Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford’s lawyers did her no favors refusing to supply her therapy notes, polygraph tests etc.

She agreed to supply those to the FBI, not the Senate, which is selectively leaking information. FBI chose not to accept her offer.

This should be pinned. But it won't stop the Kavanaugh fans lying here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) BK *lied* under oath about his drinking. Doesn't matter why, or what pressures were on him, or that the drinking took place when he was younger. A SCOTUS should *never* lie under oath. The truly sad part about this is that if he had not lied about his drinking (which we all would have chalked up to as typical highschool/college behavior), we would be more likely to believe him about the Ford assault claims.

2) BK was clearly partisan when it mattered. Before the SJC, televised before the nation, he made clearly biased claims about the Democratic Party and the Clintons.

To be honest, I am more concerned about his finances, which he also lied about. Why isn't anyone doing a deep dive into this? He is clearly compromised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports are that Monica McLean has been urging at least one witness to change her account.....

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured to clarify her original statement regarding an alleged sexual assault involving Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Ford identified Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate, as having attended a house party Maryland in the early 1980s, in which she accused Kavanaugh of pinning her to a bed, attempting to remove her clothes and putting his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream.

Keyser originally said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 23 she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present.” After Kavanaugh and Ford testified in front of the committee last week, Keyser wrote a letter to the committee dated Sept. 29 that said she did not refute Ford’s claims, but “is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question," according to CNN.

Keyser told the investigators that she was -- as the Journal notes -- urged to clarify her statement by Monica McLean, a former FBI agent and friend of Ford’s, the paper reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/friend-of-christine-blasey-ford-reportedly-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-on-allegations

Wow. This is case-closed. Time to confirm Kavanaugh! Ford can request a two-doored jail cell.

Christ, you're an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reports are that Monica McLean has been urging at least one witness to change her account.....

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured to clarify her original statement regarding an alleged sexual assault involving Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Ford identified Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate, as having attended a house party Maryland in the early 1980s, in which she accused Kavanaugh of pinning her to a bed, attempting to remove her clothes and putting his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream.

Keyser originally said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 23 she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present.” After Kavanaugh and Ford testified in front of the committee last week, Keyser wrote a letter to the committee dated Sept. 29 that said she did not refute Ford’s claims, but “is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question," according to CNN.

Keyser told the investigators that she was -- as the Journal notes -- urged to clarify her statement by Monica McLean, a former FBI agent and friend of Ford’s, the paper reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/friend-of-christine-blasey-ford-reportedly-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-on-allegations

Have you googled Keyser? It's not exactly surprising that she doesn't remember anything or anybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Brett Kavanaugh WSJ Op-ed Oct 4, 2018:
Trust me, how I behaved during that testimony is not who I am, and I would not be that way on the Supreme Court.

President Donald J. Trump, Sept 27, 2018:
"Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him."


Kavanaugh supporters care to discuss?


He’s a person who fights for what he knows is right. Why is that so hard to understand?

1) Kavanaugh: the person at the hearing is not who I am.

2) Trump: the person at the hearing is exactly who he is and that’s why I nominated him.

3) Discuss

He stated it pretty clearly in his piece.
As a judge, he is even-tempered and unbiased.
As a father and husband who is wrongly accused of heinous acts, he will aggressively defend HIMSELF against such attacks.

Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.

He isn't apologizing in his Op-Ed - he is rationalizing. And the part he is rationalizing about are his prepared remarks. If you can't be even tempered reading your prepared remarks, then you clearly cannot handle an assignment like Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports are that Monica McLean has been urging at least one witness to change her account.....

A friend of Christine Blasey Ford told FBI investigators that she felt pressured to clarify her original statement regarding an alleged sexual assault involving Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Ford identified Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate, as having attended a house party Maryland in the early 1980s, in which she accused Kavanaugh of pinning her to a bed, attempting to remove her clothes and putting his hand over her mouth when she tried to scream.

Keyser originally said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 23 she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present.” After Kavanaugh and Ford testified in front of the committee last week, Keyser wrote a letter to the committee dated Sept. 29 that said she did not refute Ford’s claims, but “is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question," according to CNN.

Keyser told the investigators that she was -- as the Journal notes -- urged to clarify her statement by Monica McLean, a former FBI agent and friend of Ford’s, the paper reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/friend-of-christine-blasey-ford-reportedly-felt-pressure-to-revisit-statement-on-allegations

Have you googled Keyser? It's not exactly surprising that she doesn't remember anything or anybody.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) BK *lied* under oath about his drinking. Doesn't matter why, or what pressures were on him, or that the drinking took place when he was younger. A SCOTUS should *never* lie under oath. The truly sad part about this is that if he had not lied about his drinking (which we all would have chalked up to as typical highschool/college behavior), we would be more likely to believe him about the Ford assault claims.

2) BK was clearly partisan when it mattered. Before the SJC, televised before the nation, he made clearly biased claims about the Democratic Party and the Clintons.

1. No he didn’t.
2. No he wasn’t.

I think it is crazy that these insane allegations were thrown at him and you expect him to respond in a calm manner.
I also think it is telling that your arguments for not confirming him have moved throughout this confirmation. A sign that you are prepared to throw anything at him to derail the nomination.

Blaming the allegations on left wing organizations as revenge for the clintons isn't partisan?

Posts like this are why people think you are stupid

When Clinton’s former campaign aide is one of those leading the charge against your nomination, I would say there may be some truth to what he is saying.
Brian Fallon leads the group Demand Justice that has been out front in vocally opposing Kavanaugh.

