Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have a SCOTUS nominee ever been formally voted down? I can’t think of one.

Woohoo! McConnell is making history!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flake pretty clearly a yes. This morning he said he is a yes unless something big happens.

Need Collins and Manchin. Manchin will probably wait to decide until after Collins.

They will likely vote the same way. Collins expected to announce her decision at 3:00.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have a SCOTUS nominee ever been formally voted down? I can’t think of one.

Bork was rejected

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flake pretty clearly a yes. This morning he said he is a yes unless something big happens.

Need Collins and Manchin. Manchin will probably wait to decide until after Collins.

They will likely vote the same way. Collins expected to announce her decision at 3:00.

I can’t imagine Manchin voting no if Collins is a yes. But if Collins is a no? It would be interesting. I wonder if they are meeting at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So because they suffered sexual abuse, they should take it out on a rich guy who had a uncorroboated accusation leveled against him? Like you, I don't think WV women are weak head-bobblers. They know it's wrong to punish an innocent man because someone else abused them.

There was corroborating evidence supporting Prof. Ford's testimony. There is even more corroborating evidence supporting Deborah Ramirez's allegation. Maybe none of it is strong enough to convince you of its truth, but you're just wrong to say there was no corroboration.

Please post this evidence. I am sincere.

Corroborating evidence means any evidence that makes her testimony seem more likely to be true - it doesn't mean stone cold proof that we can throw Kavanaugh in jail.

Lots of things corroborated what she said in small ways - the people claiming Kavanaugh often drank to excess, his own calendar showing that he went to gatherings similar to the one she described, etc. etc.

But lots of high school kids drink/get drunk and go to small gatherings. Her best friend says that she was not at any party nor does not remember meeting Brett Kavanaugh. There is even an article today in the WSJ that Leland felt pressured to change her testimony:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152?mod=trending_now_3

That goes to the weight of the evidence, not whether there was any. There was evidence even if, ultimately, you find it to be insufficiently persuasive.

But how is this considered evidence? Couldn't any accuser insert the name of any known male drinker from high school who liked to hang out in a small group into an accusation? I am not a lawyer, but I really am trying to understand why this is still considered evidence.

Then maybe you should listen to those who are.

Are you the lawyer? A$$. Again, then tell me how an accuser cannot insert ANY male drinker's name from high school who liked to attend small parties into an accusation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So because they suffered sexual abuse, they should take it out on a rich guy who had a uncorroboated accusation leveled against him? Like you, I don't think WV women are weak head-bobblers. They know it's wrong to punish an innocent man because someone else abused them.

There was corroborating evidence supporting Prof. Ford's testimony. There is even more corroborating evidence supporting Deborah Ramirez's allegation. Maybe none of it is strong enough to convince you of its truth, but you're just wrong to say there was no corroboration.

Please post this evidence. I am sincere.

Corroborating evidence means any evidence that makes her testimony seem more likely to be true - it doesn't mean stone cold proof that we can throw Kavanaugh in jail.

Lots of things corroborated what she said in small ways - the people claiming Kavanaugh often drank to excess, his own calendar showing that he went to gatherings similar to the one she described, etc. etc.

But lots of high school kids drink/get drunk and go to small gatherings. Her best friend says that she was not at any party nor does not remember meeting Brett Kavanaugh. There is even an article today in the WSJ that Leland felt pressured to change her testimony:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152?mod=trending_now_3

That goes to the weight of the evidence, not whether there was any. There was evidence even if, ultimately, you find it to be insufficiently persuasive.

But how is this considered evidence? Couldn't any accuser insert the name of any known male drinker from high school who liked to hang out in a small group into an accusation? I am not a lawyer, but I really am trying to understand why this is still considered evidence.

Then maybe you should listen to those who are.

Are you the lawyer? A$$. Again, then tell me how an accuser cannot insert ANY male drinker's name from high school who liked to attend small parties into an accusation?

McCarthyism and Mob Rule.

[Anonymous]

Flake is such a spineless asshole

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNN analyst suggests Murkowsk was likelyi released to vote her conscience, thus her no vote on cloture. If true, that means GOP confident it has the votes.

She's already proven herself primary proof. Collins has not. Flake wants to run for president. And nothing has enraged/motivated GOP voters in a long time like the treatment of Kavanaugh and mob rule tactics of the Democrats.

Mob rule? Jesus Christ.

Yeah. Cory Booker and Maxine Waters encouraging ppl to 'get in their faces,' 'go to where they eat and sleep.' Rand Paul being attacked in his backyard, Steve Scalise, an R Senate candidate being attacked with a knife in California. Your party's problem is that it wants all of its rights and victories to come out of courts and getting people who disagree with you to shut up. Maybe you should ask yourself WTF is a scotus seat so important in the first place.

Rand Paull was attcked by his neighbor, not an "activist." We still don't know why, but it wasn't political, it was personal.

The point is that the left tries to dehumanize, delegitimize, and shut down everyone that disagrees with them with name calling, smears, slurs, and violence. They can't win debates on the actual merits, so they don't even try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flake is such a spineless asshole

+1000

[Anonymous]

The part about McLean/Keyser is on the FBI report. Keyser said McLean was trying to get Her to say she was there when she wasn’t. More about McLean

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-friend-in-delaware-was-career-fbi-agent-and-likely-together-during-accusation-letter-construct/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flake is such a spineless asshole

LOL. He was your hero last week. Liberals can be so fickle.

