Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She agreed to give it to FBI, clearly they aren’t interested. Do they pay you to incessantly post your nonsense or do you just have no life? Serious question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So... Kavanaugh deserved due process but HRC didn't.

Kavanaugh deserved due process, but even though the Central Park Five was exonerated as part of our due process, Trump still insists they are guilty.

Hm.. I see a pattern here.

Hey, at least people accused of being in the country illegally are afforded extensive due process and enjoy a presumption of innocence that the government must overcome before being deprived of their liberty or separated from their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Eh. The vote is tomorrow (or Sunday). It's a little late for Grassley to still want this information for any reason aside from leaking it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The problem with your argument is, this isn't litigation and Ford is not the one trying to get a promotion in her job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

His job that day was to show up as a judge. That he was incapable of doing so is disqualifying.

+1. So, what happens the day his kid is in the hospital or his wife leaves him or the House Dems call him to testify about this, which they will, and he shows up to oral argument as a son and father and husband, and not a Judge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And remember, at least some of these law professors were responsible for the instruction of Brett Kavanaugh. Liberals should at least have mixed feelings about the opinions of such professors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Hillary was accused of facilitating a child molesting ring at Comet Pizza. I've never seen her blow up over those accusations."

+1

Did they have a senate hearing about that one? Was she in danger of losing her candidacy because of it?

Lets remember, she didn't even have the decency to go talk to her supporters the night she lost. Remember that, these were her supporters, volunteers who put in months of sweat and tears because they were with "Her". But in the end she was not with them.

In any analogous situation Clinton has kept her cool. When Trump was malevolently leering begins her at a presidential debate, she kept her cool. When he insulted her and accused her husband of being a rapist in a national debate in front of millions of Americans, she kept her cool. When she was dragged in front of a house committee for 11 hours to testify on Benghazi, she kept her cool.

Face it. Some people can handle pressure. Some people can’t. It looks like Brett can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have you ever actually met any sort of law professor? Tons of professors practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love all these people who think they know how “professionals” respond to false allegations of moral turpitude, when they have no practical experience seeing people so accused.

Reminds me of when people though Amanda Knox was a sex murdress because she did a cartwheel when dealing with the death of her roommate. “That’s not how you act” they chanted, never for a moment reflecting on the basis for their suppositions about how one is to respond to a different situation.

I don’t know what the truth is for Kavanaugh or Ford.

I do know that you cannot divine any great insight from his anger after being accused. In either direction.

Some of us have lived through similar experiences, which we cannot describe in detail because we do not wish to be identified. We all behaved with grace under fire, because this is what upright people do, with jobs and reputation on the line. Sadly, unless it's the EXACT same accusation for the EXACT same position, you will refuse to believe this carries the same weight.

Too bad for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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. . .

As long as they are owning the libs, anything can be forgiven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And remember, at least some of these law professors were responsible for the instruction of Brett Kavanaugh. Liberals should at least have mixed feelings about the opinions of such professors.

Remember, up until last week, Kavanaugh was one of these law professors...

[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.

Exhibit A: Noel Gorsuch, who was treated well by Dem Senators vs
Exhibit B: Merrick Garland. How well was he treated by Republican Senators.

Food for thought.

[Anonymous]

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!

If he is confirmed, the Supreme Court will be tainted until he is off the court. His ability to judge fairly is gone, demolished by his own words, unsubstantiated allegations against the Democrats.

His demeanor at last week’s hearing may have been due to emotion, yet his behavior—responding to questions with questions, evading and refusing to answer questions, lying about obvious small things—is disqualifying. An applicant for any job who behaves that way would not get the job.

Having this man on the Supreme Court will debase the institution, even further than Clarence Thomas has already debased it with his “high tech lynching” defense against Anita Hill’s credible accusations.

The GOP does not care, as they do not care that their Crooked Leader is a misogynist, racist grifter.

This is a sad era in American politics, the very lowest of my life, and I am old enough to remember the Nixon era.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And remember, at least some of these law professors were responsible for the instruction of Brett Kavanaugh. Liberals should at least have mixed feelings about the opinions of such professors.

If they can produce a Brett Kavanaugh, who also taught at Harvard, then they are not a bunch of liberal idiots who should be dismissed out of hand.

[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.

I believe Dr. Ford--don't be a jerk. Stop trying to malign Ms. Keyser! She doesn't deserve to have the likes of you trample her this way. You and your party of sneering, mocking dude bros--you disgust me.