Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Manchin.....

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D) said in a new interview that he remains undecided about Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, but bashed the judge's confirmation process as a "circus."

The key swing vote Democrat told Al Jazeera that he is looking at Kavanaugh's adult life and time in the judiciary. He added that he would decide after viewing the FBI's supplemental background investigation into the allegations of sexual assault against the judge whether the probe's scope was sufficient. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations leveled against him by three women.

"This has been horrible. It's another circus," Manchin said, referring to the confirmation process.


"I am looking at the gentleman as an adult from 22 to 53, 31 years of professional service. I am looking at him as a father," the senator added. "As a person in a community, how he interacts with his community. I am trying to put the human side to it."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409831-manchin-on-kavanaugh-decision-im-trying-to-put-the-human-side-to-it

The lying from last week should be the downfall, then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican. It appears to be a he/said she /said many years after the fact, with no "smoking gun"? I don't think an unsubstantiated allegation should bring any candidate down, Dem or Rep. However, I also did not like his blustery, whiny demeanor. I would say "next". There are plenty of others who can show a history of fantastic jurosprudence and keep their cool when the arrows start flying, as they will. We are a nation of 350 mlion. There's more than one great potential candidate. What do republicans feel they will lose by going to the next?

Moderate here. This is how I feel. We can pick someone better.

It’s not Kavanaugh vs no one. It’s Kavanaugh vs several dozen other better qualified judges without sexual assault stains in their records. Pick a better nominee.

This x infinity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact: Ford could not put together a comprehensive enough story with enough verifiable fact. She accused a man publicly of attempted rape, which resulted in absolute crucification in the media. He then had to come out and not only defend himself, but protect his family from the fallout. And he did just that. I would say he's not the right man for the job had he NOT come out swinging.

No, that’s your opinion. Ford’s story was fine. Brett isn’t a suitable judge. Frankly he sounded like he needed intensive therapy. He just wants power and glory. Giving him the benefit of he doubt, that he’s mean drunk who doesn’t remember assaulting any women, he had to know how much he drank (drinks?). If he had any sense at all, he would have declined to nom. But he’s a power hungry freak.

It’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of a qualified prosecutor in the field.

[Anonymous]

Red wave?! You need Russia to help and voter suppression to win. There was no smear campaign just a reporting of Kavanaugh’s actions. It was a discussion of Bro-culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican. It appears to be a he/said she /said many years after the fact, with no "smoking gun"? I don't think an unsubstantiated allegation should bring any candidate down, Dem or Rep. However, I also did not like his blustery, whiny demeanor. I would say "next". There are plenty of others who can show a history of fantastic jurosprudence and keep their cool when the arrows start flying, as they will. We are a nation of 350 mlion. There's more than one great potential candidate. What do republicans feel they will lose by going to the next?

Moderate here. This is how I feel. We can pick someone better.

It’s not Kavanaugh vs no one. It’s Kavanaugh vs several dozen other better qualified judges without sexual assault stains in their records. Pick a better nominee.

At this point, it isn't even the sexual assault stains. He has shown a lack of judicial temperment and he lied repeatedly before the Senate. Disqualifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican. It appears to be a he/said she /said many years after the fact, with no "smoking gun"? I don't think an unsubstantiated allegation should bring any candidate down, Dem or Rep. However, I also did not like his blustery, whiny demeanor. I would say "next". There are plenty of others who can show a history of fantastic jurosprudence and keep their cool when the arrows start flying, as they will. We are a nation of 350 mlion. There's more than one great potential candidate. What do republicans feel they will lose by going to the next?

Moderate here. This is how I feel. We can pick someone better.

It’s not Kavanaugh vs no one. It’s Kavanaugh vs several dozen other better qualified judges without sexual assault stains in their records. Pick a better nominee.

This x infinity.

False premise you make there, that Judge Kavanaugh has a sexual assault stain in his record. For the last time: an allegation made by someone who does not remember the time or date or place when something happened, and the people she named as witnesses deny the claim, is a FALSE ALLEGATION. Hence, the "stain" you imagine in your mind, the stain planted by the media, has no substance.

This is the same trick the media is doing to paint a picture in the public's mind that Trump worked with the Russians to get himself elected. Fake News! And with Ford, Fake Allegations!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a searing indictment of the Republican party as having parted ways with true conservatism -- defined by words like responsibility, stoicism, self-control, frugality, fidelity, decorum, honor, character, independence, and integrity -- by a conservative who left the party after the 2016 election. He says Kavanaugh is no true conservative either.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/republican-party-conservative/571747/

The GOP threw frugality and fiscal responsibility away long ago, initially in the Reagan years, but now on a stunning scale involving trillion-dollar deficits as far as can be forecast. It abandoned most of its beliefs in fidelity and character when it embraced a liar, cheat, and philanderer as its nominee and then as president. But something else snapped this week.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy as expressed in various statements and conclusions was, for the most part, pretty standard conservative fare, save for one telltale element: his ascription of very high levels of immunity and discretion to the executive. In this respect, what passes today for conservatism is anything but. Where traditionally conservatives have wanted “ambition to check ambition,” as Alexander Hamilton put it, Republicans are now executive-branch kinds of people. It is not surprising that Kavanaugh himself worked at a high level in a Republican White House. The disdain of many contemporary Republicans for congressional power and prerogative makes them indistinguishable from liberals who (as recently as the Obama years) turned to sweeping uses of executive power to circumvent a balky House of Representatives and Senate.

