Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[Lagunamadre 1975]

32 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I think we all know where this will end up in terms of arguments from both sides.  And the gop will ask the question that isn’t it possible that an accuser can make up a story 30 years later because they don’t want someone confirmed?  And the answer is yes that is a possibility.   
Since scotus is a lifetime appointment, I don’t know if they should get anything close to a standard of reasonable doubt.  
  

She's playing the long game to plant the story with her therapist 6 years ago. Maybe went with the broad DC elite instead of naming him just in case she needed to tank a judicial confirmation or political campaign some time down the road? Cause what California professor doesn't think about those things when going through marriage counseling?

Playing the 35 year long game by attending high school parties with future supreme court nominees. Then telling her husband and therapist about it years before Donald Trump even decided to run for president. 

This thing is damning. Kavanaughs only way out would have been to agree they were there and that he remembered it completely different, as innocent teenager horseplay yada yada, if it was perceived differently I apologize, yada yada, the Al Franken play if you will. 

At this point it's totally obvious he is lying about it which is the worst look possible. 

[retread 2951]

 

[Fozzz 152]

Damn, Brit going on record that he believes the accusation is true?

 

 

[Horndog 2228]

I'm a moderate drinker, but I've had my moments of excess.  In my early 20's there were a couple of occasions where people described events that had happened the night before that I had absolutely no recollection of, including behavior completely out of character for me.  (Thankfully, none involved sexual assault.)  I would not have believed the accounts except for the fact they came from people I trusted and with no motive to fabricate.  It is entirely possible that Kavanaugh simply has no recall of this event  --  especially since he was not confronted about it at the time  --  and does not think he is capable of sexual assault.  But the accuser is much more likely to have specific recall of such a traumatic event, especially if she had not had much to drink.  The fact that she brought this up in therapy years ago is proof she is not making something up now.  She knew when she came forward what a hell her life would like be for years to come.  The bottom line is that they both might be telling the "truth" as they perceive it.  But I believe her.  It happened.  Kavanaugh may truly not remember it.   Or he may remember it differently  (it was just horseplay; I stopped when she said "no"; she was coming on to me; whatever).  Or he may remember it as it actually happened.  But he is now in too deep for anything other than total denial of anything happening at all.  

[David Dennison 18851]

Can Brett Kavanaugh hold on to two votes?

 

[MixtyMotions 102]

The accuser should be heard before the vote this Thursday.  I recommend a closed door hearing tomorrow.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Or, you know, move the vote, which is just a random meaningless date. 

[babysdaddy 2721]

Does he need to be confirmed prior to 10/1 in order to sit on the bench this coming term?  Or could they confirm him up until 12/31? Assumption being the R's lose the Senate and they'd want to confirm a SC nominee prior to losing majority.  I don't exactly know when Congress starts up again post election day.  

[Horn Dog 9816]

30 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

The accuser should be heard before the vote this Thursday.  I recommend a closed door hearing tomorrow.

I see what you did there....

[Js1 85297]

5 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Does he need to be confirmed prior to 10/1 in order to sit on the bench this coming term?  Or could they confirm him up until 12/31? Assumption being the R's lose the Senate and they'd want to confirm a SC nominee prior to losing majority.  I don't exactly know when Congress starts up again post election day.  

Jan 3rd I believe is swearing in day.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

Deadlines are a bitch.  Just ask Merrick Garland.

Fuck their deadlines.  I hope they pass this jackass through to SCOTUS.  It will be the blazing neon billboard showing just exactly who in Congress is an American and who isn't.  I'd be lying if I said I've never had fever dreams that included these fucks swinging from ropes.  This country will not go down quietly, I assure you that.  I always wondered how Americans so willingly stepped up for service after events like Pearl Harbor.  Now I'm starting to get it.

