Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always knew he would be confirmed and I never said otherwise even though it makes me sick.

He's going to be impeached though. Some how, some way. The guy is shady AF and you all know it.

You believe 67 Senators are going to vote to impeach him? Wishful thinking on your part.
Z
It sure better be a giant, provable, offense to get that kind of vote. Remember that perjury didn't get a sitting president impeached.

No. You are wrong. So sit there in your wrongness and be wrong.

Clinton lied about consensual sex—a BJ. He was impeached by the House. The Senate did not have the 2/3 necessary to remove him from office. But he was successfully impeached.

Bart the Boofer lied under oath about consensual sex plus a number of other things. If Dems take the House, he will be impeached. Unless more info comes to light (which it could esp. on his finances), removing from office will be tough. But Dems can make his life miserable for months during investigation and impeachment hearings, even if they know he can’t be removed. Ken Starr set the prescedent for this. Bitchy Bart wrote the Manuel on questioning in impeachment trials back when he worked for Ken Starr— he advocated making the questioning last as long and go as slow as possible and and raise any number of irrelevant, but sexually explicit topics. Kav was really fascinated by Clinton’s evacuate, and wanted to discuss in detail. And since he is a good Judge, and not the least bit partisan, I think Dems should follow the Starr-Kavanaughs model of questioning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always knew he would be confirmed and I never said otherwise even though it makes me sick.

He's going to be impeached though. Some how, some way. The guy is shady AF and you all know it.

You believe 67 Senators are going to vote to impeach him? Wishful thinking on your part.
Z
It sure better be a giant, provable, offense to get that kind of vote. Remember that perjury didn't get a sitting president impeached.

No. You are wrong. So sit there in your wrongness and be wrong.

Clinton lied about consensual sex—a BJ. He was impeached by the House. The Senate did not have the 2/3 necessary to remove him from office. But he was successfully impeached.

Bart the Boofer lied under oath about consensual sex plus a number of other things. If Dems take the House, he will be impeached. Unless more info comes to light (which it could esp. on his finances), removing from office will be tough. But Dems can make his life miserable for months during investigation and impeachment hearings, even if they know he can’t be removed. Ken Starr set the prescedent for this. Bitchy Bart wrote the Manuel on questioning in impeachment trials back when he worked for Ken Starr— he advocated making the questioning last as long and go as slow as possible and and raise any number of irrelevant, but sexually explicit topics. Kav was really fascinated by Clinton’s evacuate, and wanted to discuss in detail. And since he is a good Judge, and not the least bit partisan, I think Dems should follow the Starr-Kavanaughs model of questioning.

This was the goal all along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more we hear about the Ford story, the less believable it is vis a vis Kavanaugh.

The problem is not Ford but those who exploited her to try and bring down Kavanaugh. It is utterly shameful.

The more I hear the more I believe her.

From Susan Collin's speech on why she is voting "yes":

Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life.

Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred. None of the individuals Prof. Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night. Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. P.J. Smith, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. Professor Ford’s lifelong friend, Leland Kaiser, indicated that under penalty of felony she does not remember that party. And Ms. Kaiser went further. She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.

In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence we also learn facts that have raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Prof. Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say I was at the party that night.

Furthermore the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride. Yet, not a single person has come forward to say that they were the ones who drove her home or were in the car with her that night.

And Prof. Ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly, and without saying goodbye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left. “Is she okay?” Not even her closest friend, Ms. Kaiser.

Honestly, I can't take Collins seriously. I mean, she voted for the tax scam bill only because McConnell and Pence gave her an “ironclad” commitment to pass legislation by the end of last year to stabilize ObamaCare premiums. She wanted that assurance before committing her vote for tax reform. She got the assurrance. And stabilizing ObamaCare premiums didn't happen.

It's the "fool me once" principle. Shame on her. She's either naive or she really has no moral center.

The Crowdpac fund going to her opponent is currently at 3.3 million, and rising fast.

I think that is a LOT of wasted money given it's Maine. There's only 1.3 million people there. To their credit they had a well above the national average turnout in 2016 where Hillary edged Trump.

But back to the money...do Democrats really believe they need that much money in such a small state? Do people in Maine vote for the best funded?

It’s a lot of money, but most are only donating $20, and it’s easy. It may be a small state but that seat is obviously just as important as a California or New York Senate seat. People want Collins out, so tht money is worth it to them.

This could backfire. People often don’t appreciate it when “outsiders” meddle in their elections.

