Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Yuk
Yuk

No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

TexArcher
TexArcher

In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

"That question is irrelevant to the topic at hand and I see no reason why I should answer it one way or the other."

Refusing to answer a question is completely different than flat out lying under oath. You know this. He was asked a question about which there was no reason to lie and he lied anyway (whether he watched Ford's testimony). That's because he's a liar. And pretending that the things he lied about are irrelevant to his testimony is silly at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. He lied about watching Ford's testimony which would speak directly to his understanding of the allegations against him. He lied about the meaning of Devil's Triangle which speaks directly to his behavior around the time of the allegation. He lied about the meaning of boofing which also speaks to his behavior around the time of the allegation. These are just three of his lies which are related to the allegations.

Furthermore,  he was still in front of the Judiciary Committee with respect to his nomination to the Supreme Court. Any question relative to that nomination is relevant. This is important because we have learned during the hearings that he lied during his past appearances when appointed to the bench over a decade ago. He lied about his involvement in other nominations. He lied about his having received leaked information. He lied about knowing it was leaked information.

All of these lies were under oath and are acts of perjury.

He repeatedly lied in a nationally televised interview about his behavior during his school years. While not perjury, this is clearly relevant to the allegations that his behavior during that time of his life was reckless and also allegedly included assaults during parties where drinking occurred.

He is a repeated liar. Attempting to dance around that verifiable fact just makes you look bad.

I answered your question, but you avoided mine.  You’ve simply disappeared when pressed in some of our previous exchanges, including one in this thread.  In your mind I’m the dancer.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

"That question is irrelevant to the topic at hand and I see no reason why I should answer it one way or the other."

Refusing to answer a question is completely different than flat out lying under oath. You know this. He was asked a question about which there was no reason to lie and he lied anyway (whether he watched Ford's testimony). That's because he's a liar. And pretending that the things he lied about are irrelevant to his testimony is silly at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. He lied about watching Ford's testimony which would speak directly to his understanding of the allegations against him. He lied about the meaning of Devil's Triangle which speaks directly to his behavior around the time of the allegation. He lied about the meaning of boofing which also speaks to his behavior around the time of the allegation. These are just three of his lies which are related to the allegations.

Furthermore,  he was still in front of the Judiciary Committee with respect to his nomination to the Supreme Court. Any question relative to that nomination is relevant. This is important because we have learned during the hearings that he lied during his past appearances when appointed to the bench over a decade ago. He lied about his involvement in other nominations. He lied about his having received leaked information. He lied about knowing it was leaked information.

All of these lies were under oath and are acts of perjury.

He repeatedly lied in a nationally televised interview about his behavior during his school years. While not perjury, this is clearly relevant to the allegations that his behavior during that time of his life was reckless and also allegedly included assaults during parties where drinking occurred.

He is a repeated liar. Attempting to dance around that verifiable fact just makes you look bad.

Yeah but he certainly told the truth about liking beer and he weirdly repeated it often.  Seems like each instance should cancel out at least one lie, if we’re keeping score. 

/why the fuck is this guy still being considered

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 18207

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I answered your question, but you avoided mine.  You’ve simply disappeared when pressed in some of our previous exchanges, including one in this thread.  In your mind I’m the dancer.  

I'm pretty sure you completely misunderstood his post. Actually, I'm certain of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13485

Posted
Posted

The FBI cannot make Ford's extremely credible testimony disappear. The FBI cannot make his "don't tell my wife about my blackout drunken rage while gambling" e-mails disappear. The FBI cannot make his "I'm a fuck god" yearbook disappear. The FBI cannot make his 3(+?) other accusers disappear.

If the libs want it, this guy is going to be 30+ years of rage-fodder for their base, and justified rage-fodder.

Just pull this idiot and put in a demon woman. The libs will trip all over themselves with their identity politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bat Guano

Bat Guano 363

Posted
Posted

Based on Kavanaugh's obvious terror of an FBI investigation, I'm guessing there's something to find. The question is, will his prep and Yale buddies crack under the threat of felony prosecution for lying to the FBI, or will they continue to stonewall? I'd be surprised if at least one of them doesn't crack; they probably have too much to lose to risk it on Crybaby Kavanaugh, whom they probably never liked that much anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The FBI cannot make Ford's extremely credible testimony disappear. The FBI cannot make his "don't tell my wife about my blackout drunken rage while gambling" e-mails disappear. The FBI cannot make his "I'm a fuck god" yearbook disappear. The FBI cannot make his 3(+?) other accusers disappear.

