Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They could have picked someone else. But he'd passed a ton of checks in the past. This was unexpected.

Maybe he would be able to land on his feet if he lost his current job. I don't know. I think it's wrong to assume that his current job is safe. People are riled up, and Kavanaugh is kind of a perfect target. He's a white man, prep school kid, drinking sporty party guy, seriously privileged, and a catholic. Is there anything about him that's not practically perfect for taking on the sins of our culture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1, what are you suggesting first pp? that sexual assault is "stuff middle aged people got away with in their youth?" Ford said they shut the door and turned the music up loud and that she called out hoping someone would hear her. The boys laughed.

[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.

YOU should be ashamed of YOURSELF.
I’m not a fan of him as a Supreme Court Justice either but your personal takedown of the man is completely uncivilized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thanks sleuth!

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: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!

Are they "Coach K" alumni?

[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.

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.

Your comment isn't clear. Unfit for which - Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals in his current position, or both?

[Anonymous]

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

Your opinion does not matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Your comment isn't clear. Unfit for which - Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals in his current position, or both?

DP, but I'd say both.

[Anonymous]

His wife's probably all, "honey, tell me what really happened. i'm on your team but i need to know".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If it is Swetnich, I thought her statement was that she was gang raped, but not by kavanaugh? So the gang rape allegation is seemingly nonsense.

[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.

Del Quinton Wilbur is walking this back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They could have picked someone else. But he'd passed a ton of checks in the past. This was unexpected.

Maybe he would be able to land on his feet if he lost his current job. I don't know. I think it's wrong to assume that his current job is safe. People are riled up, and Kavanaugh is kind of a perfect target. He's a white man, prep school kid, drinking sporty party guy, seriously privileged, and a catholic. Is there anything about him that's not practically perfect for taking on the sins of our culture?

His his previous appointments were controversial. Plenty was known about him that would have raised some eyebrows. This was not unexpected - this was a dumb choice.

What about this little issue seemed calm and introspective? He seems to be a leading cause of dumb conspiracy theories:

Though Starr's investigation concluded that Foster had indeed committed suicide, Kavanaugh has been criticized for investing federal money and other resources into investigating partisan conspiracy theories surrounding the cause of Foster's death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I did read what you wrote. I'm challenging you on substance and you have to resort to snark. The rest of your comment is supporting not holding people accountable based on the logic that everyone did it. Your follow up comment is more reasonable in terms of discussing what actions are forgivable and which are red lines. I would not be comfortable with a lifetime judge appointment, SC or lower, if someone hadn't shown an incredible amount of remorse and self examination. Yesterday, he displayed no such thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are all sorts of sexual assaults.
Ford does not say he raped her.

In any case, attempted rape or rape, if he had been charged at the time, even if a judge had thrown the book at him which we all know never would have happened, he'd be out by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If it is Swetnich, I thought her statement was that she was gang raped, but not by kavanaugh? So the gang rape allegation is seemingly nonsense.

She witnessed him drugging punch, and waiting in line to have a turn with unconscious girls, and later was gang raped herself when he was present. That was the allegation. Not nonsense. Serious.