Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given the WSJ piece, clearly he did not learn from Thursday. He can't go on that Court and behave like this. His team advised him incorrectly when they instructed him to do the WSJ article.

I bet admissions to Yale from Georgetown Prep will be zilch for some time to come.

Tonight, I am praying for Gardner and Sasse along with the others.

Gardner has announced he's a yes. https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1048044490412511232

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again this country club set today was saying very unkind things about Dr. Ford from her youth.

AND THEY ARE WOMEN.

I simply cannot believe the women in this town.

Tear down other women. Boost up a$$holes like Kavanaugh. Simply because your husband's pay the bills and you cannot take care of yourselves.

PATHETIC.

That’s why we have the #metoo movement. Each day these women support the proposition that women have no value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the July 1 party folks, time to change your theories:

Christine Blasey Ford lawyer says FBI wrongly focused on July 1, 1982 party
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/4/christine-blasey-ford-lawyer-says-fbi-wrongly-focu/

A member of Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team says FBI interviewers are focusing on the wrong date.

The FBI has interviewed people who, calendar entries show, were present for a July 1, 1982, gathering of high school students, including Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

But Ford has never believed the assault occurred that night because some of those listed as having been present are people she knew well and would have remembered.

That would have been a good reason for the FBI to talk to the alleged victim, don't you think?

Please explain why they would talk to I don’t remember ford? They looked for corroborating evidence to her outrageous lie of a claim. Shocker. They found none.

Because that's the normal procedure when you investigate something. You take the accuser into a room and get her full story, with as many details as she can remember. You don't just go with a half-assed job done in five minute chunks on national TV.

No. You hear the lies, then you go see if someone can back up the lies. When no one can corroborate the lie, you know it’s a lie.

You seem to be having a little trouble with confirmation bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the WSJ piece, clearly he did not learn from Thursday. He can't go on that Court and behave like this. His team advised him incorrectly when they instructed him to do the WSJ article.

I bet admissions to Yale from Georgetown Prep will be zilch for some time to come.

Tonight, I am praying for Gardner and Sasse along with the others.

Gardner has announced he's a yes. https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1048044490412511232

Gardner is undecided. https://twitter.com/mattsebastian/status/1048013647564431360

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was another Kavanaugh moment that is disqualifying. When he said that witnesses "refuted" Ford's account, he was either lying or betraying a lack of legal acumen. They said they didn't remember. If Kavanaugh can't distinguish between "didn't happen" and "don't remember," we certainly don't want him overseeing important cases. If he was mischaracterizing evidence, we certainly don't want him overseeing important cases.

If someone "can't remember," that isn't to be taken as corroboration. You know that, right? It's not somehow "in favor" of her testimony. It's completely neutral.

Correct, it's neither corroborating nor refuting. But Kavanaugh said they refuted her testimony. Which is either a lie or he doesn't know the rules of evidence. In either case, it's disqualifying.

[Anonymous]

Why are these senators posturing so much? It's not like anyone hasn't made up thier minds. Vote already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems Daines has gotten an earful. He's going to be back here on a red-eye, or something. He's going to get his Yes vote heard.

Links are so nice.

Don't be lazy. It comes right up on Twiitter.

Don’t be a jag. Just link it next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seriously? I have kids to drive around on Saturday afternoon in NW DC.

Gee, sorry to inconvenience your sightseeing trip, but the future of the American justice system is on the line here

Oh no, I'd be more than happy to cancel! It's a music class.
Where's the info for the protest?

If children don’t learn music, who will play the drums and horns st the protests? And the whistles!! Dear God, someone must sound the whistles!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the WSJ piece, clearly he did not learn from Thursday. He can't go on that Court and behave like this. His team advised him incorrectly when they instructed him to do the WSJ article.

I bet admissions to Yale from Georgetown Prep will be zilch for some time to come.

Tonight, I am praying for Gardner and Sasse along with the others.

Gardner has announced he's a yes. https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1048044490412511232

Gardner is undecided. https://twitter.com/mattsebastian/status/1048013647564431360

This is why we need to pray. Anything can happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are these senators posturing so much? It's not like anyone hasn't made up thier minds. Vote already.

No one wants to be the deciding vote. They're all waiting for the others to announce their vote so they know which way to fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the WSJ piece, clearly he did not learn from Thursday. He can't go on that Court and behave like this. His team advised him incorrectly when they instructed him to do the WSJ article.

I bet admissions to Yale from Georgetown Prep will be zilch for some time to come.

Tonight, I am praying for Gardner and Sasse along with the others.

Gardner has announced he's a yes. https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1048044490412511232

Gardner is undecided. https://twitter.com/mattsebastian/status/1048013647564431360

Read the tweet I linked. At 11pm tonight he issued a statement

New statement: “Senator Gardner has been supportive of Judge Kavanaugh throughout the nomination. He had the opportunity to review the FBI report tonight. Nothing in the report changed his mind and he remains supportive of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the WSJ piece, clearly he did not learn from Thursday. He can't go on that Court and behave like this. His team advised him incorrectly when they instructed him to do the WSJ article.

I bet admissions to Yale from Georgetown Prep will be zilch for some time to come.

Tonight, I am praying for Gardner and Sasse along with the others.

Gardner has announced he's a yes. https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1048044490412511232

Gardner is undecided. https://twitter.com/mattsebastian/status/1048013647564431360

Read the tweet I linked. At 11pm tonight he issued a statement

New statement: “Senator Gardner has been supportive of Judge Kavanaugh throughout the nomination. He had the opportunity to review the FBI report tonight. Nothing in the report changed his mind and he remains supportive of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.”

Read closer. That’s not a yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Grassley et. al. can’t rely on the “corroborating” Devil’s Triangle letter from Kavsnaugh’s buddies without taking into consideration or even acknowledging the (earlier submitted) statements of Yale and Prep classmates that come down on the other side. Just more hypocrisy and evidence that the FBI investigation was a sham and the fix was in. I definitely noticed that the Prep buddies who came out in favor of Devils Triangle-is-a-drinking-game never mentioned s word backing up Brett on his lies about Renate Alumni.

Much less the description from Judge's book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given the WSJ piece, clearly he did not learn from Thursday. He can't go on that Court and behave like this. His team advised him incorrectly when they instructed him to do the WSJ article.

I bet admissions to Yale from Georgetown Prep will be zilch for some time to come.

Tonight, I am praying for Gardner and Sasse along with the others.

Gardner has announced he's a yes. https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1048044490412511232

Gardner is undecided. https://twitter.com/mattsebastian/status/1048013647564431360

Read the tweet I linked. At 11pm tonight he issued a statement

New statement: “Senator Gardner has been supportive of Judge Kavanaugh throughout the nomination. He had the opportunity to review the FBI report tonight. Nothing in the report changed his mind and he remains supportive of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.”

I mean, sure, I expect that he'll vote Yes. But that's what he's been saying all week, "supportive of Kavanaugh". But he's also saying he's undecided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given the WSJ piece, clearly he did not learn from Thursday. He can't go on that Court and behave like this. His team advised him incorrectly when they instructed him to do the WSJ article.

I bet admissions to Yale from Georgetown Prep will be zilch for some time to come.

Tonight, I am praying for Gardner and Sasse along with the others.

Here's the link to the WSJ piece https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822 no subscription needed.

The comments are very mixed. some supporting him, others not. Pretty much everyone vehement