Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

And conservatives would welcome any Democrat to the court with wine and roses.

Conservatives would not consider a Democrat or a moderate. Not even vote. See Merrick Garland.

Can you imagy how triggered they would be if liberals did that?

There are plenty of non lying, non frat dbag, conservative potential supreme court nominees. Why weren't they put forward?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

Of course. Just as Republicans will and DID fight moderate/progressive candidates.

Go back and check the votes. Then, make sure to come back and share.

Merrick Garland.

Oh sorry, can't check the votes. Because there never was one.

And nope, we're never going to stop bringing up his name. Ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Avenatti’s new client has a checkered past with questionable claims. I really hope they charge her (and Avenatti) with making false allegations.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36503/kavanaugh-accuser-lied-about-background-has-ryan-saavedra

"Daily Wire" looks like a troll website set up by the Russians to discredit Blasey Ford and promote Kavanaugh.

Find a reliable source, would ya, trollie?

The link to WSJ is reliable.

post excerpts. I can't read wsj online without paying.

"Roughly a decade ago, Ms. Swetnick was involved in a dispute with her former employer, New York Life Insurance Co., over a sexual-harassment complaint she filed, according to people familiar with the matter. Representing her in the complaint was the firm run by Debra Katz, the lawyer currently representing Dr. Ford. The company ultimately reached a financial settlement with Ms. Swetnick, the people said."

Free part of online WSJ--comes near end of story.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/attorney-avenatti-releases-affidavit-from-woman-describing-kavanaugh-at-parties-in-1980s-1537974634

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

Of course. Just as Republicans will and DID fight moderate/progressive candidates.

Go back and check the votes. Then, make sure to come back and share.

.

Where can I find the vote on Garland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can everyone supporting Kavanaugh tell us why you are overlooking his obvious lies under oath? Putting all the allegations aside and just looking at the yearbook definitions he gave and is clearly lying about - how do you rationalize that? I really want to hear from someone.

This has been done over and over again. Go back and look through the thread.

Where? Where has this been adequately explained? It's been glossed over. But no, haven't seen anyone rationalize it.

Short answer... because what YOU are calling lies, are not lies. At all. It’s wishful thinking on your part because we know that you see your efforts falling apart and so you are diverting your efforts to come up with something you think will derail this nominee.

So Devil’s Triangle is a drinking game and RenateAlumnius is a term of affection? Based on your comment above, you are stating that those two definitions are factually accurate? Please confirm yes or no.

There is no basis for saying they are not factually accurate. We are talking about teenage boys here with lots of inside slang. The whole Devil's Triangle is based on an 2018 Urban Dictionary entry. This was all almost 40 years ago--slang evolves very quickly.

I am the same age and grew up here. Devils Triangle was a threesome. That didn't change until a GOP aid from a House IP address changed it on Wikipedia on Thursday during the testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

Of course. Just as Republicans will and DID fight moderate/progressive candidates.

Go back and check the votes. Then, make sure to come back and share.

Merrick Garland.

Oh sorry, can't check the votes. Because there never was one.

And nope, we're never going to stop bringing up his name. Ever.

Never forget.

Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland

Who did not have an angry hissy fit on national television.

[Anonymous]

Here's more from the NYT story. It completely backs up the NBC news story from last night. The "investigation" is complete BS orchestrated by Senate Republicans and Don McGahn, who's been working his butt off trying to get an ultra-conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/us/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-inquiry.html

Led by Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, Mr. Trump’s advisers are helping direct the scope of the background check, according to the senior administration official. Mr. McGahn shared the witness list with the F.B.I. but is working in concert with Senate Republicans, and senators considered key swing votes have had extensive input, the people said. Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Jeff Flake of Arizona have both said they want Mr. Judge questioned by the F.B.I.

The witness list did not extend to high school and college classmates who have said in interviews that Judge Kavanaugh drank heavily, including some who said he went beyond typical consumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Avenatti’s new client has a checkered past with questionable claims. I really hope they charge her (and Avenatti) with making false allegations.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36503/kavanaugh-accuser-lied-about-background-has-ryan-saavedra

"Daily Wire" looks like a troll website set up by the Russians to discredit Blasey Ford and promote Kavanaugh.

Find a reliable source, would ya, trollie?

The link to WSJ is reliable.

post excerpts. I can't read wsj online without paying.

"Roughly a decade ago, Ms. Swetnick was involved in a dispute with her former employer, New York Life Insurance Co., over a sexual-harassment complaint she filed, according to people familiar with the matter. Representing her in the complaint was the firm run by Debra Katz, the lawyer currently representing Dr. Ford. The company ultimately reached a financial settlement with Ms. Swetnick, the people said."

