Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

So, a woman who graduated two or three years before Kavanaugh was going to high school parties where people were being gang raped--says she was raped at one of them, and she kept going back?

Am I the only one confused here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

then they can sue for "discrimination" and get millions. Wealthy white women never have to suffer any consequences.
You’re kidding, right? They are risking their careers. Men do not like to work with women who speak out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

True!!

[Anonymous]

The same folks freaking out about transgender people in bathrooms aren't batting an eye at drug-facilitated rape trains at upper class high school parties.

[Anonymous]

I’m curious about two things and not planning to go through this entire thread.

What are the circled numbers in his calendar? I think it could be something related to these parties.

Neil Gorsuch graduated from GPS in 1985. Can anyone compare Neil's cohort with Brett’s cohort?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The same folks freaking out about transgender people in bathrooms aren't batting an eye at drug-facilitated rape trains at upper class high school parties.

This!!

[Anonymous]

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

Sure seems that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious about two things and not planning to go through this entire thread.

What are the circled numbers in his calendar? I think it could be something related to these parties.

Neil Gorsuch graduated from GPS in 1985. Can anyone compare Neil's cohort with Brett’s cohort?

Their time overlapped but they seemed to have been in different social groups.

[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 ethical standard for a Judicial Nominee are not remotely the same as that of a defendant in a criminal case. The appearance of impropriety is enough to remove a judge from the bench. http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies See the Judicial Code of Conduct, Canon 2.

But carry blathering about legal standards that you obviously know nothing about.

[Anonymous]

"is"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious about two things and not planning to go through this entire thread.

What are the circled numbers in his calendar? I think it could be something related to these parties.

Neil Gorsuch graduated from GPS in 1985. Can anyone compare Neil's cohort with Brett’s cohort?

Their time overlapped but they seemed to have been in different social groups.

He hung out with the non-rapey crew.

[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 ethical standard for a Judicial Nominee are not remotely the same as that of a defendant in a criminal case. The appearance of impropriety is enough to remove a judge from the bench. http://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/judiciary-policies/ethics-policies See the Judicial Code of Conduct, Canon 2.

But carry blathering about legal standards that you obviously know nothing about.

This includes spending a week at the White House, btw (Kavanaugh) or attending GOP dinners (Gorsuch). I'm pretty unimpressed by Gprep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious about two things and not planning to go through this entire thread.

What are the circled numbers in his calendar? I think it could be something related to these parties.

Neil Gorsuch graduated from GPS in 1985. Can anyone compare Neil's cohort with Brett’s cohort?

Their time overlapped but they seemed to have been in different social groups.

One of the classmates from Hs said Gorsuch was squeaky clean or something like that.

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/mark-judges-girlfriend-is-ready-to-talk-to-fbi-and-judiciary-committee-her-lawyer-says/?utm_term=.ac070ac4ae42

Mark Judge’s former girlfriend is ready to talk to FBI and Judiciary Committee, her lawyer says

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I would absolutely believe him. He is not hiding because "no one will believe me." LOL.