Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New allegation: Feinstein says that Kavanaugh wasn't truthful when he said he didn't violate Grand Jury secrecy laws during the Starr investigation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) alleged on Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was not truthful with senators earlier this month when he said he never violated grand jury secrecy laws during his time working for independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico that she obtained a memo from the National Archives that showed Kavanaugh instructing a colleague in the Starr investigation two decades ago to call reporter Chris Ruddy about matters before the grand jury.

Such an action would violate laws that prevent disclosure of grand jury information. Feinstein claimed to Politico that the memo also conflicts with Kavanaugh's testimony earlier this month that he never broke those rules.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408458-feinstein-accuses-kavanaugh-of-misleading-senate-about-handling-of-grand-jury?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

This nomination is done. There is a paper trail. That gives GOP women in the Senate all the cover they need to vote NO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New allegation: Feinstein says that Kavanaugh wasn't truthful when he said he didn't violate Grand Jury secrecy laws during the Starr investigation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) alleged on Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was not truthful with senators earlier this month when he said he never violated grand jury secrecy laws during his time working for independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico that she obtained a memo from the National Archives that showed Kavanaugh instructing a colleague in the Starr investigation two decades ago to call reporter Chris Ruddy about matters before the grand jury.

Such an action would violate laws that prevent disclosure of grand jury information. Feinstein claimed to Politico that the memo also conflicts with Kavanaugh's testimony earlier this month that he never broke those rules.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408458-feinstein-accuses-kavanaugh-of-misleading-senate-about-handling-of-grand-jury?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

What took her so long?

[Anonymous]

Lol, these accusations are beyond rediculous now. Will we hear next that Kavanaugh abducted women with a UFO to rape them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New allegation: Feinstein says that Kavanaugh wasn't truthful when he said he didn't violate Grand Jury secrecy laws during the Starr investigation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) alleged on Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was not truthful with senators earlier this month when he said he never violated grand jury secrecy laws during his time working for independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico that she obtained a memo from the National Archives that showed Kavanaugh instructing a colleague in the Starr investigation two decades ago to call reporter Chris Ruddy about matters before the grand jury.

Such an action would violate laws that prevent disclosure of grand jury information. Feinstein claimed to Politico that the memo also conflicts with Kavanaugh's testimony earlier this month that he never broke those rules.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408458-feinstein-accuses-kavanaugh-of-misleading-senate-about-handling-of-grand-jury?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

Whoops.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lol. You have no idea how much he did or didn’t drink. This whole thing is bullshit. He’s qualified and will be confirmed.

can't believe you're a real person

I am and a woman and a Democrat who voted for Hillary. Also a lawyer. This campaign is transparently political and the allegations are drafted to be vague guilt-by-association nonsense with timing that is ridiculously and transparently politically-motivated. It’s a campaign to discredit him based on him being at parties where bad things may have happened. You are a sheep and a part of the brainless mob for believing this stuff.

sorry, don't believe you

What the Hillary-voting poster says is essentially true and I don't why people are not believing her. Where I differ with the poster is that what she describes is a bad thing. She obviously favors a totally fact-based legalistic approach. I don't think the Republicans in the Senate care about facts and facts would be lost on them. So, while a legalistic approach might be honorable, it would also be a failure. The one way to defeat Kavanaugh it to do so politically. If that means "guilt-by-association" wherein the association is with gang-rape, I am perfectly comfortable with that. If Kavanaugh wants to admit to teenage indiscretions, so be it. But, lying about it makes him unfit for the court.

Well thanks for at least being honest that you support mob justice, Jeff!

Holy CRAP!! I do hope, Jeff, that your sons are never in a bad divorce or a bad relationship. The only thing saving them from such a fate is a woman with the honesty and integrity of the Democratic lawyer above!

Wow, quite a statement from Mr. Steele. This would be quite a precedent. So, it is guilty until proven innocent.

The Republicans have refused to allow a legitimate confirmation process. We are not talking about a court of law. There is no guilt or innocence. This is not a legal process, but a political process. If you insist on following legal standards when only political tactics matter, you will not be successful. You have to play by the rules of the game.

If the Republicans wanted to treat this like a legal process, then they would have to allow legal procedures. Proper discovery would allow for a lot more than a measly 5% of the relevant documents being released. But, the Republicans have decided to treat this as purely political. Don't be upset that Avenatti plays by their rules.

