Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who does have the power to open an FBI investigation?

Only the WH? Or anyone in Congress?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who does have the power to open an FBI investigation?

My best understanding is the president. Apparently, it was Bush who got the FBI in for the Anita Hill affair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lies:

-4 letters exonerate him
-devils traingle
-boofing
-legal drinking age
-Renete Alumni
-He claims to have not watched Dr. Ford

What else?

Denying that he is being depicted a "Bart O'Kavanaugh",
Denying that he was black out drunk on the bus to the baseball game and filling his description with unnecessary, meaningless, extraneous, detail about how 'great' the game was and what a beautiful day it was and how much "fun" he had at the game.

There was just so much fudging on the obvious meanings of certain words and terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

Really? How about answering yes or no to yes or no questions?

How about NOT meanly asking a US Senator if SHE had a drinking problem? For which he apologized, so even HE recognizes that he did not handle himself well in at least that one exchange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lies:

-4 letters exonerate him
-devils traingle
-boofing
-legal drinking age
-Renete Alumni
-He claims to have not watched Dr. Ford

What else?

Sure. You know these things. You are revealing yourself to be someone who lives by emotion and not facts.
Just because YOU don’t believe him, these are all lies. Sure.

Dp, but these are all easily proven lies he told yesterday.

PROVEN lies? You are kidding me. Tell me, how do you plan on proving them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lies:

-4 letters exonerate him
-devils traingle
-boofing
-legal drinking age
-Renete Alumni
-He claims to have not watched Dr. Ford

What else?

Lying about the stolen memos

That devils triangle answer was very unconvincing. Seemed like he had anticipated the question so answer it too fast at first but then when pressed for details came up short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

Really? How about answering yes or no to yes or no questions?

How about NOT meanly asking a US Senator if SHE had a drinking problem? For which he apologized, so even HE recognizes that he did not handle himself well in at least that one exchange.

He did answer yes or no to many of the questions. Not the stupid ones, though.
And, I am not judging him for his anger and outrage. He has every right. I dare say I would not have conducted myself half as well had charges of gang rape been leveled at me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lies:

-4 letters exonerate him
-devils traingle
-boofing
-legal drinking age
-Renete Alumni
-He claims to have not watched Dr. Ford

What else?

Lying about the stolen memos

That devils triangle answer was very unconvincing. Seemed like he had anticipated the question so answer it too fast at first but then when pressed for details came up short.

Plus having played lots of drinking games in DC area in 1982, i never ever heard of that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

But HE WILL BE IF HE’s CONFIRMED. A judge at any level is expected to have good judgment and be of high moral character, even when it gets personal. You don’t get a pass on being professional just because you have to defend your reputation. You can be angry without being disrespectful, snide, and dismissive. He is a judge and an attorney prior to that. He is well aware of how to balance anger and defending oneself with the desire to lash out. That desire is understandable but instead of rising above and handling it with integrity, he evades questions and answers questions with questions. “Have YOU ever blacked out, Senator?” That’s an expected response from a teenager, not a 50-something man who is a SCOTUS nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lies:

-4 letters exonerate him
-devils traingle
-boofing
-legal drinking age
-Renete Alumni
-He claims to have not watched Dr. Ford

What else?

Sure. You know these things. You are revealing yourself to be someone who lives by emotion and not facts.
Just because YOU don’t believe him, these are all lies. Sure.

Dp, but these are all easily proven lies he told yesterday.

PROVEN lies? You are kidding me. Tell me, how do you plan on proving them?

His friends already told people the meaning

Boofing is anal
Devils Triangle is a 3some

And no dem cares if he did either, lying is pathetic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

Really? How about answering yes or no to yes or no questions?

How about NOT meanly asking a US Senator if SHE had a drinking problem? For which he apologized, so even HE recognizes that he did not handle himself well in at least that one exchange.

He did answer yes or no to many of the questions. Not the stupid ones, though.
And, I am not judging him for his anger and outrage. He has every right. I dare say I would not have conducted myself half as well had charges of gang rape been leveled at me.

Yeah, because you wouldn't have been coached by Bill Shine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To add: I think the ABA request for an FBI investigation will....finally..sink him.

I was hoping something like this would happen. A legal ethics expert needs to step in. I think many want to speak up but are fearful what that would do to their careers.

I'm surprised that the Jesuit magazine did the right thing by withdrawing their support.

Kavanaugh did serious damage to the legal profession yesterday. He is the perfect example of how not to conduct yourself. His performance should be text book material in every law school.

I doubt he will ever be invited to teach anywhere ever again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lies:

-4 letters exonerate him
-devils traingle
-boofing
-legal drinking age
-Renete Alumni
-He claims to have not watched Dr. Ford

What else?

Sure. You know these things. You are revealing yourself to be someone who lives by emotion and not facts.
Just because YOU don’t believe him, these are all lies. Sure.

Dp, but these are all easily proven lies he told yesterday.

PROVEN lies? You are kidding me. Tell me, how do you plan on proving them?

You are being ridiculous now. Those terms listed above have obvious crude meanings. He lied about what those terms mean. He is a serial liar as an adult, if nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not against an FBI invest. But I’m confused on a few points
-I thought they, the FBI, had considered and decided no. I brought this up yesterday but it got lost in the massive Part 2 thread.
-as I’ve heard legal experts suggest (liberal ones too!), the FBI doesn’t judge on the matter. You will still have 98% probability that no conclusion will be made. The 2% chance is worth it I suppose but as I heard someone on LRC put it, the FBI isn’t “magical.”
-what is their exact jurisdiction on this? In the way they investigate cases, they don’t usually take on 35yo cases in which no charges were filed. (Educate me here)

Assuming you are being genuine
- fbi had finished background investigation. It can only be reopened at request of President, as Bush did with Clarence Thomas, amd other Presidents have done in similar circumstances
— fbi would obtain sworn testimony from all alleged witnesses (including with respect to othe 2 allegations) in an in person question and answer format. They would also determine if there are additional witnesses or documents and complete background checks of all accusers. All of the information gathered would be provided to the Senators on the Committee.
—fbi has jurisdiction over background investigations of federal nominees, age of the case is not relevant particularly here when there is no statute of limitations on the alleged underlying crime, fbi, like all law enforcement, has agents who know how to work cold cases.

[Anonymous]

Any Senator who votes for Kavanaugh today is no different from Mark Judge standing in the corner egging Kav on during the assault. Despicable.