Senate Democrats sending secret letter about Kavanaugh to FBI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP accuse Feinstein of sitting on this (she was but not for the reasons they thought), and in the meantime, they are prepared to rebut and sitting on their character witnesses.

Their internal opposition research showed BK has a problem here and they were prepared to combat it.

So if their internal research showed that it was an issue, um, maybe it is.

They don't see it as an issue in a legal or character/fitness sense because even if the allegations are true, they don't have a problem with that. The only issue they see is a political one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP accuse Feinstein of sitting on this (she was but not for the reasons they thought), and in the meantime, they are prepared to rebut and sitting on their character witnesses.

Their internal opposition research showed BK has a problem here and they were prepared to combat it.

So if their internal research showed that it was an issue, um, maybe it is.

They don't see it as an issue in a legal or character/fitness sense because even if the allegations are true, they don't have a problem with that. The only issue they see is a political one.

Didn't Don McGahn try to warn or convince Trump that they'd have the most problems trying to confirm Kavanaugh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP accuse Feinstein of sitting on this (she was but not for the reasons they thought), and in the meantime, they are prepared to rebut and sitting on their character witnesses.

Their internal opposition research showed BK has a problem here and they were prepared to combat it.

So if their internal research showed that it was an issue, um, maybe it is.

They don't see it as an issue in a legal or character/fitness sense because even if the allegations are true, they don't have a problem with that. The only issue they see is a political one.

Didn't Don McGahn try to warn or convince Trump that they'd have the most problems trying to confirm Kavanaugh?

I had read somewhere that McConnell had thought Kavanaugh would be hard to confirm. I wonder why!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know - I remember you R tribalists making these same claims about Roy Moore's accusers. He said she said, oh it's so far in the past, they were probably asking for it, who cares anyway, haven't you ever sexually pursued a teenager yourself?

It disgusts and enrages me to hear those comments. But the relief I feel is that most people do not think the way you do - and you will suffer politically for standing this ground. You lost Alabama - Alabama! - because you couldn't see past the disgusting man Trump told you to love.

Funny thing here.... Trump didn’t support Roy Moore. His choice was Luther Strange.
And, suffer politically? Ha ha.
After the past month’s crazy antics with the SCOTUS hearings, the left is looking pretty damn looney right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think anybody Kavanaugh's age should be held responsible for what they did in high school.

- a liberal democratic woman

+1

Let's play the hypothetical game: What if we learned that a man in his 50s raped a girl when they were in high school, then he blackmailed her into having an abortion?

What if we learned that a man in his 50s had consensual sex with a girl which resulted in a pregnancy when they were in HS. The man pretended he didn't know her when he learned of the pregnancy, and she was so humiliated she killed herself.

Would these be things you might find relevant? If so, how about we wait and find out what is in that letter before deciding it's NBD.

1. I’d say it would be very hard to determine whether a rape actually occurred 30-35 years ago and that an allegation surfacing now is highly suspect. I’d also think that a rapist would be in no position to blackmail the pregnant victim; if anything, the pregnant girl would then have leverage to blackmail the perpetrator.

2. I’d say the boy was a cad as a youth, but that it’s irrelevant to an assessment of his current qualifications decades later.

How about you just admit you and others would say anything to try and keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court?

I’m curious if you’re one of those so called “law and order” types who always wants black teens tried as adults for their crimes. I’ve noticed that white boys tend to be “misguided” or “cads” to those folks, but black teens are hardened criminals.

No, I’d rarely support trying teens (under 18), whether black or not, as adults. I might make exceptions for repeat violators charged with serious offenses.

And many black boys would indeed also deserve to be called “cads” for impregnating girls and then trying to disavow their obligations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP accuse Feinstein of sitting on this (she was but not for the reasons they thought), and in the meantime, they are prepared to rebut and sitting on their character witnesses.

Their internal opposition research showed BK has a problem here and they were prepared to combat it.

So if their internal research showed that it was an issue, um, maybe it is.

They don't see it as an issue in a legal or character/fitness sense because even if the allegations are true, they don't have a problem with that. The only issue they see is a political one.

Didn't Don McGahn try to warn or convince Trump that they'd have the most problems trying to confirm Kavanaugh?

I had read somewhere that McConnell had thought Kavanaugh would be hard to confirm. I wonder why!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/trump-mcconnell-supreme-court.html

the reason mcconnell gave for believing kavanaugh would be hard to confirm, was that there were too many documents about too many sensitive things

i wonder when they did become aware of these sexual assault allegations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know - I remember you R tribalists making these same claims about Roy Moore's accusers. He said she said, oh it's so far in the past, they were probably asking for it, who cares anyway, haven't you ever sexually pursued a teenager yourself?

It disgusts and enrages me to hear those comments. But the relief I feel is that most people do not think the way you do - and you will suffer politically for standing this ground. You lost Alabama - Alabama! - because you couldn't see past the disgusting man Trump told you to love.

Funny thing here.... Trump didn’t support Roy Moore. His choice was Luther Strange.
And, suffer politically? Ha ha.
After the past month’s crazy antics with the SCOTUS hearings, the left is looking pretty damn looney right now.

Huh - I recall Trump telling Alabamans to vote for Roy Moore. I wonder where I came up with that crazy notion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/us/politics/trump-tweets-roy-moore.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Y'all who are poo pooing this, need to ask, if there was no there there, why and how did the GOP anticipate needing 65 women (who didn't go to high school with Brett) to sign a letter saying he was a nice boy?

It appears that the 65 women organized to write this letter unprompted.
Women tend to do that, you know. And, they organized after these baseless allegations came out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP accuse Feinstein of sitting on this (she was but not for the reasons they thought), and in the meantime, they are prepared to rebut and sitting on their character witnesses.

