Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[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 institution and system is bankrupt so don't waste space here talking about "reconciliation", lol.

[Anonymous]

Party hardy! Reagan rules! Let’s go swimming and get some get some ‘skis!

[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?

All Tims who were high school age in the DC area crapping pants...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

LOL love it! Thank you! Perfect. Dr. Kavanaugh and Mr. Brett. Or whatever his nickname was in high school.

[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. "


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.

The “gang rape” is an accusation from a different party.

[Anonymous]

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

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but where is the evidence? His journal proves nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

It's very difficult to remove a lifetime judge so I do think he'll retain that. Failing that, he'll go be of counsel in some Republican-focused law firm since he will be their favorite victim. I don't see panhandling in his future.

I don't know if he's guilty or not. I do know that no one HAS to be a Supreme Court justice, and that he had to know that his past would be examined up and down. This is an exalted job. In a job interview context, a hint of a "bad fit" is enough for a hard pass. People didn't like the fact that Trump got to appoint Neil Gorsuch but the guy passed without much ado. This is a big country. Lots of lawyers. Lots of judges. They coulda picked someone less...odorous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. "


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.

The “gang rape” is an accusation from a different party.

Thank you. And how credible does his/her accusation appear to be?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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".

Did he have to answer what "skis" were? I think they were doing some early practice for ski season. Gotta keep in shape over the summer, of course!

[Anonymous]

According to several PP, doing a great job today absolves you from things done in your past. This line of thinking means that someone who was a Nazi youth who led people to their murders are actually good guys since they now live in Argentina and run a popular coffee shop that donates money to the poor. Thanks for enlightening me on your moral relativism!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The “gang rape” is an accusation from a different party.

Thank you. And how credible does his/her accusation appear to be?

Avenatti seems very confident that he has the evidence to back up the claim.

And one poster in this thread who knows her heard her discuss it (without specific names) 3 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but where is the evidence? His journal proves nothing.

And as we know, every guy who gropes and intimidates a girl writes up a detailed description. So he couldn’t have done it.

[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.

We think his entitled whine-fest yesterday made it very clear he's unfit. No use digging out more dirt, he laid it all out for us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. "


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.

The “gang rape” is an accusation from a different party.

Thank you. And how credible does his/her accusation appear to be?

Sworn statement and she has multiple security clearances. She is risking perjury and losing her security clearances. So credible, although the GOP would tell you otherwise.

[Anonymous]

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.

this, this, this.