[Js1 85297]

 

[Celery Man 20933]

58 minutes ago, Horndog said:

I'm a moderate drinker, but I've had my moments of excess.  In my early 20's there were a couple of occasions where people described events that had happened the night before that I had absolutely no recollection of, including behavior completely out of character for me.  (Thankfully, none involved sexual assault.)  I would not have believed the accounts except for the fact they came from people I trusted and with no motive to fabricate.  It is entirely possible that Kavanaugh simply has no recall of this event  --  especially since he was not confronted about it at the time  --  and does not think he is capable of sexual assault.  But the accuser is much more likely to have specific recall of such a traumatic event, especially if she had not had much to drink.  The fact that she brought this up in therapy years ago is proof she is not making something up now.  She knew when she came forward what a hell her life would like be for years to come.  The bottom line is that they both might be telling the "truth" as they perceive it.  But I believe her.  It happened.  Kavanaugh may truly not remember it.   Or he may remember it differently  (it was just horseplay; I stopped when she said "no"; she was coming on to me; whatever).  Or he may remember it as it actually happened.  But he is now in too deep for anything other than total denial of anything happening at all.  

I'm a recovered alcoholic and have done a lot of regrettable shit as I went down my twisting alleyways.  Never tried to rape anybody though, because that's not an urge I have that gets unsuppressed by alcohol.  It was a long time ago, but we're talking about a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court for a guy who is a perjurer in addition to this.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13509]

22 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Does he need to be confirmed prior to 10/1 in order to sit on the bench this coming term?  Or could they confirm him up until 12/31? Assumption being the R's lose the Senate and they'd want to confirm a SC nominee prior to losing majority.  I don't exactly know when Congress starts up again post election day.  

to my knowledge, the senate can confirm a nominee on any date and the justice will take the bench as soon as they are sworn in.  And the justice could be sworn in 1 minute after the confirmation vote.  They don't even have to wait for a formal ceremony.  

I would assume that if a justice does not participate in the oral arguments, then they don't vote on that case.   Hence one reason why they want Kavanaugh to have a vote this week or next.  I could be wrong on this one.

 

The following would lead to an interesting dilemma:

• A new nominee has to be selected
• The new nominee would most likely not be confirmed prior to the election.   There just isn't time now.
• Dems win the Senate
• But McConnell tries to push through the nominee during the lame duck session

It would be interesting because McConnell would absolutely do anything to get Trump's nominee through even if the American public just told him that they want a Dem controlled Senate.   The hypocrisy in regards to how he refused the Garland vote as we had to wait 10 months to let the american public decide on a new President.

I would wonder if the Dems could actually fight that confirmation through the court system as being invalid.   The Supreme Court would most likely split 4-4 on that fight.  You have to wonder what the lower court ruling would be as that would be the deciding factor.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Nice Guy Eddie

[babysdaddy 2721]

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

to my knowledge, the senate can confirm a nominee on any date and the justice will take the bench as soon as they are sworn in.  And the justice could be sworn in 1 minute after the confirmation vote.  They don't even have to wait for a formal ceremony.  

I would assume that if a justice does not participate in the oral arguments, then they don't vote on that case.   Hence one reason why they want Kavanaugh to have a vote this week or next.  I could be wrong on this one.

 

The following would lead to an interesting dilemma:

• A new nominee has to be selected
• The new nominee would most likely not be confirmed prior to the election.   There just isn't time now.
• Dems win the Senate
• But McConnell tries to push through the nominee during the lame duck session

It would be interesting because McConnell would absolutely do anything to get Trump's nominee through even if the American public just told him that they want a Dem controlled Senate.   The hypocrisy in regards to how he refused the Garland vote as we had to wait 10 months to let the american public decide on a new President.

I would wonder if the Dems could actually fight that confirmation through the court system as being invalid.   The Supreme Court would most likely split 4-4 on that fight.  You have to wonder what the lower court ruling would be as that would be the deciding factor.

This is the exact scenario that is going to happen.  It's the only way to get things more antagonizing than they already are so it shall be done.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13509]

1 hour ago, Lagunamadre said:

Playing the 35 year long game by attending high school parties with future supreme court nominees. Then telling her husband and therapist about it years before Donald Trump even decided to run for president. 

This thing is damning. Kavanaughs only way out would have been to agree they were there and that he remembered it completely different, as innocent teenager horseplay yada yada, if it was perceived differently I apologize, yada yada, the Al Franken play if you will. 

At this point it's totally obvious he is lying about it which is the worst look possible. 

I give anyone the benefit of the doubt especially when they bring up a serious assault accusation. 

