Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberals should let it go at this point. The Dems used Ford, despite knowing she had no proof of her allegation from high school, to try to force Kavanaugh to withdraw, and it didn't work. He is in the SCOTUS now, and there he will stay. Stop wasting your time dreaming about impeachment, since you will never get the 2/3 of the Senate you'd need to convict.

I don't know about that. But we do need to do something to stop the acceptability of lying in our leaders. The moral fiber of our nation cannot hold if our very leaders are bold faced liars. What to do, I'm not sure. (and, yes, I'm against democratic liars as well. I thought if there was anything that defined what it means to be American, it is the sacredness of truth)

I think we need to distinguish between lies. Lying about a slang term for flatulence in one's high school yearbook is not the same as lying about being able to keep one's doctor and having premiums go down.

THANK YOU. Finally, a normal person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberals should let it go at this point. The Dems used Ford, despite knowing she had no proof of her allegation from high school, to try to force Kavanaugh to withdraw, and it didn't work. He is in the SCOTUS now, and there he will stay. Stop wasting your time dreaming about impeachment, since you will never get the 2/3 of the Senate you'd need to convict.

I don't know about that. But we do need to do something to stop the acceptability of lying in our leaders. The moral fiber of our nation cannot hold if our very leaders are bold faced liars. What to do, I'm not sure. (and, yes, I'm against democratic liars as well. I thought if there was anything that defined what it means to be American, it is the sacredness of truth)

I think we need to distinguish between lies. Lying about a slang term for flatulence in one's high school yearbook is not the same as lying about being able to keep one's doctor and having premiums go down.

For average people in social situations, yes. When a candidate for supreme court justice is talking to Congress, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why Ford did not report this to the Montgomery County police when she decided to come forward. Certainly a police department would do more investigation than a FBI background check.

Um, because it was for a political hit? Were you asleep for two weeks?

No evidence Dr Ford came forward out of political motivation. Ditto for Debbie Ramriez

Exactly. PP, prove it was a “political hit.”

DP. No pol

I suspect that both came forward out of a social justice warrior mindset that they could right a wrong that they conveniently ignored for years.

If Kavanaugh were applying for a GS13 job in Social Security, they would laugh that such a loser once dated to engage them.
Their sense of justice emerged only when they could push into Kavanaugh’s spotlight. But were they looking for justice or glory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberals should let it go at this point. The Dems used Ford, despite knowing she had no proof of her allegation from high school, to try to force Kavanaugh to withdraw, and it didn't work. He is in the SCOTUS now, and there he will stay. Stop wasting your time dreaming about impeachment, since you will never get the 2/3 of the Senate you'd need to convict.

I don't know about that. But we do need to do something to stop the acceptability of lying in our leaders. The moral fiber of our nation cannot hold if our very leaders are bold faced liars. What to do, I'm not sure. (and, yes, I'm against democratic liars as well. I thought if there was anything that defined what it means to be American, it is the sacredness of truth)

I think we need to distinguish between lies. Lying about a slang term for flatulence in one's high school yearbook is not the same as lying about being able to keep one's doctor and having premiums go down.

THANK YOU. Finally, a normal person.

You're welcome - from one normal person to another!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch this video of Kamala Harris interviewing FBI Director
Wray about the Kavanaguh investigation.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/10/1803401/-WATCH-Sen-Harris-grills-FBI-Director-until-he-admits-White-House-limited-Kavanaugh-investigation?detail=facebook

I find it remarkable for several reasons. One, Kamala is so awesome. Do not mess with her.
Two, Wray speaks like a man who is being truthful and direct, with nothing to hide. Sure, there are things he can't say, but he is not lying, not evasive. Such a contrast to Kavanaugh!
Three, obviously, the content of Harris' questions and the answers.

I like Wray too and it makes me feel good to know he is in charge of the FBI. I am old enough to remember when we expected political appointees to be public servants first - country over party To the Kavanaugh apologists, I expect public servants to be ethical and honest and I expect a SC justice to be incredibly truthful especially when they are under oath. This is the main reason so many law professors came out in opposition to his nomination after his testimony.
Here is a nice summary of his lies under oath:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/02/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies-distortions-and-absurdities/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.14d87a38d0b0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberals should let it go at this point. The Dems used Ford, despite knowing she had no proof of her allegation from high school, to try to force Kavanaugh to withdraw, and it didn't work. He is in the SCOTUS now, and there he will stay. Stop wasting your time dreaming about impeachment, since you will never get the 2/3 of the Senate you'd need to convict.

