Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed else where in the previous pages, but did he not lie when he said he never went buy Bart' when asked during his testimony? He signed off his beach week note as Bart.

I think he didn't quite deny it, but he definitely showed a lack of candor on the question. He gave some kind of non-responsive answer like "you'd have to ask him."

He was asked if he was the “Bart” in Mark Judge’s book. He said that they would have to ask Judge.

Thanks. So, if he's signing his name "Bart," it's not accurate that they would have to ask Judge. He could have told the committee that he went by "Bart" for whatever reason.

In the transcript, the question was whether he was the Bart in Judge's book. The answer to that is to ask Judge.

Stretches incredulity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't Brett Kavanaugh's strong desire to be a Supreme Court justice count for anything?

If you think about it,

1) he has humiliated himself (and wife and children) by lying about many things, BUT they are things that he HAD to lie about or the liberals would have torn him down. He sadly had no choice.

2) he admitted he was virgin all through high school and college and for "many years after." That had to be an embarrassing thing for him to admit, especially having run with a kind of sporty crowd who like to see themselves as being good with the ladies.


3) he cried and sniffled a lot in his testimony in order to show the cynics how much be cared. Think what you will of his tears, but he had to do this (cry) or the liberals wouldve jumped all over him for being insincere.

And after all this, Mr. Kavanaugh STILL wants to be on the Supreme Court! He has shown he will say or do whatever it takes to get the job (and get the job done!) Maybe we ought to respect that!

***[b][b] What he meant was that no woman was willing to have sex with him.

And, this is the kind of crap that bothers many of us.
If we dare to question Ford’s account, or if we point out that her testimony is inconsistent and has no real corroborative evidence, we are crucified and called “insensitive to victims/survivors.”
But, comments like this are fair game here.

Thank you. I actually started to tap out a response to that comment but was so furious about it that I didn't post.

The answer to your unspoken question is that Kavanaugh is the very epitome of the group against whom leftists welcome derogatory, bigoted, and racist comments: affluent white males.

affluent white males.

True! and also makes who are willing to lie in order to get the job done, because if they hadn't told those lies, the liberals would have attacked them, so the lies were NECESSARY. And also admitting to late in life virginity would be embarrasing and humiliating to a man like Mr Kavanaugh who understandablky wants to be seen as "one of the guys" but was virgin late in life. Still, he had the honesty to admit he was one! And his lies were necessary, otherwise he couldnt get the job. He must be conferred!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The White House has confirmed that the FBI investigation is limited and now the Committee is putting out partisan (wrong) information.

Our country is disintegrating before our eyes.

This is the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed else where in the previous pages, but did he not lie when he said he never went buy Bart' when asked during his testimony? He signed off his beach week note as Bart.

He didn’t say his nickname wasn’t Bart. He told the senator “I don’t know. You’d have to ask him.” (Meaning Mark Judge)
Which is so rude and obnoxious, it’s almost worse than if he had lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holy Moly

https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/1047592548351574016

The inference here is that there are flags in past background checks.

excellent! Please correct it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is a horse's patoot but is edging Kavanaigh out and forcing him to withdraw on his own. Rumpus knew that making fun of Christine Blasey Ford would go over like a lead balloon so why did he do it if not to further aleniate Flake, Murkowski, and Collins. The turtle takes a final count and tells Trump the votes aren't there and Kavanaugh gets to kiss of death. They still blame the Dems but hope this will help in the midterm .

because he can't help himself

[Anonymous]

Her allegation was unsupported.
She was sympathetic in her testimony.
When you read the testimony--especially Mitchell's paper--it is clear that her testimony was seriously flawed, especially compared to her earlier statements. She couldn't remember what she told WAPO two months ago--how can you trust what she says happened 30+ (that is one of the issues) years ago. Particularly, when she initially said her "late teens" and changed it to"15."

If you look at the facts, the only reason anyone believes her is because they want to do so. The Dems mostly came out saying that they "believed her" even before we heard from her.

If this is what the Democrats represent, and, if they get the power, then we are in very serious trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed else where in the previous pages, but did he not lie when he said he never went buy Bart' when asked during his testimony? He signed off his beach week note as Bart.

I think he didn't quite deny it, but he definitely showed a lack of candor on the question. He gave some kind of non-responsive answer like "you'd have to ask him."

He was asked if he was the “Bart” in Mark Judge’s book. He said that they would have to ask Judge.

Thanks. So, if he's signing his name "Bart," it's not accurate that they would have to ask Judge. He could have told the committee that he went by "Bart" for whatever reason.

In the transcript, the question was whether he was the Bart in Judge's book. The answer to that is to ask Judge.

Stretches incredulity.

Apparently Leahy thought it was a reasonable answer. I, too, think it's a reasonable answer. Would you testify to someone else's intentions, or would you refer the questioner to that person?

