Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6:39: Desperation.
You seriously think that this is something posted by someone who, at the time, was serving as an appellate judge?

What I have discovered from this whole sorry story is just how gullible and desperate some of you are and how you make connections to events and terms where no connection exists.

Yes. Yes, I do believe it was posted by a sitting appellate judge. Hopefully an FBI agent can trace its origin. Why are you so sure it isn't? The name is the same. The sex act described is the very sex act that Kavanaugh describes in his yearbook. Or are you so gullible that you think he was telling the truth that "BOOFING" was farting?



Drinking alcohol from another person's anus is apparently a thing. He did this. He enshrined the activity in his yearbook. Yearbook reference+the xoxohth post+the name "Bart O'Kavanaugh=coincidence? And I'm gullible?

ok.

I hope the FBI investigates it. Because, they will find it was posted by some teenager in his mom’s basement. And then we can all mock those of you who are grasping at anything. And, it was probably entered recently - the site was manipulated to make it appear as if it was entered in 2012
But, I doubt they will because it is a ridiculous thought.
Think about this..........Why would he use a screen name that could be so easily traced back to him if he did do it (which he didn’t). Use some critical reasoning.

+1
I would love for the FBI to trace those postings to their source - a DCUM malcontent, determined to set Kavanaugh up using "whatever means necessary." Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Are you kidding? The FBI isn't investigating anything.

Except for Mark Judge. He got hours of interviews, multiple interviews. I wonder what he had to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me be clear: I don't really care how much Kavanaugh drank in the early 80s. I don't care whether or not he puked it up, threw ice, or said crass things about girls then either.

The ONLY reason it was even brought up in the hearing, was to try and imply that Kavanaugh could have gotten blackout drunk and assault Ford. It was ruse to sow doubt, and to try and get him to admit he was a choir boy, which he didn't do.

Ford, on the other hand, got to tell her story in a formal hearing in front of the whole world, was questioned by an expert in the field, and determined to not have enough detail or information to be deemed credible in her accusations against Kavanaugh.

Meanwhile, highly laughable individuals have come forward to take their turn at bat, one admitting she was wholly drunk and could not be sure herself, and the other with a sketchy history of lies, who backtracked on her own story.

And the latest is more of the same. And is making Democrats seem completely unhinged.

Let me repeat: I don't give one rat's a$$ about his high school years. Not one iota.

Absolutely, 100% agree. I would be mortified to be associated with the Democratic party right now. What a bunch of utter morons.

Do you not care that he lied about his drinking? About being Bart? About the meaning of boofing and Devil's triangle? About yelling at Senators? About political conspiracy rants?

Show the lie about being Bart. I'm still waiting.

C'mon. It should be easy, right?

False memories. Right here, right in front of us. Anyone who doubts how Ford or Kavanaugh could be mistaken? Check out these "he lied about being Bart!" obsessives.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford unwilling to turn over therapist's notes to the SJC. These notes were leaked to Post and were referenced by Ford as corroborating her story under oath (though after the fact) to the SJC -- THE CON IS OVER

She offered to provide the notes to the FBI but they never showed up to interview her. If she provided them to the SJC, they would immediately be selectively leaked.

Because they weren't going to interview her and her lawyers knew it. Nor should they because, as you all keep saying, this isn't a criminal trial.

She can file a report and give them to the local police who have said over and over again they would be glad to help even if the statue of limitations has run out.

You can't have it both ways. If Grassley thinks the therapist's notes and other documents are important enough to request, they should are important enough for the FBI to review as part of its background investigation. It makes no sense that an investigation instigated by Ford's testimony wouldn't include an interview with her. It is clear to everyone that the White House restricted this investigation in order to achieve its desired outcome.

She shared them with the Washington Post, but not the senators, because you say they might be leaked? Leaked to who? She already shared them.

I think, frankly, her lawyers are lying (again). They have no intention of sharing those notes with the FBI, or anyone else, but favorable press.

[Anonymous]

@21:19

How are the Democrats on the SJC hypocrites?

And your point about they never had any intention of voting to confirm him is immaterial. That's their prerogative.

[Anonymous]

Something interesting to me is reading how comparatively, Clarence Thomas was calm in his own defense, even including “high-tech lynching.” His general and overall tone was superior to Kavanaugh’s, and they were in some ways similarly situated. Everyone knew then and now that Republicans were desperate since Nixon to replace Marshall, but the federal bench has never been deep with African-American, Republican judges, let alone one with “liberal” EEOC/admin law experience. In some ways, Marshall’s seat WAS Thomas’s seat in a way that’s simply not true for Kavanaugh and Kennedy, particularly since Leonard Leo has publicly rated all of the Federalist-approved judges as equal.

Curious what others think explains this gap. I’ve got my theories.

Thomas’s affect at the most intense moment:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8

Kavanaugh’s affect at one of many intense moments:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iVVmlueAVqg

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I do not agree. Giving in to this type of terrorism from the left only breeds more.