I don't know this really occurred how she said, and I also don't know that she told her husband and therapist that Kavanaugh did this.  If she named him (Brett Kavanaugh or even just Brett) to someone in the past then it adds a tremendous amount of weight to her story.  Most likely enough to stop the nomination.

I'm not a fan of Kavanaugh but I don't know if a she said/he said discussion is enough to stop the confirmation.   Or whether it should.  It's a tough call. 

You seem to be starting from a point that Ford is 100% telling the truth and Kavanaugh is 100% lying.  And then you need proof to change your mind.    I think we all need further testimony before coming to that conclusion.  And you may be right in the end.  I don't know.

 

[Loco 3752]

You want to know what makes this whole Supreme court nomination process go down smooth?   Try watching the Handmaid's Tale during all of this....sur-fucking-real

[jimmyjazz 45893]

I think it's more a situation where we see a shit ton of smoke, so we have to assume there's a fire.  K may not have done this.  K may not have perjured himself in every instance where he's been accused of doing so.

Of course, we should always be on the lookout for pure politics at work, but in the end, if we have pretty strong evidence that a guy perjured himself multiple times, along with damning accusations that can be corroborated back 6 years by a licensed counselor, then I start to wonder.  And the thing is, NOBODY is born with a right to serve on SCOTUS.  Nobody.  There is nothing illegal or even illogical with saying "hey, there are just too many red flags here, let's move on".  But of course, that won't happen, because the Republicans are treasonous shitbags who are hopefully going to get their's soon, and by "their's" I mean "their's" (and all that entails).

[Nice Guy Eddie 13509]

Another aspect of this confirmation is that Kavanaugh was most likely going to be confirmed with potentially a couple of Rs not voting for him, but a few Dems doing so as they're up for re-election in conservative states.  See Manchin in WV.  This gives Manchin cover to vote no.   He could go home and say that he agrees with Kavanaugh from a philosophy standpoint but there are too many questions about his personal behavior.   And that he wants a new nominee and he's more than happy to vote yes to a new conservative nominee.

This may put more pressure on Collins or Murkowski.   From both sides.

 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

10 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

This may put more pressure on Collins or Murkowski.   From both sides.

It is insane to me that either would be willing to throw away their "women-friendly GOP Senator" legacies they have spent a career building for THIS dude.  Kavanaugh is not the GOP's only chance at securing a majority.  Nix him and swiftly pick from one of the dozens of equally qualified, less contentious candidates.  Yet it seems that many are willing to go down with this ship, and it makes no sense to me.  

Edited September 17, 2018 by Chuckie Finster

[MixtyMotions 102]

Whatever approach Grassley takes you can bet he's done it after making sure he has the votes.

If he goes forward Kavanaugh is gold.  The only issue is how it plays in elections.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

44 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Deadlines are a bitch.  Just ask Merrick Garland.

Fuck their deadlines.  I hope they pass this jackass through to SCOTUS.  It will be the blazing neon billboard showing just exactly who in Congress is an American and who isn't.  I'd be lying if I said I've never had fever dreams that included these fucks swinging from ropes.  This country will not go down quietly, I assure you that.  I always wondered how Americans so willingly stepped up for service after events like Pearl Harbor.  Now I'm starting to get it.

How would you even have to wonder why they would ?  That's as clear cut as a call to arms as there is.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13509]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

It is insane to me that either would be willing to throw away their "women-friendly GOP Senator" legacies they have spent a career building for THIS dude.  Kavanaugh is not the GOP's only chance at securing a majority.  Nix him and swiftly pick from one of the dozens of equally qualified, less contentious candidates.  Yet it seems that many are willing to go down with this ship, and it makes no sense to me.  

Given that Corker and Flake also are talking about slowing this down, it gives more weight for Trump to nominate someone else.  It's unfair to Kavanaugh,  if he did nothing wrong 35 years ago, but no one said life and especially politics are fair.    They won't be able to confirm someone by the election but they would have time to confirm during the lame duck session.  Or if the GOP retains the Senate, they could wait for the new session.  Kavanaugh can still live out being a Court of Appeals judge for the next 30 years.  Not exactly a prison sentence.

If Trump and McConnell stand behind Kavanaugh for too long and later decide to find another candidate, they risk not having time to confirm before the new Senate is sworn in.  Which creates a risk if the Dems win.  The best course of action for them is to cut Kavanaugh today and move forward.  But when do they take the best action...

