Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never saw Obama lose his temper like that. And we all know the kind of trash that was thrown at him.

Yes, I remember the time the press ran article after article about him being a gang rapist and the Senate dragged him in for hearings and hours of testimony about sexually assaulting and gang raping women at high school parties. Obama really kept his cool in the face of all that.

It doesn’t matter. None of it matters. Kavanaugh is going to be a Supreme. And if you think he is going to forget what the rabid liberals put him and his family through you are about to get a 40 year lesson in payback.

The Republicans represent a rabid, dying white electorate and will be replaced on the Hill by Democrats who will either impeach Kavanaugh or expand and pack the Supreme Court to dilute his influence. And given Kavanaugh’s boozy lifestyle he’ll be lucky to last another 20 years before he has a heart attack.

Ugh. Couldn’t be more repulsed by Trump, but this is why I write in. Dems are just not an alternative.

Tell the truth. You actually could be just as repulsed by an anonymous internet poster as by Trump, so you just throw your vote away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His WSJ op-ed is tepid and pathetic.

So tries-too-hard.

He's acting as if he's never been told No. If he just keeps asking, maybe they'll say Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only facts here are that he has be accused of assault. That's it. It's unfortunate, I don't think he's a great guy, I don't think he belongs on the Supreme Court but i can see both sides to this story. I can't choose a side because it's simply he said/she said. Is he capable of the conduct, maybe. Is it ossicle she's got her story mixed up, maybe. There is no other truth then that. So, when suggesting that the truth exists, make sure it's the actual truth that you are believing and not one that you think you have logically come to.

....what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His WSJ op-ed is tepid and pathetic.

Much like the 100th keg.

-Bart

[Anonymous]

The Brett Kavanugh movie was already made - in 1983!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:His WSJ op-ed is tepid and pathetic.

But befitting a Pillsbury Doughboy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people who don't know what proof and corroboration mean are incredibly frustrating. There is no corroboration or proof of Ford having been assaulted by Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh drinking in high school, Ford knowing his friend's names...none of that is proof of sexual assault.

Yes it is. Proof is evidence. Ford testified under oath that she was 100% certain it was Kavanaugh who sexually assaulted her. Her testimony is evidence. All of the other evidence that tends to support the details of her testimony -- that he got extremely drunk, that he ran with a certain group of guys, that those people tended to gather together at parties - is corroboration. "The testimony of a witness is said to be corroborated when it is shown to correspond with the representation of some other witnesses, or to comport with some facts otherwise known or established." If she's being honest about the surrounding details, it adds to an inference that the main assertion is also true.

Again, it may be too weak to establish, in your opinion, that Kavanaugh assaulted her. That's not irrational. But, "no proof" is simply not true. There is evidence.

Add to it all of Kavanaugh's deflections and lies, and it is disqualifying to all except the very hard core partisans. Most of the country opposes Kavanaugh for different reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You may not realize this, but the Senate's job is not to find guilt or innocence, but rather job worthiness. Did Kavanaugh convey the temperment and impartiality of a Supreme Court Justice? Were his answers responsive and honest?

He lied about Renate. He wasn't trying to show affection.

[Anonymous]

The Op-Ed actually hurts him. I don't know who has been advising him, between this and the Fox interview and his demeanor when he testified, but all three have put him in a worse position than he would have been had he followed his likely instincts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see a narrow staircase in a picture on Zillow below:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3333-Tennyson-St-NW-Washington-DC-20015/452556_zpid/

Picture 5 is a narrow staircase. The description of the house says the Family Rom is on 1st Floor.

I lived in a carbon copy of this house in the early 1990's down the street. The layout is exactly as Ford had described it.

If this is for sure Timmy's house--wow. This is bad for Kavanaugh..

Are you serious? A family room on the first floor and a narrow staircase with a bathroom near the top of the stairs? Doesn't that describe like...hundreds if not thousands of homes in the DC area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people who don't know what proof and corroboration mean are incredibly frustrating. There is no corroboration or proof of Ford having been assaulted by Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh drinking in high school, Ford knowing his friend's names...none of that is proof of sexual assault.

Yes it is. Proof is evidence. Ford testified under oath that she was 100% certain it was Kavanaugh who sexually assaulted her. Her testimony is evidence. All of the other evidence that tends to support the details of her testimony -- that he got extremely drunk, that he ran with a certain group of guys, that those people tended to gather together at parties - is corroboration. "The testimony of a witness is said to be corroborated when it is shown to correspond with the representation of some other witnesses, or to comport with some facts otherwise known or established." If she's being honest about the surrounding details, it adds to an inference that the main assertion is also true.

Again, it may be too weak to establish, in your opinion, that Kavanaugh assaulted her. That's not irrational. But, "no proof" is simply not true. There is evidence.

Go back to school. Saying you are sure of something is NOT evidence. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the vote will be moved to Sunday now. They can't afford to lose even one vote.

Yowzzaa. There will be a million people protesting in DC Saturday.

That's a million people with nothing better to do. Do they seriously hope to change McTurtle's mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gardner has officially moved from a Yes to an undecided.

yay!!!

Was he on anyone’s radar? It sounds to me like that’s game-set-match if solid yess are backing away.

The WSJ article was terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you and those ladies can't understand why lying and misrepresenting oneself while under oath to the Senate is not OK,
I can't help you.

He didn’t. She (Ford) may have.

He lied. He lied about things large and small. He lied about receiving stolen goods. He lied. And you are okay with him lying.

You are simply wrong. I know you believe everything that Rachel Maddow and the other hacks at MSNBC tell you, but if you actually watched the testimony, you cannot claim he lied. He just didn’t.

Well either he lied. Or the 2 Yale alumni in this New Yorker story are lying. One of whom is a professor of religion at Princeton Theological Seminary.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates

So, I choose to believe the man with a ph.d. in religious studies. You choose to believe Kavanaugh, a man whose past as a heavy drinker you cannot deny because he himself admitted it.

Kavanaugh supporters are too chicken to address this article.

I’m not. It is not an article worthy of discussion, really. And, it is sad the Mayer and Farrow saw fit to print this article, given that it is nothing more than hearsay and rumors.
Example:

Kenneth Appold did not witness the alleged incident. But he says he was told about it either that same night or the next day. Appold told the New Yorker that he was “100 percent certain” that Brett Kavanaugh was the person who was said to have exposed himself to Ramirez. Appold said he recently reached out to the person who allegedly told him about the Ramirez incident, but never heard back. That unnamed person, however, reportedly told the New Yorker he did not remember the incident.

I love that this is what liberals consider "evidence." Too funny.

[Anonymous]

A charter member of the elite. Just what we need. Another justice isolated in the privilege bubble.