Free part of online WSJ--comes near end of story.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/attorney-avenatti-releases-affidavit-from-woman-describing-kavanaugh-at-parties-in-1980s-1537974634

The law firm handles sexual assault cases and sexual harassment cases... what a shock! Should Dr. Ford have sought out a construction litigation firm???

Also, they paid her money so evidently she had a case and the harassment was documented enough that the got a settlement.

What is it that is suspicious about this to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can everyone supporting Kavanaugh tell us why you are overlooking his obvious lies under oath? Putting all the allegations aside and just looking at the yearbook definitions he gave and is clearly lying about - how do you rationalize that? I really want to hear from someone.

This has been done over and over again. Go back and look through the thread.

Where? Where has this been adequately explained? It's been glossed over. But no, haven't seen anyone rationalize it.

Short answer... because what YOU are calling lies, are not lies. At all. It’s wishful thinking on your part because we know that you see your efforts falling apart and so you are diverting your efforts to come up with something you think will derail this nominee.

He lied about even watching Ford's testimony. I mean, as plain on the nose on your face, he lied.

Prove he did.

His aid tweeted it, it was screen captured and shared widely including here. And then she deleted it.

Show it. If it was screen captured, it is there somewhere.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/2835/755157.page#top

9/27 at 19:12

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI is apparently going to interview 4 witnesses about the sexual assault allegations, but it won't be a full fledged criminal investigation. The WH will then decide based on these findings, as reported in NYT.

If that is true he will always be illegitimate and this will hang over him forever, SCOTUS or not. Stupid move but he and Trump only care about getting him on the court.

Sacrifice will not be worth it.

Only in the minds of liberals who had him guilty before anyone testified about any of this crap.

Anyone on the fence is no longer on the fence. He looked like an angry drunk, and he was presumably sober. He had a pathetic tantrum. The GOP is going to lose people who may have gone their way in the past.

I have to admit, I kept thinking, imagine that personality after quickly imbibing 5 or 6 beers in a row Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just more evidence that the Democrats were eager to have this whole case tried in the media, facts be damned. Nothing like a good, thorough character assassination to derail this nominee.
Sheldon Whitehouse is a partisan jerk.

Committee investigators have actively pursued a number of tips the committee has received regarding the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, though the committee has not been able to substantiate any allegations of wrongdoing by Judge Kavanaugh. One tip was referred to the committee by staff for Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I). While Whitehouse referred the accuser to a reporter, the committee took the claim seriously and questioned Judge Kavanaugh about the allegations under penalty of felony. Judge Kavanaugh denied any misconduct. After the transcripts of that interview became public, the individual recanted the claims on a social media post.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/judiciary-committee-refers-potential-false-statements-for-criminal-investigation

No, this is a case of an accusation coming to the public and in this case, being recanted. There are likely legitimate claims that should be investigated, but aren't. This person should be prosecuted for a false claim.

[Anonymous]

Never forget.

Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland

Who did not have an angry hissy fit on national television.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI is apparently going to interview 4 witnesses about the sexual assault allegations, but it won't be a full fledged criminal investigation. The WH will then decide based on these findings, as reported in NYT.

If that is true he will always be illegitimate and this will hang over him forever, SCOTUS or not. Stupid move but he and Trump only care about getting him on the court.

Sacrifice will not be worth it.

Only in the minds of liberals who had him guilty before anyone testified about any of this crap.

Anyone on the fence is no longer on the fence. He looked like an angry drunk, and he was presumably sober. He had a pathetic tantrum. The GOP is going to lose people who may have gone their way in the past.

I have to admit, I kept thinking, imagine that personality after quickly imbibing 5 or 6 beers in a row Yikes.

He reminded me of a nasty drunk. His snarling and defensiveness and the fluctuation between tears and rage.

[Anonymous]

You know what almost brought Dr. Ford to tears?
(link for the text https://thinkprogress.org/blumenthal-graham-book-quote-kavanaugh-ford-hearing-b0f8106ffe81/)

Blumenthal reading out Graham's own words in his autobiography about being a trial lawyer on sexual assault cases:
“[Sen. Graham] said…of his prosecutions of rape cases, ‘I learned how much unexpected courage from a deep and hidden place it takes for a rape victim or sexually abused child to testify against their assailants,'” Blumenthal read, repeating the quote twice.

I watched her when this quote was read and she looked like she was about to burst in to tears.

You know what actually brought Kavanaugh to tears?
Talking about his calendar and what he was doing in high school - working out with his friends, drinking beers with this friends. That brought him to tears.

I'm sorry but he is pathetic. He has no business being a supreme court justice.