Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

I see those of you touting Gorsuch's confirmation and wonder if you realize that he got 3 crossover votes. 3.

Heidi Heitkamp N.D. ,Joe Manchin III W.Va. and Joe Donnelly Ind.

Kavanaugh got 1. Manchin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see those of you touting Gorsuch's confirmation and wonder if you realize that he got 3 crossover votes. 3.

Heidi Heitkamp N.D. ,Joe Manchin III W.Va. and Joe Donnelly Ind.

Kavanaugh got 1. Manchin.

And they had to swear him in, in record time. Nothing fishy there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see those of you touting Gorsuch's confirmation and wonder if you realize that he got 3 crossover votes. 3.

Heidi Heitkamp N.D. ,Joe Manchin III W.Va. and Joe Donnelly Ind.

Kavanaugh got 1. Manchin.

That's a helluva lot more than Merrick Garland got.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see those of you touting Gorsuch's confirmation and wonder if you realize that he got 3 crossover votes. 3.

Heidi Heitkamp N.D. ,Joe Manchin III W.Va. and Joe Donnelly Ind.

Kavanaugh got 1. Manchin.

And they had to swear him in, in record time. Nothing fishy there.

Push him through before 11/8.

[Anonymous]

^11/6

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see those of you touting Gorsuch's confirmation and wonder if you realize that he got 3 crossover votes. 3.

Heidi Heitkamp N.D. ,Joe Manchin III W.Va. and Joe Donnelly Ind.

Kavanaugh got 1. Manchin.

That's a helluva lot more than Merrick Garland got.

When Garland was nominated he knew exactly what was going to happen and that he stood no chance for consideration by the Senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

If you're in a position to do so, but instead rush to be sworn in hours after a confirmation vote, it shows that you're scared of something. Obviously not scared of unhappy Democrats. Scared of something else.

There was no rush.
Having people hold things to the last hour, and then giving them a time limit to resolve them, is not rushing.
If you tell your child 2 hours before they have to leave in the morning, but they wait until 5 minutes before to get their stuff together? You didn't rush them.

Kavanaugh's nomination was orderly, and they even allowed for extra time to handle the last minute accusation.

And once he was confirmed, crickets.
No one following up on the apparently obvious perjury.
No one filing police reports.
All smoke.

THIS. All of their underhanded tactics failed. And everyone knows it.

We also saw Kavanaugh's honor. Or rather, the lack.

No one came out of this smelling like a rose.

But that's irrelevant to my mind.

My issue is if there were crimes, why is no one reporting?

I find that very troubling. As a woman, as a mother of daughters, I want them to be believed if they make accusations. I also want them to follow up with the authorities. And I want other people to follow up with authorities. I find it abhorrent that someone is comfortable enough to publicly accuse someone of gang rape but is then not willing to press charges. I understand why some women don't want to report, and I have sympathy for them. But if you're willing to go public, especially about gang rape, for goodness sakes report the crime!

Ford's and Ramirez's accusations are well beyond the the statute of limitations that were in effect at the times of the crimes. Swetnick did not accuse him of gang rape, she does not know if he was one of her assailants. The value of her sworn statement is that it underscores what his behavior was like at the time of Dr. Ford's assault.

The idea that it is ONLY okay to come forward if you are willing to press charges WHEN THE PERSON IS NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT is absurd. There is (or was) a much higher standard for acceptable past behavior for supreme court nominees. There are many other people who could have been nominated who did not possibly assault someone.

They were right to come forward, and they do not have to go through pressing assault charges for crimes (where it isn't even possible to press charges now!) to be believable.

Without a criminal investigation, we don't know if the crimes are beyond the statute of limitations. And the Montgomery County Police have stated they will investigate.
If one of the people making allegations would report a crime to the police so that they could conduct a criminal investigation, we might end up with evidence corroborating their claims. No one has been willing to report a crime to the police.