It was, however, in the epic clash over the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford that the collapse of conservatism in the Republican Party became most evident. Eleven men, most of them old, hid behind a female prosecutor wheeled in from Arizona, because they could not, apparently, trust themselves to treat a victim of sexual assault with consideration and respect. So much for courage. Their anger at Democratic shenanigans was understandable, but virtually without exception. When they did summon up the nerve to speak (during Kavanaugh’s turn), their questions consisted almost exclusively of partisan baying at the opposition. Genuine conservatives might have snarled initially, but would have, out of regard for the truth, tried to figure out exactly what happened to Ford 35 years ago, and whether the character of the man before them was what it was said to be.

Perhaps the collapse of modern conservatism came out most clearly in Kavanaugh’s own testimony—its self-pity, its hysteria, its conjuring up of conspiracies, its vindictiveness. He and his family had no doubt suffered agonies. But if we expect steely resolve from a police officer confronting a knife-wielding assailant, or disciplined courage from a firefighter rushing into a burning house, we should expect stoic self-control and calm from a conservative judge, even if his heart is being eaten out. No one watching those proceedings could imagine that a Democrat standing before this judge’s bench in the future would get a fair hearing. This was not the conservative temperament on display. It was, rather, personalized grievance politics.

I would expect nothing less from the Atlantic.
I am assuming that Mr. Cohen, the writer of this piece, has never been falsely accused of sexual assault. Because if he had, I think he would change his tune a bit.

Mr. Cohen is a stalwart conservative.

What you're saying is you don't expect stoic self-control and calm from a conservative judge. Got it. You are confirming everything Cohen says about the modern GOP having lost its conservative ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican. It appears to be a he/said she /said many years after the fact, with no "smoking gun"? I don't think an unsubstantiated allegation should bring any candidate down, Dem or Rep. However, I also did not like his blustery, whiny demeanor. I would say "next". There are plenty of others who can show a history of fantastic jurosprudence and keep their cool when the arrows start flying, as they will. We are a nation of 350 mlion. There's more than one great potential candidate. What do republicans feel they will lose by going to the next?

Moderate here. This is how I feel. We can pick someone better.

It’s not Kavanaugh vs no one. It’s Kavanaugh vs several dozen other better qualified judges without sexual assault stains in their records. Pick a better nominee.

This x infinity.

False premise you make there, that Judge Kavanaugh has a sexual assault stain in his record. For the last time: an allegation made by someone who does not remember the time or date or place when something happened, and the people she named as witnesses deny the claim, is a FALSE ALLEGATION. Hence, the "stain" you imagine in your mind, the stain planted by the media, has no substance.

This is the same trick the media is doing to paint a picture in the public's mind that Trump worked with the Russians to get himself elected. Fake News! And with Ford, Fake Allegations!

The FBI was not able to do a complete investigation. The White House put a muzzle on the FBI and constrained who they could and could not talk to. That is not what the American public asked for. Why won't the White House and Judge Kavanaugh act in a transparent manner. It does nothing to clear him, but rather makes him look worse. I would think he would want all of these people to be interviewed to clear his name. Why doesn't he? Because he is guilty. McConnell, Trump and the GOP know it.

[Anonymous]

No corroboration of the sexual assault claims by Ford and Ramirez.

Game over ....... move on.

[Anonymous]

Ironic that we could spend years investigating Hillary’s emails but couldn’t spare more than a few days to investigate sexual assault allegations for someone who is going to get a lifetime appointment.

[Anonymous]

The White House is not a reliable source.

The FBI report is bad for Kavanaugh. Otherwise they would have more than one copy available in a SCIF, it would be everywhere.

Cloture will pass, but Kavanaugh doesn’t have the votes to be confirmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murkowski and Collins are a yes, barring a bombshell in the FBI report. There are none

Cowards both and slamming the door on women's voices! Disgracefu!

This is NOT about women's voices. This is about ONE woman's voice, that was listened to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No corroboration of the sexual assault claims by Ford and Ramirez.

Game over ....... move on.

Because the White House wouldn't allow interviews of the people who could corroborate them. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact: Ford could not put together a comprehensive enough story with enough verifiable fact. She accused a man publicly of attempted rape, which resulted in absolute crucification in the media. He then had to come out and not only defend himself, but protect his family from the fallout. And he did just that. I would say he's not the right man for the job had he NOT come out swinging.

No, that’s your opinion. Ford’s story was fine. Brett isn’t a suitable judge. Frankly he sounded like he needed intensive therapy. He just wants power and glory. Giving him the benefit of he doubt, that he’s mean drunk who doesn’t remember assaulting any women, he had to know how much he drank (drinks?). If he had any sense at all, he would have declined to nom. But he’s a power hungry freak.

It’s not my opinion. It’s the opinion of a qualified prosecutor in the field.

Who would that be? The woman who didn’t conduct full interviews? The one who wrote the statement that Renato Marriotti called “political, not prosecutorial”? That one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murkowski and Collins are a yes, barring a bombshell in the FBI report. There are none

Cowards both and slamming the door on women's voices! Disgracefu!

This is NOT about women's voices. This is about ONE woman's voice, that was listened to.

Keep telling yourself that.