Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d love for the FBI to figure out where Timmy’s house was, since the gathering on July 1 sure sounds a lot like what Dr Ford describes, and it’s 6-8 weeks before the time Judge has been shown to be working at Safeway where she saw him.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-is-pressed-key-july-entry-his-calendar-only-point/

I would also like to follow this string of thought. Where is the overlap between this calendar item and her notes? I haven’t been hoarding details as much as others here so, detailed people..put this together.

[Anonymous]

I’m not against an FBI invest. But I’m confused on a few points
-I thought they, the FBI, had considered and decided no. I brought this up yesterday but it got lost in the massive Part 2 thread.
-as I’ve heard legal experts suggest (liberal ones too!), the FBI doesn’t judge on the matter. You will still have 98% probability that no conclusion will be made. The 2% chance is worth it I suppose but as I heard someone on LRC put it, the FBI isn’t “magical.”
-what is their exact jurisdiction on this? In the way they investigate cases, they don’t usually take on 35yo cases in which no charges were filed. (Educate me here)

[Anonymous]

I will again draw everyone's attention to the date of July 1st, When Kavanaugh was out drinking at Timmy's house with Judge, PJ, Tom, Bernie and "Squi". Time, place and date--it's right there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will again draw everyone's attention to the date of July 1st, When Kavanaugh was out drinking at Timmy's house with Judge, PJ, Tom, Bernie and "Squi". Time, place and date--it's right there!

Let’s try to put this list of people, and the list of CBF’s people together in this house. (I mean, not constructing from thin air but from what both sides have said). Any friend connections between one group and the other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lies:

-4 letters exonerate him
-devils traingle
-boofing
-legal drinking age
-Renete Alumni
-He claims to have not watched Dr. Ford

What else?

Lying about the stolen memos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not against an FBI invest. But I’m confused on a few points
-I thought they, the FBI, had considered and decided no. I brought this up yesterday but it got lost in the massive Part 2 thread.
-as I’ve heard legal experts suggest (liberal ones too!), the FBI doesn’t judge on the matter. You will still have 98% probability that no conclusion will be made. The 2% chance is worth it I suppose but as I heard someone on LRC put it, the FBI isn’t “magical.”
-what is their exact jurisdiction on this? In the way they investigate cases, they don’t usually take on 35yo cases in which no charges were filed. (Educate me here)

The FBI wasn't asked after these allegations were made and (like in the Anita Hill case asked by Pres Bush) they would conduct an investigation if the president asked
They don't reach conclusions but would corroborate or refute what the allegations are... adding proof to her case or not, which would help Senators decide which way to vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not against an FBI invest. But I’m confused on a few points
-I thought they, the FBI, had considered and decided no. I brought this up yesterday but it got lost in the massive Part 2 thread.
-as I’ve heard legal experts suggest (liberal ones too!), the FBI doesn’t judge on the matter. You will still have 98% probability that no conclusion will be made. The 2% chance is worth it I suppose but as I heard someone on LRC put it, the FBI isn’t “magical.”
-what is their exact jurisdiction on this? In the way they investigate cases, they don’t usually take on 35yo cases in which no charges were filed. (Educate me here)

I don’t know but the main goal of involving the FBI is they can subpoena Mark Judge, Leland Keyser, PJ, the polygrapher, etc. They can be questioned and cross examined.

[Anonymous]

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lies:

-4 letters exonerate him
-devils traingle
-boofing
-legal drinking age
-Renete Alumni
-He claims to have not watched Dr. Ford

What else?

I don’t have a dog in this specific fight ... I just want to remove legal drinking age from your list.
First, he was never talking about himself. He had in mind older classmates. Go back and read it
Second, he never said he drank legally (I mean, one day at age 21 he did.). Many times he said/implied that he drank at age 17. He wasn’t trying to hide anything.

Y'all young uns need to remember that when the drinking age was 18 that just meant is was that much easier for any high school party to be full of alcoholic beverages. All it took was one HS senior to be 18 in order to fully stock any party.
Kavanaugh most likely was drinking under age but that's more equivalent to a 20 year old drinking now.

Not excusing him, just a clarification from someone who graduated HS in 1982 and college in 1986. Personally I thought his behavior in the second half of his testimony was that of a functional alcoholic. Angry and belligerent. I've been very close to a few functional alcoholics during my lifetime and last night I realized why his behavior was so familiar. I expected that during his personal statement NOT during the questioning.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s misplaced to accuse posters on here of hating Kavanaugh because they don’t find him credible or think his temperament is fitting. The fact of the matter is that this SCOTUS spot is going to a conservative. Accusing people of being partisan, like Kavanaugh did, is an easy way for conservatives to stick their head in the sand about their guy. The White House could’ve chosen any number of highly-respected, qualified justists. They chose him and then, along with the GOP, doubled down on him without so much as a proper investigation when these allegations surfaced. Even now, despite Dr Ford’s credible testimony and Kavanaugh’s evasive answers and defensive responses, they are still backing him. Many of us are simply saying “NOT him. Not this guy, not for this role.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lies:

-4 letters exonerate him
-devils traingle
-boofing
-legal drinking age
-Renete Alumni
-He claims to have not watched Dr. Ford

What else?

Sure. You know these things. You are revealing yourself to be someone who lives by emotion and not facts.
Just because YOU don’t believe him, these are all lies. Sure.

Dp, but these are all easily proven lies he told yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Who does have the power to open an FBI investigation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s misplaced to accuse posters on here of hating Kavanaugh because they don’t find him credible or think his temperament is fitting. The fact of the matter is that this SCOTUS spot is going to a conservative. Accusing people of being partisan, like Kavanaugh did, is an easy way for conservatives to stick their head in the sand about their guy. The White House could’ve chosen any number of highly-respected, qualified justists. They chose him and then, along with the GOP, doubled down on him without so much as a proper investigation when these allegations surfaced. Even now, despite Dr Ford’s credible testimony and Kavanaugh’s evasive answers and defensive responses, they are still backing him. Many of us are simply saying “NOT him. Not this guy, not for this role.”

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s misplaced to accuse posters on here of hating Kavanaugh because they don’t find him credible or think his temperament is fitting. The fact of the matter is that this SCOTUS spot is going to a conservative. Accusing people of being partisan, like Kavanaugh did, is an easy way for conservatives to stick their head in the sand about their guy. The White House could’ve chosen any number of highly-respected, qualified justists. They chose him and then, along with the GOP, doubled down on him without so much as a proper investigation when these allegations surfaced. Even now, despite Dr Ford’s credible testimony and Kavanaugh’s evasive answers and defensive responses, they are still backing him. Many of us are simply saying “NOT him. Not this guy, not for this role.”

He acts as if he is entitled to it and to tell lies to pesky questions to get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s misplaced to accuse posters on here of hating Kavanaugh because they don’t find him credible or think his temperament is fitting. The fact of the matter is that this SCOTUS spot is going to a conservative. Accusing people of being partisan, like Kavanaugh did, is an easy way for conservatives to stick their head in the sand about their guy. The White House could’ve chosen any number of highly-respected, qualified justists. They chose him and then, along with the GOP, doubled down on him without so much as a proper investigation when these allegations surfaced. Even now, despite Dr Ford’s credible testimony and Kavanaugh’s evasive answers and defensive responses, they are still backing him. Many of us are simply saying “NOT him. Not this guy, not for this role.”

This! It isn’t a question of like or hate. It’s a question of morals and ethics.