Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What lying, conniving weasel Kavanaugh showed himself to be in the Fox interview.

And if he really was a virgin (but nonetheless a harrasser) until "many years" after college... wow. 27? 28? 29? Hilarious!

Christine Blasey Ford, has stated that she does not remember the location of the party, but she said it took place in a "suburban Maryland area home".

However, in tonight's Fox interview with Brett Kavanaugh, he states a specific location of the party (at 2:26/13:41).

According to Brett, the party was "at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West Highway". So why does he have a location of the party and she does not?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/24/kavanaugh-denies-sexual-misconduct-in-fox-news-exclusive-know-im-telling-truth.html

Is he still trying to claim it was at Garrett’s house on Thornapple Street?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can republicans really not find someone better than this chump? He is damaged goods. Pick a better nominee and move forward.

Absolutely not. We have to make a stand against these tactics. Democrats must learn that they can never try to do this again. Kavanaugh will make them pay once he is on the court.

Blame Democrats and not Kavanaugh himself. What planet are you from?

We must close ranks and protect him. If not, EVERYONE will be vulnerable to these types of vicious, made-up smears.

Is that you, Sally?

FFS! "We must protect our boys!"

RAISE BETTER BOYS. The onus is on YOU - to say "Every boy has done this" or "We must protect our boys" is ludicrous.

First of all, not EVERY BOY has drunkenly groped a girl to the point she thought she was going to die.

Second of all, those of you who are terrible mothers who raise sons who do this - you'll be fine since your son's will likely not be nominated as Supreme Court Judges.

Where there is smoke there is fire. The guy's got problems. Least of all, alcohol. That's saying something and not in a good way.

The number of women who support this fool in this town is phenomenal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not do trial by ordeal? Throw him in the Potomac and see if he floats. Would be the same amount of due process that Democrats want to give him.

He's not going to jail people. He either gets one of the most prestigious jobs in the land as a lifetime appointee or goes back to his slightly less prestigious lifetime appointment job.

With his reputation ruined.

Who cares? Seriously if his wife stands by him the only negative consequence he suffers is NOT getting this job. He's not going to be charged with Jack sh$#.

So.... his neighbors give him the side eye occasionally?

Wow.

I'm just sick of people acting like this guys life is ruined even he gets to go back to his family and lifelong judgeship that will pay him 200k plus for as long as he wants to work

Dems are trying to assuage their guilt for this smear campaign by pretending it's no big deal to destroy someone's reputation. He can't simply go back to his previous life after the liberals have done their number on him.

Disagree, He will be just fine. He's a rich, well protected white man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This guy defends himself against sexual assault allegations just as well as you would expect from a guy named Brett. Regardless of the accusations — which I happen to believe...because BRETT — his stupidity when trying to defend himself should make him unfit as a GOP nominee. No wonder Mitch didn’t want him.

Agree. While watching the Fox interview, we were noting that he hardly sounds like a lawyer. Not even a judge. He had a hard time coming up with basic words. Strange.

Not surprising, PP - the man probably hasn't slept well in days.
And rightly so.

True. He's a highly intelligent and articulate man. Part of the Democrats' strategy is to harass someone with unfair attacks to the point it interferes with his ability to function well. It's what bullies do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What lying, conniving weasel Kavanaugh showed himself to be in the Fox interview.

And if he really was a virgin (but nonetheless a harrasser) until "many years" after college... wow. 27? 28? 29? Hilarious!

He ought to have been questioned about his finances. Such a fluffy interview. He dodged most of the questions, repeating ad nauseum "I want a fair process..." rinse, repeat.

No, he did not come off as truthful. He came off as evasive. He didn't even answer the question as to whether or not he wanted an FBI investigation. His wife dodged that one completely, looking at her husband and he didn't answer the question.

I actually felt sorry for his wife. She seems brainwashed and sad. All her answers were so carefully rehearsed and completely empty.

This didn't help Kavanaugh at all.

I don't think she looked brainwashed at all. She looks like she knows what he is capable of but cannot say anything, perhaps for her kids. Sadly, Brett and Ashley do not look close at all.

Yes, all he did was respond to the interview question with the three items on his talking points. Very dodgey indeed. And he did not allow Ashley to answer questions directed at her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This guy defends himself against sexual assault allegations just as well as you would expect from a guy named Brett. Regardless of the accusations — which I happen to believe...because BRETT — his stupidity when trying to defend himself should make him unfit as a GOP nominee. No wonder Mitch didn’t want him.

Agree. While watching the Fox interview, we were noting that he hardly sounds like a lawyer. Not even a judge. He had a hard time coming up with basic words. Strange.

Not surprising, PP - the man probably hasn't slept well in days.
And rightly so.

True. He's a highly intelligent and articulate man. Part of the Democrats' strategy is to harass someone with unfair attacks to the point it interferes with his ability to function well. It's what bullies do.

Judges ask the questions, they don't answer them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not do trial by ordeal? Throw him in the Potomac and see if he floats. Would be the same amount of due process that Democrats want to give him.

He's not going to jail people. He either gets one of the most prestigious jobs in the land as a lifetime appointee or goes back to his slightly less prestigious lifetime appointment job.

With his reputation ruined.

Who cares? Seriously if his wife stands by him the only negative consequence he suffers is NOT getting this job. He's not going to be charged with Jack sh$#.

So.... his neighbors give him the side eye occasionally?

Wow.

I'm just sick of people acting like this guys life is ruined even he gets to go back to his family and lifelong judgeship that will pay him 200k plus for as long as he wants to work

Dems are trying to assuage their guilt for this smear campaign by pretending it's no big deal to destroy someone's reputation. He can't simply go back to his previous life after the liberals have done their number on him.

