Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitchell report

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

Solid job. Of course, she still is most likely telling the truth.

Why? In her therapy notes she claimed she was assaulted in her late teens, not 15. In her investigation she claims she doesn't remember how she got to the party or inexplicably how she got home. How in an era before cell phones did she run out of the house and get back to her home 7 miles away and have no memory of it. If she could give the name of the person who drove her home immediately after the attempted rape, that would help the investigation immensely, but she somehow has no memory of it.

Yes, and here's another thought: Surely the person who drove her home would have remembered an upset, likely crying, traumatized girl. Why hasn't he stepped up? Plus, she would have had to remain in the house, using a landline phone to call for a pickup. The other two people can't remember that she came down the stairs, after being with the two boys, and immediately called to be taken home?

Nope. I believe she was assaulted at some point, but it was in the later 80s when she was an older teen. Why did the polygraph cross out "early" and leave 80s? Why can't we see her therapist notes?

This is an outrage. She has convinced herself that it was Kavanaugh - I've seen in this forum that liberals can convince themselves of anything in reaction to their hatred of the opposite party - and he is understandably enraged by the Democrats' takedown, using Ford as a pawn.

Well that's a very charitable assessment of her motivations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitchell report

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

Solid job. Of course, she still is most likely telling the truth.

Why? In her therapy notes she claimed she was assaulted in her late teens, not 15. In her investigation she claims she doesn't remember how she got to the party or inexplicably how she got home. How in an era before cell phones did she run out of the house and get back to her home 7 miles away and have no memory of it. If she could give the name of the person who drove her home immediately after the attempted rape, that would help the investigation immensely, but she somehow has no memory of it.

I can easily believe that she wouldn't recall how she got to the party, but not remembering how she got back to her home seven miles away after almost being raped? This is not a credible claim.

True. Because she knows if she names the person, he or she will testify to her calm demeanor. For all we know, her dad picked her up after that gathering. No wonder how parents didn't want to attend the hearing.

How did she not have a conversation with her lifelong friend Leland about why she abruptly left the party the night before? There were only six people there, so Leland would have obviously realized that Christine left early. Are we really to believe that there was no conversation between these girls as to why she left the gathering early and how she got home?

Yes. And Leland didn't notice that Ford, Judge, and Kavanaugh were all upstairs - after which she left immediately? The more you look at this story, the more you realize it isn't true.

And Ford's testimony as to why Leland isn't corroborating her story sounds fishy too. OK, she's not well, but that doesn't mean she couldn't send a letter saying she remembers the night her best friend came down the stairs and called to be taken home, leaving the gathering early and with no explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if Kavanaugh is 100% innocent of the claims made against him, his demeanor and lies before the Senate last week, citing conspiracy theories etc are simply not SCOTUS material.

I don’t agree at all.
What I saw was an innocent man who was vehemently defending himself from egregious charges that have forever impacted his life and the lives of his wife and children.
You cannot level these allegations against a person and not expect him to be angry and defensive.
And, the “what about the lies?” trope is false and desperate.

If you want to talk about his demeanor as a judge, let’s look at his 12 years as a judge in the appellate court. Any complaints about his behavior or demeanor? NOT ONE.

Or how about we look at his record in the Bush administration? Oh right — those papers have not been released.

Good idea! Maybe the FBI can share those this week....

[Anonymous]

GOP’s closing argument: Beyond the scope. Got the votes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty amazing to me how and why GOP is going on the mat for this heavily tainted nominee. There are so many other conservative justices who could take his place without the baggage. To me, it seems like the GOP has gone full Trump, which means it’s always about “winning” not necessarily what’s best for the country.

Also, having Don McGhan, Kavanaugh’s primary promoter, be directing the FBI investigation seems like a bad idea.

I'm one of the upset posters. It's not that I'm trying to go for the mat for him. I simply think it's outrageous how he's being treated and how this accusation has been handled. It should have been investigated and THEN presented. I would feel this way for any human being, regardless of sex, race, party, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty amazing to me how and why GOP is going on the mat for this heavily tainted nominee. There are so many other conservative justices who could take his place without the baggage. To me, it seems like the GOP has gone full Trump, which means it’s always about “winning” not necessarily what’s best for the country.

Also, having Don McGhan, Kavanaugh’s primary promoter, be directing the FBI investigation seems like a bad idea.

I'm one of the upset posters. It's not that I'm trying to go for the mat for him. I simply think it's outrageous how he's being treated and how this accusation has been handled. It should have been investigated and THEN presented. I would feel this way for any human being, regardless of sex, race, party, etc.

