Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I saw an claim elsewhere that skis mean cocaine, for the lines that are sniffed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a little scary that those women were able to harass Flake in an elevator. He didn’t sexually assault anyone. Where was security? They should seek therapy and protest through legal channels rather than harassing and cornering an innocent man in an elevator. Excuse me if I don’t think that these bullies were heroes. And BTW, I say this as a sexual assault victim.

They didn’t harass him!!! We still live in a world where we can speak to our elected officials!! Giving your opinion to an elected official is actually a part of the franchise of democracy!

You must be joking. This woman and her minions got up in Flake's face, *screaming* at him. They absolutely harassed him and I can't believe people like that are allowed in the building, much less allowed to approach lawmakers in that way. Plenty of guards were just standing around and no one pulled her away from Flake. What a lunatic. If she wanted to "speak" to her elected officials, she should have done so respectfully. But she didn't even come close.

Did Kavanaugh speak to elected representatives respectfully yesterday? Nope.

If you accused ME of doing what he’s been accused of doing...and then I had to sit down in front of a room full of people who had just finished telling my accuser “I believe you” without hearing me emphatically deny the accusations first, I think “respectful” would be a pretty difficult time for me to strike.

That is funny because many people go to court EVERY DAY to defend themselves - actual court where the stakes are million times higher than he faced here. Not getting his dream job??? Sorry, no. How about people facing the death penalty, life in prison, losing custody of their kids? Any defendant would be thrown out of court for contempt if they did what he did, and as a judge, he knows it.

Don't fall for the faux outrage.

1-it’s not a trial but he IS being accused of a very serious crime so expecting him to not be irritated and be respectful to the nastiness of the senators who are taking the accusation as gospel is ridiculous. Further, the case would never actually make it to trial bc no time/place/witnesses/evidence make it an impossible case for any prosecutor to try! Bc you know...that silly burden of proof thing and all)....but 2)—IF it did go to trial he would be able to be calm to the jury bc jury would not have cheered on the accuser with accolades and affirmations of “I believe YOU!” Prior to defendant being called to the stand to testify.
You are the one who (erroneously) compared this to a trial.
It was not. It was a disgusting, political circus!

Let's please stop talking about him like it's your five year old at the end of a long day, who is mad because you're asking him to tell the truth about taking his brother's toy away. This is a grown man. You don't get that far in life if you can't control yourself in situations where you have to do your job. He prepared all week for four hours of "testimony." Yes, we do expect him to maintain a professional and calm demeanor, answer the questions, and submit to the process of vetting that Americans require as part of assuming a lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court.

[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.

It's the journal he presented as evidence to prove the party that Dr. Ford described never happened. Except the journal shows it DID happen. Contemporaneous notes are evidence, especially when the notes are your own.

At a minimum, it's proof of perjury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read on twitter (fwiw) that that statement is the one that shook murkowski to have serious doubts about pushing him through without a FBI investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I saw an claim elsewhere that skis mean cocaine, for the lines that are sniffed.

I thought he testified it referred to beers.

[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!

Not a chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I saw an claim elsewhere that skis mean cocaine, for the lines that are sniffed.

I thought he testified it referred to beers.

I’m sure he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous 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?

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

I do t follow. I thought the last name was provided. Not sure.

[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.

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?

Huh, you even bolded it but you apparently didn't read it. It might not be reasonable to remove him from his current job, which by most accounts he does well, if he was sexually aggressive with someone when he was 17. Might. It's worth discussing. Do we believe people can change? Do we not? Are there some actions which we will not forgive, period, and people who engage in them should never be allowed particular jobs, or any job?

In any case, reading is fundamental.

[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.

And what of buddy Rich Madaleno?

[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.

this, this, this.

If you raped someone in high school, you should be in jail. ( Some states have a SOL on sexual assault for crimes committed when the victim was an adult, some do not. )

This was not drinking or shoplifting, or getting in a fist fight. This wasn't stealing the rival school's mascot. Stop acting like sexual assault isn't a BFD. It is.

[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.

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

Of course Catholics can be critical thinkers. After all look how many are on the Supreme Court. And I have no doubt some Catholics are disgusted. But the pp is clearly not doing any critical thinking in her/his post and I don’t think you are either. No decent person, let alone someone who wants us all to know she’s Catholic, would be so gleeful about any of this.

[Anonymous]

serious question for those who oppose BK because of the allegations (i.e., you'd support him even if you disagree with his judicial philosophy because he's qualified by the usual SCOTUS standards we've used, arguendo):

how much evidence should those accusing BK of rape have to provide to ruin his reputation and ruin his chances of moving to SCOTUS?

do you believe that BK must prove he's innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?

if it didn't happen, how would you propose BK prove this sufficiently to you?

finally, do you worry about moving toward a presumption of guilt standard in the political arena? And should this standard be applied equally regardless of whether someone is pro-Roe or anti-Roe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

I saw an claim elsewhere that skis mean cocaine, for the lines that are sniffed.

I thought he testified it referred to beers.

Cocaine is listed here “Ski equipment”, but could be short for brewskis too.

https://ndews.umd.edu/sites/ndews.umd.edu/files/dea-drug-slang-code-words-may2017.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's the journal he presented as evidence to prove the party that Dr. Ford described never happened. Except the journal shows it DID happen. Contemporaneous notes are evidence, especially when the notes are your own.

At a minimum, it's proof of perjury.

I fully agree the July 1 event is potentially key. But your statement goes too far. It does not prove that. And it does not show the event at issue DID (your word) hapoen. Surely,the agents will take an extremely close look at this. It’s a big clue.