Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He will vote to protect Trump in upcoming case:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-pardon-orrin-hatch-supreme-court/571285/

That's why I think Senator Graham lost his cool. He will probably go down if Trump goes down.

Kavanaugh will vote to save them all. Otherwise it will be a 4-4 decision.

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, that last post was to answer this one:





For Republicans - why wasn’t it a good idea to withdraw this guy and put up someone else with similar legal experience and opinions? I don’t understand. You can get your majority on the Supreme Court - what is so special about this particular candidate?

Thanks. So, from a republican perspective it is that K is most likely - of all the qualified candidates out there - to vote to pardon T?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. So, from a republican perspective it is that K is most likely - of all the qualified candidates out there - to vote to pardon T?

This is why Trump wants him over other less scandal-ridden candidates, yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are basically telling sexual assault victims - don’t do the right thing, don’t try to protect others, don’t destroy your own life, because ultimately no one will care.

Poor CBF probably regrets the day she contacted Rep. Eschew and WaPo. I bet she wishes for a time machine.

Yes, it's shameful. Hopefully she can take comfort that Kavanaugh's reputation was sullied and that America has learned that he's not the virgin volunteer choir boy he tried to portray himself as.

Yes, I hope she takes comfort is damaging his reputation on live TV all in the name of politics.

It is not in the name of politics. She came forward to get him off the list. So another pick from the Federalist Society would be named. Just because the hearing was delayed does not negate her truth or make the information irrelevant. I believe we can find a better candidate.

[Anonymous]

Lol, Grasssley told Cruz to sum it up. He's probably trying to help him save his seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For Republicans - why wasn’t it a good idea to withdraw this guy and put up someone else with similar legal experience and opinions? I don’t understand. You can get your majority on the Supreme Court - what is so special about this particular candidate?

I assume that was Feinstein's tactic: Make the hearing so ugly at the last minute that there is NO TIME to put up someone else without stalling the process/vote until after the Midterms.

It does not get uglier than this. Two political ploys just ruined their lives up on national TV yesterday.

Chuck Todd said the bare minimum time on a not really contested candidate is still 30 days. Besides they are too concerned with #winning and MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For Republicans - why wasn’t it a good idea to withdraw this guy and put up someone else with similar legal experience and opinions? I don’t understand. You can get your majority on the Supreme Court - what is so special about this particular candidate?

I’m they wish they did. But they don’t have time to anymore.

This tactic was to back Repubs into the corner: Force a Kav vote after turning up bad character stories from high school OR, delay SCOTUS pick until after the Midterms (in which case Dems have 50/50 chance of gaining senate majority).

Dems took that calculated chance. Media was on board as well. Amplifying in full effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Thanks. So, from a republican perspective it is that K is most likely - of all the qualified candidates out there - to vote to pardon T?

This is why Trump wants him over other less scandal-ridden candidates, yes

This. So many (conservative) choices better than BK. Trump needed a good ol’ boy.

[Anonymous]

Has Flake given his speech yet? I know his vote, but want to hear his speech today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For Republicans - why wasn’t it a good idea to withdraw this guy and put up someone else with similar legal experience and opinions? I don’t understand. You can get your majority on the Supreme Court - what is so special about this particular candidate?

I assume that was Feinstein's tactic: Make the hearing so ugly at the last minute that there is NO TIME to put up someone else without stalling the process/vote until after the Midterms.

It does not get uglier than this. Two political ploys just ruined their lives up on national TV yesterday.

Chuck Todd said the bare minimum time on a not really contested candidate is still 30 days. Besides they are too concerned with #winning and MAGA.

and what's non contested in this day of blatant bipartisanship? coffee or tea?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone PLEASE post the Leland letter? I want to know if the R's are lying about it.

I think it was just an email from her lawyer?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/22/kavanaugh-ford-woman-party-letter-836913

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Sheldon Whitehouse (D) just made an excellent recap to the committee:

""I may be wrong, but I believed her... And I believe Kavanaugh dodged and dissembled, ranted and raved, filibustered and prevaricated. I did not find him credible... I don't believe 'The Devil's Triangle' is a drinking game, and I don't believe calling yourself a girl's 'alumnus' is being her friend. And I think drinking until you 'ralph' or fall out of the bus or don't remember the game or need to piece together your memory the next day is more consistent with Dr. Ford's and others' testimony than his own. "

+1.

+2. His statement was powerful.

[Anonymous]

Dean of Yale Law School calls for more investigation of the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh before any confirmation vote.

https://twitter.com/YaleLawSch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, that last post was to answer this one:





For Republicans - why wasn’t it a good idea to withdraw this guy and put up someone else with similar legal experience and opinions? I don’t understand. You can get your majority on the Supreme Court - what is so special about this particular candidate?

Thanks. So, from a republican perspective it is that K is most likely - of all the qualified candidates out there - to vote to pardon T?

pardon T from what?

what republican perspective? people are just answering your question. I'm not even American and cannot vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For Republicans - why wasn’t it a good idea to withdraw this guy and put up someone else with similar legal experience and opinions? I don’t understand. You can get your majority on the Supreme Court - what is so special about this particular candidate?

I assume that was Feinstein's tactic: Make the hearing so ugly at the last minute that there is NO TIME to put up someone else without stalling the process/vote until after the Midterms.

It does not get uglier than this. Two political ploys just ruined their lives up on national TV yesterday.

Chuck Todd said the bare minimum time on a not really contested candidate is still 30 days. Besides they are too concerned with #winning and MAGA.[/quote

Not really contested???? No one believes that's ever happening again, including Chuck Todd.