Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean how can people jump on Whelan for smearing a citizen's name without proof but not Ford for doing the same thing? Note how the article calls telling Ford that she's lying is "ugly business" as if it's not possible in this day and age to even say or think this after hearing testimony.

Kavanaugh is a public figure. Chris Garret is a private citizen. Surely you know the difference. There is an exception in libel law for public figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, that makes the sham around his nomination completely okay then. The Rethugs stoke the seat - but hey, Garland knew that would happen! All’s good.

[Anonymous]

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.

He had the ability back in JULY, before anything was public knowledge. But he didn't. Instead he was busy tampering with witnesses about the assault on Ramirez.

You mean Feinstein and the Democrats had the ability, back in JULY, to have all of this investigated without dragging anyone's name publicly through the mud. It could all have been accomplished very quietly. But it wasn't. This could all have been over long ago. But that doesn't seem to faze you.

+1 Because an earlier investigation wouldn't have had the same effect as an accusation made public at the last minute.

+2 Diane Feinstein is evil to have done that to Dr. Ford.

[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.

Merrick Garland’s fangirl is back.

No citation needed.

[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.

Did you go to high school with either Swetnick or Kavanaugh? It doesn’t seem that they currently run in the same circles .

[Anonymous]

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.

He had the ability back in JULY, before anything was public knowledge. But he didn't. Instead he was busy tampering with witnesses about the assault on Ramirez.

You mean Feinstein and the Democrats had the ability, back in JULY, to have all of this investigated without dragging anyone's name publicly through the mud. It could all have been accomplished very quietly. But it wasn't. This could all have been over long ago. But that doesn't seem to faze you.

+1 Because an earlier investigation wouldn't have had the same effect as an accusation made public at the last minute.

+2 Diane Feinstein is evil to have done that to Dr. Ford.

Dianne Feinstein didn’t leak it.

Knowing that the GOP likes their stolen emails, I’m going to guess the GOP did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Merrick Garland’s fangirl is back.

No citation needed.

Garland is too old, too white, and too moderate-liberal to ever be nominated to the S Ct by the next Dem President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. I just watched this. She claims Kavanaugh was wearing "his Georgetown Prep uniform" when she met him. Um, there IS NO GP UNIFORM. A jacket and tie, but no uniform. She said she thinks he was "proud" of his uniform. Wow, that's not a lie at all. She's *completely* believable.

You literally just described a school uniform.

A bunch of boys prep schools have the uniform of a jacket and tie. How would it identify Georgetown Prep vs an entirely different boys school?

Right, so a school uniform.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Prep does not have a uniform. They have a dress code. For what it's worth i'll tell you what it is.

You have to wear a blazer/sports coat, have a button down shirt (short or long sleeve), wear a tie, have a pair of slacks or khaki pants, a belt and dress shoes on.

Some teachers don't strictly enforce the dress code. Some, especially the older Jesuit priests, are very strict about it.

No dress code at Prep but feel free to keep talking about something you know nothing about.

There are all sorts of codes there--the devil's triangle lie code being among the more hilarious ones in light of it being a 'no neck jock' school filled with towel snapping homophobes.

[Anonymous]

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.

He had the ability back in JULY, before anything was public knowledge. But he didn't. Instead he was busy tampering with witnesses about the assault on Ramirez.

You mean Feinstein and the Democrats had the ability, back in JULY, to have all of this investigated without dragging anyone's name publicly through the mud. It could all have been accomplished very quietly. But it wasn't. This could all have been over long ago. But that doesn't seem to faze you.

+1 Because an earlier investigation wouldn't have had the same effect as an accusation made public at the last minute.

+2 Diane Feinstein is evil to have done that to Dr. Ford.

Dianne Feinstein didn’t leak it.

Knowing that the GOP likes their stolen emails, I’m going to guess the GOP did it.

Since the GOP knew nothing of the letter or the identity of the person writing it, that would be kind of tough to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. I just watched this. She claims Kavanaugh was wearing "his Georgetown Prep uniform" when she met him. Um, there IS NO GP UNIFORM. A jacket and tie, but no uniform. She said she thinks he was "proud" of his uniform. Wow, that's not a lie at all. She's *completely* believable.

You literally just described a school uniform.

A bunch of boys prep schools have the uniform of a jacket and tie. How would it identify Georgetown Prep vs an entirely different boys school?

