Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Feel free to provide the bits of the transcript you find damning. I'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree this is significant.
I was also shocked that she could not remember what day she took the polygraph. Was it the day of or the day after her grandmother’s funeral? Seriously? My parents died over 6 years ago and I can remember everything I did the day of and the day after the funerals. This was even bigger, IMO. This was a month and a half before she testified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We expect the judiciary to be composed when acting in their professional capacity. My husband would have been flying through the roof if he had been falsely accused, and he’s a doctor. And I expect doctors to be composed in their professional capacity also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Feel free to provide the bits of the transcript you find damning. I'll wait.

You’ll wait? LOL. We did this like 100 pages ago. You should catch up. Bart is Brett. It was his nickname. Everybody knew it. Brett was deceptive and misleading and evasive to Leahy, Hoisted on his own petard in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This
But who cares now, party over country, rules, regulations, ethics and common sence

Hope it will pass soon... Ommmmmm

"If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by' (Sun Zhu?)

[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.

Why? Kavanaugh didn’t write the book.

But he clearly did have that nickname. It’s in his yearbook blurb and he signed the beach house note as Bart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Feel free to provide the bits of the transcript you find damning. I'll wait.

You’ll wait? LOL. We did this like 100 pages ago. You should catch up. Bart is Brett. It was his nickname. Everybody knew it. Brett was deceptive and misleading and evasive to Leahy, Hoisted on his own petard in the end.

Hardly. Leahy asked if that character was him in the book. Kavanaugh answered the question - both in a long form answer, and in a short answer. You cannot provide a section of transcript where Kavanaugh denies ever being referred to as Bart because there is no section of transcript addressing that.

And this, folks, is exactly why people are skeptical about memories. I bet PP I'm replying to actually really believes Kavanaugh denied ever using or being referred to as Bart in any circumstances. PP is wrong, but PP refuses to refresh his or her memory, and also refuses to accept contradictory information. This is why eye-witness accounts are suspect. This is why both Ford and Kavanaugh can have memories of an event that are both wrong, and yet both believe without a shadow of a doubt that they are correct.

[Anonymous]

I don't know what is going to happen but I am about to call the offices of collins, murkowsky and flake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why? Kavanaugh didn’t write the book.

But he clearly did have that nickname. It’s in his yearbook blurb and he signed the beach house note as Bart.

He wasn't asked if he had that nickname.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holy Moly

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

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

There is no level below which the GOP leadership of the SJC will not sink!! Are their feet poking out from the other side of the Earth yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're too drunk to avoid being accused of committing sexual assault, you're kind of asking for it. Guys should watch what they drink.

I love you!!!

By the same token, if you’re drunk enough to be assaulted while blacked out, you’re also kind of asking for it. Stay aware and in control of yourself and don’t drink to the point of becoming incredibly vulnerable, or you bear some of the responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know what is going to happen but I am about to call the offices of collins, murkowsky and flake.

PLEASE DO!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Oh my, doesn't remember? In the interim, she became a household name, her life was threatened, she had to move twice and she was testifying to Congress with 20 million viewers. Nerve racking to say the least. Read some psychology on what fight or flight mechanism does to your memory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why? Kavanaugh didn’t write the book.

But he clearly did have that nickname. It’s in his yearbook blurb and he signed the beach house note as Bart.

He probably still goes to beach week if only to replay those fond memories (like he did during the hearing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're too drunk to avoid being accused of committing sexual assault, you're kind of asking for it. Guys should watch what they drink.

I love you!!!

By the same token, if you’re drunk enough to be assaulted while blacked out, you’re also kind of asking for it. Stay aware and in control of yourself and don’t drink to the point of becoming incredibly vulnerable, or you bear some of the responsibility.

NO YOU DON’T.