Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

nd I love the argument of “why would the FBI need to talk to her when she testified in front of Senators?”.  Another disingenuous play by Republicans.

This is the most obviously ignorant and disingenuous talking point.  

Do people not know what it’s like to be questioned by the FBI?  

Well let me tell you.  An FBI person usually approaches you in person and asks to come into the office to answer some questions at a later time.  They’re not intimidating, actually quite amicable.

You get there and in a room with one or two agents that systematically rack your brain of all relevant memory.  Little things you never thought would be important actually have value in the investigation.

It’s not an interrogation but more of a conversation between people trying to get to truth.  It could take hours and it’s exhaustive. 

Dr. Ford requested this and she didn’t get it.

Why?

[retread 2951]

It's almost like we haven't had a decade of abuse scandals (Catholic priests, Ped St., etc.) where victims have waited decades to come forward. BK had assault claims from at least two different women from two different times in his life, HS and college. Rs can keep on telling themselves that they believe Dr. Ford but that it wasn't BK.

I believe the FBI interviewed Ramirez but not other witnesses that would corroborate her story.

Quote

Additional people Senate Democrats wanted the F.B.I. to question but who are not known to have been interviewed

Dr. Blasey

 
Judge Kavanaugh

 
Julie Swetnick

The third woman to accuse Judge Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct. She said she observed him at parties where women were “gang raped.”

 
Elizabeth Rasor

Mr. Judge’s college girlfriend

Told The New Yorker Mr. Judge “told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman.”

 
Dr. Elizabeth Swisher

Yale classmate

“I saw him very drunk many times and there is no way he remembers everything about every night.”

 
Lynne Brookes

Yale classmate and roommate of Ms. Ramirez

“It is not plausible to me that he remembers everything that he did when he was drinking.”

 
James Roche

Judge Kavanaugh’s roommate at time of the alleged incident with Ms. Ramirez

“Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time.”

 
Richard Oh

Yale classmate

Told The New Yorker he overheard a female student telling another student about an incident similar to the one Ms. Ramirez described.

 
Mark Krasberg

Yale classmate

Said he has unsuccessfully been trying to get his “important evidence regarding the Debbie Ramirez investigation” into the right hands since Sept. 28.

 
Thomas Kane

Georgetown Prep classmate

 
Sean Hagan

Georgetown Prep classmate

 
Bernie McCarthy

Georgetown Prep classmate

 
Russell Ford

Dr. Blasey’s husband

 
Adela Gildo-Mazzon

Dr. Blasey’s friend

 
Jeremiah P. Hanafin

Polygraph examiner

Conducted polygraph examination of Dr. Blasey.

 
Keith Koegler

Friend of Dr. Blasey and Mr. Ford

 
Rebecca White

Friend of Dr. Blasey

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-witnesses.html

[Johnny Sack 8397]

She requested it as a delay tactic.  The fbi background check from the beginning was about interviewing witnesses brought up at or before the hearing.  She was allowed to give her testimony and read a statement created by her and her attorneys.  

Her mistake was agreeing to be represented by activist attorneys.  Who were more interested in advancing democrat interests than her interests.  See them not telling her of the senate committee’s offer to come to California. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is the most obviously ignorant and disingenuous talking point.  

Do people not know what it’s like to be questioned by the FBI?  

Well let me tell you.  An FBI person usually approaches you in person and asks to come into the office to answer some questions at a later time.  They’re not intimidating, actually quite amicable.

You get there and in a room with one or two agents that systematically rack your brain of all relevant memory.  Little things you never thought would be important actually have value in the investigation.

It’s not an interrogation but more of a conversation between people trying to get to truth.  It could take hours and it’s exhaustive. 

Dr. Ford requested this and she didn’t get it.

Why?

That's a good question.

[Buzzrock 14918]

The "new rules" are that we shouldn't underestimate how low and hypocritically self-righteous the Republicans will go.

That’s not new, and it’s not confined to the Republicans.

[David Dennison 18855]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

She requested it as a delay tactic.  The fbi background check from the beginning was about interviewing witnesses brought up at or before the hearing.  She was allowed to give her testimony and read a statement created by her and her attorneys.  