Swetnick accused him of conspiracy to sexually assault women. https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2018/09/26/swetnickstatement.pdf (page 3, lines 1-3) She accused him of conspiracy to facilitate and commit gang rape (page 3, lines 8-12) She accused him of being present at her own rape (page 3, lines 13-14)

If you are willing to come forward, why would you not be willing to report the crime to the police? I mean, people can do whatever they want. but when the women have come forward, none of their named witnesses have backed them up, and they decide not to report a crime to the police when the police have explicitly said they will take the report and investigate the crime?
Suspicious.

It isn't suspicious. Many people do not want the retaliation that follows. I thought briefly about trying to contact Avenatti because I can attest that Swetnick mentioned her claim to me three years ago. But honestly, I don't want to deal with the fallout. I don't want death threats against my kids. I don't want any financial fallout because of political retaliation. I know both Kavanaugh and Swetnick; I don't like either. I can tell you that Swetnick's story didn't start recently. I heard it 3 years ago. I also believe that the GOP and Trump don't care about anything. They don't care about lying or questionable/horrible behavior.

Women don't come forward or report because sexual harassment/assault against women doesn't matter; men stick together! If you haven't learned this from this whole drama, you aren't very bright.

[Anonymous]

^ interesting post. Wish avenatti could have helped back up the claim more than he did. But I understand why it's hard for people to come forward to do so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would assume that if someone thought Kavanaugh had committed provable perjury, they would follow up on it.

He's a slimy, raping, drunken jerk, right? Don't they want him off the court, or better yet to have never been confirmed?

But I guess it doesn't matter if you're in the minority party and you might have to exert yourself a little bit. I didn't know Leahy was so overwhelmed. That's a shame.

You didn’t answer the question. What can the minority actually do with their limited power? The Senate was not unaware of this before the vote; this tweet thread was from early September and Leahy questioned hi:about it at the original hearings. So what exact tool in th eminoriy pary arsenal did you want Leahy to have used? Because all the yes voters saw this, knew this: they’re just totally okay with theft and perjury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see those of you touting Gorsuch's confirmation and wonder if you realize that he got 3 crossover votes. 3.

Heidi Heitkamp N.D. ,Joe Manchin III W.Va. and Joe Donnelly Ind.

Kavanaugh got 1. Manchin.

And they had to swear him in, in record time. Nothing fishy there.

Gorsuch's confirmation process was faster than Kavanaugh's. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whelan's insane coverup put the nail in the coffin for me.
That and the refusal for Kavanaugh to call for an investigation to clear his name.


He will always be the SCJ who "kavanaughs" women.

There is no clearing your name. I can't prove I didn't assault someone 35 years ago. I can call for all the investigations in the world and I'm not going to be able to prove a thing. If someone accuses me, they are more than welcome to investigate.

Have you called for an investigation to prove that you didn't sexually assault some one when you were 17? If you haven't, you're guilty.

If you're in a position to do so, but instead rush to be sworn in hours after a confirmation vote, it shows that you're scared of something. Obviously not scared of unhappy Democrats. Scared of something else.

There was no rush.
Having people hold things to the last hour, and then giving them a time limit to resolve them, is not rushing.
If you tell your child 2 hours before they have to leave in the morning, but they wait until 5 minutes before to get their stuff together? You didn't rush them.

Kavanaugh's nomination was orderly, and they even allowed for extra time to handle the last minute accusation.

And once he was confirmed, crickets.
No one following up on the apparently obvious perjury.
No one filing police reports.
All smoke.

THIS. All of their underhanded tactics failed. And everyone knows it.

We also saw Kavanaugh's honor. Or rather, the lack.

No one came out of this smelling like a rose.

But that's irrelevant to my mind.

My issue is if there were crimes, why is no one reporting?

I find that very troubling. As a woman, as a mother of daughters, I want them to be believed if they make accusations. I also want them to follow up with the authorities. And I want other people to follow up with authorities. I find it abhorrent that someone is comfortable enough to publicly accuse someone of gang rape but is then not willing to press charges. I understand why some women don't want to report, and I have sympathy for them. But if you're willing to go public, especially about gang rape, for goodness sakes report the crime!