[Gil Bang 25922]

the fuck is it with you guys and "cut bait"???

 

It doesn't mean what you think it means. 

[Armybrat 40826]

I think you are correct, Eddie. Kavanaugh is now damaged goods... or bads.

But I gotta laugh at all the leftwingnut outrage..... because rape/misogynist enabler Hillary. That democrat moral high ground ship sailed with Lewinsky 20 years ago.

 

[MixtyMotions 102]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-sexual-assault-allegation-dle/index.html

Senate judiciary chair: I'm working to hear Kavanaugh's accuser out

From CNN's Ariane de Vogue and Manu Raju

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman for the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a statement Monday where he pointed to the standard procedure for updating nominee's background checks.

"The standard procedure for updates to any nominee’s background investigation file is to conduct separate follow-up calls with relevant parties. In this case, that would entail phone calls with at least Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford.Consistent with that practice, I asked Senator Feinstein’s office yesterday to join me in scheduling these follow-ups. Thus far, they have refused. But as a necessary step in evaluating these claims, I’ll continue working to set them up."

Grassley goes on to say they are "working diligently to get to the bottom of these claims," but does not make any indication about the possibility of delaying the vote.

This needs to happen before the vote Thursday.

[Longhorn94 2448]

1 minute ago, Armybrat said:

I think you are correct, Eddie. Kavanaugh is now damaged goods... or bads.

But I gotta laugh at all the leftwingnut outrage..... because rape/misogynist enabler Hillary. That democrat moral high ground ship sailed with Lewinsky 20 years ago.

 

BUT HILLARY!

[Armybrat 40826]

13 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

the fuck is it with you guys and "cut bait"???

 

It doesn't mean what you think it means. 

Maybe they mean Trump is doing a bait & switch job? He is a sleazeball salesman after all.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

I think you are correct, Eddie. Kavanaugh is now damaged goods... or bads.

But I gotta laugh at all the leftwingnut outrage..... because rape/misogynist enabler Hillary. That democrat moral high ground ship sailed with Lewinsky 20 years ago.

 

Damn man, don't you know you're not allowed to but the Clintons.... they're gods to some of these folks...........

[Armybrat 40826]

10 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

BUT HILLARY!

Exactly!

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Armybrat said:

Exactly!

Brick wall meet head......

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Biff Tannen 45667]

It's just weak. No one's gonna buy it and you shouldn't be selling it.

[jimmyjazz 45893]

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

How would you even have to wonder why they would ?  That's as clear cut as a call to arms as there is.

Oh for fuck's sake.  The point was that the offensiveness of the assault was always somewhat disconnected given the distance of history.  Sure, one would expect that in the event of an attack, signing up would be second nature -- my Dad did it -- but it was still an abstract concept.  Now it's real (and I fully expect you to grasp exactly what I am saying, but in the event you're being your usual tenebrous, obtuse self, let me spell it out -- I can totally see this going to civil war and I can definitely imagine dying for the right side, which you ain't on).

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

6 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

I think you are correct, Eddie. Kavanaugh is now damaged goods... or bads.

But I gotta laugh at all the leftwingnut outrage..... because rape/misogynist enabler Hillary. That democrat moral high ground ship sailed with Lewinsky 20 years ago.

 

Damnit, who left the door to the Hillary thread open?

[Horndog 2228]

40 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

But of course, that won't happen, because the Republicans are treasonous shitbags who are hopefully going to get their's soon, and by "their's" I mean "their's" (and all that entails).

Or maybe you mean "theirs"?

[jimmyjazz 45893]

Just now, Horndog said:

Or maybe you mean "theirs"?

Tried to edit that a mere 5 minutes after the post, but the window had slammed shut.  I must now live with my grammatical blunder for all eternity.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Anastasis 23464]

How many people were at this get together?  One of the other attendees should be able to confirm the circumstances and give insight into whether anything was said afterwards, or seemed particularly out of sorts.  Even just confirming that Kavanaugh was there and was plastered should be sufficient corroboration. 

