Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were both privileged. Do you know who her father is?

Yup. She was a Holton-Arms, Columbia Country Club girl. Now she (and her husband) own a $3 million house Palo Alto and a $1 million beach house in Santa Cruz.

Only poor women can be victims of sexual assault? I’m not sure I follow your argument.

A PP condemned Kavanaugh for his white privilege. I was pointing out that his accuser has led a life of white privilege, as well. That's all.

Somehow, I don't think she gets jobs by going in and yelling that she went to Holton and Stanford.

She doesn't have to yell it. She puts it in her job applications.

He was yelling because he is enraged by this false accusation and the Democrats' dirty tricks to take him down by humiliating and embarassing him. Ridicule is a big tactic employed by liberals.

I think he will be confirmed, but barely.

He was yelling because his privileged life has told him that this job is ‘his’ but it wasn’t going smoothly like he expected.
It was ridiculous and clueless. He appears to be someone who isn’t aware of the world around him and that makes him unqualified.

I think he was yelling because Trump told him to be tough and that is how he acts tough. He was at a point where he had to keep Trump on his side so that Trump does not withdraw the nomination, and Trump likes people who are belligerent. A FBI investigation into his background at this point seemly pointless. The Rs are just trying to provide cover for the few swing vote Senators in the hopes they will change their votes. If the Rs has 50 votes on Friday they would have held the floor vote on Saturday.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On next month's SCOTUS docket is Gamble vs US. No 17-646. This is what the rush is about. Yes, they want him to overturn Roe, yes they want him to drag us all back, but they need him seated for October to rule on that specific case.

At stakes is the "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy. If he (and the other 4 conservative judges) vote to overrule it, people given presidential pardons for federal crimes cannot be tried for that crime at the state level.

Trump can pardon the lot of them and they have nothing to fear from state's attorneys.

Hence the rush to get Kavanaugh on the court.

If this is successful, our republic and the rule of law is dead.

Yes, we know. He could have midnight rituals eating children and he would still be pushed forward by GOP now. They have to cover their asses big time.

original poster: Thank you for posting the details on all of it to explain it out. I said "Yes, we know." but maybe it is only people who are really invested on both sides who know. It is really a threatening thing and very scary. THank you for taking the time to post the significance.

[Anonymous]

I hope there is at least one female FBI agent assigned to the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope there is at least one female FBI agent assigned to the case.

Me too!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, apparently Trump has told the FBI they cannot ask Safeway for its employment records to determine when Mark Judge worked at a Safeway in Bethesda in 1982.

My question: Why can't someone else, say the Montgomery police department, ask Safeway for those records?

Why can't Safeway volunteer those dates?

In my experience, if you are checking out an applicant for a job, you can call and any employer will give their dates of employment.

Why not call Safeway and ask? Can't anyone do this?

Where are you getting this information?

Omg, call Safeway and ask for records? You do realize that for one, Safeway is a dump that’s going under soon. For two this was ‘Pre conputers’ - you think that they have kept handwritten letters or time cards of a stockboy who worked there in maybe 1980? Workers actually punched cards there. They burned those long ago.
I worked there as a teen in I think 1983 and 1984 and so did a friend. I remember two boys but neither was Mark Judge. I’m waiting for my friend to ‘remember’ but she hasn’t written back. That’s as good as you’re going to get.
My guess would be that the ‘grown ups’ who worked there are either dead now or senile.

And if you want to investigate ‘sexual harassment’ you can look into the records of that sh@@hole from he// to work in - weird men used to sexually harass women there very openly and constantly and if the woman complained she was transferred to a far away store or fired.
It was such a crappy place I can’t believe that Mark Judge worked there, but I’m impressed that his parents must have been trying to instill some values in him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They were both privileged. Do you know who her father is?

Yup. She was a Holton-Arms, Columbia Country Club girl. Now she (and her husband) own a $3 million house Palo Alto and a $1 million beach house in Santa Cruz.

Only poor women can be victims of sexual assault? I’m not sure I follow your argument.

A PP condemned Kavanaugh for his white privilege. I was pointing out that his accuser has led a life of white privilege, as well. That's all.

Somehow, I don't think she gets jobs by going in and yelling that she went to Holton and Stanford.

She doesn't have to yell it. She puts it in her job applications.

He was yelling because he is enraged by this false accusation and the Democrats' dirty tricks to take him down by humiliating and embarassing him. Ridicule is a big tactic employed by liberals.

I think he will be confirmed, but barely.

He was yelling because his privileged life has told him that this job is ‘his’ but it wasn’t going smoothly like he expected.
It was ridiculous and clueless. He appears to be someone who isn’t aware of the world around him and that makes him unqualified.

