Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

You say that because you're just another hypocritical and childish liberal, angry that you didn't get your way. The giveaway was your calling him "O'Kavanaugh,"

Face it. Democrats could find nothing on this exemplary man, so now they're reduced to complaining that he didn't tell the truth about slang terms that silly 17-year old boys wrote in their yearbook. Do you people even hear how ridiculous you sound?

[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.

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?

Let's backtrack just a tad. I think the very idea of questioning Kavanaugh about vulgar terms in his high school yearbook was beyond the pale. And we have Sen. Whitehouse and the other Democrats to thank for that incredibly low moment. Those questions should never have been asked, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He lied under oath about being a choirboy during the period the complaint about sexual assault concerns. He is not a victim.

[Anonymous]

Yay for Chief Justice Roberts! He is having another investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

You say that because you're just another hypocritical and childish liberal, angry that you didn't get your way. The giveaway was your calling him "O'Kavanaugh,"

Face it. Democrats could find nothing on this exemplary man, so now they're reduced to complaining that he didn't tell the truth about slang terms that silly 17-year old boys wrote in their yearbook. Do you people even hear how ridiculous you sound?

Exactly. And Kavanaugh even said at one point that they used those terms to mask their teenaged insecurities and inexperience. Which is obvious. Boys have been doing that from the beginning of time. The terms didn't mean anything, yet the witch hunt was determined to make him admit to something he *did not do.*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

You say that because you're just another hypocritical and childish liberal, angry that you didn't get your way. The giveaway was your calling him "O'Kavanaugh,"

Face it. Democrats could find nothing on this exemplary man, so now they're reduced to complaining that he didn't tell the truth about slang terms that silly 17-year old boys wrote in their yearbook. Do you people even hear how ridiculous you sound?

That’s his name, isn’t it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He lied under oath about being a choirboy during the period the complaint about sexual assault concerns. He is not a victim.

He never said he was a "choirboy." He said he had done things in high school that he regretted - like many high schoolers. But those things did not include sexually assaulting anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

You say that because you're just another hypocritical and childish liberal, angry that you didn't get your way. The giveaway was your calling him "O'Kavanaugh,"

Face it. Democrats could find nothing on this exemplary man, so now they're reduced to complaining that he didn't tell the truth about slang terms that silly 17-year old boys wrote in their yearbook. Do you people even hear how ridiculous you sound?

That’s his name, isn’t it?

You're a moron.
-DP

[Anonymous]

Here is Kavanaugh’s oath before his testimony. Was he crossing his fingers so it doesn’t count? What makes you think it’s ok to lie?

GRASSLEY: Would you please rise, sir?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

GRASSLEY: Do you affirm that the testimony you’re about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

You say that because you're just another hypocritical and childish liberal, angry that you didn't get your way. The giveaway was your calling him "O'Kavanaugh,"

Face it. Democrats could find nothing on this exemplary man, so now they're reduced to complaining that he didn't tell the truth about slang terms that silly 17-year old boys wrote in their yearbook. Do you people even hear how ridiculous you sound?

That’s his name, isn’t it?

No it isn't. Grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yay for Chief Justice Roberts! He is having another investigation.

No, he's not. He simply referred the current investigation to a different court. He probably wanted nothing to do with it. Can't say I blame him.
http://time.com/5421689/supreme-court-john-roberts-refers-brett-kavanaugh-complaint/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It establishes a pattern of behavior on his part that fits with what she described. Intoxication, partying, highly sexualized, misogynistic, involving Judge, all the items in his yearbook support what she said. He was no choirboy as he made himself out to be.

[Anonymous]

Best friends with one of his classmates. 100% can confirm booking and Devil's Triangle were what Kavanaugh said and not the modern day urban dictionary definitions. As far as the Renate mentions, that was distasteful and again didn't mean sex. She was a really nice girl who hung out with those boys and was always willing to be the date for HS dances -- that's it. So alumni just meant a date, nothing more. Very distasteful, but not sexual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best friends with one of his classmates. 100% can confirm booking and Devil's Triangle were what Kavanaugh said and not the modern day urban dictionary definitions. As far as the Renate mentions, that was distasteful and again didn't mean sex. She was a really nice girl who hung out with those boys and was always willing to be the date for HS dances -- that's it. So alumni just meant a date, nothing more. Very distasteful, but not sexual.

You are so full of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best friends with one of his classmates. 100% can confirm booking and Devil's Triangle were what Kavanaugh said and not the modern day urban dictionary definitions. As far as the Renate mentions, that was distasteful and again didn't mean sex. She was a really nice girl who hung out with those boys and was always willing to be the date for HS dances -- that's it. So alumni just meant a date, nothing more. Very distasteful, but not sexual.

You are so full of it.

DP. I would say it's you who is full of it and desperately trying to make something where there is nothing. Typical.