So they must really hate the Kock brothers and other dark money flooding in through PACs, right? Or are these the ”Americans who hate their fellow American Cotozen but loves lobyists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always knew he would be confirmed and I never said otherwise even though it makes me sick.

He's going to be impeached though. Some how, some way. The guy is shady AF and you all know it.

You believe 67 Senators are going to vote to impeach him? Wishful thinking on your part.
Z
It sure better be a giant, provable, offense to get that kind of vote. Remember that perjury didn't get a sitting president impeached.

No. You are wrong. So sit there in your wrongness and be wrong.

Clinton lied about consensual sex—a BJ. He was impeached by the House. The Senate did not have the 2/3 necessary to remove him from office. But he was successfully impeached.

Bart the Boofer lied under oath about consensual sex plus a number of other things. If Dems take the House, he will be impeached. Unless more info comes to light (which it could esp. on his finances), removing from office will be tough. But Dems can make his life miserable for months during investigation and impeachment hearings, even if they know he can’t be removed. Ken Starr set the prescedent for this. Bitchy Bart wrote the Manuel on questioning in impeachment trials back when he worked for Ken Starr— he advocated making the questioning last as long and go as slow as possible and and raise any number of irrelevant, but sexually explicit topics. Kav was really fascinated by Clinton’s evacuate, and wanted to discuss in detail. And since he is a good Judge, and not the least bit partisan, I think Dems should follow the Starr-Kavanaughs model of questioning.

You are off the rails. None of that will happen.

[Anonymous]

^^ Koch Brothers

Autocorrect will not let me type Koch ??? WTF???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lisa Murkowski’s facebook page has been flooded with rape threats after her no vote.

Yeah, the Republicans are so very civil and decent, family values types. /s

This is why women vote Democratic.

There are disgusting people on both sides.

Cory Gardner’s wife was texted a horrible graphic depicting a beheading and someone posted the names and addresses of his family members online.
All of these people should be identified, charged, and get a penalty bigger than a menial fine.

Doesn’t help when Trump is tweeting angrily about Murkowski. He is absolutely fostering this climate and his fellow Republicans are not calling him out on it. disgusting.

+1
People keep claiming that Brett was getting so many threats, but he was able to stay in his house. Trump is absolutely fanning the flames of violence. He thinks it’s funny. His idiot supporters mewl about “both sides” (or are the ones threatening to rape a senator.) I’m pissed at Collins for being a damn fool, but my calls are limited to telling her she’s a damn coward. No threat of violence, sexual or otherwise, needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lisa Murkowski’s facebook page has been flooded with rape threats after her no vote.

Yeah, the Republicans are so very civil and decent, family values types. /s

This is why women vote Democratic.

There are disgusting people on both sides.

Cory Gardner’s wife was texted a horrible graphic depicting a beheading and someone posted the names and addresses of his family members online.
All of these people should be identified, charged, and get a penalty bigger than a menial fine.

Doesn’t help when one of the disgusting people is the POTUS. Just sayin....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got off a phone call with my mother who lives in a small midwestern town and she told me the other day she was watching a local race wearing an anti-Trump t-shirt and she was amazed at how many runners gave her the thumbs up as they passed her, including men. Dozens of them.

This is a town that voted for Trump, guys. Ha ha.

I've been hearing a lot of stories like this. They are the stories about Trump that Democrats ignored in 2016. We've learned our lesson. Have the Trumpists?

It’s been strange. My aunt is a Trump supporter from the Midwest. She came to DC with my cousin for his inaguration. Is Catholic and super anti-abortion. Posted this on FB last week:

https://www.chrismillersblog.com/post/178456740690/brett-kavanaugh-a-youth-pastors-perspective

And got a ton of likes and loves. I’m not sure where this puts her on Trump. But it is an interesting departure from the lively Russian backed propaganda. on her feed two years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got off a phone call with my mother who lives in a small midwestern town and she told me the other day she was watching a local race wearing an anti-Trump t-shirt and she was amazed at how many runners gave her the thumbs up as they passed her, including men. Dozens of them.

This is a town that voted for Trump, guys. Ha ha.

I've been hearing a lot of stories like this. They are the stories about Trump that Democrats ignored in 2016. We've learned our lesson. Have the Trumpists?

I am not sure where Kavanaugh is barred but there appears to be several legitimate grounds for disciplinary sanctions by jurisdictions where Kavanaugh holds license(s). This would be an administrative proceeding (with less strict rules of evidence) with lower standard of proof than a criminal proceeding. Once he is suspended for misrepresentation to the senate and other potential violations of rules of professional conduct, he cannot serve as a justice.