DP. I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with the idea. But you picked a dud. He blew it. That wasn't the Dems' fault. Just his.

Bullsh*t. Democrats launched an absolute smear campaign and you know that which is why you disagree with the idea. I'm glad he behaved the way he did. I wish he had gone full-nuclear, frankly. They deserved it full-stop.

You will do the same to the next one. And the next. And the next. It's what the left has devolved into. It's amoral and reprehensible.

And if the next one is accused of impropriety and manages to keep their composure when dealing with it, the will be promptly seated.

For the legal community, it isn’t about the harassment charge. It’s about his behavior at the hearing.

Please, you don’t speak for the “legal community,” whatever that actually might mean. There is no monolithic legal community. I am a practicing attorney in multiple states and a member of several professional associations (how many legal communities does that mean I belong to?) and I was thrilled that he told off the hypocrite Democrats in the SJC who never, not even for 2 minutes, had any intention of voting to confirm him.

PI work or divorces?

Definitely an ambulance chaser

+1. Too skeezy, even for family law. As we speak, Dude is typing on his phone while sitting in a hospital cafeteria trolling for clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something interesting to me is reading how comparatively, Clarence Thomas was calm in his own defense, even including “high-tech lynching.” His general and overall tone was superior to Kavanaugh’s, and they were in some ways similarly situated. Everyone knew then and now that Republicans were desperate since Nixon to replace Marshall, but the federal bench has never been deep with African-American, Republican judges, let alone one with “liberal” EEOC/admin law experience. In some ways, Marshall’s seat WAS Thomas’s seat in a way that’s simply not true for Kavanaugh and Kennedy, particularly since Leonard Leo has publicly rated all of the Federalist-approved judges as equal.

Curious what others think explains this gap. I’ve got my theories.

Thomas’s affect at the most intense moment:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8

Kavanaugh’s affect at one of many intense moments:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iVVmlueAVqg

Kavanaugh should be more outraged than Thomas because he knows the game the Dems created with Thomas

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A man’s life is shattered.

-Donald J. Trump 10/2/2018

He should have thought about his past before he put himself forward as a SCJ. Even *I* would not put myself forward for a public office because I partied when I was younger. And I never assaulted anyone. But if they started looking at my high school days, I hung around with some low lifes (think Judge) and was at some crazy parties. I wouldn't want to have to claim "I didn't inhale".

I think the lesson is, just be honest about your youthful indiscretions. It's not the sex, it's the cover up. it's not the underage drinking, it's the prevarication and obfuscation he engaged in. It's not the vomiting, it's that he lied when he said that "ralphing" was because he ate too much Thai food.

You can't lie to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And he did. Some of the lies were lies of omission, of refusal to answer, of minimizing "WE drank... only BEER... only on WEEKENDS" but you can't try to bamboozle under oath and expect to be a SCJ. The guy is a lawyer and a judge. Do you think he'd accept that behavior from a witness in his own courtroom?

He'd have held such a witness in contempt of court. But can he do so in the future? Can a judge be hypocritical from the bench? I guess so. But when a judge believes he is above the law, we have a crisis in the courtroom.

But why did he act that way? He was probably going to skate through in spite of the allegations until that moment.

Are you joking? I would have been surprised has he *not* acted angry. The man had been accused of something he completely denies. As another PP pointed out, the Dem. senators announced to Ford that they believed her - before she had even testified, and well before Kavanaugh had. Some called him "evil." His entire life has been combed through, he and his family are beyond mortified, and you ask why he acted "that way"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I do not agree. Giving in to this type of terrorism from the left only breeds more.

DP. I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with the idea. But you picked a dud. He blew it. That wasn't the Dems' fault. Just his.

Bullsh*t. Democrats launched an absolute smear campaign and you know that which is why you disagree with the idea. I'm glad he behaved the way he did. I wish he had gone full-nuclear, frankly. They deserved it full-stop.

You will do the same to the next one. And the next. And the next. It's what the left has devolved into. It's amoral and reprehensible.

And if the next one is accused of impropriety and manages to keep their composure when dealing with it, the will be promptly seated.

For the legal community, it isn’t about the harassment charge. It’s about his behavior at the hearing.

Please, you don’t speak for the “legal community,” whatever that actually might mean. There is no monolithic legal community. I am a practicing attorney in multiple states and a member of several professional associations (how many legal communities does that mean I belong to?) and I was thrilled that he told off the hypocrite Democrats in the SJC who never, not even for 2 minutes, had any intention of voting to confirm him.

PI work or divorces?

Definitely an ambulance chaser

+1. Too skeezy, even for family law. As we speak, Dude is typing on his phone while sitting in a hospital cafeteria trolling for clients.

