Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[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.

Nope. There are 40+ people who can corroborate each of the three women who have alleged misconduct. The White House would not allow the FBI to interview those witnesses.

Make Kavanaugh look guilty as f***.

[Anonymous]

Face it... The truth is that not one of the Democrats on the SJC would vote for Kavanaugh - even if the FBI report totally exonerates him.
Not one.
This FBI investigation was insisted upon by the Dems because (a) they wanted more of a delay and (b) they were hoping beyond hope that something would turn up to cause concern. But, that would never happen because the allegations leveled against him are simply false.

He will be confirmed despite the antics of the Democrats to derail this nominee.

[Anonymous]

National council of churches asks for Kavanaugh's nomination to be withdrawn https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/national-c...awn/ar-BBNTuVp?ocid=spartandhp

The National council of LIBERAL churches ask for the nomination to be withdrawn. These are so-called Christians who deny biblical truth.


One religious group famous for its social agenda is the National Council of Churches. Although supposedly a nonpartisan organization, for the past 40 years the NCC's politics has usually sat on the far left of the political spectrum. Since Rev. Bob Edgar took over as the NCC's general secretary in 2000, the group hasn't jettisoned its liberal ways.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/rachel-dicarlo/the-first-church-of-liberalism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ridiculous

[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.

The narrative of GOP fiscal responsibility needs to die. So many people use it as a shield to vote GOP, while it no longer stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Face it... The truth is that not one of the Democrats on the SJC would vote for Kavanaugh - even if the FBI report totally exonerates him.
Not one.
This FBI investigation was insisted upon by the Dems because (a) they wanted more of a delay and (b) they were hoping beyond hope that something would turn up to cause concern. But, that would never happen because the allegations leveled against him are simply false.

He will be confirmed despite the antics of the Democrats to derail this nominee.

The FBI report is incomplete. The GOP should be demanding a complete report on behalf of the public.

[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.

No, it is about three women who have stepped forward. One was white and UMC and has had a long and successful academic career. She was the one that was listened to, and then the investigation was curtailed and she was mocked by the president.
The second one did not have any of her witnesses interviewed and did not have the opportunity for a public hearing. She is Latina. The third is MC and has a lawyer who has already been incredibly successful against trump. She was not interviewed, her witnesses never interviewed, nothing. Witnesses who called or emailed or went to FBI offices were turned away. The two guys in charge are his friends from law school and the Federalist Society, themselves super active in the GOP! This was not an investigation. This was cover for "boys will be boys" and to let it all be swept under the rug.

But we are paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Face it... The truth is that not one of the Democrats on the SJC would vote for Kavanaugh - even if the FBI report totally exonerates him.
Not one.
This FBI investigation was insisted upon by the Dems because (a) they wanted more of a delay and (b) they were hoping beyond hope that something would turn up to cause concern. But, that would never happen because the allegations leveled against him are simply false.

He will be confirmed despite the antics of the Democrats to derail this nominee.

Why should they? They barely received any of his documents. He's a thief and a liar. He's obsessed with Clinton's ejaculate. Who wants to put that on the Supreme Court?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Manchin is stupid. More than enough evidence from Kavanaugh's adult years has been provided that would justify a No vote.

Really? What would THAT be?

He's just not that great of a judge, for starters. Then tgmhere is the document theft and the repulsive way he conducted himself in the Clinton investigation. Not to mention, his little meltdown.

Yeah, the lying has been going on for years now. See tweets from Leahy regarding how Kavanaugh lied in 2006 during his previous confirmation hearings about never having used stolen emails from Democrats during judicial confirmation hearings. You cannot say that Kavanaugh is a truthful judge. And what, if not truthful, are judges supposed to be? This is scandalous.

https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/1047610549100580869

See tweet thread for all the emails/memos referred to:

Ex.1a: Here’s Kavanaugh receiving a highly confidential letter written to me about a nominee’s position on abortion. It was so secret the sender believed she’d be fired if it got out. Miranda even said take “no action…except as I request.” Kavanaugh responded minutes later.

Ex.1b: Here’s a memo Kavanaugh received in his inbox the day after my staff sent it to me. It represents extensive research on a critical argument that Democrats intended to make. If it were legitimately obtained, why would Miranda tell Kavanaugh it’s not for distribution?