I see. So guilt by association is a rule that Republicans use, so Avenatti is using it too? Please back that up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New allegation: Feinstein says that Kavanaugh wasn't truthful when he said he didn't violate Grand Jury secrecy laws during the Starr investigation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) alleged on Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was not truthful with senators earlier this month when he said he never violated grand jury secrecy laws during his time working for independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico that she obtained a memo from the National Archives that showed Kavanaugh instructing a colleague in the Starr investigation two decades ago to call reporter Chris Ruddy about matters before the grand jury.

Such an action would violate laws that prevent disclosure of grand jury information. Feinstein claimed to Politico that the memo also conflicts with Kavanaugh's testimony earlier this month that he never broke those rules.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408458-feinstein-accuses-kavanaugh-of-misleading-senate-about-handling-of-grand-jury?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

Of course she did. It is called “distraction” because she has come under fire for her lack of following any kind of proper procedure in informing the Chair of the letter she received.
My prediction is that she is not being totally honest about the content of the memo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Group sex if fine, if consensual. But this person's affidavit suggests that what may have happened in those rooms was not consensual (she can't know for sure) given her witness to girls being 'targeted' a spiking/drugging attempts made.

Her affidavit also says she WAS herself raped, and it was NOT consensual, and she believes she was drugged. While she didn't identify Kavanaugh as her assailant, she swears he was present (unclear what that yet means).

This is plenty to try to get more information about before he is confirmed and essentially untouchable.

Under 18 can’t give consent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New allegation: Feinstein says that Kavanaugh wasn't truthful when he said he didn't violate Grand Jury secrecy laws during the Starr investigation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) alleged on Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was not truthful with senators earlier this month when he said he never violated grand jury secrecy laws during his time working for independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico that she obtained a memo from the National Archives that showed Kavanaugh instructing a colleague in the Starr investigation two decades ago to call reporter Chris Ruddy about matters before the grand jury.

Such an action would violate laws that prevent disclosure of grand jury information. Feinstein claimed to Politico that the memo also conflicts with Kavanaugh's testimony earlier this month that he never broke those rules.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408458-feinstein-accuses-kavanaugh-of-misleading-senate-about-handling-of-grand-jury?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

What took her so long?

She probably didn't obtain it until now?

Didn't Dems do a FOIA of his extra records a couple weeks ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Group sex if fine, if consensual. But this person's affidavit suggests that what may have happened in those rooms was not consensual (she can't know for sure) given her witness to girls being 'targeted' a spiking/drugging attempts made.

Her affidavit also says she WAS herself raped, and it was NOT consensual, and she believes she was drugged. While she didn't identify Kavanaugh as her assailant, she swears he was present (unclear what that yet means).

This is plenty to try to get more information about before he is confirmed and essentially untouchable.

Under 18 can’t give consent

It depends on the state. But I take your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New allegation: Feinstein says that Kavanaugh wasn't truthful when he said he didn't violate Grand Jury secrecy laws during the Starr investigation.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) alleged on Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was not truthful with senators earlier this month when he said he never violated grand jury secrecy laws during his time working for independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico that she obtained a memo from the National Archives that showed Kavanaugh instructing a colleague in the Starr investigation two decades ago to call reporter Chris Ruddy about matters before the grand jury.

Such an action would violate laws that prevent disclosure of grand jury information. Feinstein claimed to Politico that the memo also conflicts with Kavanaugh's testimony earlier this month that he never broke those rules.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408458-feinstein-accuses-kavanaugh-of-misleading-senate-about-handling-of-grand-jury?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

this guy cannot tell the truth

I am sure Feinstein will ask him about it tomorrow. Or, maybe not. Maybe she is hoping that if these latest allegations don’t sink this nominee, she can float another scandal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is almost too outrageous to even be believable. It’s like someone said “let’s come up with a shady sexual allegation to make him go away.” And that didn’t work so then they said “let’s try again just to bolster the first one.” Then when that didn’t work they said “screw it, let’s go for broke. Let’s say he’s actually a serial gang rapist.” I mean, this is like every liberal dystopian fantasy come to life

She graduated in a public high school in Gaithersburg in 1980, three years before the judge did. No way she was even in the social circle of the prep boys.

Wow, you have personal knowledge of these people?

It's in her statement. Explain to us how did she join those younger boys' social circle already graduated from a remote public school?

Gaithersburg is totally within the prep world. Moco schools, moco culture.

