Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[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.

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.

Here's a Washington Post article that lays out the situation referred to above. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacking-controversy-from-early-2000s-resurfaces-during-kavanaugh-hearings/2018/09/05/3b7565d2-b15d-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.005deadc1e2f

So here's the deal: either kavanaugh lied in 2006 about knowingly receiving stolen emails. Or else let's say it's true that Miranda never told him he was peddling stolen emails and information from the Democrats. If that's the case, then that sheds a terrible light on Kavanaugh and his judicial savviness if he wasn't able to discern from the context that these were hot documents. I mean, what kind of judge can't make that judgement about materials whose provenance is obviously questionable?? A terrible judge, that's who.

So republicans, pick you choice: either Kavanaugh is a liar (I'm going with that) or else he has terrible judgement (that seems to be the side you are going with).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

The FBI released Hillary's 302's over Labor Day of 2016.

Big difference.

[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

Hey there now, if I were someone who belongs to a Republican party that is so blatantly anti-Christian in its treatment of refugees and foreigners and the poor, I wouldn't be pointing out the speck in someone else's eye before removing the plank in your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One was white and UMC and has had a long and successful academic career
--- irrelevant
the investigation was curtailed and she was mocked by the president:
---She made an allegation WITHOUT FACTS. She deserves to be ridiculed and shown the fraud that she is
The second one did not have any of her witnesses interviewed and did not have the opportunity for a public hearing:
---Her ex-boyfriend gave proof her words are worthless
She is Latina
--- irrelevant
This was cover for "boys will be boys" and to let it all be swept under the rug
--- There can be no fire if there is no smoke.
The third is MC and has a lawyer who has already been incredibly successful against trump:
---Beating Trump is all that matters. Democrats hope the smear campaign will succeed but there is "no there, there"
Witnesses who called or emailed or went to FBI offices were turned away
--- the Democratic ploy of flooding the FBI with false leads is not going to work to delay,delay, delay
The two guys in charge are his friends from law school and the Federalist Society, themselves super active in the GOP!
--- They did nothing illegal
This was not an investigation
--- Yes, it was. Claims examined and tossed in the trash as having NO EVIDENCE. Judge Kavanaugh has had 6 FBI investigations in the past and nothing. Zip. Nada.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One was white and UMC and has had a long and successful academic career
--- irrelevant
the investigation was curtailed and she was mocked by the president:
---She made an allegation WITHOUT FACTS. She deserves to be ridiculed and shown the fraud that she is
The second one did not have any of her witnesses interviewed and did not have the opportunity for a public hearing:
---Her ex-boyfriend gave proof her words are worthless
She is Latina
--- irrelevant
This was cover for "boys will be boys" and to let it all be swept under the rug
--- There can be no fire if there is no smoke.
The third is MC and has a lawyer who has already been incredibly successful against trump:
---Beating Trump is all that matters. Democrats hope the smear campaign will succeed but there is "no there, there"
Witnesses who called or emailed or went to FBI offices were turned away
--- the Democratic ploy of flooding the FBI with false leads is not going to work to delay,delay, delay
The two guys in charge are his friends from law school and the Federalist Society, themselves super active in the GOP!
--- They did nothing illegal
This was not an investigation
--- Yes, it was. Claims examined and tossed in the trash as having NO EVIDENCE. Judge Kavanaugh has had 6 FBI investigations in the past and nothing. Zip. Nada.

And yet you can't deny that he has lied under oath, including during his 2006 hearings when he lied about receiving stolen emails.

Face it, yours is the party of lies and shamlessness. Your embrace of BK is just another nail in that coffin. What a disgrace to Abraham Lincoln's memory.

[Anonymous]

Sasse's comment imply that there are sexual misconduct issues in Kavanaugh's past. So the FBI uncovered it and it was ignored by the GOP.

[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 is about politics not about whether the guy is qualified or not. Had Feinstein brought this to the committee's attention in July, they would have more than likely selected someone else. The Dems are trying to delay the selection until after the midterms. The majority of the Republican base is furious with the delay tactics and dirty politics and are urging their Senators not to back down on Kavanaugh. Fighting for Kavanaugh has energized the Republican voters and it is showing in the polls. This has nothing to do with Kavanaugh and everything to do with Republican vs Democrats fight for power. They will push the for the vote. If he does not get the vote the Republicans still win in turnout for midterms. If he does get the vote they get conservative majority on the court.

