Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

You like it just fine when John Kerry was swift-boated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

So subpoena Mark Judge and have him clear Brett's good name. Easy peasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God is my witness, if Mark Judge testifies under oath that none of this ever happened, I will stand down. But WHERE IS HE??? The one person who could back Brett up?

He's holed up. He's not going to be testify.

So there's a vast liberal conspiracy of women who are perjuring themselves in order to sink the nomination </sarcasm>, but the one person who could clear Brett's name refuses to testify and Grassley refuses to call him.

This country is so f-ed up.

Yes all these women are risking their careers and family for a liberal conspiracy to take out a nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

So subpoena Mark Judge and have him clear Brett's good name. Easy peasy.

You wouldn’t believe him if he did. That’s a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

The court of public opinion has never been held to the same standards as a court of law. Ask hillary clinton!

You never proved she was guilty and it doesn't stop you all from talking about her like she's the antichrist reborn in a pantsuit.

If Kavanaugh withdrew tonight he would vanish into judicial obscurity because Trump would tweet out that he was shaving his head and the news cycle would consume itself all over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God is my witness, if Mark Judge testifies under oath that none of this ever happened, I will stand down. But WHERE IS HE??? The one person who could back Brett up?

He's holed up. He's not going to be testify.

So there's a vast liberal conspiracy of women who are perjuring themselves in order to sink the nomination </sarcasm>, but the one person who could clear Brett's name refuses to testify and Grassley refuses to call him.

This country is so f-ed up.

Yes all these women are risking their careers and family for a liberal conspiracy to take out a nominee.

They are risking nothing. They are heroes. They know they won’t be prosecuted for false statements because they cannot be proven. Or disproven. But, that is the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

Eh. Kavanaugh seems to be the dirty boy here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

Yes, in light of the new affidavit, his current position is in jeopardy. He seems to be oblivious to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God is my witness, if Mark Judge testifies under oath that none of this ever happened, I will stand down. But WHERE IS HE??? The one person who could back Brett up?

He's holed up. He's not going to be testify.

So there's a vast liberal conspiracy of women who are perjuring themselves in order to sink the nomination </sarcasm>, but the one person who could clear Brett's name refuses to testify and Grassley refuses to call him.

This country is so f-ed up.

Yes all these women are risking their careers and family for a liberal conspiracy to take out a nominee.

They are risking nothing. They are heroes. They know they won’t be prosecuted for false statements because they cannot be proven. Or disproven. But, that is the point.

Yeah I'm sure their kids who are in hiding after receiving death threats agree that they are risking nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

What do you think is the threshold for credible (or better yet, the threshold for evidence)?

First, it was she has no corroboration (except therapy notes and her husband).

Then it was "She's the only one! If this was his behavior, there'd be more."

Then when another came forward it was "Wait but her account is different, and/or it's 'only' him putting his dick in her face! NBD"

Then when THAT account was corroborated, some other BS.

Now after yet another person is coming forward corroborating certain environments and behaviors, it's "But that's way too crazy to be real!" or "Someone would have called the police!" and even "She should have reported it so let's have the government prosecute her!"


Be honest, you will never believe any of them, no matter how many moving goal posts they reach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God is my witness, if Mark Judge testifies under oath that none of this ever happened, I will stand down. But WHERE IS HE??? The one person who could back Brett up?

He's holed up. He's not going to be testify.

So there's a vast liberal conspiracy of women who are perjuring themselves in order to sink the nomination </sarcasm>, but the one person who could clear Brett's name refuses to testify and Grassley refuses to call him.

This country is so f-ed up.

Yes all these women are risking their careers and family for a liberal conspiracy to take out a nominee.

They are risking nothing. They are heroes. They know they won’t be prosecuted for false statements because they cannot be proven. Or disproven. But, that is the point.

You are incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why have hearings? The GOP will ram Kavanaugh through regardless of what is said. This is a party that supported prdophiles like Moore and Hastert.

Yes it is the party that hates women unless they are white, wealthy, or pregnant. Why they have an elephant (matriarchal) as their emblem befuddles me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

The court of public opinion has never been held to the same standards as a court of law. Ask hillary clinton!

You never proved she was guilty and it doesn't stop you all from talking about her like she's the antichrist reborn in a pantsuit.

If Kavanaugh withdrew tonight he would vanish into judicial obscurity because Trump would tweet out that he was shaving his head and the news cycle would consume itself all over again.

Excellent, excellent point PP.

[Anonymous]

Are these the same Trumpsters who were hailing Harvey Weinsteins victims for their courage in coming forward with incidents that happened eons ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God is my witness, if Mark Judge testifies under oath that none of this ever happened, I will stand down. But WHERE IS HE??? The one person who could back Brett up?

He's holed up. He's not going to be testify.

So there's a vast liberal conspiracy of women who are perjuring themselves in order to sink the nomination </sarcasm>, but the one person who could clear Brett's name refuses to testify and Grassley refuses to call him.

This country is so f-ed up.

Yes all these women are risking their careers and family for a liberal conspiracy to take out a nominee.

They are risking nothing. They are heroes. They know they won’t be prosecuted for false statements because they cannot be proven. Or disproven. But, that is the point.

You’re kidding, right? They are risking their careers. Men do not like to work with women who speak out!