If the libs want it, this guy is going to be 30+ years of rage-fodder for their base, and justified rage-fodder.

Just pull this idiot and put in a demon woman. The libs will trip all over themselves with their identity politics.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prepuce of Doom

Prepuce of Doom 21263

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

Seriously, between the Jacob Silj voice modulation disorder thing I referenced up thread with respect to the opening statement, and the other poster that likened "I went to Yale" to "I drive a Dodge Stratus", they need to get Will Ferrell on SNL this weekend to play Kavanaugh.  

If you ever watched the Dilbert TV show, he's a dead ringer for Loud Howard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CooterBrown

CooterBrown 18273

Posted
Posted
I'd be surprised if at least one of them doesn't crack; they probably have too much to lose to risk it on Crybaby Kavanaugh, whom they probably never liked that much anyway.


He’s the kind of dude you tolerate because of the professional network he has. A month from now he won’t have that or friends.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted

2. In addition, background check questions specifically ask about alcohol use/abuse (remember the third "A" in CARLA F. BAD). So that check is the one which would contain "derogatory" information on that front, if there was any.

3. I'm not sure who the consumer/custodian is of that first check (when K worked for Starr), but that could at least shed some light on his drinking habits then. (Of course these are expanding references from ppl K would have initially suggested for interviews, so who knows).

4. The main point is that saying he went through "6 background checks" is misleading, since each subsequent one would have covered a later and later portion of his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BNB

BNB 100

Posted
Posted

Again, Big Conservative.

 

I like to debate with my mom and close friends.  Not really here, so I will not be called a racist, etc .

 

Spoiler
My take as a hard conservative.  I get on breitbart and dailywire everyday.
 
 

I think both Brett and Dr Ford gave a compelling testimony.

I am a  BIG Conservative.  
I think Brett is a liar.  I didn't know these terms growing up, but supposedly they are/were common terms at the time.  
Devils Triangle means 2 guys and one girl.
Boof means anal sex with a woman.
 
He didn't answer questions on Mark Judges book.  He said it was fiction. ( his stumbling around the beach), His speech to Yale graduated about graduating and "stumbling", and "having to piece back together the night."
I read "Beach Week" is parent renting cabins for kids to have fun unchaperoned.
 
His explanations of these terms, makes me to believe he lied under oath.
I don't want a Judge that lies under oath.  
It seems like the Virginia prep school group are privileged  people that back each other up. A constant cycle of people in power in this community whether Dems or Reps.
 
There is no way of knowing if Kavanaugh  did what Dr. Ford claims 36 years later.  
I take Kavenaugh's side by her best friend at the time, stating she doesn't know him.  It sounds like I didn't party like they did, but I would think I would remember people in a small get together.
 
I may have over embellished as a kid on my sexual experience.  It was said that the comments in the yearbook were supposed to be National Lampoonish, but he should have stated that instead of making up false definitions for terms in the yearbook. 
 
I think all the OTHER allegations are bogus, and are a liberal "protest".
 
The democrats and especially Feinstien made this the circus that it is now.  If Feinstein wanted justice, this would have been investigated 2 months ago, and lives would not have been ruined.
 
It has ruined lives on both sides.  It has become just political.
 
The democrats want to delay through the midterms.  The republicans want a nomination to go through.
 
It's a political show now.  It is so sad that it has become to this and that it makes America even more divided than it was before.
 
I don't know if it would be possible, but my preference would be to drop Brett and nominate some one else if it is possible for the midterms.
 
 
B

Moms response( and probably most conservative women.):

 

I completely disagree!! His wife, Ashley, grew up in Abilene and I have known her father and his family all my life!! I’ve known her mother since high school. They are a great family and I can’t imagine that Ashley would have married and stuck by him all these years. Even when they met at Bush’s White House, some of his personality traits would have still been there.

 

My response:

 

 

his is my take of Brett.

He may have been  like me and may have over embellished his sexual experiences. I assume kids were just going along writing things in the Yearbook to make themselves look cool.   I understand, but when under oath, you have to tell the truth what Devils Triangle means. A drinking game? (boof could have meant other things.) 
 
I think he drank a lot. He didn't answers about being drunk to the point of not remembering when he said "I have to piece things together."
He wouldn't answer that, because that would make him look like he could have been black out drunk with Dr. Ford.
 
We will never know about the sexual assault, but one has to wonder about how he answered the questions about drinking under oath.
He should have said he was a heavy drinker at times and embellished on his yearbook.
 