A lot of Democratic groups have opposed Kavanaugh's nomination from the beginning. Fallon is not in the lead on this, when there are much more prominent groups pushing on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BK is obviously not suitable for the supreme court

The question is only.. how low will the senators go? Will they preserve the legitimacy of the supreme court or will they turn it into another partisan and untrustworthy branch of government?

Low. Very low. He will likely be confirmed. And we can all mourn the day he ruined the Supreme Court. Way to go Brett!

Here's the thing - if he were truly an upstanding, for the good-of-the-country, non-partisan guy, he would recognize that his appointment to the S.Ct. is going to undermine the institution, perhaps very significantly and for very long time, he will always have an asterisk next to his name just like Thomas (though I suppose, like Thomas, he figures he can just hang with his boot-licking Federalist society guys to make himself feel good), and his nomination is tearing this country apart. If he weren't out for anyone but himself, he would withdraw for those reasons. But, Exhibit A - Brett himself - establishes that he is only out for himself and to hell with the country.

Here's the thing - NO ONE appointed by the President will be acceptable to you. Period. The only people that will see him that way on the wackos on the left, and yes, sadly, there are plenty of you. Look in the mirror and get some help.

Neil Gorsuch undermines your argument. Try another one.

[Anonymous]

The thing I don't understand is this. Surely we want the best possible people in leadership positions, not average people. A great man keeps his cool when all around him are losing them. So, the fact that you or I would become very emotional if accused of something horrible is not relevant, or just shows that we are not cut out to be a great leader.

Maybe I am an elitist, but I don't think average people should lead our government.

(and ya, the Clintons, one of whom is arguably not qualified to lead our country for other reasons, at least kept their cool when accused of organizing the rape of children and murdering Vince Foster. Makes me long for Obama. He always kept his cool and was a good man. He was accused of being born abroad on completely spurious grounds, but kept his cool. Not quite the same as rape, but still very frustrating. )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BK is obviously not suitable for the supreme court

The question is only.. how low will the senators go? Will they preserve the legitimacy of the supreme court or will they turn it into another partisan and untrustworthy branch of government?

Low. Very low. He will likely be confirmed. And we can all mourn the day he ruined the Supreme Court. Way to go Brett!

Here's the thing - if he were truly an upstanding, for the good-of-the-country, non-partisan guy, he would recognize that his appointment to the S.Ct. is going to undermine the institution, perhaps very significantly and for very long time, he will always have an asterisk next to his name just like Thomas (though I suppose, like Thomas, he figures he can just hang with his boot-licking Federalist society guys to make himself feel good), and his nomination is tearing this country apart. If he weren't out for anyone but himself, he would withdraw for those reasons. But, Exhibit A - Brett himself - establishes that he is only out for himself and to hell with the country.

Yes, this! It’s not just the Democrats calling for him to withdraw. It’s the National Council of Churches, 650+ law professors, editorial boards, colleagues of his, and those who until supported him. Plus a former SC Justice.

It is over 2300 law professors now, just FWIW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ford’s lawyers did her no favors refusing to supply her therapy notes, polygraph tests etc.

They are happy to provide them to the FBI as part of a real investigation. They are not willing to share them with a Senate that is clearly tainted and would only selectively release information to play to their advantage. Maybe ask the question why the Senate and White House wouldn't allow a full investigation by the FBI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If we truly believe the Supreme Court should be above politics and not subject to public whims, campaigning for the position should be disqualifying.

Yep. That WSJ sniveling was terrible.

[Anonymous]

The reason that republicans have become the party of pedophiles and sexual assaulters is because they can not for a second admit one of their own has done a single thing wrong. Hold up a Republican flag and they will blindly and dumbly stand by you to the end. See,e.g., Donald Trump, Ray Moore, Jim Jordan, etc. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford’s lawyers did her no favors refusing to supply her therapy notes, polygraph tests etc.

She agreed to supply those to the FBI, not the Senate, which is selectively leaking information. FBI chose not to accept her offer.

This should be pinned. But it won't stop the Kavanaugh fans lying here.

She agreed to supply it PROVIDED she was interviewed again.

Who the hell is she? Have you ever been in litigation? I don't think so. You don't hold back discovery subject to your own conditions. She opened the door to the evidence, and then hid it.

Activist lawyers from Fienstein made their client look like an activist. Bad move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BK is obviously not suitable for the supreme court

The question is only.. how low will the senators go? Will they preserve the legitimacy of the supreme court or will they turn it into another partisan and untrustworthy branch of government?

Low. Very low. He will likely be confirmed. And we can all mourn the day he ruined the Supreme Court. Way to go Brett!

Here's the thing - if he were truly an upstanding, for the good-of-the-country, non-partisan guy, he would recognize that his appointment to the S.Ct. is going to undermine the institution, perhaps very significantly and for very long time, he will always have an asterisk next to his name just like Thomas (though I suppose, like Thomas, he figures he can just hang with his boot-licking Federalist society guys to make himself feel good), and his nomination is tearing this country apart. If he weren't out for anyone but himself, he would withdraw for those reasons. But, Exhibit A - Brett himself - establishes that he is only out for himself and to hell with the country.

Yes, this! It’s not just the Democrats calling for him to withdraw. It’s the National Council of Churches, 650+ law professors, editorial boards, colleagues of his, and those who until supported him. Plus a former SC Justice.

It is over 2300 law professors now, just FWIW.

Law professors are worth NADA. Bunch of liberal idiots most of whom have never practiced the discipline they teach -- UNLIKE medical professors who actually have to know how to practice the trade they teach.