[Anonymous]

Collins is going to vote yes and then she will lose her seat or maybe she will announce her retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So because they suffered sexual abuse, they should take it out on a rich guy who had a uncorroboated accusation leveled against him? Like you, I don't think WV women are weak head-bobblers. They know it's wrong to punish an innocent man because someone else abused them.

There was corroborating evidence supporting Prof. Ford's testimony. There is even more corroborating evidence supporting Deborah Ramirez's allegation. Maybe none of it is strong enough to convince you of its truth, but you're just wrong to say there was no corroboration.

Please post this evidence. I am sincere.

Corroborating evidence means any evidence that makes her testimony seem more likely to be true - it doesn't mean stone cold proof that we can throw Kavanaugh in jail.

Lots of things corroborated what she said in small ways - the people claiming Kavanaugh often drank to excess, his own calendar showing that he went to gatherings similar to the one she described, etc. etc.

But lots of high school kids drink/get drunk and go to small gatherings. Her best friend says that she was not at any party nor does not remember meeting Brett Kavanaugh. There is even an article today in the WSJ that Leland felt pressured to change her testimony:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152?mod=trending_now_3

That goes to the weight of the evidence, not whether there was any. There was evidence even if, ultimately, you find it to be insufficiently persuasive.

But how is this considered evidence? Couldn't any accuser insert the name of any known male drinker from high school who liked to hang out in a small group into an accusation? I am not a lawyer, but I really am trying to understand why this is still considered evidence.

Then maybe you should listen to those who are.

DP. Don’t be an a@@hole. It appears to be a genuine question. And it took me a a semester in law school to understand evidence well enough to pass the Bar. And I still get tangled up. How about you?.

PP, think about it this way. If the Senate is a jury, then evidence is anything that has been presented to them that might have bearing on whether Kavanaugh is guilty. Normally, a judge decides what a jury sees. In this case, we appear to have a Pro wrestling match, and not a courtroom. So evidence is literally anything that could bear on Kavanugh’s guilt, and more broadly and much more importantly for the nation, his suitability for SCOTUS. The Senates job, and ours, should be to consider each piece of evidence, including their testimony, FBI interviews, statements by 3rd parties in the press and delivered to them, private discussions with him, DCUM threads and theories about Timmy’s house. Basically, anything they see or hear is fair game right now (again, unlike a courtroom). So the issue is: how much weight, if any, do you give each piece of evidence? A DCUM thread, if the Senators are posting in here board, could be evidence. But they would give it no weight (I hope). Fords and Kav’s testimony might get great, or even controlling weight. And when it is all considered together, did he do it, yes. But the big picture is whether he is suitable for the Court.

And OP, it is confusing. Because this is life. And not a courtroom, where the evidence is tightly controlled. And confirmation is a political process, not a legal one. So the legal mumbo jumbo is strained and taken out of context. And the innocent until proven guilty thing is crap. Because confirmation is not a legal process. Ditto impeachment by the way, which is the other side of confirmation. It’s why any indictments against Trump would be held until he left office and he would have to be impeached and removed before a criminal trial. Removing from office is a political process, not legal one. It’s how Clinton and probably Trump can commit a crime and keep their job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flake is such a spineless asshole

LOL. He was your hero last week. Liberals can be so fickle.

Maybe for some. I am on the DCUM record last week with the quote “Flake will fold like a lawn chair.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So because they suffered sexual abuse, they should take it out on a rich guy who had a uncorroboated accusation leveled against him? Like you, I don't think WV women are weak head-bobblers. They know it's wrong to punish an innocent man because someone else abused them.

There was corroborating evidence supporting Prof. Ford's testimony. There is even more corroborating evidence supporting Deborah Ramirez's allegation. Maybe none of it is strong enough to convince you of its truth, but you're just wrong to say there was no corroboration.

Please post this evidence. I am sincere.

Corroborating evidence means any evidence that makes her testimony seem more likely to be true - it doesn't mean stone cold proof that we can throw Kavanaugh in jail.

Lots of things corroborated what she said in small ways - the people claiming Kavanaugh often drank to excess, his own calendar showing that he went to gatherings similar to the one she described, etc. etc.

But lots of high school kids drink/get drunk and go to small gatherings. Her best friend says that she was not at any party nor does not remember meeting Brett Kavanaugh. There is even an article today in the WSJ that Leland felt pressured to change her testimony:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/friend-of-dr-ford-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-1538715152?mod=trending_now_3

That goes to the weight of the evidence, not whether there was any. There was evidence even if, ultimately, you find it to be insufficiently persuasive.

But how is this considered evidence? Couldn't any accuser insert the name of any known male drinker from high school who liked to hang out in a small group into an accusation? I am not a lawyer, but I really am trying to understand why this is still considered evidence.

Then maybe you should listen to those who are.

Are you the lawyer? A$$. Again, then tell me how an accuser cannot insert ANY male drinker's name from high school who liked to attend small parties into an accusation?

NP. You aren't listening and you aren't being reasonable.

Ford is not a proven political animal. I assume this is what you're afraid to accuse her of. She has not lived in DCUM land since 1984 or so, and she said under oath that part of her overlap with Kavs set was with Chris Garrett - Squi - who is also the victim of Ed Whelen's doppleganger theory. (And that attempt at deflection proved so toxic Whelen is on forced leave from her job.). So we know she knew exactly who Kav was and why she could assert full confidence in her identification of him. We know at minimum she identified Kav by name to her spouse, also not some kind of dark lefty Clintonite, years ago, and years before he was even shortlisted. Her sworn testimony is evidence. There has been no evidence of a false identification. It's exhausting to go over this repeatedly so someone else should step in.