LEAHY: … Judge Kavanaugh, I’m trying to get a straight answer from you under oath. Are you Bart (ph) Kavanaugh that he’s referring to, yes or no? That’s it (ph)…

KAVANAUGH: You’d have to ask him.

LEAHY: Well, I agree with you there. And that’s why I wish that the chairman had him here under oath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is a horse's patoot but is edging Kavanaigh out and forcing him to withdraw on his own. Rumpus knew that making fun of Christine Blasey Ford would go over like a lead balloon so why did he do it if not to further aleniate Flake, Murkowski, and Collins. The turtle takes a final count and tells Trump the votes aren't there and Kavanaugh gets to kiss of death. They still blame the Dems but hope this will help in the midterm .

This was my thought and Trump comes out with a speech about he doesn't really know him, but the press was unfair. Kavanaugh feels for the good of his family he has to withdraw (instead of face more humiliation when he doesn't get the votes).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed else where in the previous pages, but did he not lie when he said he never went buy Bart' when asked during his testimony? He signed off his beach week note as Bart.

I think he didn't quite deny it, but he definitely showed a lack of candor on the question. He gave some kind of non-responsive answer like "you'd have to ask him."

He was asked if he was the “Bart” in Mark Judge’s book. He said that they would have to ask Judge.

Thanks. So, if he's signing his name "Bart," it's not accurate that they would have to ask Judge. He could have told the committee that he went by "Bart" for whatever reason.

In the transcript, the question was whether he was the Bart in Judge's book. The answer to that is to ask Judge.

Stretches incredulity.

Why? Kavanaugh didn’t write the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole of Kavanaugh's testimony seems to violate Rule 1.2 (promoting confidence in the Judiciary) and Rule 2.8(B) (decorum, demeanor) of the Justice code.

Grounds for impeachment from the Court.

He was not the Judge in these proceedings, merely a nominee. What rules of ethics did members of the SJC violate?

He is a sitting judge on the US Court of Appeals, duh.

He was not acting in his capacity as a judge. He was defending himself against unprovable allegations. I thought he was remarkably composed given the circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is a horse's patoot but is edging Kavanaigh out and forcing him to withdraw on his own. Rumpus knew that making fun of Christine Blasey Ford would go over like a lead balloon so why did he do it if not to further aleniate Flake, Murkowski, and Collins. The turtle takes a final count and tells Trump the votes aren't there and Kavanaugh gets to kiss of death. They still blame the Dems but hope this will help in the midterm .

This was my thought and Trump comes out with a speech about he doesn't really know him, but the press was unfair. Kavanaugh feels for the good of his family he has to withdraw (instead of face more humiliation when he doesn't get the votes).

I'm not sure if Trump is disciplined enough to have any kind of strategy.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Holy Moly

https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/1047592548351574016

The inference here is that there are flags in past background checks.

Moreover, those flags appear to be of a sexual nature:

"Unfortunately, this is not the first instance of Committee Majority staff mischaracterizing or selectively disclosing information regarding the allegations of sexual misconduct by Judge Kavanaugh."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if this has been discussed else where in the previous pages, but did he not lie when he said he never went buy Bart' when asked during his testimony? He signed off his beach week note as Bart.

I think he didn't quite deny it, but he definitely showed a lack of candor on the question. He gave some kind of non-responsive answer like "you'd have to ask him."

He was asked if he was the “Bart” in Mark Judge’s book. He said that they would have to ask Judge.

Thanks. So, if he's signing his name "Bart," it's not accurate that they would have to ask Judge. He could have told the committee that he went by "Bart" for whatever reason.

In the transcript, the question was whether he was the Bart in Judge's book. The answer to that is to ask Judge.

Stretches incredulity.

Apparently Leahy thought it was a reasonable answer. I, too, think it's a reasonable answer. Would you testify to someone else's intentions, or would you refer the questioner to that person?

LEAHY: … Judge Kavanaugh, I’m trying to get a straight answer from you under oath. Are you Bart (ph) Kavanaugh that he’s referring to, yes or no? That’s it (ph)…

KAVANAUGH: You’d have to ask him.

LEAHY: Well, I agree with you there. And that’s why I wish that the chairman had him here under oath.

Sure. You left out the first part where Leahy asked the same question over and over again. Brett is Bart and Brett knew it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole of Kavanaugh's testimony seems to violate Rule 1.2 (promoting confidence in the Judiciary) and Rule 2.8(B) (decorum, demeanor) of the Justice code.

Grounds for impeachment from the Court.

He was not the Judge in these proceedings, merely a nominee. What rules of ethics did members of the SJC violate?

He is a sitting judge on the US Court of Appeals, duh.

He was not acting in his capacity as a judge. He was defending himself against unprovable allegations. I thought he was remarkably composed given the circumstances.

I don't think anyone could describe him as composed. But yes, we expect the judiciary to be non-partisan and rational. Some emotion is perfectly understandable, but screeching about the Clintons and conspiracy hardly came across as someone who is able to evaluate evidence based on facts and not emotional.