Her mistake was agreeing to be represented by activist attorneys.  Who were more interested in advancing democrat interests than her interests.  See them not telling her of the senate committee’s offer to come to California. 

Are you still pretending that it was Democrats holding up this nomination?

[Buzzrock 14918]

That's a good question.

It always seemed to me like a lawyer trick. “We’ll only turn the docs over to the people who we know won’t come asking for them.” As I understand it the Senate could not direct the FBI to retrieve the docs, that could only come from the WH. And that definitely wasn’t going to happen.

Why not offer to turn them over to Feinstein, like her original accusation?

[Buzzrock 14918]

Are you still pretending that it was Democrats holding up this nomination?

Are you still pretending to be sincere?

[David Dennison 18855]

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

Are you still pretending to be sincere?

 

I'm completely sincere. Democrats couldn't do a thing to get in the way of that vote. Republicans were the ones holding back. That vote could have been taken weeks ago.

[Cacti 191]

42 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

...logic dictates you either believe one or the other or conclude you don’t know.  If you don’t know, you can still conclude that since Ford is credidible, and believes her testimony, that there is enough doubt to move on to the next candidate.  That is what a functional and reasonable executive hiring committee would do....  

In no way should Senate confirmation hearings be considered “a functional and reasonable executive hiring committee”, not when the vast majority of the ‘hiring committee’ have made up their minds well before the so-called job interview.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

It always seemed to me like a lawyer trick. “We’ll only turn the docs over to the people who we know won’t come asking for them.” As I understand it the Senate could not direct the FBI to retrieve the docs, that could only come from the WH. And that definitely wasn’t going to happen.

Why not offer to turn them over to Feinstein, like her original accusation?

 

Interesting thought.  If she believed the leak didn't come from Feinsteins  office that would seem to be a potential option. And again nothing other tha the entries in the Drs not that were literally Dr. Ford says she was sexually  assaulted in HS by individuals she knew.

Sounds like tricks were being played on both sides. However if you have the facts to support your narrative, why would you need to play any tricks except to create the most amount of political damage to the other side.

[David Dennison 18855]

3 minutes ago, Cacti said:

In no way should Senate confirmation hearings be considered “a functional and reasonable executive hiring committee”, not when the vast majority of the ‘hiring committee’ have made up their minds well before the so-called job interview.

That includes the "yes" votes who made up their minds well before Kavanaugh was even nominated. They would have voted "yes" for a ham sandwich if it had been on the list.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm completely sincere. Democrats couldn't do a thing to get in the way of that vote. Republicans were the ones holding back. That vote could have been taken weeks ago.

So what did the republicans have to gain by holding up the nomination vote ?  

1. Either they were trying to get to the bottom of it. 

2.  Making the democrats look bad, because they were trying to play political games with the presidents nominee.

3. They didn't have the votes

4.  What else  ?

[David Dennison 18855]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

So what did the republicans have to gain by holding up the nomination vote ?  

1. Either they were trying to get to the bottom of it. 

2.  Making the democrats look bad, because they were trying to play political games with the presidents nominee.

3. They didn't have the votes

4.  What else  ?

They didn't have the votes. It's as simple as that. That's a whip problem. Democrats had nothing to do with it.

[Cacti 191]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That includes the "yes" votes who made up their minds well before Kavanaugh was even nominated. They would have voted "yes" for a ham sandwich if it had been on the list.

Wasn't that clear when I said "vast majority"?

[David Dennison 18855]

1 minute ago, Cacti said:

Wasn't that clear when I said "vast majority"?

Not when the leadership of the party you support pretends like only one side had its mind made up before the hearings, no.

Edited October 7, 2018 by David Dennison

[retread 2951]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They didn't have the votes. It's as simple as that. That's a whip problem. Democrats had nothing to do with it.

I don't know if they had the votes a week ago. You may be right.

I think part of the Flake delay was to let that news cycle die away. Ford's testimony wasn't on everyone's minds yesterday like it was a week ago. The Rs can say they did their due diligence w the sham of the FBI BI, and they can confirm him.