Let me guess? You are all Federal lawyers right? I have never met anyone more arrogant, self-centered, and snide than a Democrat federal lawyer.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford unwilling to turn over therapist's notes to the SJC. These notes were leaked to Post and were referenced by Ford as corroborating her story under oath (though after the fact) to the SJC -- THE CON IS OVER

She offered to provide the notes to the FBI but they never showed up to interview her. If she provided them to the SJC, they would immediately be selectively leaked.

Because they weren't going to interview her and her lawyers knew it. Nor should they because, as you all keep saying, this isn't a criminal trial.

She can file a report and give them to the local police who have said over and over again they would be glad to help even if the statue of limitations has run out.

You can't have it both ways. If Grassley thinks the therapist's notes and other documents are important enough to request, they should are important enough for the FBI to review as part of its background investigation. It makes no sense that an investigation instigated by Ford's testimony wouldn't include an interview with her. It is clear to everyone that the White House restricted this investigation in order to achieve its desired outcome.

She shared them with the Washington Post, but not the senators, because you say they might be leaked? Leaked to who? She already shared them.

I think, frankly, her lawyers are lying (again). They have no intention of sharing those notes with the FBI, or anyone else, but favorable press.

Obviously she didn't share everything that the Committee wants. Otherwise they could just read them in the Post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something interesting to me is reading how comparatively, Clarence Thomas was calm in his own defense, even including “high-tech lynching.” His general and overall tone was superior to Kavanaugh’s, and they were in some ways similarly situated. Everyone knew then and now that Republicans were desperate since Nixon to replace Marshall, but the federal bench has never been deep with African-American, Republican judges, let alone one with “liberal” EEOC/admin law experience. In some ways, Marshall’s seat WAS Thomas’s seat in a way that’s simply not true for Kavanaugh and Kennedy, particularly since Leonard Leo has publicly rated all of the Federalist-approved judges as equal.

Curious what others think explains this gap. I’ve got my theories.

Thomas’s affect at the most intense moment:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8

Kavanaugh’s affect at one of many intense moments:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iVVmlueAVqg

Kavanaugh should be more outraged than Thomas because he knows the game the Dems created with Thomas

No, sorry.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-impeachment-perjury-sexual-harassment-812953%3famp=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6:39: Desperation.
You seriously think that this is something posted by someone who, at the time, was serving as an appellate judge?

What I have discovered from this whole sorry story is just how gullible and desperate some of you are and how you make connections to events and terms where no connection exists.

Yes. Yes, I do believe it was posted by a sitting appellate judge. Hopefully an FBI agent can trace its origin. Why are you so sure it isn't? The name is the same. The sex act described is the very sex act that Kavanaugh describes in his yearbook. Or are you so gullible that you think he was telling the truth that "BOOFING" was farting?



Drinking alcohol from another person's anus is apparently a thing. He did this. He enshrined the activity in his yearbook. Yearbook reference+the xoxohth post+the name "Bart O'Kavanaugh=coincidence? And I'm gullible?

ok.

I hope the FBI investigates it. Because, they will find it was posted by some teenager in his mom’s basement. And then we can all mock those of you who are grasping at anything. And, it was probably entered recently - the site was manipulated to make it appear as if it was entered in 2012
But, I doubt they will because it is a ridiculous thought.
Think about this..........Why would he use a screen name that could be so easily traced back to him if he did do it (which he didn’t). Use some critical reasoning.

+1
I would love for the FBI to trace those postings to their source - a DCUM malcontent, determined to set Kavanaugh up using "whatever means necessary." Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

If posting gross and obnoxious stuff on internet chat rooms with “clever” screen names is a crime worthy of investigation by the FBI, whole lotta 4chaners about to go to jail.

[Anonymous]

Serious honest question. Is the secrecy of the new FBI report just because Grassley says so? Is this common?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Warning to GOP:

The nation's largest coalition of Christian churches on Wednesday called for the withdrawal of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination for the Supreme Court.


https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/409775-national-council-of-churches-calls-for-kavanaughs-nomination-to

womp womp

So the only people left who support kavanaugh are pure partisans who are planning on turning the judiciary into a new political body

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something interesting to me is reading how comparatively, Clarence Thomas was calm in his own defense, even including “high-tech lynching.” His general and overall tone was superior to Kavanaugh’s, and they were in some ways similarly situated. Everyone knew then and now that Republicans were desperate since Nixon to replace Marshall, but the federal bench has never been deep with African-American, Republican judges, let alone one with “liberal” EEOC/admin law experience. In some ways, Marshall’s seat WAS Thomas’s seat in a way that’s simply not true for Kavanaugh and Kennedy, particularly since Leonard Leo has publicly rated all of the Federalist-approved judges as equal.

Curious what others think explains this gap. I’ve got my theories.

Thomas’s affect at the most intense moment:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8

Kavanaugh’s affect at one of many intense moments:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iVVmlueAVqg

Kavanaugh should be more outraged than Thomas because he knows the game the Dems created with Thomas

No, sorry.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-impeachment-perjury-sexual-harassment-812953%3famp=1

You just proved my case. Kavanaugh knew the game.