This is much easier than impeachment and removal, especially the removal part which requires 2/3 of the senate.

Dream on. Not happening. You obviously don’t know much about this subject.

+1. I hate Kavanugh, but realize you don’t need a law license to be a Justice on SCOTUS. Crazy, but true.

[Anonymous]

Kavanaugh should be required to enroll in AA meetings. What's next, a justice appointed with a K2 addiction?

I want Condeleeza Rice for the next seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got off a phone call with my mother who lives in a small midwestern town and she told me the other day she was watching a local race wearing an anti-Trump t-shirt and she was amazed at how many runners gave her the thumbs up as they passed her, including men. Dozens of them.

This is a town that voted for Trump, guys. Ha ha.

I've been hearing a lot of stories like this. They are the stories about Trump that Democrats ignored in 2016. We've learned our lesson. Have the Trumpists?

I am not sure where Kavanaugh is barred but there appears to be several legitimate grounds for disciplinary sanctions by jurisdictions where Kavanaugh holds license(s). This would be an administrative proceeding (with less strict rules of evidence) with lower standard of proof than a criminal proceeding. Once he is suspended for misrepresentation to the senate and other potential violations of rules of professional conduct, he cannot serve as a justice.

This is much easier than impeachment and removal, especially the removal part which requires 2/3 of the senate.

Dream on. Not happening. You obviously don’t know much about this subject.

+1. I hate Kavanugh, but realize you don’t need a law license to be a Justice on SCOTUS. Crazy, but true.

Not pp, but let's make it a requirement then take his away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got off a phone call with my mother who lives in a small midwestern town and she told me the other day she was watching a local race wearing an anti-Trump t-shirt and she was amazed at how many runners gave her the thumbs up as they passed her, including men. Dozens of them.

This is a town that voted for Trump, guys. Ha ha.

I've been hearing a lot of stories like this. They are the stories about Trump that Democrats ignored in 2016. We've learned our lesson. Have the Trumpists?

I am not sure where Kavanaugh is barred but there appears to be several legitimate grounds for disciplinary sanctions by jurisdictions where Kavanaugh holds license(s). This would be an administrative proceeding (with less strict rules of evidence) with lower standard of proof than a criminal proceeding. Once he is suspended for misrepresentation to the senate and other potential violations of rules of professional conduct, he cannot serve as a justice.

This is much easier than impeachment and removal, especially the removal part which requires 2/3 of the senate.

Dream on. Not happening. You obviously don’t know much about this subject.

+1. I hate Kavanugh, but realize you don’t need a law license to be a Justice on SCOTUS. Crazy, but true.

Not pp, but let's make it a requirement then take his away.

Again, not happening. He is now Justice Kavanaugh. Time to move on.

[Anonymous]

I’m fed up with posters telling others to move on. Do you. Step off. Some people are motivated to vote, fundraise, and reach out to our reps for what we think will improve our country. More to the point, your suppresive bullshit doesn’t work, and it’s pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just got off a phone call with my mother who lives in a small midwestern town and she told me the other day she was watching a local race wearing an anti-Trump t-shirt and she was amazed at how many runners gave her the thumbs up as they passed her, including men. Dozens of them.

This is a town that voted for Trump, guys. Ha ha.

I've been hearing a lot of stories like this. They are the stories about Trump that Democrats ignored in 2016. We've learned our lesson. Have the Trumpists?

I am not sure where Kavanaugh is barred but there appears to be several legitimate grounds for disciplinary sanctions by jurisdictions where Kavanaugh holds license(s). This would be an administrative proceeding (with less strict rules of evidence) with lower standard of proof than a criminal proceeding. Once he is suspended for misrepresentation to the senate and other potential violations of rules of professional conduct, he cannot serve as a justice.

This is much easier than impeachment and removal, especially the removal part which requires 2/3 of the senate.

Dream on. Not happening. You obviously don’t know much about this subject.

+1. I hate Kavanugh, but realize you don’t need a law license to be a Justice on SCOTUS. Crazy, but true.

Not pp, but let's make it a requirement then take his away.

Brilliant. Just takes a simple amendment to the Constitution. Easy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m fed up with posters telling others to move on. Do you. Step off. Some people are motivated to vote, fundraise, and reach out to our reps for what we think will improve our country. More to the point, your suppresive bullshit doesn’t work, and it’s pathetic.

Fine, then spend your life obsessing over it. Your choice.