Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[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).

Really? You are comparing the Clinton impeachment fiasco to whether Kav lied about his HS yearbook posts from 36 years ago?
I really suggest you do some research. Clinton was not impeached because he had a consensual relationship with Lewinsky. He was impeached because he lied and tried to cover up the incident. In a sworn deposition he denied having relations with her. He coached his secretary to repeat the same lies only to come out 3 months later and admit that he lied. Had he admitted to the affair and not lied he would have never been impeached.

He was not found guilty on perjury and obstruction charges stemming from the Paula Jones allegations from his time as Governor of Arkansas.

If it was ever proven that Kavanaugh did assault Ford he should be impeached and removed. The Clinton Lies were black and white and were not about things that happened 36 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And you're rubber and I'm glue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He didn't make himself out to be a choirboy. He said he drank too much at times and did things he wish he hadn't (as many high school boys do),

You liberals are really grasping at straws here.

[Anonymous]

The problem that many of you don’t seem to understand is that he didn’t just lie about one thing. He perjured himself in 2004, 2006, and again over the Miranda files. He likely lied about his knowledge of Kozinski, he probably lied about his finances, but those are so opaque it’s hard to tell, he likely perjured himself when he told Hirono he’d never done anything that would constitute sexual harassment as an adult (see: Ramirez). On top of all that is the yearbook lies, the never forgetting anything when drunk, and the allegations. I count Ramirez above because it’s also a recent allegation of perjury.

To the friend of the GP alum, sorry, but I can’t believe you. Everything that happened st Prep stays at prep, so they are likely not being truthful with you. After the entire Whelan accusation against Chris Garrett, the indications are that his friends are covering for him. I know of people that were in that class too and they will privately say they believe the allegations.

[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.

And as a reminder, things people have called out as lies, haven't been.
Kavanaugh said he drank.
Kavanaugh's answer for what Devils Triangle meant was backed up by men who were Prep students at the time.
The FFFF thing was shown to be a regular, non-sexual, thing the boys did.

I think the assumption that the term wasn't one they used for farting, and thus is proof he perjured himself, is ridiculous at this point.

That leaves the comment about their friend from the girls school. I've known teenage boys, and I can easily imagine them saying and doing something crude and thinking it was affectionate toward her, particularly if they didn't ever have to consider she would actually see it. The things teenagers consider jokes or incrowd endearments sometimes miss the mark completely. It doesn't mean they're intended to be cruel. So that too, I think is a challenging one to prove perjury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem that many of you don’t seem to understand is that he didn’t just lie about one thing. He perjured himself in 2004, 2006, and again over the Miranda files. He likely lied about his knowledge of Kozinski, he probably lied about his finances, but those are so opaque it’s hard to tell, he likely perjured himself when he told Hirono he’d never done anything that would constitute sexual harassment as an adult (see: Ramirez). On top of all that is the yearbook lies, the never forgetting anything when drunk, and the allegations. I count Ramirez above because it’s also a recent allegation of perjury.

To the friend of the GP alum, sorry, but I can’t believe you. Everything that happened st Prep stays at prep, so they are likely not being truthful with you. After the entire Whelan accusation against Chris Garrett, the indications are that his friends are covering for him. I know of people that were in that class too and they will privately say they believe the allegations.

If he perjured himself in 2004, 2006, and over the Miranda files, why didn't the Senate Democrats make more of a fuss about it? Could it possibly be they couldn't because there is no evidence? Hmm.

In order for him to have perjured himself re:Ramirez you'd have to prove he did what Ramirez accused him of. Again, there is no proof.

Perjury isn't "I don't like what you said." It isn't even "I don't believe you."

[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.

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.

But given that they were in fact asked, you think it is still OK for a SC nominee to lie. Just admit it--you think it is OK to lie under oath, even as a federal judge, if you don't like the questions being asked. You do not believe in oaths. 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).

Really? You are comparing the Clinton impeachment fiasco to whether Kav lied about his HS yearbook posts from 36 years ago?
I really suggest you do some research. Clinton was not impeached because he had a consensual relationship with Lewinsky. He was impeached because he lied and tried to cover up the incident. In a sworn deposition he denied having relations with her. He coached his secretary to repeat the same lies only to come out 3 months later and admit that he lied. Had he admitted to the affair and not lied he would have never been impeached.

He was not found guilty on perjury and obstruction charges stemming from the Paula Jones allegations from his time as Governor of Arkansas.

If it was ever proven that Kavanaugh did assault Ford he should be impeached and removed. The Clinton Lies were black and white and were not about things that happened 36 years ago.