That is why I don't believe him and with the new investigation, may be why he doesn't become a judge.
 
I believe he has been a model citizen since college, and I don't think being a stupid kid should be a factor, unless he did what he is accused of( which I don't see any evidence of).  
 
So, in short, I don't think he has ever committed a sexual assault act, but I think he has lied under oath.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29569

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The Democrats in the SJC should be the ones investigating perjury. They should have a dozen staffers poring over every word this guy's said; every syllable of testimony compared to every interview.

He's a lying fuck and they should be going after him with knives.

But these are Dems lol

This is what is always so hilarious about the Republican cries that everything that makes them look bad is a dastardly coordinated Democratic conspiracy. The Dems are worthless at politics even when handed the obvious move on a platter. The Republicans can't even conceive of the possibility that anyone doesn't behave just like they do. Being a ratfucker and a Republican go hand in hand. If you're one you're gonna be the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90571

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Based on Kavanaugh's obvious terror of an FBI investigation, I'm guessing there's something to find. The question is, will his prep and Yale buddies crack under the threat of felony prosecution for lying to the FBI, or will they continue to stonewall? I'd be surprised if at least one of them doesn't crack; they probably have too much to lose to risk it on Crybaby Kavanaugh, whom they probably never liked that much anyway.

I'm guessing it's the mysterious debt business.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13713

Posted
Posted

Another week also allows a few polls to come out on what Americans felt about the hearings on Thursday.  IF they go strongly one direction or the other, it could have an affect on the senators up for re-election.    SNL will most assuredly make fun of Kavanaugh and his crying, and Trump doesn't like crying or being laughed at.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90571

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The Democrats in the SJC should be the ones investigating perjury. They should have a dozen staffers poring over every word this guy's said; every syllable of testimony compared to every interview.

He's a lying fuck and they should be going after him with knives.

But these are Dems lol

The Dems are not quite the aggy of political parties, but they sure do act like it at times.  Trump and Co. have given them all the fodder they need to dominate in November, bu they are going to keep trying to find ways to fuck it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You're dodging the question.

None of the questions asked of Kavanaugh were inappropriate, and to use the oppression of homosexuals as a cover for a rich Ivy kid is pretty disgusting.

I have no idea how to analogy map, but I will figure on it until I can come up with a way to make it seem bad to me.  If he responds, I’ll hammer him with the self righteous morally condescending blather of a wealthy socialist who’s never sacrificed anything for what I claim to believe in.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13485

Posted
Posted
Just now, Aphelion said:

I have no idea how to analogy map, but I will figure on it until I can come up with a way to make it seem bad to me.  If he responds, I’ll hammer him with the self righteous morally condescending blather of a wealthy socialist who’s never sacrificed anything for what I claim to believe in.   

Is honesty under oath something you think should be a requirement for SC justice candidates in order to be approved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13485

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I wonder what kind of life I would have if I were one to get wrapped around the axle about this. I honestly can't believe you wonks are still talking about this guy/confirmation. When is it over so everyone can go on with life and we can have more entertaining threads?

You have 1,333 posts here. Calm down.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 34088

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

If you asked me what “boof” meant under oath, I would have told you what it meant to me - pigging out at an all you can eat buffet like Gatti’s or Lucky Village. I should be strung up for perjury. Never heard of the others phrase before

well, then maybe you shouldn't weigh in on the issue. there have been definitions for both on various sites for years, if not decades. they did not make up those terms and create their own definitions for them. It was an outright lie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pacman

pacman 7497

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:
1 hour ago, G650 said:
 

The next motherfucker who posts that is getting negged. That's about a half dozen now.

Everybody should be so lucky to have so much free time to track every post on this site Huck...

Edited by pacman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8350

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

well, then maybe you shouldn't weigh in on the issue. there have been definitions for both on various sites for years, if not decades. they did not make up those terms and create their own definitions for them. It was an outright lie. 

I'm kind of surprised Icono of all people doesn't know all the synonyms for that particular deed described in the '80s definition. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26780

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

If you asked me what “boof” meant under oath, I would have told you what it meant to me - pigging out at an all you can eat buffet like Gatti’s or Lucky Village. I should be strung up for perjury. Never heard of the others phrase before

Just because you don't know what it meant doesn;t mean Kavanaugh didn't. I have direct, first-hand knowledge about what those two very commonplace expressions meant to high school kids in the 1980s, both in Texas and the Mid-Atlantic region. He lied. Under oath. Deal with it. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...