partisan.

Second, based on myriad crime data in the U.S., UK, and Australia, false reporting of sexual assault occurs approximately 2-6% of the time, very similar to other crimes. There is no other crime where accusers are so doubted, thus the push to believe victims were abused.

It’s more than a job interview, bot.

DP. No it's not. It's not a civil or criminal trial. It's a job interview.

Or do you mean that he's a stand--in for every put-upon American Everyman who is terrified of this unfair MeToo movement? Of course he's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If you truly are Catholic then I suggest you go to reconciliation because no decent person, let alone a decent Catholic, would talk about anyone the way you just did. You need to examine your conscience.

That's funny because all the Catholics I know are disgusted by Kavanaugh's posturing.
Catholics can be critical thinkers, you know!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It seems like just yesterday that posters were calling me an idiot because I wanted the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh. I was being told that I didn't understand how things work and that the FBI would never investigate this because the alleged assault didn't occur on federal property and neither the alleged victim or perpetrator were federal employees.

In fact, when I wrote this post which predicted exactly the type of hearing that was eventually held:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/753686.page

I was repeatedly told that I the FBI could not investigate and given a bunch of different reasons why not. I'm ashamed of my ignorance.

To be fair, it's not an investigation in the way that people tend to think about criminal FBI investigations. It's a background investigation in which the FBI will take statements from individuals and present them to the Senate. They don't come to a conclusion. An FBI criminal investigation is predicated on a federal criminal act the FBI concludes has taken place that the FBI is attempting to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with supporting evidence that is presented to a prosecutor.

I think that is all most people expected. The precedents were Thomas and Tower. Those were background investigations as well.

And if they find nothing, will you accept it?

I would have if they had done it before we saw he is a deeply disturbing person. I wouldn't want to live on his street, let alone have him be a SCJ. In trying to use Trump's approach, he came across as unfit for any job involving humans or animals.

He was ragey and hysterical. Maybe man PMS of some kind. Some kind of aging T issue, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Nope. Garrett. This is all about the July 1 calendar entry now.

Squi's staying mum! He needs the cash he got!

They went to Timmy's house on July 1? Any idea where Timmy's house was?

The FBI will find out. Unleash the hounds!