That is exactly what Ford wanted. Blame the GOP for this sh1tshow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting in-depth article about how Gorsuch and Kavanaugh got where they are in law, whereas how Justice John Roberts got where he is:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/a-brief-guide-to-ultra-elitist-legal-culture-that-gave-us-brett-kavanaugh-ee028b712a2f/amp/

So - no one here reads? They just banter back and forth, throwing partisan lobs back and forth without having any facts? If reading is too difficult you shouldn’t be writing. Or speaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty amazing to me how and why GOP is going on the mat for this heavily tainted nominee. There are so many other conservative justices who could take his place without the baggage. To me, it seems like the GOP has gone full Trump, which means it’s always about “winning” not necessarily what’s best for the country.

Also, having Don McGhan, Kavanaugh’s primary promoter, be directing the FBI investigation seems like a bad idea.

Ha ha. “Heavily tainted.” Tainted by ludicrous false allegations.
A judge with a stellar record and reputation until the Democrats vowed to do “whatever it takes” to bring him down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty amazing to me how and why GOP is going on the mat for this heavily tainted nominee. There are so many other conservative justices who could take his place without the baggage. To me, it seems like the GOP has gone full Trump, which means it’s always about “winning” not necessarily what’s best for the country.

Also, having Don McGhan, Kavanaugh’s primary promoter, be directing the FBI investigation seems like a bad idea.

How is he heavily tainted? Because he was a big drinker in high school? Let's take a look at all the congress critters who are in their 60s and 70s. I bet a good number of them were stoned half the time in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitchell report

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

Solid job. Of course, she still is most likely telling the truth.

Why? In her therapy notes she claimed she was assaulted in her late teens, not 15. In her investigation she claims she doesn't remember how she got to the party or inexplicably how she got home. How in an era before cell phones did she run out of the house and get back to her home 7 miles away and have no memory of it. If she could give the name of the person who drove her home immediately after the attempted rape, that would help the investigation immensely, but she somehow has no memory of it.

Yes, and here's another thought: Surely the person who drove her home would have remembered an upset, likely crying, traumatized girl. Why hasn't he stepped up? Plus, she would have had to remain in the house, using a landline phone to call for a pickup. The other two people can't remember that she came down the stairs, after being with the two boys, and immediately called to be taken home?

Nope. I believe she was assaulted at some point, but it was in the later 80s when she was an older teen. Why did the polygraph cross out "early" and leave 80s? Why can't we see her therapist notes?

This is an outrage. She has convinced herself that it was Kavanaugh - I've seen in this forum that liberals can convince themselves of anything in reaction to their hatred of the opposite party - and he is understandably enraged by the Democrats' takedown, using Ford as a pawn.

Well that's a very charitable assessment of her motivations.

Motives? Even if one were to assume that there was a partial political motive, a go fund me motive, or whatever, why would that mean she’s not telling the truth? She seems fragile but quite credible. She said she was 100 percent certain about the identification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty amazing to me how and why GOP is going on the mat for this heavily tainted nominee. There are so many other conservative justices who could take his place without the baggage. To me, it seems like the GOP has gone full Trump, which means it’s always about “winning” not necessarily what’s best for the country.

Also, having Don McGhan, Kavanaugh’s primary promoter, be directing the FBI investigation seems like a bad idea.

I'm one of the upset posters. It's not that I'm trying to go for the mat for him. I simply think it's outrageous how he's being treated and how this accusation has been handled. It should have been investigated and THEN presented. I would feel this way for any human being, regardless of sex, race, party, etc.

That is exactly what Ford wanted. Blame the GOP for this sh1tshow.

Wrong. We have established that had Feinstein passed the letter to the Chair and the FBI when she first received it, the investigation would have happened. Privately.
Nah - the Dems wanted this circus. Plays well to the base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty amazing to me how and why GOP is going on the mat for this heavily tainted nominee. There are so many other conservative justices who could take his place without the baggage. To me, it seems like the GOP has gone full Trump, which means it’s always about “winning” not necessarily what’s best for the country.

Also, having Don McGhan, Kavanaugh’s primary promoter, be directing the FBI investigation seems like a bad idea.

I'm one of the upset posters. It's not that I'm trying to go for the mat for him. I simply think it's outrageous how he's being treated and how this accusation has been handled. It should have been investigated and THEN presented. I would feel this way for any human being, regardless of sex, race, party, etc.

That is exactly what Ford wanted. Blame the GOP for this sh1tshow.

