Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Powerful speech by McConnell on the Senate floor right now.

You mean crudely partisan and lacking all ethics or humility or acknowledgement of Republicans’s shameful behavior.

Also Merrick Garland.

McConnell has no moral authority when it comes to complaining about how judicial nominee are treated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The absolute perversion of language - which only works around commonalities and broadly accepted usage - is stunningly illustrated in this thread. The diligent, paid for- my guess - trolls or bush-league GOP staffers here and elsewhere online insist that slang isn’t slang, that one “Ralphs” during flu season and not after getting drunk, that sex slang means quarters when quarters-based drinking games are called quarters. And so on.

Why? Aren’t there any arguments beneath you?

Or we insist that "Phrase" can mean 12 different things, that one can ralph both when one has the flu and when one is drunk, that one can have a weak stomach and drink too much at times.

I'm not Russian. Or a troll. Or a GOP staffer. I'm someone who thinks that people should be able to back up their claims with evidence. Because when someone accuses me of something, I expect them to back it up with evidence, and that's a personal expectation that I will extend to every single other human being on the planet. Whether or not I like them, respect them, or want them to have a particular position or reward.

[Anonymous]

I think we can all agree that Kavanaugh will evaluate the original intent of the Constitutional language used by the Framers with the same incisive precision he applies to evaluating the language used in his high school year book.

[Anonymous]

Looks like Kavanaugh's going to be confirmed and now the Supreme Court will be degraded, just like the other 2 branches of government have been.

Everything Trump touches dies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem here. I'm on the fence about whether I hope Kavanaugh isn't confirmed which means Republicans are energized and Dems lose (polls now pointing at this plus Repubs historically vote in higher numbers than Dems in midterms) or he is confirmed, energizing Dems for midterms even though we get stuck with decades of this temperamentally unfit alcoholic abuser on the SCOTUS. Given his behavior he shouldn't but it's d@mned if you do and if you don't.

You will be lucky to have a very qualified justice on SCOTUS.

I stated days ago, after the FBI investigation was started, that there would be nothing in this report that would be a game changer. The only sad thing about the investigation is that it won’t exonerate Kavanaugh. It can’t. When someone brings charges that are 36 years old, had no date or place of the alleged crime, and all the named individuals allegedly there have no knowledge of either the party of the allegations, how can you expect this report to be any game changer? I still cannot believe that people are actually believing the crap that has been alleged.
Think about it - NOTHING has corroborated her story.

Liberals know that. That's why they've pivoted to the fact that he got angry about being accused of a heinous crime as part of a political smear campaign.

And all this focus on high school yearbooks and teen boys' slang terms for farting is ridicluous. Normal people see it.

I agree with both of you. I never imagined we'd see something so wholly absurd as this confirmation process. And the people calling him an "alcoholic" - obviously he is not. He's had SIX prior FBI investigations, and all of them were clean as a whistle. He is a highly respected judge. His behavior as a teenager has nothing to do with his decades of experience on the bench and good works as a citizen. The whole thing is truly disgusting.

I agree with you that behavior during one's teens may not matter much in the grand scheme. What matters in this case is that he seems to have lied about it while under oath. If he lied about silly minutiae, like what different terms mean in his yearbook, what else might he lie about? It calls one's character in question when they are shown to be liars, per several of his former classmates/roommates.

Do we have evidence that he lied?

I mean, if HRC is an evil lizard person, she certainly should never be elected President. We can make all sorts of conjectures about ifs. What about evidence? Facts? Truth?

PP here. I have not commented much in politics, but I'll say this. I will grant that none of us can say with 100% certainty that either Dr. Blasey or Judge Kavanaugh were lying. But given the evidence that has come out from his contemporaries at GT Prep, former classmates, roomates, etc., I think it's reasonable to say that that there is a high likelihood that he did not tell the complete truth about everything.

I'm also a Ph.D.-trained research scientist. We're trained to never say with 100% certainty that we believe the data, but we talk in terms of likelihoods. I would say that in this case, based on the evidence, that there is a high likelihood that he is lying about at least some minor details.

