Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're quite the hypocrite, aren't you?

Calling for everyone who voted for Kavanaugh to be personally and politically eviscerated, then at the same time calling for people to take out a moderate position.

To me it's pretty clear what the moderate position was: there is no evidence of guilt against Kavanaugh beyond a single women's unsubstantiated and unverified claim that has been rejected by all the other figures she named in the same claim and whose story and memory is riddled with so many gaps and inconsistencies. How is supporting her the moderate position? Susan Collins of Maine had it right.

Oh, never mind. I'm talking on the DCUM political forum.

We don’t know what Judge said to the FBI and they were only allowed to talk to six people in total. Six.

Furthermore, I realize you’re feeling spicy because you think you're a lone wolf in the face of a wall of liberals, but the fact that proven perjury - Leahy’s emails - and very questionable debt that has NOT been addressed doesn’t bother you is a big problem.

No. We don’t know what Judge said. But, you can bet your bippy that if he had said anything that came close to corroborating her story, it would have been leaked. What he said was a reiteration of what he said in his letter to the SJC - otherwise we would have heard about the differences.
And, your claim that they only talked to six is incorrect. They talked to 10 people.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/409838-white-house-10-individuals-were-contacted-in-fbi-kavanaugh

Some of those 10 were men, their opinions don't count as much, so it's like having spoken to only 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Absolutely.

And what is it with the liberal logic that "just because nobody remembers something happening doesn't mean it DIDN'T happen?" You could say that about anything! The accuser has to prove it DID happen. And when the accuser can't remember when....or where.....or how she got there....or how she got home....and nobody can confirm her story.....and she changed the timeline.....and she was caught in lies....well, she certainly didn't come close to proving anything.

Without an investigation we will never know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Absolutely.

And what is it with the liberal logic that "just because nobody remembers something happening doesn't mean it DIDN'T happen?" You could say that about anything! The accuser has to prove it DID happen. And when the accuser can't remember when....or where.....or how she got there....or how she got home....and nobody can confirm her story.....and she changed the timeline.....and she was caught in lies....well, she certainly didn't come close to proving anything.

No light can penetrate the dark glasses of right wing illogic.

No kidding. They have so many fairy tales of what "all liberals" believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're quite the hypocrite, aren't you?

Calling for everyone who voted for Kavanaugh to be personally and politically eviscerated, then at the same time calling for people to take out a moderate position.

To me it's pretty clear what the moderate position was: there is no evidence of guilt against Kavanaugh beyond a single women's unsubstantiated and unverified claim that has been rejected by all the other figures she named in the same claim and whose story and memory is riddled with so many gaps and inconsistencies. How is supporting her the moderate position? Susan Collins of Maine had it right.

Oh, never mind. I'm talking on the DCUM political forum.

We don’t know what Judge said to the FBI and they were only allowed to talk to six people in total. Six.

Furthermore, I realize you’re feeling spicy because you think you're a lone wolf in the face of a wall of liberals, but the fact that proven perjury - Leahy’s emails - and very questionable debt that has NOT been addressed doesn’t bother you is a big problem.

No. We don’t know what Judge said. But, you can bet your bippy that if he had said anything that came close to corroborating her story, it would have been leaked. What he said was a reiteration of what he said in his letter to the SJC - otherwise we would have heard about the differences.
And, your claim that they only talked to six is incorrect. They talked to 10 people.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/409838-white-house-10-individuals-were-contacted-in-fbi-kavanaugh

Some of those 10 were men, their opinions don't count as much, so it's like having spoken to only 6.

So men are worth only 6/10th of a vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're quite the hypocrite, aren't you?

Calling for everyone who voted for Kavanaugh to be personally and politically eviscerated, then at the same time calling for people to take out a moderate position.

To me it's pretty clear what the moderate position was: there is no evidence of guilt against Kavanaugh beyond a single women's unsubstantiated and unverified claim that has been rejected by all the other figures she named in the same claim and whose story and memory is riddled with so many gaps and inconsistencies. How is supporting her the moderate position? Susan Collins of Maine had it right.

Oh, never mind. I'm talking on the DCUM political forum.

We don’t know what Judge said to the FBI and they were only allowed to talk to six people in total. Six.

Furthermore, I realize you’re feeling spicy because you think you're a lone wolf in the face of a wall of liberals, but the fact that proven perjury - Leahy’s emails - and very questionable debt that has NOT been addressed doesn’t bother you is a big problem.

No. We don’t know what Judge said. But, you can bet your bippy that if he had said anything that came close to corroborating her story, it would have been leaked. What he said was a reiteration of what he said in his letter to the SJC - otherwise we would have heard about the differences.
And, your claim that they only talked to six is incorrect. They talked to 10 people.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/409838-white-house-10-individuals-were-contacted-in-fbi-kavanaugh

Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Absolutely.

And what is it with the liberal logic that "just because nobody remembers something happening doesn't mean it DIDN'T happen?" You could say that about anything! The accuser has to prove it DID happen. And when the accuser can't remember when....or where.....or how she got there....or how she got home....and nobody can confirm her story.....and she changed the timeline.....and she was caught in lies....well, she certainly didn't come close to proving anything.