I think he was yelling because Trump told him to be tough and that is how he acts tough. He was at a point where he had to keep Trump on his side so that Trump does not withdraw the nomination, and Trump likes people who are belligerent. A FBI investigation into his background at this point seemly pointless. The Rs are just trying to provide cover for the few swing vote Senators in the hopes they will change their votes. If the Rs has 50 votes on Friday they would have held the floor vote on Saturday.

Well, Trump gave him bad advice. He should have just been chill.

[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.

Silly. That bro bravado is what the GOP likes. He may not get to the Court but he could get an admin job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On next month's SCOTUS docket is Gamble vs US. No 17-646. This is what the rush is about. Yes, they want him to overturn Roe, yes they want him to drag us all back, but they need him seated for October to rule on that specific case.

At stakes is the "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy. If he (and the other 4 conservative judges) vote to overrule it, people given presidential pardons for federal crimes cannot be tried for that crime at the state level.

Trump can pardon the lot of them and they have nothing to fear from state's attorneys.

Hence the rush to get Kavanaugh on the court.

If this is successful, our republic and the rule of law is dead.

Yes, we know. He could have midnight rituals eating children and he would still be pushed forward by GOP now. They have to cover their asses big time.

original poster: Thank you for posting the details on all of it to explain it out. I said "Yes, we know." but maybe it is only people who are really invested on both sides who know. It is really a threatening thing and very scary. THank you for taking the time to post the significance.

I just checked the SCOTUS blog. It looks like reply briefs in this case are due 11/23/18. Does anyone know what the rules are for when a Justice has to be seated in order to rule on a case? If they are seated any time during the session can they rule on any case, even if they were not seated during briefing and, possibly, argument?

Also of note to all you true conservatives out there -- Orrin Hatch filed an amicus brief in this case SUPPORTING enhanced concentration of power in the federal government and AGAINST states rights. This is pretty contrary to true conservatives' raison d'etre. His lawyers wrangled themselves into a pieces supporting this expansion of federal power at the expense of the states. Oh how the hypocrites have fallen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How hard is it for the Republicans to announce a new candidate tomorrow and get that person confirmed before mid-terms?

Nearly impossible. They pushed Kav hard and rode him wet and it still took over two months. Now, we have the added bonus of knowing this WH doesn’t vet SCOTUS nominees, and they can’t risk a second nominee who was not properly vetted and gets pulled. The next person would need an actual vetting, a review and comment period, to meet with senators, plus hearings. And Senators need to be home to campaign. The election is in 5-6 weeks. Can’t be done.

But— They could nominate someone tomorrow, lose the Senate and the House in the midterms, and still get that person through in the lame duck session in November and December. Yes, it is completely illegitimate for Rs to lose both houses Congress and ram through a super conservative nominee. Especially after the Merrick Garland let the people decide crap. And yes, it would likely destroy the credibility of the one branch of government with a net positive approval rating. And yes, the next Congress would try to impeach. But somehow, I doubt Trump, Graham and McTutrle GAF about any of this, and technically nothing is stopping them from comfirming another nominee after the election and before the new Congress, even if they lose the majority.

That said, if they pull something like that, Trump needs to stop firing people. Because a Dem controlled Senate would not move a single Trump nominee for any judicial seat or any political appointment for the next two years. And if you are a fed, you know The majority of Trumps political appointments are still unfilled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, apparently Trump has told the FBI they cannot ask Safeway for its employment records to determine when Mark Judge worked at a Safeway in Bethesda in 1982.

My question: Why can't someone else, say the Montgomery police department, ask Safeway for those records?

Why can't Safeway volunteer those dates?

In my experience, if you are checking out an applicant for a job, you can call and any employer will give their dates of employment.

Why not call Safeway and ask? Can't anyone do this?

Where are you getting this information?

Omg, call Safeway and ask for records? You do realize that for one, Safeway is a dump that’s going under soon. For two this was ‘Pre conputers’ - you think that they have kept handwritten letters or time cards of a stockboy who worked there in maybe 1980? Workers actually punched cards there. They burned those long ago.
I worked there as a teen in I think 1983 and 1984 and so did a friend. I remember two boys but neither was Mark Judge. I’m waiting for my friend to ‘remember’ but she hasn’t written back. That’s as good as you’re going to get.
My guess would be that the ‘grown ups’ who worked there are either dead now or senile.

And if you want to investigate ‘sexual harassment’ you can look into the records of that sh@@hole from he// to work in - weird men used to sexually harass women there very openly and constantly and if the woman complained she was transferred to a far away store or fired.
It was such a crappy place I can’t believe that Mark Judge worked there, but I’m impressed that his parents must have been trying to instill some values in him.