Make no mistake about it, the Republicans will seat a conservative judge. Whether it is Kavanaugh or someone else. Even if they were to lose the Senate they would push a judge through during the lame duck session. Stuffing the courts with Judges is the single most important role for both parties. It has the greatest impact on the direction of the country. The Republicans have been stuffing the courts with conservative judges at a staggering pace since Trump took office.

[Anonymous]

The truth is that Ford made an allegation without any support to corroborate what she said. Her version was full of holes.

The Democrats realized this and switched the attack to his year book, his drinking in college and his anger when he testified the second time.

The Democrats have nothing to rely on when it comes to the Ford allegation which is what started the whole thing after the hearings so they can only fall back on other accusations unrelated to the alleged sexual assault on Ford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that Ford made an allegation without any support to corroborate what she said. Her version was full of holes.

The Democrats realized this and switched the attack to his year book, his drinking in college and his anger when he testified the second time.

The Democrats have nothing to rely on when it comes to the Ford allegation which is what started the whole thing after the hearings so they can only fall back on other accusations unrelated to the alleged sexual assault on Ford.

The yearbook corroborates her story, as does the calendar. It isn't that they changed tactics, the fact patterns warrant more scrutiny - scrutiny that the White house has shielded Kavanaugh from.

[Anonymous]

White House statement: White House concludes the FBI supplemental interviews show no corroboration into allegations against Kavanaugh.

What this DOESN'T say: “White House concludes the FBI report shows no derogatory information on Kavanaugh”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that Ford made an allegation without any support to corroborate what she said. Her version was full of holes.

The Democrats realized this and switched the attack to his year book, his drinking in college and his anger when he testified the second time.

The Democrats have nothing to rely on when it comes to the Ford allegation which is what started the whole thing after the hearings so they can only fall back on other accusations unrelated to the alleged sexual assault on Ford.

The truth is there is no explanation for how Ford knew that there were 2 drunken hard partying buddies in Bethesday when she was in high school with the names Brett Kavanaugh and Mike Judge and decided some years ago to start concocting a story to bring down the one who happened to be a judge in the event he was nominated to the Supreme Court and she could come out and testify against him.

No one has explained why she would have such fury at BK that she would target him years ago and keep it up.

No one has explained why she didn't start talking to more people and naming him and spreading rumors if her intention for the past 6+ years was to prevent his possible seating on the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile BK's lies over the years are quite evident: he lied about stolen emails, he lied about the innuendos of terms in his yearbook, he lied about his drunken past. And then he had an epic meltdown while revealing his blatant partisanship, very unjudicial.

Not fit for the SCOTUS by any means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White House statement: White House concludes the FBI supplemental interviews show no corroboration into allegations against Kavanaugh.

What this DOESN'T say: “White House concludes the FBI report shows no derogatory information on Kavanaugh”

What is it you're trying to say? What exactly do you want them to tell you?

[Anonymous]

Stop asking why it was such a short timeframe! All throughout, Democrats cried that it could take "just 3 days!!" And then the agreement made last Friday was for it to be a maximum of one week. Pay attention!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that Ford made an allegation without any support to corroborate what she said. Her version was full of holes.

The Democrats realized this and switched the attack to his year book, his drinking in college and his anger when he testified the second time.

The Democrats have nothing to rely on when it comes to the Ford allegation which is what started the whole thing after the hearings so they can only fall back on other accusations unrelated to the alleged sexual assault on Ford.

it is like you live in an alternate reality. seek help. this isn't good for your brain. I don't want you to end up pushing around a shopping cart with warnings of doom handprinted on cardboard

[Anonymous]

So reports are the FBI interviewed 9 people, which is well beyond the Senate Judiciary Committee's request for interviews with 4 people, and they took a sworn statement from another. No corroborating evidence was found. Move on to confirmation.