Their internal opposition research showed BK has a problem here and they were prepared to combat it.

So if their internal research showed that it was an issue, um, maybe it is.

They don't see it as an issue in a legal or character/fitness sense because even if the allegations are true, they don't have a problem with that. The only issue they see is a political one.

Didn't Don McGahn try to warn or convince Trump that they'd have the most problems trying to confirm Kavanaugh?

McConnell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all who are poo pooing this, need to ask, if there was no there there, why and how did the GOP anticipate needing 65 women (who didn't go to high school with Brett) to sign a letter saying he was a nice boy?

It appears that the 65 women organized to write this letter unprompted.
Women tend to do that, you know. And, they organized after these baseless allegations came out.

Were any of them in the room when this happened? No?

Then they have no basis to discuss this. None.

And Britt Hume's daughter, Britt of Fox News and Virginia of the RNC, ya, no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Y'all who are poo pooing this, need to ask, if there was no there there, why and how did the GOP anticipate needing 65 women (who didn't go to high school with Brett) to sign a letter saying he was a nice boy?

--w
No one said they anticipated it. Ever heard of social media? Pretty sure that the girls' school alums are likely pretty close knit, even today. How long would it take to put that together? Not long at all. Especially, if a few of them are very good friends of his. And, yes, the girls' schools and the boys' schools do socialize together.

But, I'm sure we will get more information when the woman gets her television interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP accuse Feinstein of sitting on this (she was but not for the reasons they thought), and in the meantime, they are prepared to rebut and sitting on their character witnesses.

Their internal opposition research showed BK has a problem here and they were prepared to combat it.

So if their internal research showed that it was an issue, um, maybe it is.

They don't see it as an issue in a legal or character/fitness sense because even if the allegations are true, they don't have a problem with that. The only issue they see is a political one.

Didn't Don McGahn try to warn or convince Trump that they'd have the most problems trying to confirm Kavanaugh?

I had read somewhere that McConnell had thought Kavanaugh would be hard to confirm. I wonder why!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/trump-mcconnell-supreme-court.html

the reason mcconnell gave for believing kavanaugh would be hard to confirm, was that there were too many documents about too many sensitive things

i wonder when they did become aware of these sexual assault allegations

They had to have been aware, given they whipped out this letter signed by 65 women at the drop of a hat.

[Anonymous]

Hatch Statement on Brett Kavanaugh:

Washington, DC—Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement in response to reports of accusations made against Brett Kavanaugh, nominee for the United States Supreme Court:

“Brett Kavanaugh has done everything that’s been asked of him. He’s complied with six background checks over the last 25 years that have included interviews with friends, families, and even acquaintances, none of which have ever revealed an issue with his character. After over 30 hours of public hearing, his judicial record, qualifications, and understanding of the law stood unimpeachable. He participated in a closed hearing where Judiciary Committee members could ask any question they wanted. He answered more written questions than every previous Supreme Court nominee combined.

Judge Kavanaugh has had his words distorted and manipulated. He has been accused of having gambling problems, having financial problems, being hostile towards groups that he has actively fought for, and having bad taste in food. And he has answered questions fully and professionally, in a confirmation timeframe well within the norm for Supreme Court nominations.

I do not intend to allow Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to be stalled because of an 11th hour accusation that Democrats did not see fit to raise for over a month. The Senator in the best position to determine the credibility of these accusations made the conscious decision not to take action on them, and the authorities to whom the accusations have been referred have decided not to take action either. Judge Kavanaugh has denied these accusations categorically, the only other potential witness has no recollection of the alleged event, and now 65 women who knew Brett in high school have come forward as witnesses of his strong character.

Every accuser deserves to be heard. But a process of verification is also necessary. In this case, the accusations were made in a private letter, which has been misrepresented in a number of media stories, from an accuser who has declined to go public and has asked for privacy. The letter sent to investigators has had her name redacted, meaning no further investigation could take place. The claims are wholly unverifiable, and come at the tail-end of a process that was already marred by ugly innuendo, dishonesty, and the nastiest form of our politics. The American people deserve much better from the Senate as an institution.”

[Anonymous]

If a murderer murders someone, he goes to jail. It doesn't matter if every other day of his life was murder free. Who cares if all of those women wrote a letter? Maybe he was a choir boy with them, but committed an assault on one day. It is still an assault. Just because he's white doesn't mean he should get off. Those women should be ashamed of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the GOP accuse Feinstein of sitting on this (she was but not for the reasons they thought), and in the meantime, they are prepared to rebut and sitting on their character witnesses.

Their internal opposition research showed BK has a problem here and they were prepared to combat it.

So if their internal research showed that it was an issue, um, maybe it is.

They don't see it as an issue in a legal or character/fitness sense because even if the allegations are true, they don't have a problem with that. The only issue they see is a political one.

Didn't Don McGahn try to warn or convince Trump that they'd have the most problems trying to confirm Kavanaugh?

I had read somewhere that McConnell had thought Kavanaugh would be hard to confirm. I wonder why!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/trump-mcconnell-supreme-court.html

the reason mcconnell gave for believing kavanaugh would be hard to confirm, was that there were too many documents about too many sensitive things

i wonder when they did become aware of these sexual assault allegations

They had to have been aware, given they whipped out this letter signed by 65 women at the drop of a hat.

Dream on.

As to whether Republicans knew about the allegation in advance and had the letter from the 65 Kavanaugh high school contemporaries "in the can," Grassley's office said no. One of Kavanaugh's law clerks spearheaded the effort Thursday and sent the letter to Grassley's office Friday, the aide said.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-denies-high-school-assault-allegation/story?id=57801261