It may have been a crappy place to work, but they may still have records. It can't hurt to ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On next month's SCOTUS docket is Gamble vs US. No 17-646. This is what the rush is about. Yes, they want him to overturn Roe, yes they want him to drag us all back, but they need him seated for October to rule on that specific case.

At stakes is the "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy. If he (and the other 4 conservative judges) vote to overrule it, people given presidential pardons for federal crimes cannot be tried for that crime at the state level.

Trump can pardon the lot of them and they have nothing to fear from state's attorneys.

Hence the rush to get Kavanaugh on the court.

If this is successful, our republic and the rule of law is dead.

Good catch PP.

The stakes are so high in this fight.

No wonder the POTUS is lying, lying, lying, as usual.

Women must rise up and fight this menace. Vote the GOP out of power in the house and senate in November. Tie the GOP's hands for the rest of Dumpy's term. Oh, and impeach and remove him.

Good catch. I heard senator Kennedy say they wanted him seated by October and this must be why. After the last couple of weeks Kavanaugh must feel extremely beholden to the WH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On next month's SCOTUS docket is Gamble vs US. No 17-646. This is what the rush is about. Yes, they want him to overturn Roe, yes they want him to drag us all back, but they need him seated for October to rule on that specific case.

At stakes is the "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy. If he (and the other 4 conservative judges) vote to overrule it, people given presidential pardons for federal crimes cannot be tried for that crime at the state level.

Trump can pardon the lot of them and they have nothing to fear from state's attorneys.

Hence the rush to get Kavanaugh on the court.

If this is successful, our republic and the rule of law is dead.

Yes, we know. He could have midnight rituals eating children and he would still be pushed forward by GOP now. They have to cover their asses big time.

original poster: Thank you for posting the details on all of it to explain it out. I said "Yes, we know." but maybe it is only people who are really invested on both sides who know. It is really a threatening thing and very scary. THank you for taking the time to post the significance.

I just checked the SCOTUS blog. It looks like reply briefs in this case are due 11/23/18. Does anyone know what the rules are for when a Justice has to be seated in order to rule on a case? If they are seated any time during the session can they rule on any case, even if they were not seated during briefing and, possibly, argument?

Also of note to all you true conservatives out there -- Orrin Hatch filed an amicus brief in this case SUPPORTING enhanced concentration of power in the federal government and AGAINST states rights. This is pretty contrary to true conservatives' raison d'etre. His lawyers wrangled themselves into a pieces supporting this expansion of federal power at the expense of the states. Oh how the hypocrites have fallen.

WOW. I hope this gets some press. This is insane.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1 correct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine your entire reputation and career on the grandest national stage coming down to your most messed up friend from high school, who probably knows things about you that you don’t even know, because you don’t remember.

Yes, Ford should be a bit concerned since her dear friend could not corroborate her story.

Ford did everything she needed to do. She agonized over coming forward but bravely did it. She already knew that her friend didn’t remember that night, but didn’t let it stop her. She can move forward with a clear conscience.

At a minimum: a book deal, a TED talk and then motivational speaker for hire.

If she is discredited: a book deal, a TED talk and then motivational speaker for hire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, apparently Trump has told the FBI they cannot ask Safeway for its employment records to determine when Mark Judge worked at a Safeway in Bethesda in 1982.

My question: Why can't someone else, say the Montgomery police department, ask Safeway for those records?

Why can't Safeway volunteer those dates?

In my experience, if you are checking out an applicant for a job, you can call and any employer will give their dates of employment.

Why not call Safeway and ask? Can't anyone do this?

Where are you getting this information?

Omg, call Safeway and ask for records? You do realize that for one, Safeway is a dump that’s going under soon. For two this was ‘Pre conputers’ - you think that they have kept handwritten letters or time cards of a stockboy who worked there in maybe 1980? Workers actually punched cards there. They burned those long ago.
I worked there as a teen in I think 1983 and 1984 and so did a friend. I remember two boys but neither was Mark Judge. I’m waiting for my friend to ‘remember’ but she hasn’t written back. That’s as good as you’re going to get.
My guess would be that the ‘grown ups’ who worked there are either dead now or senile.

And if you want to investigate ‘sexual harassment’ you can look into the records of that sh@@hole from he// to work in - weird men used to sexually harass women there very openly and constantly and if the woman complained she was transferred to a far away store or fired.
It was such a crappy place I can’t believe that Mark Judge worked there, but I’m impressed that his parents must have been trying to instill some values in him.

It may have been a crappy place to work, but they may still have records. It can't hurt to ask.

There’s no way they have records. Nothing was computerized and it’s been 30+ years.