What's stopping him? Louis CK is back doing standup. These guys rarely face any consequences at all.

I err on the side of not electing someone who treats women like objects. I think it's more important to be sure he didn't do this than to be sure he did. Because this is a job only 9 people get at once that effects every American. There used to be high standards for gigs like this.

Look at the stats, men accused rarely face serious consequences. Rich ones with lifetime appointments? They're gonna be just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This guy defends himself against sexual assault allegations just as well as you would expect from a guy named Brett. Regardless of the accusations — which I happen to believe...because BRETT — his stupidity when trying to defend himself should make him unfit as a GOP nominee. No wonder Mitch didn’t want him.

Agree. While watching the Fox interview, we were noting that he hardly sounds like a lawyer. Not even a judge. He had a hard time coming up with basic words. Strange.

Not surprising, PP - the man probably hasn't slept well in days.
And rightly so.

True. He's a highly intelligent and articulate man. Part of the Democrats' strategy is to harass someone with unfair attacks to the point it interferes with his ability to function well. It's what bullies do.

OMG, LOL-ing at this above. Ha Ha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This guy defends himself against sexual assault allegations just as well as you would expect from a guy named Brett. Regardless of the accusations — which I happen to believe...because BRETT — his stupidity when trying to defend himself should make him unfit as a GOP nominee. No wonder Mitch didn’t want him.

Agree. While watching the Fox interview, we were noting that he hardly sounds like a lawyer. Not even a judge. He had a hard time coming up with basic words. Strange.

Not surprising, PP - the man probably hasn't slept well in days.
And rightly so.

True. He's a highly intelligent and articulate man. Part of the Democrats' strategy is to harass someone with unfair attacks to the point it interferes with his ability to function well. It's what bullies do.

Oh look, he’s projecting, so cute! Learned that in Gaslighting for Right Wing Hacks 101z

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is disgusting

He is disgusting

I cannot believe this is the best the GOP thinks they can do - what a gross man they picked

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

The NYT? Riiiiiiight.

Just a little innocent slut-shaming by Brett, the virgin who “always treated women with respect.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Brett is concerned about a “fair” process why not let the FBI a few days to get legal binding statements from everybody?

It is not his call.

He said during the interview that whatever the Senate deems is appropriate he's fine with. But yes, it's the Senate who'd have to do it and at the end of the day, the Senate is doing the same thing the FBI would which is just take statements and then provide them to the Senate to evaluate.

Please, the Senate is not doing the same thing as the FBI. That is so insulting to the FBI. Senate “investigators” are partisan staff members with no experience talking to victims of sexual assault. They are partisans. Some of them may be experienced prosecutors, but that is exactly NOT how victims should be handled in initial interviews. Many witnesses are not interested in coming forward to partisan staff members but would do so to neutral, experienced FBI investigators.

That the two women victims want to speak to the FBI and Kavanaugh doesn’t speaks volumes about Kavanaugh’s lack of credibility.

It really disgusts me how Republican women are leading the way in mischaracterizing the FBI investigation. That Judicial Crisis Network lady gave a terrible, misleading interview on CNN, suggesting that statements taken under penalty of perjury privately by partisan staff are the equivalent of an FBI investigation and invitation to testify publicly. You are doing the same. It’s wrong and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Anonymous]

We live in a strange society when an honorable man's 35-year-old awkward sexual advance at a high school party might derail his spot on the Supreme Court. We live in a society where alcohol is the major factor in the teenage/young adult social scene. So you give teenage boys/young men alcohol and how do you expect them to act? What happened was not "sexual assault" it was drunken horseplay, and happened at every single party at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This guy defends himself against sexual assault allegations just as well as you would expect from a guy named Brett. Regardless of the accusations — which I happen to believe...because BRETT — his stupidity when trying to defend himself should make him unfit as a GOP nominee. No wonder Mitch didn’t want him.

Agree. While watching the Fox interview, we were noting that he hardly sounds like a lawyer. Not even a judge. He had a hard time coming up with basic words. Strange.

Not surprising, PP - the man probably hasn't slept well in days.
And rightly so.

True. He's a highly intelligent and articulate man. Part of the Democrats' strategy is to harass someone with unfair attacks to the point it interferes with his ability to function well. It's what bullies do.

Donald Trump is a Democrat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is disgusting

He is disgusting

I cannot believe this is the best the GOP thinks they can do - what a gross man they picked

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

And his poor wife. She looks disgusted at him, but is trying to play the part for the sake of her kids.

With those cupcakes

I hope we never have to have another idiot rapey frat boy GOP hack try to be confirmed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not do trial by ordeal? Throw him in the Potomac and see if he floats. Would be the same amount of due process that Democrats want to give him.

He's not going to jail people. He either gets one of the most prestigious jobs in the land as a lifetime appointee or goes back to his slightly less prestigious lifetime appointment job.

With his reputation ruined.

Who cares? Seriously if his wife stands by him the only negative consequence he suffers is NOT getting this job. He's not going to be charged with Jack sh$#.

So.... his neighbors give him the side eye occasionally?

Wow.

I'm just sick of people acting like this guys life is ruined even he gets to go back to his family and lifelong judgeship that will pay him 200k plus for as long as he wants to work

Dems are trying to assuage their guilt for this smear campaign by pretending it's no big deal to destroy someone's reputation. He can't simply go back to his previous life after the liberals have done their number on him.

Maybe he'll go to therapy and try to deal with it like those women he tried to rape