Of course he didn't tell the complete truth about everything. Neither did Ford. That's a function of being human.

But if we're going to use his testimony to demonstrate that he assaulted a woman, it stands to reason we should actually have to present the parts of his testimony that demonstrate that. Not "I don't like the guy." Or "he drank too much." But actually "he said [X], and over here we have proof that he currently knows the truth to be [Y]." As far as I can tell, we don't have that. We just have people who don't like him criticizing him for past behavior, and saying that boys and men like him are the sorts of people who commit assault, therefore he must have done it.

If he seems to have lied, what did he seem to lie about? What is the evidence that is being used to show it is likely a lie?

He lied at his 2006 confirmation hearings about knowingly receiving illegally acquired emails in 2002 that were stolen from the Democrats in a partisan attempt to thwart the Democrats' questioning of judicial nominees.

That in and of itself is disqualifying. The man is either a liar (he lied about knowingly receiving stolen information) or he has terrible judgment (he couldn't tell that the information he was being fed was illegally acquired). Looks bad either way, though if he is as smart as conservatives are saying then it's more likely the 1st scenario - he lied -- is accurate.

When was the allegation that he lied at his 2006 confirmation hearings first made?

I don’t know but Feingold is walking through those lies here, well before last Thursday’s hearings.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff/amp

So, whether we like it or not, a majority of Senators didn't consider that alone a big issue, or disqualifying.

I certainly think proof (see also Leahy’s Twitter; Google it for yourself, please) of relevant lies and perjury is e ergreen and absolutely must be examined before a lifetime Supreme Court appointment- especially since Brett lied again under oath again regarding his exploitation of and receipt of stolen material.

Thanks for playing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Powerful speech by McConnell on the Senate floor right now.

McConnell couldn't give a powerful speech to save his life.

It will work with Republicans for the mid-term which is all that matters.

The Democrats blew it with wanting the supplementary FBI review; it merely gave the Republicans who were on the fence cover for supporting the nomination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

It's not possible that a term used by some for one thing can be different from a term used by others for another thing? Or that people could use a phrase to describe different things?

When my son was 12, he and his friends were joking about "4:20". I asked him what "4:20" meant, and he told me it was when his group of friends did their homework. He wasn't going to tell me they were making a pot reference. Amusingly, they do use it as both, even years later. Is he lying, if he testifies under oath that 4:20 means you're supposed to be doing your homework?

Don't be stupid. Kavanaugh is lying about Devil's Triangle. Do you deny this?

I have no evidence that he is lying about Devil's Triangle. Do you?

Yes. His college freshman roommate says he lied under oath about that and other things.

But I can say that he lied under oath. He claimed that he occasionally drank too much but never enough to forget details of the night before, never enough to “black out.” He did, regularly. He said that “boofing” was farting and the “Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game. “Boofing” and “Devil’s Triangle” are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.

I can’t imagine that anyone in the Senate wants to confirm an individual to a lifetime appointment on the United States Supreme Court who has demonstrated a willingness to be untruthful under oath about easily verified information.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-jamie-roche.html

His roommate can believe he drank enough to black out at the same time that Kavanaugh believes he has never had enough to drink to black out.
His roommate can even be absolutely correct in his assertion, but unless Kavanaugh knows he drinks enough to black out, Kavanaugh's not lying.

Boofing can mean farting. Devils Triangle can be a drinking game. And they can both also have other meanings. As we've seen, people are trying to say "FFFF" means one thing and one thing only, yet the yearbook corroborates it doesn't just mean that one thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The absolute perversion of language - which only works around commonalities and broadly accepted usage - is stunningly illustrated in this thread. The diligent, paid for- my guess - trolls or bush-league GOP staffers here and elsewhere online insist that slang isn’t slang, that one “Ralphs” during flu season and not after getting drunk, that sex slang means quarters when quarters-based drinking games are called quarters. And so on.

Why? Aren’t there any arguments beneath you?

Or we insist that "Phrase" can mean 12 different things, that one can ralph both when one has the flu and when one is drunk, that one can have a weak stomach and drink too much at times.