Ford's and Ramirez's accusations are well beyond the the statute of limitations that were in effect at the times of the crimes. Swetnick did not accuse him of gang rape, she does not know if he was one of her assailants. The value of her sworn statement is that it underscores what his behavior was like at the time of Dr. Ford's assault.

The idea that it is ONLY okay to come forward if you are willing to press charges WHEN THE PERSON IS NOMINATED TO THE SUPREME COURT is absurd. There is (or was) a much higher standard for acceptable past behavior for supreme court nominees. There are many other people who could have been nominated who did not possibly assault someone.

They were right to come forward, and they do not have to go through pressing assault charges for crimes (where it isn't even possible to press charges now!) to be believable.

Without a criminal investigation, we don't know if the crimes are beyond the statute of limitations. And the Montgomery County Police have stated they will investigate.
If one of the people making allegations would report a crime to the police so that they could conduct a criminal investigation, we might end up with evidence corroborating their claims. No one has been willing to report a crime to the police.

Swetnick accused him of conspiracy to sexually assault women. https://sc.cnbcfm.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2018/09/26/swetnickstatement.pdf (page 3, lines 1-3) She accused him of conspiracy to facilitate and commit gang rape (page 3, lines 8-12) She accused him of being present at her own rape (page 3, lines 13-14)

If you are willing to come forward, why would you not be willing to report the crime to the police? I mean, people can do whatever they want. but when the women have come forward, none of their named witnesses have backed them up, and they decide not to report a crime to the police when the police have explicitly said they will take the report and investigate the crime?
Suspicious.

It isn't suspicious. Many people do not want the retaliation that follows. I thought briefly about trying to contact Avenatti because I can attest that Swetnick mentioned her claim to me three years ago. But honestly, I don't want to deal with the fallout. I don't want death threats against my kids. I don't want any financial fallout because of political retaliation. I know both Kavanaugh and Swetnick; I don't like either. I can tell you that Swetnick's story didn't start recently. I heard it 3 years ago. I also believe that the GOP and Trump don't care about anything. They don't care about lying or questionable/horrible behavior.

Women don't come forward or report because sexual harassment/assault against women doesn't matter; men stick together! If you haven't learned this from this whole drama, you aren't very bright.

It's incredibly suspicious.
These women CAME FORWARD.
They then chose NOT to make a police report.

These aren't women who are choosing not to come forward. These are women who are making public statements, sworn public statements. Just not to the police.

That is incredibly suspicious.

It's sad that you have to pretend they aren't making public statements, or focus on other people who have chosen not to make public statements, in order to explain to yourself why these women who HAVE made public statements aren't going to the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ interesting post. Wish avenatti could have helped back up the claim more than he did. But I understand why it's hard for people to come forward to do so

Avenatti could help his client with a police report. Then the police could launch a criminal investigation and potentially help her back up her claim.

Everyone in the county knew about these parties, she said. Many, many people were raped, drugged, and sexually assaulted. And the man who was part of the group who masterminded these rape parties is on the Supreme Court but she's not willing to make a police report? Willing and capable of making a public statement. Just not to the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would assume that if someone thought Kavanaugh had committed provable perjury, they would follow up on it.

He's a slimy, raping, drunken jerk, right? Don't they want him off the court, or better yet to have never been confirmed?

But I guess it doesn't matter if you're in the minority party and you might have to exert yourself a little bit. I didn't know Leahy was so overwhelmed. That's a shame.

You didn’t answer the question. What can the minority actually do with their limited power? The Senate was not unaware of this before the vote; this tweet thread was from early September and Leahy questioned hi:about it at the original hearings. So what exact tool in th eminoriy pary arsenal did you want Leahy to have used? Because all the yes voters saw this, knew this: they’re just totally okay with theft and perjury.

Leahy can make political hay. He can make a formal request to the DOJ and the FBI to investigate. He may get turned down, but he could at least make the effort. How many times did the Republicans try to do in the ACA, knowing there was no chance in hell of getting the votes?