No light can penetrate the dark glasses of right wing illogic.

No kidding. They have so many fairy tales of what "all liberals" believe.

No more so than what's been said here about what "all conservatives" believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Five women voted to confirm Kavanaugh, why is Collins the only one that is being personally and politically eviscerated by the left?

Is it because she was the only with the guts to speak?

I am "the left", and I wonder the same thing. Not just the other women senators, but *all* senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh should be personally and politically eviscerated. It's not fair to those who are brave and honorable enough to stake out a moderate posirion to be the focus of so much pressure, while the extremists are given a pass because they're considered beyond redemption.

Only one of the “women Senators,” thy sexist member of “the left” will be evuscerated,” and she is Diane Feinstein. What she did to Christine Ford and to all victims of sexual abuse is unconscionable and failed politically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not know that she is keeping all of the contributions. You are speculating.

She SHOULD after what she has been put through.

Once again, as Bart O'Kavanaugh said "what comes around goes around." Keep that in the back of your silly little minds.

FACTS don’t matter to Trump supporters.

That's a pretty ironic statement in light of the many DCUM posters who think just an accusation makes something a fact.

Look. You self identify as a Trump supporter. You support a lying conman who has cheated the government out of tax revenue and thinks he can grab anyone he wants by the pu$$y. As a core belief, facts clearly don't matter to you.

Nope. I do not. I DO believe very strongly that a person's reputation shouldn't be ruined based on accusations alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Five women voted to confirm Kavanaugh, why is Collins the only one that is being personally and politically eviscerated by the left?

Is it because she was the only with the guts to speak?

I am "the left", and I wonder the same thing. Not just the other women senators, but *all* senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh should be personally and politically eviscerated. It's not fair to those who are brave and honorable enough to stake out a moderate posirion to be the focus of so much pressure, while the extremists are given a pass because they're considered beyond redemption.

The extremists aren't given a pass, they're just not worth the effort. We all know what they're about and they're not going to change, so it's a waste of our time to even dignify them (and for the most people didn't waste their time on them this round). Collins is different because she holds herself out a particular champion of women and encourages people to cross the aisle to support her for that reason, but then turned around and stabbed us in the back in blinding hyperpartisan fashion (attacking the anti-Kavanaugh groups of using dark money in their campaign when almost 80% of the dark money involved went to the campaign to support Kavanaugh?). Just like she held herself out as a great champion of accessible healthcare by voting against the ACA repeal, only to vote to gut it by repealing the individual mandate with no supports to replace it in the tax bill.

By the new year, she's going to be trying to pull this routine again on some issue, and I'm glad people are speaking up now and telling her we're not falling for it anymore. She has no credibility left. She's done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're quite the hypocrite, aren't you?

Calling for everyone who voted for Kavanaugh to be personally and politically eviscerated, then at the same time calling for people to take out a moderate position.

To me it's pretty clear what the moderate position was: there is no evidence of guilt against Kavanaugh beyond a single women's unsubstantiated and unverified claim that has been rejected by all the other figures she named in the same claim and whose story and memory is riddled with so many gaps and inconsistencies. How is supporting her the moderate position? Susan Collins of Maine had it right.

Oh, never mind. I'm talking on the DCUM political forum.

We don’t know what Judge said to the FBI and they were only allowed to talk to six people in total. Six.

Furthermore, I realize you’re feeling spicy because you think you're a lone wolf in the face of a wall of liberals, but the fact that proven perjury - Leahy’s emails - and very questionable debt that has NOT been addressed doesn’t bother you is a big problem.

No. We don’t know what Judge said. But, you can bet your bippy that if he had said anything that came close to corroborating her story, it would have been leaked. What he said was a reiteration of what he said in his letter to the SJC - otherwise we would have heard about the differences.
And, your claim that they only talked to six is incorrect. They talked to 10 people.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/409838-white-house-10-individuals-were-contacted-in-fbi-kavanaugh

Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Oh I am sure there were many who had “information” to offer. Unless that information was first-hand knowledge of what Kavanaugh had been accused of, why would they want to talk to them? Why talk to anyone who would only present hearsay?
And, the Swetnick charges were not taken seriously because..... they weren’t credible. She changed her story; her story was so preposterous it was literally beyond belief; and not one person she named could validate her story. So, there’s that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not know that she is keeping all of the contributions. You are speculating.

She SHOULD after what she has been put through.

Once again, as Bart O'Kavanaugh said "what comes around goes around." Keep that in the back of your silly little minds.

FACTS don’t matter to Trump supporters.

That's a pretty ironic statement in light of the many DCUM posters who think just an accusation makes something a fact.

Look. You self identify as a Trump supporter. You support a lying conman who has cheated the government out of tax revenue and thinks he can grab anyone he wants by the pu$$y. As a core belief, facts clearly don't matter to you.

Nope. I do not. I DO believe very strongly that a person's reputation shouldn't be ruined based on accusations alone.

Same here. And there were more than just accusations against Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

Out of respect for the victim's wishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

Out of respect for the victim's wishes.

What "wishes" exactly?