Ex.1c: Here’s Miranda sharing “highly confidentail” [sic] info about what Sen. Biden’s staff was advising him on a controversial hearing. It also says what my staff was sharing with other Democrats. If this was “normal” info to receive, why label it highly confidential?

Ex.1d: Here’s Miranda sharing he had it on “100% info that Leahy is trying to convene the Dems this afternoon.” Clearly Miranda trusted Kavanaugh: He asked Kavanaugh to “refer to rumor, not to me” even when sharing the info with other Bush administration officials….

Ex.1e: Kavanaugh forwards an “interesting” email from another Republican staffer who appears in 1000s of emails with Miranda. It contains intel allegedly from a “mole” with the subject “spying.” I asked Kavanaugh in 2004 if he had heard of a Democratic “mole”—he did not answer.


Ex.1f: Miranda requested an off-site meeting with Kavanaugh and another Trump-appointed judge, Don Willet, wanting to hand them “paper” on Democratic senators’ thinking. If legitimate, why not email or fax it? I just asked Kavanaugh about off-site meetings; he refused to answer.

Ex.1g: Here’s Miranda sharing what I was looking into regarding a controversial nominee days before her hearing. Miranda even asked for help explaining why it was relevant—he didn’t learn about it from good faith conversations with “friends across the aisle” as he testified.

Ex.1h: Kavanaugh received a private letter from me & other Dems to Sen. Daschle. It was never made public & Kavanaugh had it before there was any mention of it in the press. Hard to imagine a savvy political operative didn’t know exactly what he had: a STOLEN nonpublic letter.

Ex. 1i,j,k,l: More inside, real-time info about what Democratic staff were researching, sharing, and tracking down. On controversial matters, the notion that such things would be shared “by friends across the aisle” is just not credible. It’s laughable.

Then there’s this: I’ve seen nominees try to dodge questions before. I’ve never seen a nominee flat-out refuse to answer ANY new questions, especially when it concerns their knowledge of a massive, multi-year theft.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

National council of churches asks for Kavanaugh's nomination to be withdrawn https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/national-c...awn/ar-BBNTuVp?ocid=spartandhp

The National council of LIBERAL churches ask for the nomination to be withdrawn. These are so-called Christians who deny biblical truth.


One religious group famous for its social agenda is the National Council of Churches. Although supposedly a nonpartisan organization, for the past 40 years the NCC's politics has usually sat on the far left of the political spectrum. Since Rev. Bob Edgar took over as the NCC's general secretary in 2000, the group hasn't jettisoned its liberal ways.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/rachel-dicarlo/the-first-church-of-liberalism

The Biblical truth is, JESUS WAS LIBERAL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the lying has been going on for years now. See tweets from Leahy regarding how Kavanaugh lied in 2006 during his previous confirmation hearings about never having used stolen emails from Democrats during judicial confirmation hearings. You cannot say that Kavanaugh is a truthful judge. And what, if not truthful, are judges supposed to be? This is scandalous.

I always assumed the Federalist Society promoted lawyers were decent lawyers and judges, more or less, just bat sit crazy. Kavanaugh’s perjury and total lack of fitness for the job has me wondering just how many of those other Federalist yahoos would be better employed cleaning dog waste from city parks.

[Anonymous]

Is it normal for FBI investigation reports for SC nominees to be reserved to a SCIF? I would have thought that the FBI report would be published and a copy given to each member of the Senate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Face it... The truth is that not one of the Democrats on the SJC would vote for Kavanaugh - even if the FBI report totally exonerates him.
Not one.
This FBI investigation was insisted upon by the Dems because (a) they wanted more of a delay and (b) they were hoping beyond hope that something would turn up to cause concern. But, that would never happen because the allegations leveled against him are simply false.

He will be confirmed despite the antics of the Democrats to derail this nominee.

Uh not after his whiny speech about the Clintons and his flippant remarks towards Democratic Senators. Completely unprofessional and inappropriate behavior for any nominee!

[Anonymous]

Ben Sasse gives "an impassioned speech" on sexual assault on the Senate floor last night, and apparently more friends have come out to dispute Kavanaugh's statements about his drinking habits: https://www.businessinsider.com/republican-ben-sasse-on-brett-kavanaugh-trump-should-nominate-someone-else-2018-10