She could have testified quietly, at home in California. Her liberal lawyer hid that option from her. The Democrats wanted the shItshow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty amazing to me how and why GOP is going on the mat for this heavily tainted nominee. There are so many other conservative justices who could take his place without the baggage. To me, it seems like the GOP has gone full Trump, which means it’s always about “winning” not necessarily what’s best for the country.

Also, having Don McGhan, Kavanaugh’s primary promoter, be directing the FBI investigation seems like a bad idea.

I'm one of the upset posters. It's not that I'm trying to go for the mat for him. I simply think it's outrageous how he's being treated and how this accusation has been handled. It should have been investigated and THEN presented. I would feel this way for any human being, regardless of sex, race, party, etc.

That is exactly what Ford wanted. Blame the GOP for this sh1tshow.

She could have testified quietly, at home in California. Her liberal lawyer hid that option from her. The Democrats wanted the shItshow.

And, you know, there was NOTHING preventing her from sending the letter to the FBI to begin with. Nothing except her liberal attorneys and Democrats wanting this public circus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty amazing to me how and why GOP is going on the mat for this heavily tainted nominee. There are so many other conservative justices who could take his place without the baggage. To me, it seems like the GOP has gone full Trump, which means it’s always about “winning” not necessarily what’s best for the country.

Also, having Don McGhan, Kavanaugh’s primary promoter, be directing the FBI investigation seems like a bad idea.

How is he heavily tainted? Because he was a big drinker in high school? Let's take a look at all the congress critters who are in their 60s and 70s. I bet a good number of them were stoned half the time in high school.

No, because he's a liar. And a political hack who showed unabashed bias (despite his waxing on about the importance of judges not being partisan) and threatened the opposition with retaliation and showed himself completely unfit to be a SCJ. That's how.

Read the Current Affairs article for the myriad ways Kavanaugh has clearly been deceptive, at a minimum, and outright dishonest and conspiratorial at the worst.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

Really? I would think less of you, then, and would not hire you. But I don't believe you. I think you would seethe in private like any human being, and get your act together to behave professionally in public.
Someone who stands accused of belligerent behavior should absolutely be calm when questioned, doesn't that make sense? And someone nominated to the Supreme Court, where patience and and open mind are paramount, should absolutely display those qualities when interviewing for the job. Obvious, no?

But here's the truth: he was hamming it up for the President, not you or me. He understood that if he didn't act like Trump preferred he did, his nomination would be pulled - Trump had just talked about it the day before. Trump has been quoted to advise those accused of sexual misconduct to deny, deny, deny, and fight back.
I don't believe Kavanaugh acted in character on that day, since his character is to be aggressive only when drunk - and he wasn't drunk at the hearing. This was an act put on to impress one person. And because of that display of extreme partiality and sycophantry, he should NOT be confirmed for the Supreme Court, whose agenda calls for opinions in mid-October on whether a pardon on Federal crimes also excuses one from state crimes. Please let that last bit sink in and connect it to people you know who could benefit from that handy ruling. You are looking at the creation of a kleptocracy, and it won't be good for your honest and ethical conservative agenda. Get it now? Quid pro quo of the worst kind.

Cool story, bro.
But regarding the bolded, you have described exactly what Democrats are doing re: Ford. "Extreme partiality and sycophancy (FIFY)."

By defending himself, his family, and his party (all themes that resonate with the base) instead of defending the impartiality and integrity of our justice system, he showed himself to be a very sympathetic victim-of-false-accusation-under-siege but not a future Supreme Court justice. I think the point here is that the Supreme Court is just that, bigger than any of us -- bigger than any one party. It stands for the rule of law in the US. That's a very important ideal in our democracy and one that many people have died to protect. I do not think it can be swept aside for any one individual. He may be hurt, offended, and genuinely threatened by a false accusation. But he needs to understand that this isn't about any one of us. It's about the highest court in the nation. Americans deserve a full and free investigation into any claims of criminal assault or lying. No matter what has happened to him in this process, it doesn't put him above the law. This is something that conservatives should also be able to acknowledge, I hope.

And btw -- I would have much more respect for him as a candidate had he tried to express this idea in his words, his demeanor, and his comportment in the hearing. Understandably he is emotional and may not be able to control all of that, but it doesn't excuse the way he aggressively answered questions about his drinking with questions about the senator's drinking or focused on his past accomplishments as if they were reasons for why he should not be asked certain questions. At no point in the hearing did I get the sense that he puts an ideal such as the integrity of the court and the justice system above his own personal feelings. Surely as a judge he has seen many false accusations play out before him. What he is supposed to embody is the fairness and impartiality of the process. He failed to uphold that as an ideal in his public representation of himself.

Love the last post. Well said