[David Dennison 18855]

2 minutes ago, retread said:

I don't know if they had the votes a week ago. You may be right.

I think part of the Flake delay was to let that news cycle die away. Ford's testimony wasn't on everyone's minds yesterday like it was a week ago. The Rs can say they did their due diligence w the sham of the FBI BI, and they can confirm him.

The problem for Republicans is that is easy to see through. They were going to get their guy through no matter what. It's just surprising they decided to expend so much political capital on Bart. That's going to cost them in November.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The Republicans needed the political cover of the bullshit FBI investigation. 

[Buzzrock 14918]

The Republicans needed the political cover of the bullshit FBI investigation. 

Only because the Democrats demanded it as a delay tactic.

Let’s not pretend there were any good guys here.

[David Dennison 18855]

What's becoming clear is that the next time a president sends a name to a senate controlled by the opposing party, that name will not be taken up unless leadership signs off on it.

[David Dennison 18855]

2 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Only because the Democrats demanded it as a delay tactic.

Let’s not pretend there were any good guys here.

 

Keep your caucus in line and that doesn't happen.

Nancy Pelosi was laughing at Mitch McConnell.

Edited October 7, 2018 by David Dennison

[retread 2951]

15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Republicans needed the political cover of the bullshit FBI investigation. 

Yep. Give Collins a week to practice her speech while acting like she's agonizing over the decision. Same for Flakey. He can ride off into the sunset of making a lot of money lobbying. Maybe think about running for president in 2020 if he wants some attention.

Edited October 7, 2018 by retread

[Cacti 191]

24 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Not when the leadership of the party you support pretends like only one side had its mind made up before the hearings, no.

You think I’m a Trumpkin? Show your work.

[retread 2951]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Keep your caucus in line and that doesn't happen.

Nancy Pelosi was laughing at Mitch McConnell.

Coons may have suggested it, but Flake was the one that made the FBI BI happen.

[David Dennison 18855]

7 minutes ago, Cacti said:

You think I’m a Trumpkin? Show your work.

I think you're a Republican. 

[Cacti 191]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I think you're a Republican. 

Fair enough. Show your work.

[Brian Fantana 6685]

21 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

Only because the Democrats demanded it as a delay tactic.

Let’s not pretend there were any good guys here.

 

They can't demand anything you moron. The GOP controls everything. They could have just said no. They didn't vote because they didn't have the votes. 

None of this matters anyway, he's in and I sincerely hope his on bench conduct is greater than his public hearing conduct and that he's a decent Justice.

[David Dennison 18855]

1 minute ago, Cacti said:

Fair enough. Show your work.

Who did you vote for in 2016?

[AtticusFinch 155]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

The "new rules" are that we shouldn't underestimate how low and hypocritically self-righteous the Republicans will go.

The Democrats think it's ok to have women beaters, rapists and murderers in their ranks with more evidence to support the allegations but that doesnt seem to bother the left or the media.  

[Cacti 191]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Who did you vote for in 2016?

That's not the way this works. Even before you know who I voted before, you decided that I'm a Republican. On what basis?

[David Dennison 18855]

Just now, AtticusFinch said:

The Democrats think it's ok to have women beaters, rapists and murderers in their ranks with more evidence to support the allegations but that doesnt seem to bother the left or the media.  

[BLKNSTY 289]

Man, I wish I wasn’t so jaded by American politics.

We just put a rapist on the Supreme Court and half this board is probably harder than VY in ‘05. Like legit full on erection. Perhaps to completion?

Interesting stuff. #teambrisket

[AtticusFinch 155]

2 minutes ago, BLKNSTY said:

Man, I wish I wasn’t so jaded by American politics.

We just put a rapist on the Supreme Court and half this board is probably harder than VY in ‘05. Like legit full on erection. Perhaps to completion?

Interesting stuff. #teambrisket

He's not a rapist.  It's statements like this why no rational people believe and/or take seriously the allegations.  

[David Dennison 18855]

10 minutes ago, Cacti said:

That's not the way this works. Even before you know who I voted before, you decided that I'm a Republican. On what basis?