Right, so a school uniform.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Prep does not have a uniform. They have a dress code. For what it's worth i'll tell you what it is.

You have to wear a blazer/sports coat, have a button down shirt (short or long sleeve), wear a tie, have a pair of slacks or khaki pants, a belt and dress shoes on.

Some teachers don't strictly enforce the dress code. Some, especially the older Jesuit priests, are very strict about it.

No dress code at Prep but feel free to keep talking about something you know nothing about.

There are all sorts of codes there--the devil's triangle lie code being among the more hilarious ones in light of it being a 'no neck jock' school filled with towel snapping homophobes.

I surprised anyone thinks a public school has a dress code. Have you seen what public school kids wear? The teachers are no better.

[Anonymous]

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.

He had the ability back in JULY, before anything was public knowledge. But he didn't. Instead he was busy tampering with witnesses about the assault on Ramirez.

You mean Feinstein and the Democrats had the ability, back in JULY, to have all of this investigated without dragging anyone's name publicly through the mud. It could all have been accomplished very quietly. But it wasn't. This could all have been over long ago. But that doesn't seem to faze you.

+1 Because an earlier investigation wouldn't have had the same effect as an accusation made public at the last minute.

+2 Diane Feinstein is evil to have done that to Dr. Ford.

Dianne Feinstein didn’t leak it.

Knowing that the GOP likes their stolen emails, I’m going to guess the GOP did it.

Since the GOP knew nothing of the letter or the identity of the person writing it, that would be kind of tough to do.

Since the GOP also has no problem working with Russian hackers, I don’t think that’s such a difficult problem for them.

It wasn’t a proble for them to go through Democratic emails in 2002; why would it be more difficult now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. I just watched this. She claims Kavanaugh was wearing "his Georgetown Prep uniform" when she met him. Um, there IS NO GP UNIFORM. A jacket and tie, but no uniform. She said she thinks he was "proud" of his uniform. Wow, that's not a lie at all. She's *completely* believable.

You literally just described a school uniform.

A bunch of boys prep schools have the uniform of a jacket and tie. How would it identify Georgetown Prep vs an entirely different boys school?

Right, so a school uniform.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Prep does not have a uniform. They have a dress code. For what it's worth i'll tell you what it is.

You have to wear a blazer/sports coat, have a button down shirt (short or long sleeve), wear a tie, have a pair of slacks or khaki pants, a belt and dress shoes on.

Some teachers don't strictly enforce the dress code. Some, especially the older Jesuit priests, are very strict about it.

No dress code at Prep but feel free to keep talking about something you know nothing about.

There are all sorts of codes there--the devil's triangle lie code being among the more hilarious ones in light of it being a 'no neck jock' school filled with towel snapping homophobes.

I surprised anyone thinks a public school has a dress code. Have you seen what public school kids wear? The teachers are no better.

Depends totally on the school and the school's admin team. In our middle school, the principal and asst principals are strong leaders. The teachers are required to look professional; and kids' parents are called to bring an outfit change when needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Merrick Garland’s fangirl is back.
No citation needed.

Garland is too old, too white, and too moderate-liberal to ever be nominated to the S Ct by the next Dem President.

The above is why I think Obama did the nom...might have thought it was the only possibility...but the deal was sealed before the nom that it wasn't going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, that makes the sham around his nomination completely okay then. The Rethugs stoke the seat - but hey, Garland knew that would happen! All’s good.

I'm confused by the continued use of "stole." Was the ACA passed into law illegitimately, since it was pushed by one party? The party followed the rules and got their desired outcome. Same thing happened with Garland.

[Anonymous]

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.

He had the ability back in JULY, before anything was public knowledge. But he didn't. Instead he was busy tampering with witnesses about the assault on Ramirez.

You mean Feinstein and the Democrats had the ability, back in JULY, to have all of this investigated without dragging anyone's name publicly through the mud. It could all have been accomplished very quietly. But it wasn't. This could all have been over long ago. But that doesn't seem to faze you.

+1 Because an earlier investigation wouldn't have had the same effect as an accusation made public at the last minute.

+2 Diane Feinstein is evil to have done that to Dr. Ford.

Dianne Feinstein didn’t leak it.

Knowing that the GOP likes their stolen emails, I’m going to guess the GOP did it.

Then Feinstein leaked it. Because Ford didn't give it to the GOP.
Is Feinstein using insecure methods to hold confidential information?