Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So true. And the worst thing is that certain elements of the Blessed Sacrament community have started referring to "Coach K" as "Coach Rapey." How cruel!

[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.

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.

Curious how you know what she wanted? And why would she want that?

I'm inferring from statements made by Feinstein and her office. She didn't tell me, if that's what you're wondering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Is that a sad penis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that when 5/6 of the main news networks run stories floating the idea of gang rapes by a nominee to a marginally attentive public that the nominee's "approval" drops. Just astounding.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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?

Rockville. Eleven miles from Columbia Country Club.

Was that the get together people have said was the closest to resembling Ford's allegation?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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?

Rockville. Eleven miles from Columbia Country Club.

Was that the get together people have said was the closest to resembling Ford's allegation?

Yes, that is the July 1 meeting for "skis".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Is that a sad penis?

Come on, PP! We're having a serious discussion over here.
Step away from the beer, you don't want to do a Brett. Or Kavanaugh yourself. Which has a better ring to it?
Or maybe it should be Dr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Brett?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really think it’s dangerous for his mental stability if he doesn’t.

Oh FFS. He is perfectly stable and you know it.
Now if you want to talk about Dr Ford’s mental stability......

He was ranting. Raving. Evaded questions. She did none of that.

You’re a liar.

I suspect if you had the heinous false allegations brought against you, your demeanor would be quite different than your usual “pleasant” self. He was defending his name, his integrity and his livelihood. I thought he should restraint, given the circumstances.

What livelihood? He has a lifetime judgeship, which he is in no danger of losing. You make it sound like he's about to go on food stamps.

[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.

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.

He sounded vengeful. "goes around comes around"? what about applying the law?

[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.

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.

OK, then please, explain. In what way is his career ruined? Is he losing his lifetime judgeship?

In what way is he destroyed? Is he losing his job? His house? His family? His legs or arms? His freedom? His friends? The worst that could happen to him is that he won't get a Supreme Court seat. If this is your definition of destruction then virtually everyone in this country has been destroyed. Since so few people get to sit on the highest court of the land.

You know who is destroyed? That guy in Syria who lost his infant twins, wife and house in the chemical attack. That's the picture of a life destroyed.

Kavanaugh? Nah. He'll be fine.

Why do you assume that people will stop at preventing him from being on the Supreme Court?
There have already been calls to try and remove him from the court of appeals: https://now.org/media-center/press-release/brett-kavanaugh-should-be-removed-from-the-bench/

So no, the "worst that could happen" isn't just not getting to be a Supreme Court Justice.

And, if you think he's guilty, and if you think he knows he's guilty, then this is reasonable. Not just because of what he did - we might be able to excuse a teenager's brutish behavior from way-back-when - but because he lied about it, which indicates a lack of remorse as an adult that makes him unfit to judge others.

But if you think he's guilty, but doesn't know he's guilty because he was black out drunk or whatever your preferred scenario is, then this might not be reasonable. If we start going after all of us middle aged people for the stuff we got away with (remembered or not) in our youth, even if we perform our current functions well and seem like perfectly reasonable people, we're going to have quite a line at the guillotine.

And if you think he's not guilty, then it's not even remotely reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I really think it’s dangerous for his mental stability if he doesn’t.

Oh FFS. He is perfectly stable and you know it.
Now if you want to talk about Dr Ford’s mental stability......

He was ranting. Raving. Evaded questions. She did none of that.

You’re a liar.

I suspect if you had the heinous false allegations brought against you, your demeanor would be quite different than your usual “pleasant” self. He was defending his name, his integrity and his livelihood. I thought he should restraint, given the circumstances.

His go fund me,if it comes to that, would turn out fine. I’m not making light of it.

What livelihood? He has a lifetime judgeship, which he is in no danger of losing. You make it sound like he's about to go on food stamps.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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?

Rockville. Eleven miles from Columbia Country Club.

Then Timmy's house is not it. I believe Timmy's father was training them lifting weights. So they went to Timmy's house lifting weights on July 1st.

It's possible they went somewhere near the country club after the training. But that would have been late, probably after 8. Christine attended a party that late?

[Anonymous]

"I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that when 5/6 of the main news networks run stories floating the idea of gang rapes by a nominee to a marginally attentive public that the nominee's "approval" drops. Just astounding. "


I haven't been following this closely, but I thought the allegation was that he lay on top of her fully clothed? How does that translate to "gang rape" do tell? Much ado about nothing it appears.

[Anonymous]

I think he is a liar and a sexual predator, and he needs to be removed from the judiciary entirely.

[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.

OK, then please, explain. In what way is his career ruined? Is he losing his lifetime judgeship?

In what way is he destroyed? Is he losing his job? His house? His family? His legs or arms? His freedom? His friends? The worst that could happen to him is that he won't get a Supreme Court seat. If this is your definition of destruction then virtually everyone in this country has been destroyed. Since so few people get to sit on the highest court of the land.

You know who is destroyed? That guy in Syria who lost his infant twins, wife and house in the chemical attack. That's the picture of a life destroyed.

Kavanaugh? Nah. He'll be fine.

Why do you assume that people will stop at preventing him from being on the Supreme Court?
There have already been calls to try and remove him from the court of appeals: https://now.org/media-center/press-release/brett-kavanaugh-should-be-removed-from-the-bench/

So no, the "worst that could happen" isn't just not getting to be a Supreme Court Justice.

And, if you think he's guilty, and if you think he knows he's guilty, then this is reasonable. Not just because of what he did - we might be able to excuse a teenager's brutish behavior from way-back-when - but because he lied about it, which indicates a lack of remorse as an adult that makes him unfit to judge others.

But if you think he's guilty, but doesn't know he's guilty because he was black out drunk or whatever your preferred scenario is, then this might not be reasonable. If we start going after all of us middle aged people for the stuff we got away with (remembered or not) in our youth, even if we perform our current functions well and seem like perfectly reasonable people, we're going to have quite a line at the guillotine.

And if you think he's not guilty, then it's not even remotely reasonable.

Holy moly. So if he sexually molested a four year old and was black out drunk - you give him a pass since he doesn't remember? Or is a 15 year old just less worthy of justice since it causes you less outrage?