Mainly this:

Quote

 

That’s an understandable characterization of Kavanaugh based on his testimony alone. And if those few hours of testimony were all we had from which to judge him, then it’s only human to conclude that he revealed his true character…you know, first impressions and all. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, we are not limited to his testimony when evaluating his character/personality. If, at his core he is truly overly emotional and a naked partisan, then surely those flaws could be teased from among the hundreds of opinions that he authored, eleven of which were adopted by SCOTUS.  

Maybe those faults have been discovered in his writings and I’m not aware of them, but the vast majority of arguments against his suitability to serve on SCOTUS have been based on impressions from his hours-long testimony, while totally ignoring his twelve-year history as an appellate judge.

And even if you choose not to take his work history into consideration, then at least take into account that Supreme Court Justices—like appellate court justices—don’t work in an environment anything like a Congressional hearing, where their integrity/character is questioned by partisan hacks. In other words, you won’t see the “overly emotional” Kavanaugh again. As for making “naked partisan” decisions…I guess we will have to wait and see.     

 

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by David Dennison

[ChickenSandwich 9834]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

 

Kavanaugh’s story, in contrast, shifted over time.

 

What story. How do you defend your self of an accusation that the accuser changed from Mid 80s late teens to the summer of 82. She can’t even name the month. How the hell do you defend yourself?  Again, what story?  His story was that he never sexually assaulted Ford on any time or date. That never changed. You are More worried about snarky yearbook quotes. 

Most so transparent it’s pathetic. 

[David Dennison 18855]

Just now, ChickenSandwich said:

What story. How do you defend your self of an accusation that the accuser changed from Mid 80s late teens to the summer of 82. She can’t even name the month. How the hell do you defend yourself?  Again, what story?  His story was that he never sexually assaulted Ford on any time or date. That never changed. You are More worried about snarky yearbook quotes. 

Most so transparent it’s pathetic. 

His story about his drinking habits changed from his Fox interview to his Thursday hearing. Considering the fact that he was a high school drunk (and might very well be an adult drunk), it is extremely plausible that he assaulted Ford and doesn't remember it. 

[Buzzrock 14918]

Keep your caucus in line and that doesn't happen.
Nancy Pelosi was laughing at Mitch McConnell.

Yeah gee why have hearings at all, let’s just vote. Politics don’t matter.

[David Dennison 18855]

Just now, Buzzrock said:

Yeah gee why have hearings at all, let’s just vote. Politics don’t matter.

 

I agree. I think the public hearings are ridiculous and completely unnecessary. It's political theater and nothing more. They are a recent development in Supreme Court nominations.

[Buzzrock 14918]

You guys pretending that the theater wasn’t the most important and powerful thing here are funny. Or delusional.

[DDD Dad 14335]

What story. How do you defend your self of an accusation that the accuser changed from Mid 80s late teens to the summer of 82. She can’t even name the month. How the hell do you defend yourself?  Again, what story?  His story was that he never sexually assaulted Ford on any time or date. That never changed. You are More worried about snarky yearbook quotes. 
Most so transparent it’s pathetic. 

Fair point. What story indeed? He was so evasive we never really got a story from him. We did see him reveal a nasty partisan streak imo sufficient to render him unqualified for the court.

[ChickenSandwich 9834]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4674689/wrap-smear

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

You guys pretending that the theater wasn’t the most important and powerful thing here are funny. Or delusional.

Booth's gun might have mattered a little too...

[retread 2951]

23 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Fair point. What story indeed? He was so evasive we never really got a story from him. We did see him reveal a nasty partisan streak imo sufficient to render him unqualified for the court.

Klobuchar: Did you ever drink to the point of blacking out?

BK: DId you?

Totally fit to be on the SCOTUS.

[Cacti 191]

47 minutes ago, Cacti said:

That's not the way this works. Even before you know who I voted before, you decided that I'm a Republican. On what basis?

 

37 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Mainly this:

That’s an understandable characterization of Kavanaugh based on his testimony alone. And if those few hours of testimony were all we had from which to judge him, then it’s only human to conclude that he revealed his true character…you know, first impressions and all. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, we are not limited to his testimony when evaluating his character/personality. If, at his core he is truly overly emotional and a naked partisan, then surely those flaws could be teased from among the hundreds of opinions that he authored, eleven of which were adopted by SCOTUS.  