 

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh for fuck's sake.  The point was that the offensiveness of the assault was always somewhat disconnected given the distance of history.  Sure, one would expect that in the event of an attack, signing up would be second nature -- my Dad did it -- but it was still an abstract concept.  Now it's real (and I fully expect you to grasp exactly what I am saying, but in the event you're being your usual tenebrous, obtuse self, let me spell it out -- I can totally see this going to civil war and I can definitely imagine dying for the right side, which you ain't on).

Jimmy jazz trying his hand at verbal gymnastics.

JUDGES SCORING:

 

2.0  2.5  3.0 2.0  2.0

[High Plains Drifter 11035]

Any chance Kava-no-means-yes does the right thing and withdraws?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13509]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

and there it is.  Grassley ain't going to end this story by talking to both Ford and Kavanaugh on the phone.  Unless Ford wants to end it with a call but I'm assuming she doesn't or she wouldn't have identified herself on the record this weekend.

not to mention that it also opens the door to any woman that feels that Kavanaugh harassed her over the years.   And it doesn't even have to be as bad as jumping on top of a woman while you're a drunk 17 year old.    If he forwarded the Kozinski joke emails (he claims he doesn't recall seeing them) that may be a point of discussion as well.

Or McConnell and Trump can end this now by starting over.  

[Anastasis 23464]

1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Kava-no-means-yes

golf clap. 

[Lurch 5922]

How many people were at this get together?  One of the other attendees should be able to confirm the circumstances and give insight into whether anything was said afterwards, or seemed particularly out of sorts.  Even just confirming that Kavanaugh was there and was plastered should be sufficient corroboration. 
 
 

5 total. 4 boys and her. The other two weren’t in the room.

[Incredulity 11657]

Just now, Lurch said:

 

5 total. 4 boys and her. The other two weren’t in the room.

 

Where did you see that reported?

 

[Jiggy-Z 3432]

2 hours ago, Horndog said:

I'm a moderate drinker, but I've had my moments of excess.  In my early 20's there were a couple of occasions where people described events that had happened the night before that I had absolutely no recollection of, including behavior completely out of character for me.  (Thankfully, none involved sexual assault.)  I would not have believed the accounts except for the fact they came from people I trusted and with no motive to fabricate.  It is entirely possible that Kavanaugh simply has no recall of this event  --  especially since he was not confronted about it at the time  --  and does not think he is capable of sexual assault.  But the accuser is much more likely to have specific recall of such a traumatic event, especially if she had not had much to drink.  The fact that she brought this up in therapy years ago is proof she is not making something up now.  She knew when she came forward what a hell her life would like be for years to come.  The bottom line is that they both might be telling the "truth" as they perceive it.  But I believe her.  It happened.  Kavanaugh may truly not remember it.   Or he may remember it differently  (it was just horseplay; I stopped when she said "no"; she was coming on to me; whatever).  Or he may remember it as it actually happened.  But he is now in too deep for anything other than total denial of anything happening at all.  

I gotta say that has not been my experience.  Usually, a round-table debriefing on the day after got all the events out in the open, at which time I had many  an "aha-oh yeah, that's right, shit!" moments.  But perhaps his homies were not as thorough as mine.

[Lurch 5922]

Where did you see that reported?
 

A number of places. But here’s a random one

https://www.essence.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-comes-forward-to-tell-her-own-story/

“The notes from the therapist claims that four boys were involved, but Ford says that was an error by the therapist, saying that there were four boys at the party.”

Perhaps there were other girls too? Not totally clear in this article

[Chrispy 132]

11 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

How many people were at this get together?  One of the other attendees should be able to confirm the circumstances and give insight into whether anything was said afterwards, or seemed particularly out of sorts.  Even just confirming that Kavanaugh was there and was plastered should be sufficient corroboration. 

 

 

The guy that supposedly saved the day denies it happened from what I can tell. 

[shnsajax 3591]

10 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Any chance Kava-no-means-yes does the right thing and withdraws?

Like Trump he seems to prefer the route of burning in flames rather than admit he was wrong/lying.

[Celery Man 20933]

23 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

I think you are correct, Eddie. Kavanaugh is now damaged goods... or bads.

But I gotta laugh at all the leftwingnut outrage..... because rape/misogynist enabler Hillary. That democrat moral high ground ship sailed with Lewinsky 20 years ago.