If Leahy truly believes there is provable perjury here, there is all sorts of groundwork he could be laying and he could have been swaying the court of public opinion. Instead, crickets.

I suppose the Republicans are just more honest? If they tell their constituents they're going to fight the ACA, they'll keep trying to do it even if it's pointless, but if Leahy swears up and down there's provable perjury ... I guess there was something important he needed to binge watch on netflix or something. Maybe he'll get to it. Eventually. Clearly very important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would assume that if someone thought Kavanaugh had committed provable perjury, they would follow up on it.

He's a slimy, raping, drunken jerk, right? Don't they want him off the court, or better yet to have never been confirmed?

But I guess it doesn't matter if you're in the minority party and you might have to exert yourself a little bit. I didn't know Leahy was so overwhelmed. That's a shame.

You didn’t answer the question. What can the minority actually do with their limited power? The Senate was not unaware of this before the vote; this tweet thread was from early September and Leahy questioned hi:about it at the original hearings. So what exact tool in th eminoriy pary arsenal did you want Leahy to have used? Because all the yes voters saw this, knew this: they’re just totally okay with theft and perjury.

Leahy can make political hay. He can make a formal request to the DOJ and the FBI to investigate. He may get turned down, but he could at least make the effort. How many times did the Republicans try to do in the ACA, knowing there was no chance in hell of getting the votes?

If Leahy truly believes there is provable perjury here, there is all sorts of groundwork he could be laying and he could have been swaying the court of public opinion. Instead, crickets.

I suppose the Republicans are just more honest? If they tell their constituents they're going to fight the ACA, they'll keep trying to do it even if it's pointless, but if Leahy swears up and down there's provable perjury ... I guess there was something important he needed to binge watch on netflix or something. Maybe he'll get to it. Eventually. Clearly very important.

NP. Is this a joke? Did you forget how the entire GOP has been running on repealing the ACA and yet with Trump and a Republican House + Senate they couldn’t get it done, and have now dropped the issue entirely?

The “court of public opinion” will read the verdict at the midterms. Just watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would assume that if someone thought Kavanaugh had committed provable perjury, they would follow up on it.

He's a slimy, raping, drunken jerk, right? Don't they want him off the court, or better yet to have never been confirmed?

But I guess it doesn't matter if you're in the minority party and you might have to exert yourself a little bit. I didn't know Leahy was so overwhelmed. That's a shame.

You didn’t answer the question. What can the minority actually do with their limited power? The Senate was not unaware of this before the vote; this tweet thread was from early September and Leahy questioned hi:about it at the original hearings. So what exact tool in th eminoriy pary arsenal did you want Leahy to have used? Because all the yes voters saw this, knew this: they’re just totally okay with theft and perjury.

Leahy can make political hay. He can make a formal request to the DOJ and the FBI to investigate. He may get turned down, but he could at least make the effort. How many times did the Republicans try to do in the ACA, knowing there was no chance in hell of getting the votes?

If Leahy truly believes there is provable perjury here, there is all sorts of groundwork he could be laying and he could have been swaying the court of public opinion. Instead, crickets.

I suppose the Republicans are just more honest? If they tell their constituents they're going to fight the ACA, they'll keep trying to do it even if it's pointless, but if Leahy swears up and down there's provable perjury ... I guess there was something important he needed to binge watch on netflix or something. Maybe he'll get to it. Eventually. Clearly very important.

NP. Is this a joke? Did you forget how the entire GOP has been running on repealing the ACA and yet with Trump and a Republican House + Senate they couldn’t get it done, and have now dropped the issue entirely?

The “court of public opinion” will read the verdict at the midterms. Just watch.

Oooooh, so because the GOP dropped it after years and years of working on it, it makes total sense for Leahy and others not to attempt to do anything about supposedly actual, real perjury he can prove?

Please. They were throwing whatever they could try to come up with to slime the guy, when it failed, they dropped it, because there was nothing there. They aren't even trying to follow up. It's pathetic.