Maybe those faults have been discovered in his writings and I’m not aware of them, but the vast majority of arguments against his suitability to serve on SCOTUS have been based on impressions from his hours-long testimony, while totally ignoring his twelve-year history as an appellate judge.

And even if you choose not to take his work history into consideration, then at least take into account that Supreme Court Justices—like appellate court justices—don’t work in an environment anything like a Congressional hearing, where their integrity/character is questioned by partisan hacks. In other words, you won’t see the “overly emotional” Kavanaugh again. As for making “naked partisan” decisions…I guess we will have to wait and see.  

If you think my opinion that work history is more relevant than a few hours of ‘gotcha’ questions is proof that I’m a Republican, then I’d have to say that at some point, logic and you departed ways.

Consider this opinion: As bad as Kavanaugh was treated by the Democrats, Garland was treated even worse by the Republicans; after all, he wasn’t even given have a chance to have his work history ignored.

So by your logic I’m now a Democrat, right?

    

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by Cacti

[ChickenSandwich 9834]

He answered the first ten times they asked him when he said he would get tired and the go to sleep but not blacked out. (How do you prove someone blacks out, and this disqualifies you from service)

They kept asking the same questions over and over. His response was appropriate especially considering the moron asking the question. 

Like the Dems during the circus, you have zero interest in the truth or what is right. You just want your pound of flesh regardless. 

[David Dennison 18855]

30 minutes ago, Cacti said:

If you think my opinion that work history is more relevant than a few hours of ‘gotcha’ questions is proof that I’m a Republican, then I’d have to say that at some point, logic and you departed ways.

Consider this opinion: As bad as Kavanaugh was treated by the Democrats, Garland was treated even worse by the Republicans; after all, he wasn’t even given have a chance to have his work history ignored.

So by your logic I’m now a Democrat, right?

Nah, I still think you vote Republican.

I could be wrong. It doesn't matter.

[David Dennison 18855]

29 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

He answered the first ten times they asked him when he said he would get tired and the go to sleep but not blacked out. (How do you prove someone blacks out, and this disqualifies you from service)

They kept asking the same questions over and over. His response was appropriate especially considering the moron asking the question. 

Like the Dems during the circus, you have zero interest in the truth or what is right. You just want your pound of flesh regardless. 

He let the cat out of the bag when he got all "I know you are but what am I?" with Klobuchar. 

[Horn Dog 9820]

2 hours ago, Cacti said:

In no way should Senate confirmation hearings be considered “a functional and reasonable executive hiring committee”, not when the vast majority of the ‘hiring committee’ have made up their minds well before the so-called job interview.

 I can only speak for the executive hiring committee that I serve on, but the members of our committee have certainly largely made up our minds before you come to our committee’s interview.  We have gone through your resume, you have been interviewed by your assigned committee member, we have checked your references and done a full background check.  You are qualified and meet our prerequisites.  You are before our committee because we are 90-95% to yes, and all we are looking for now is to see if you can have a normal conversation like a normal person and for red flags in your personality.  If you start telling demonstratable lies, start yelling at a committee member or exhibit excessively defensive behavior you are out.  If we are contacted by a prior colleague with a red flag or other major concern about your history  before the final vote,  you are out and we move to the next candidate.

[Monster 219]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is the most obviously ignorant and disingenuous talking point.  

Do people not know what it’s like to be questioned by the FBI?  

Well let me tell you.  An FBI person usually approaches you in person and asks to come into the office to answer some questions at a later time.  They’re not intimidating, actually quite amicable.

You get there and in a room with one or two agents that systematically rack your brain of all relevant memory.  Little things you never thought would be important actually have value in the investigation.

It’s not an interrogation but more of a conversation between people trying to get to truth.  It could take hours and it’s exhaustive. 

Dr. Ford requested this and she didn’t get it.

Why?

Why do you know this?  

Also, is posting on political message boards part of your job?

Edited October 7, 2018 by Monster