I knew college kids that showed up to HS parties. ESPECIALLY during the summer/beach week

Gaithersburg in the 1980s was as far from the prep world as you can get. It was the sticks. What a 22 year old would be driving to high school parties is baffling.

Were you in this circuit ever? In the 1980s? Gaithersburg is basically up the road.

Yes I grew up in MoCo in the 80s. Went to private school. I know exactly what I’m talking about.

If you're the big 3 poster, I think your world is slightly different from the Catholic school world. I grew up in MoCo and graduated in the late 1980s. I knew many people who had gone to public school and then peeled off for private Catholic high school (Visi, Immaculata, Gonzaga, St. John's, Good Counsel). As a result, I frequently attended parties where there was a mix of Catholic and public school kids. I don't recall coming across any Sidwell, NCS/STA kids, though.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lol. You have no idea how much he did or didn’t drink. This whole thing is bullshit. He’s qualified and will be confirmed.

can't believe you're a real person

I am and a woman and a Democrat who voted for Hillary. Also a lawyer. This campaign is transparently political and the allegations are drafted to be vague guilt-by-association nonsense with timing that is ridiculously and transparently politically-motivated. It’s a campaign to discredit him based on him being at parties where bad things may have happened. You are a sheep and a part of the brainless mob for believing this stuff.

sorry, don't believe you

What the Hillary-voting poster says is essentially true and I don't why people are not believing her. Where I differ with the poster is that what she describes is a bad thing. She obviously favors a totally fact-based legalistic approach. I don't think the Republicans in the Senate care about facts and facts would be lost on them. So, while a legalistic approach might be honorable, it would also be a failure. The one way to defeat Kavanaugh it to do so politically. If that means "guilt-by-association" wherein the association is with gang-rape, I am perfectly comfortable with that. If Kavanaugh wants to admit to teenage indiscretions, so be it. But, lying about it makes him unfit for the court.

I never imagined I would agree with the moderator, but he took the words right out of my mouth. I always state the facts, but here in Washington the facts are ignored, no matter how undisputed. Everything here is politicized X10. I have experience with some individuals and institutions mentioned in this nomination process and they are out right liars and revenge seeking. Don't be fooled by the saintly references or get caught up in the hype. Lying is enough to declare someone unfit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is almost too outrageous to even be believable. It’s like someone said “let’s come up with a shady sexual allegation to make him go away.” And that didn’t work so then they said “let’s try again just to bolster the first one.” Then when that didn’t work they said “screw it, let’s go for broke. Let’s say he’s actually a serial gang rapist.” I mean, this is like every liberal dystopian fantasy come to life

THIS x10000. It’s like out of some old school leftist propaganda playbook. It’s like it jumped from Jews-are-kinda-weird to Jews-are-sacrificing-children-and-drinking-their-blood.

Agreed. Women in this area are incredibly nasty and vindictive. I recently put an item up for sale on a crafting forum with well over 1,000,000 members. It's a rare, coveted item my cousin picked up for me and my price is very reasonable. I got ONE snide comment and that person turned out to be from the DC area. Out of over a million members. Color me not surprised.

I don’t know how compelling that anecdote is but you seem like a nice person who crafts and I’m glad you’re here.

LOL - it's just one more thing about the a lot of the women in this area. I don't know what's in the water. Just happened and pissed me off. My point is, is that nothing would surprise me if it comes from women here. They are as cut-throat as they come.

LOL! This all so hilarious, and just the hijinks you’d expect from a population of educated and politically aware women, right? I mean, we didn’t like your oh-so-special craft AND we find gang rape deplorable. How could you ever live with such frigid nastiness?

I"m not from this area. I've been here 30 years though, long enough to have gotten to know women here and realize what social-climbing, back-stabbing, self-hating people they really are. Must've come from having to compete for the attention of men who were content to not marry because so many of you were willing to get on your back without a commitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If true, these allegations mean that he's a disgusting POS.

It makes no difference that this behavior may be culturally tolerated or encouraged.

I think the Republicans will pay a huge price for pushing this through without listening to women.

The whole world is listening to this circus, you fool. And laughing at the nonsense that only one gender must be believed.

So you watched The Donald at the UN the other day, too? Or read the official transcript?

[Anonymous]

These women have no reason to lie. In fact, they have EVERY reason to keep their mouths shut. I'm sorry, I just believe they care SO MUCH about the SC being "balanced" that they would be themselves through this based on a lie.

People, at heart, are self interested and this is not in their self interest.

Kavanaugh however has every reason to lie.