Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's suppose they do an all out complete investigation, witnesses, perjury on the line etc and it turns out he didn't do it.

Then what?

I think the real question is suppose the FBI does an investigation and no one can remember enough to corroborate anything. Then what?

Then they vote.

[jsteele]

I can't find the underlying WSJ article because I don't have a subscription, but if this is accurate it is pretty damning:

https://twitter.com/Alan_Covington/status/1045637533378514944


Alan Covington
@Alan_Covington

WSJ: Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her about July 1, 1982 entry on his calender. Maryland statutes was last question she asked, then break was called..

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I can't find the underlying WSJ article because I don't have a subscription, but if this is accurate it is pretty damning:

https://twitter.com/Alan_Covington/status/1045637533378514944


Alan Covington
@Alan_Covington

WSJ: Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her about July 1, 1982 entry on his calender. Maryland statutes was last question she asked, then break was called..

Can someone explain this more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's suppose they do an all out complete investigation, witnesses, perjury on the line etc and it turns out he didn't do it.

Then what?

Then he gets confirmed without a cloud over his head.

Oh, that cloud isn’t going away no matter what happens with the fbi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's suppose they do an all out complete investigation, witnesses, perjury on the line etc and it turns out he didn't do it.

Then what?

Frankly, I think that the incident in question isn't the problem. People do dumb sh%$ in high school. But the lying about stupid little stuff, like the Renate thing not being a sexual reference or like someone who won the award for puking after drinking has NEVER had an alcohol related memory lapse, or how Holton was somehow not part of the private school circuit because it wasn't Catholic, that is the problem. The rage, the aggressive accusation that Amy Klobuchar has also probably blacked out. All of that is unprofessional and unbecoming of the office. The open assertion that this is somehow about the Clintons paints him as so blatantly partisan as to be unable to hide it during the most important confirmation hearing of his life. These are all disqualifying.

I also think that who is on the Supreme Court should be reflective of the needs of the country. The needs of the women in this country today are to pick a person unblemished by these type of allegations. I do not think that denying a wealthy privileged man a particularly esteemed position, where he needs to settle for a slightly less esteemed lifetime appointment, is too high a price to pay to ensure the legitimacy of the court. The court is bigger than the reputation of Brett Kavanaugh, at least it used to be.

[Anonymous]

I kinda wish we'd hear from Squi. I mean, I feel awful for him, trying to live his life, and after that whole Whelan fiasco. But if I were actually trying or defending this case, he'd definitely be on my deposition list.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:I can't find the underlying WSJ article because I don't have a subscription, but if this is accurate it is pretty damning:

https://twitter.com/Alan_Covington/status/1045637533378514944


Alan Covington
@Alan_Covington

WSJ: Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her about July 1, 1982 entry on his calender. Maryland statutes was last question she asked, then break was called..

A lawyer I follow on twitter found this to be a bit dubious. I haven't seen the actual source either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's suppose they do an all out complete investigation, witnesses, perjury on the line etc and it turns out he didn't do it.

Then what?

I think the real question is suppose the FBI does an investigation and no one can remember enough to corroborate anything. Then what?

According to some of these posters, it won't matter as long as those questioned say they believe their friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's suppose they do an all out complete investigation, witnesses, perjury on the line etc and it turns out he didn't do it.

Then what?

Frankly, I think that the incident in question isn't the problem. People do dumb sh%$ in high school. But the lying about stupid little stuff, like the Renate thing not being a sexual reference or like someone who won the award for puking after drinking has NEVER had an alcohol related memory lapse, or how Holton was somehow not part of the private school circuit because it wasn't Catholic, that is the problem. The rage, the aggressive accusation that Amy Klobuchar has also probably blacked out. All of that is unprofessional and unbecoming of the office. The open assertion that this is somehow about the Clintons paints him as so blatantly partisan as to be unable to hide it during the most important confirmation hearing of his life. These are all disqualifying.

I also think that who is on the Supreme Court should be reflective of the needs of the country. The needs of the women in this country today are to pick a person unblemished by these type of allegations. I do not think that denying a wealthy privileged man a particularly esteemed position, where he needs to settle for a slightly less esteemed lifetime appointment, is too high a price to pay to ensure the legitimacy of the court. The court is bigger than the reputation of Brett Kavanaugh, at least it used to be.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's suppose they do an all out complete investigation, witnesses, perjury on the line etc and it turns out he didn't do it.

Then what?

Frankly, I think that the incident in question isn't the problem. People do dumb sh%$ in high school. But the lying about stupid little stuff, like the Renate thing not being a sexual reference or like someone who won the award for puking after drinking has NEVER had an alcohol related memory lapse, or how Holton was somehow not part of the private school circuit because it wasn't Catholic, that is the problem. The rage, the aggressive accusation that Amy Klobuchar has also probably blacked out. All of that is unprofessional and unbecoming of the office. The open assertion that this is somehow about the Clintons paints him as so blatantly partisan as to be unable to hide it during the most important confirmation hearing of his life. These are all disqualifying.

I also think that who is on the Supreme Court should be reflective of the needs of the country. The needs of the women in this country today are to pick a person unblemished by these type of allegations. I do not think that denying a wealthy privileged man a particularly esteemed position, where he needs to settle for a slightly less esteemed lifetime appointment, is too high a price to pay to ensure the legitimacy of the court. The court is bigger than the reputation of Brett Kavanaugh, at least it used to be.

+1 This is more my concern.. the lying, the lame excuses (I was a virgin.. wtf!?), the now obvious inability to be impartial sitting on the bench.. I get it.. he was angry. I'm sure anyone would be, but can we be certain he will be impartial and rational sitting on the bench? I'm thinking not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's suppose they do an all out complete investigation, witnesses, perjury on the line etc and it turns out he didn't do it.

Then what?

I think the real question is suppose the FBI does an investigation and no one can remember enough to corroborate anything. Then what?

According to some of these posters, it won't matter as long as those questioned say they believe their friend.

No need. We saw the testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

She NEVER denied she was at the party. She said she didn't REMEMBER attending any such party. Politico's headline is misleading.

That always works at school. Johnny did you take Quesi's snack? I'm not denying anything, but I don't remember if I did or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I can't find the underlying WSJ article because I don't have a subscription, but if this is accurate it is pretty damning:

https://twitter.com/Alan_Covington/status/1045637533378514944


Alan Covington
@Alan_Covington

WSJ: Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her about July 1, 1982 entry on his calender. Maryland statutes was last question she asked, then break was called..

Can someone explain this more?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-is-pressed-key-july-entry-his-calendar-only-point/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.123b0fae2382

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's suppose they do an all out complete investigation, witnesses, perjury on the line etc and it turns out he didn't do it.

Then what?

I think the real question is suppose the FBI does an investigation and no one can remember enough to corroborate anything. Then what?

According to some of these posters, it won't matter as long as those questioned say they believe their friend.

No need. We saw the testimony.

So then, no need for an investigation?

[Anonymous]

John Tester is a NO.