I don't know about that. But we do need to do something to stop the acceptability of lying in our leaders. The moral fiber of our nation cannot hold if our very leaders are bold faced liars. What to do, I'm not sure. (and, yes, I'm against democratic liars as well. I thought if there was anything that defined what it means to be American, it is the sacredness of truth)

I think we need to distinguish between lies. Lying about a slang term for flatulence in one's high school yearbook is not the same as lying about being able to keep one's doctor and having premiums go down.

For average people in social situations, yes. When a candidate for supreme court justice is talking to Congress, no.

Not the PP. Sorry, but I could not care less about stupid terms in one's high school yearbook. I don't expect even a SC nominee to get up in front of the world and explain any of those absurd terms 17 yr. olds used, 36 yrs. ago. I truly, honestly DON'T CARE. And I remain astounded at those of you who continue to clutch your pearls over this. I guess the man's impeccable reputation for the entirety of his adult life don't matter one iota to you. You people are beyond ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberals should let it go at this point. The Dems used Ford, despite knowing she had no proof of her allegation from high school, to try to force Kavanaugh to withdraw, and it didn't work. He is in the SCOTUS now, and there he will stay. Stop wasting your time dreaming about impeachment, since you will never get the 2/3 of the Senate you'd need to convict.

I don't know about that. But we do need to do something to stop the acceptability of lying in our leaders. The moral fiber of our nation cannot hold if our very leaders are bold faced liars. What to do, I'm not sure. (and, yes, I'm against democratic liars as well. I thought if there was anything that defined what it means to be American, it is the sacredness of truth)

I think we need to distinguish between lies. Lying about a slang term for flatulence in one's high school yearbook is not the same as lying about being able to keep one's doctor and having premiums go down.

For average people in social situations, yes. When a candidate for supreme court justice is talking to Congress, no.

Wrong. No one should be questioned about obnoxious phrases in their high school yearbook. Have you lost all sense of proportionality??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch this video of Kamala Harris interviewing FBI Director
Wray about the Kavanaguh investigation.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/10/1803401/-WATCH-Sen-Harris-grills-FBI-Director-until-he-admits-White-House-limited-Kavanaugh-investigation?detail=facebook

I find it remarkable for several reasons. One, Kamala is so awesome. Do not mess with her.
Two, Wray speaks like a man who is being truthful and direct, with nothing to hide. Sure, there are things he can't say, but he is not lying, not evasive. Such a contrast to Kavanaugh!
Three, obviously, the content of Harris' questions and the answers.

He is not being accused of a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberals should let it go at this point. The Dems used Ford, despite knowing she had no proof of her allegation from high school, to try to force Kavanaugh to withdraw, and it didn't work. He is in the SCOTUS now, and there he will stay. Stop wasting your time dreaming about impeachment, since you will never get the 2/3 of the Senate you'd need to convict.

I don't know about that. But we do need to do something to stop the acceptability of lying in our leaders. The moral fiber of our nation cannot hold if our very leaders are bold faced liars. What to do, I'm not sure. (and, yes, I'm against democratic liars as well. I thought if there was anything that defined what it means to be American, it is the sacredness of truth)

I think we need to distinguish between lies. Lying about a slang term for flatulence in one's high school yearbook is not the same as lying about being able to keep one's doctor and having premiums go down.

For average people in social situations, yes. When a candidate for supreme court justice is talking to Congress, no.

Wrong. No one should be questioned about obnoxious phrases in their high school yearbook. Have you lost all sense of proportionality??

UNLESS that hs yearbook sheds lights on specific accusations. Such as Dr. Ford's accusations of something that took place in hs, involving drinking and parties. Which the yearbook corroborates of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberals should let it go at this point. The Dems used Ford, despite knowing she had no proof of her allegation from high school, to try to force Kavanaugh to withdraw, and it didn't work. He is in the SCOTUS now, and there he will stay. Stop wasting your time dreaming about impeachment, since you will never get the 2/3 of the Senate you'd need to convict.

I don't know about that. But we do need to do something to stop the acceptability of lying in our leaders. The moral fiber of our nation cannot hold if our very leaders are bold faced liars. What to do, I'm not sure. (and, yes, I'm against democratic liars as well. I thought if there was anything that defined what it means to be American, it is the sacredness of truth)

I think we need to distinguish between lies. Lying about a slang term for flatulence in one's high school yearbook is not the same as lying about being able to keep one's doctor and having premiums go down.

For average people in social situations, yes. When a candidate for supreme court justice is talking to Congress, no.

Wrong. No one should be questioned about obnoxious phrases in their high school yearbook. Have you lost all sense of proportionality??