I'm not Russian. Or a troll. Or a GOP staffer. I'm someone who thinks that people should be able to back up their claims with evidence. Because when someone accuses me of something, I expect them to back it up with evidence, and that's a personal expectation that I will extend to every single other human being on the planet. Whether or not I like them, respect them, or want them to have a particular position or reward.

You're anonymous. My suspicion is that your burden of proof shifts with your partisan preferences. You're anonymous, so I don't know that. I also don't know that you're a Trump supporter. But, I'd ask if you can agree with me that nobody could continue to support Trump if they insisted that he be able to "back up his claims with evidence?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

It's not possible that a term used by some for one thing can be different from a term used by others for another thing? Or that people could use a phrase to describe different things?

When my son was 12, he and his friends were joking about "4:20". I asked him what "4:20" meant, and he told me it was when his group of friends did their homework. He wasn't going to tell me they were making a pot reference. Amusingly, they do use it as both, even years later. Is he lying, if he testifies under oath that 4:20 means you're supposed to be doing your homework?

Yes, he would be lying. When you take an oath to tell the truth, you take an oath to tell the full truth, not just select portions of the truth that support your case. Your son knows the expression has two meanings, and further that those two meanings aren't unrelated -- the innocent meaning arose out of trying to cover for the not-so-innocent meaning. If, when asked what it means, he shares only one of them, he is lying by omission.

It is troubling to me that this is something that needs to be explained.

I've never testified in court, but I've watched several (real, not tv) court cases, and while what you're saying is theoretically true, it does not seem to play out in practice. People seem provide the most concise answer they can to a particular question. They do not elaborate, they do not provide multiple versions of an answer.

In simple cases, for example
"Is so and so your coworker?"
They say "yes." They don't say "yes, but so and so is also my friend. We met 4 years before I took the job and it was on their suggestion that I applied."

They also don't turn on the judge or lawyer and scream, "Is he your co-worker? Do you know him? I went to a great school!"
"Please answer yes or no"
"I like beer!"
"Is he your co-worker? Yes or no, please."
"Do you like beer?"

Such a witness is not taken seriously. And cannot be said to be truthfully answer the questions. They are evading and thus not telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Kavanaugh's going to be confirmed and now the Supreme Court will be degraded, just like the other 2 branches of government have been.

Everything Trump touches dies.

Well at least we will get Presidential alerts on our cell phones when the sh*t hits the fan.

[Anonymous]

Democrats have this unique ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The FBI supplementary report was a set up because it was very unlikely that it would jeopardize his nomination.

Idiotic move by Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Got the votes?

[Anonymous]

Multiple PP's have posted:

He's (Kavanaugh) had SIX prior FBI investigations, and all of them were clean as a whistle. He is a highly respected judge

Official SJC statement on twitter which makes me giggle because well... official/twitter SJC

As part of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, the FBI conducted its SIXTH full-field background investigation of Judge Kavanaugh since 1993. As part of these 6 prior FBI investigations, the FBI interviewed nearly 150 different people who know Judge Kavanaugh personally.

Senate Judiciary
?
@senjudiciary

Nowhere in any of these six FBI reports, which the committee has reviewed on a bipartisan basis, was there ever a whiff of ANY issue – at all – related in any way to inappropriate sexual behavior or alcohol abuse.

As of this morning:

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, quoted the tweet and said, "This tweet is not accurate. Committee Republicans must correct it."

See his letter here
https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/1047592548351574016

Full article here
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/03/politics/senate-judiciary-twitter-kavanaugh/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats have this unique ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The FBI supplementary report was a set up because it was very unlikely that it would jeopardize his nomination.

Idiotic move by Democrats.

Completely! It gives cover to GOP now to vote him in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Kavanaugh's going to be confirmed and now the Supreme Court will be degraded, just like the other 2 branches of government have been.

Everything Trump touches dies.

Roberts is our only hope. He doesn't want to go down in history as presiding over a sham Court, Kavanaugh may actually push him left.