Yeah, he lied about a sexual affair and was impeached for it. Kavanaugh lies about his activities in Hs and college, and about his conduct in Starr’s investigation. I see three options:

1. Little lies are ok. Clinton should not have been impeached, and kavanaugh should be off the hook for his lies.

2. No lie is acceptable. Maybe the Clinton investigation was a witchhunt, but he lied under oath and that’s not allowed, so impeachment was the right move. Kavanaugh can be morally excused for lying about his unsavory past, but he nevertheless must suffer a penalty for lying under oath.

3. You’re a hypocrite.

[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.

And as a reminder, things people have called out as lies, haven't been.
Kavanaugh said he drank.
Kavanaugh's answer for what Devils Triangle meant was backed up by men who were Prep students at the time.
The FFFF thing was shown to be a regular, non-sexual, thing the boys did.

I think the assumption that the term wasn't one they used for farting, and thus is proof he perjured himself, is ridiculous at this point.

That leaves the comment about their friend from the girls school. I've known teenage boys, and I can easily imagine them saying and doing something crude and thinking it was affectionate toward her, particularly if they didn't ever have to consider she would actually see it. The things teenagers consider jokes or incrowd endearments sometimes miss the mark completely. It doesn't mean they're intended to be cruel. So that too, I think is a challenging one to prove perjury.

Point, it should have been investigated properly. As PP said, there is a pattern of potential lies about things great and small, both recent and in the distant past. It is not necessary for the FBI to prove perjury. Just provide information so that a fair minded Senator (seem to be a handful left) can make a decision based facts not conjecture.

[Anonymous]

Can everyone back up a little. Regardless of your feelings about Kavanaugh etc., does anyone have any insight into the referral by Chief Justice Roberts of the complaints against Kavanaugh? A lot of reporters were quick to anticipate that the complaints would be dismissed as moot. Is that correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can everyone back up a little. Regardless of your feelings about Kavanaugh etc., does anyone have any insight into the referral by Chief Justice Roberts of the complaints against Kavanaugh? A lot of reporters were quick to anticipate that the complaints would be dismissed as moot. Is that correct?

No he order an investigation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can everyone back up a little. Regardless of your feelings about Kavanaugh etc., does anyone have any insight into the referral by Chief Justice Roberts of the complaints against Kavanaugh? A lot of reporters were quick to anticipate that the complaints would be dismissed as moot. Is that correct?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/10/11/chief-justice-roberts-requests-tenth-circuit-to-investigate-kavanaugh-ethics-questions/#5e69cb8b1877

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can everyone back up a little. Regardless of your feelings about Kavanaugh etc., does anyone have any insight into the referral by Chief Justice Roberts of the complaints against Kavanaugh? A lot of reporters were quick to anticipate that the complaints would be dismissed as moot. Is that correct?

I am not a Kavanaugh, but I think those reports are correct. The judicial misconduct complaints in question are all tied to his confirmation hearing testimony. I think the judiciary is handling them carefully to avoid the appearance of impropriety, so they're not just dismissing them all out of hand, they're going through the formal channels, and transferring them to a different court to avoid any allegation of conflict of interest. But I don't see how anything would come out of them, because 1) they are not about things he did in his official role as a judge, 2) I believe the commentators are correct that the standards of misconduct Kavanaugh would have been subject to while he was a Court of Appeals judge no longer apply now that he's a Supreme Court Justice, and 3) the proper channel for removing a Supreme Court justice is through impeachment and conviction by the Senate, not through a Court of Appeals judicial panel.

[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.

He doesn’t have an impeccable reputation. He was a scummy political hack from the time he haunted Foster’s family, from the time he came up with the filthiest, most prurient questions to try and embarrass Clinton, from the time he used STOLEN PROPERTY and perjured about it years ago and perjured about it this summer. He is unfit. Your sad little attempts to change the subject are just pathetic. He’s a perjurer and a political hack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can everyone back up a little. Regardless of your feelings about Kavanaugh etc., does anyone have any insight into the referral by Chief Justice Roberts of the complaints against Kavanaugh? A lot of reporters were quick to anticipate that the complaints would be dismissed as moot. Is that correct?

I am not a Kavanaugh, but I think those reports are correct. The judicial misconduct complaints in question are all tied to his confirmation hearing testimony. I think the judiciary is handling them carefully to avoid the appearance of impropriety, so they're not just dismissing them all out of hand, they're going through the formal channels, and transferring them to a different court to avoid any allegation of conflict of interest. But I don't see how anything would come out of them, because 1) they are not about things he did in his official role as a judge, 2) I believe the commentators are correct that the standards of misconduct Kavanaugh would have been subject to while he was a Court of Appeals judge no longer apply now that he's a Supreme Court Justice, and 3) the proper channel for removing a Supreme Court justice is through impeachment and conviction by the Senate, not through a Court of Appeals judicial panel.

That should say I'm not a Kavanaugh supporter.