UNLESS that hs yearbook sheds lights on specific accusations. Such as Dr. Ford's accusations of something that took place in hs, involving drinking and parties. Which the yearbook corroborates of course.

How did the phrases in his yearbook have anything to do with Ford's allegations? Oh, right. They didn't.

[Anonymous]

Not the PP. Sorry, but I could not care less about stupid terms in one's high school yearbook. I don't expect even a SC nominee to get up in front of the world and explain any of those absurd terms 17 yr. olds used, 36 yrs. ago. I truly, honestly DON'T CARE. And I remain astounded at those of you who continue to clutch your pearls over this. I guess the man's impeccable reputation for the entirety of his adult life don't matter one iota to you. You people are beyond ridiculous.

So are you one of those republicans who shouted during the Clinton years that it’s stupid to criticize him - and even impeach - over a lie about a private and consensual sexual relationship?

If not, please explain what’s different for you (other than the party labels).

[Anonymous]

I’m old fashioned about that whole “don’t lie under oath” thing. Small lies count too.

O’kavanaugh did take an oath to tell the truth before he testified, didn’t he? Did that oath not count? Did it include an unspoken exception for “little lies”? Does O’kavanaugh allow people to lie in his courtroom, so long as the lies are little ones?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP. Sorry, but I could not care less about stupid terms in one's high school yearbook. I don't expect even a SC nominee to get up in front of the world and explain any of those absurd terms 17 yr. olds used, 36 yrs. ago. I truly, honestly DON'T CARE. And I remain astounded at those of you who continue to clutch your pearls over this. I guess the man's impeccable reputation for the entirety of his adult life don't matter one iota to you. You people are beyond ridiculous.

So are you one of those republicans who shouted during the Clinton years that it’s stupid to criticize him - and even impeach - over a lie about a private and consensual sexual relationship?

If not, please explain what’s different for you (other than the party labels).

Nitt the pp you are responding to, but I'm a Kavenaugh defender and likewise also thought the Star investigation was a political hit job that accused him for no other reason than to smear his name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think liberals should let it go at this point. The Dems used Ford, despite knowing she had no proof of her allegation from high school, to try to force Kavanaugh to withdraw, and it didn't work. He is in the SCOTUS now, and there he will stay. Stop wasting your time dreaming about impeachment, since you will never get the 2/3 of the Senate you'd need to convict.

I don't know about that. But we do need to do something to stop the acceptability of lying in our leaders. The moral fiber of our nation cannot hold if our very leaders are bold faced liars. What to do, I'm not sure. (and, yes, I'm against democratic liars as well. I thought if there was anything that defined what it means to be American, it is the sacredness of truth)

I think we need to distinguish between lies. Lying about a slang term for flatulence in one's high school yearbook is not the same as lying about being able to keep one's doctor and having premiums go down.

For average people in social situations, yes. When a candidate for supreme court justice is talking to Congress, no.

Not the PP. Sorry, but I could not care less about stupid terms in one's high school yearbook. I don't expect even a SC nominee to get up in front of the world and explain any of those absurd terms 17 yr. olds used, 36 yrs. ago. I truly, honestly DON'T CARE. And I remain astounded at those of you who continue to clutch your pearls over this. I guess the man's impeccable reputation for the entirety of his adult life don't matter one iota to you. You people are beyond ridiculous.

Let me get this straight-- you think it is honorable for a SC nominee to disregard an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Oaths taken by justices do not matter? In your opinion, if one believes he has a valid reason for lying, then even under oath, he can lie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not the PP. Sorry, but I could not care less about stupid terms in one's high school yearbook. I don't expect even a SC nominee to get up in front of the world and explain any of those absurd terms 17 yr. olds used, 36 yrs. ago. I truly, honestly DON'T CARE. And I remain astounded at those of you who continue to clutch your pearls over this. I guess the man's impeccable reputation for the entirety of his adult life don't matter one iota to you. You people are beyond ridiculous.

So are you one of those republicans who shouted during the Clinton years that it’s stupid to criticize him - and even impeach - over a lie about a private and consensual sexual relationship?

If not, please explain what’s different for you (other than the party labels).

PP here. I was actually a Democrat during the Clinton years and highly admired him as a president. And during that time, I did think it was ridiculous to impeach him over what was essentially a lie about a consensual relationship.

I am now a moderate Republican who thinks the Kavanaugh witch hunt, and especially the "outrage" over the stupid yearbook terms, is beyond ridiculous.

I don't think party labels have anything to do with this. Rational, sane people don't foam at the mouth over things like this. Now, if one of them lied about killing someone? Then there would be a problem. But I don't care even a tiny bit about whatever "boofing" might mean. Sorry, I just don't.