Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

In thinking back on last week and seeing Graham's shenanigans and Kavanaugh's tirade, I'm starting to wonder whether Kavanaugh truly did his statement all by himself and "showed it to no one" before the hearing.

 He may have wrote it all by himself and showed it to no one but the outline and tone was given to him by the oval office/Don McGahn/Stephen Miller and they absolutely rehearsed it or something like it in front of a camera with a panel of strategists.

Best media manipulators in the world. 

[Captainant 27680]

21 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/30/brett-kavanaugh-witnesses-stick-denials-fbi-invest/

 

 

That article has zero evidence to back it's claim in the headline. Their "denial" is repeating that they don't rembember such a party. Which is not evidence that it didn't happen. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The Republicans can cram someone through in the lame duck session. There's literally nothing the Dems can do to stop them. Every single step of this process that y'all can't stop complaining about has been fully controlled by the GOP.

One theory I heard today that I hadn't considered previously is that the GOP are fighting tooth and nail to get Kavanaugh over the line because if he's withdrawn they don't trust Trump to pick someone else from the list. That actually makes sense as something weighing on Flake's mind.

Interesting.  But if the next nominee was worse, it would still have to get votes.  Flake et al can still withhold votes.  I guess the risk would be Flake would be unemployed by the time the next one came to a vote?

[Hank Kingsley 20967]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 He may have wrote it all by himself and showed it to no one but the outline and tone was given to him by the oval office/Don McGahn/Stephen Miller and they absolutely rehearsed it or something like it in front of a camera with a panel of strategists.

Best media manipulators in the world. 

Well, the media ridiculed his performance. Trump's goons know how to manipulate the patsies (aka the GOP base). 

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by Hank Kingsley

[DDD Dad 14339]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 He may have wrote it all by himself and showed it to no one but the outline and tone was given to him by the oval office/Don McGahn/Stephen Miller and they absolutely rehearsed it or something like it in front of a camera with a panel of strategists.

Best media manipulators in the world. 

My point, in retrospect, is that the express statement by him denying any input from anyone in advance now seems really odd, almost....rehearsed.  When coupled with the over the top emotional display (which also in retrospect now seems...rehearsed), it really stands out.

[hayden_horn 11362]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Because they want to make political hay before the mid terms and if they could hold off a candidate till after the mid terms it could be a different senate make up. But you know that already.

but they could do nothing about this guy without the accusation. take dr ford out of the equation, and the guy is seated today.

you want political hay, see what happens if the democrats take the senate. that's when the shit is going to hit the republican fan.

republicans like you (oh, wait, you're not a republicans, you just defend them at every turn) like to complain about obstruction and political shenanigans when YOUR PARTY CONTROLS EVERY BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.

can't get healthcare reform passed, with a majority? blame the democrats. can't get this SC justice nominee approved with a majority? blame the democrats.

pretty soon you might have the chance to see what happens when the majority is on the other side of the aisle. then your indignant protestations will have some merit, because i would bet the democrats won't be able to control themselves from bringing the pain just in the name of turnabout is fair play rather than good governance. 

someday, hopefully, bipartisan negotiation will return to washington. someday. maybe. if i can't be optimistic, then i'll have to give in to the despair i feel when watching the president tweet, or that congressional hearing last week. the blind partisanship, on both sides, granted, on display was hameful. however, i felt that the republican partisanship was especially cynical. 

but i stand by my point: without these accusations, this guy sails through, probably with 55 votes.

[wildcat09 29355]

Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Interesting.  But if the next nominee was worse, it would still have to get votes.  Flake et al can still withhold votes.  I guess the risk would be Flake would be unemployed by the time the next one came to a vote?

I think the fear (if this is indeed a concern) is that Trump would pick Jeanine Pirro or some other complete lunatic. Flake wants a reliable ideological conservative, and would be happy with anyone on the Federalist Society's list, but he may be worried that if he shoots down Kavanaugh the replacement won't be a real conservative, and they'll be forced to vote yes regardless to get someone passed before the end of this Congress.

[wildcat09 29355]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

but they could do nothing about this guy without the accusation. take dr ford out of the equation, and the guy is seated today.

you want political hay, see what happens if the democrats take the senate. that's when the shit is going to hit the republican fan.

republicans like you (oh, wait, you're not a republicans, you just defend them at every turn) like to complain about obstruction and political shenanigans when YOUR PARTY CONTROLS EVERY BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT.

can't get healthcare reform passed, with a majority? blame the democrats. can't get this SC justice nominee approved with a majority? blame the democrats.

pretty soon you might have the chance to see what happens when the majority is on the other side of the aisle. then your indignant protestations will have some merit, because i would bet the democrats won't be able to control themselves from bringing the pain just in the name of turnabout is fair play rather than good governance. 

 someday, hopefully, bipartisan negotiation will return to washington. someday. maybe. if i can't be optimistic, then i'll have to give in to the despair i feel when watching the president tweet, or that congressional hearing last week. the blind partisanship, on both sides, granted, on display was hameful. however, i felt that the republican partisanship was especially cynical. 

 but i stand by my point: without these accusations, this guy sails through, probably with 55 votes.

What's funny is that in 2009 the Democrats refused to bring the pain because they didn't want to divide the country, or look back instead of ahead, or pick your stupid euphemism for naively believing that they could work in a bipartisan manner with elements of the GOP to address real problems. I think most of the party realizes what a mistake that was now. The fact that nobody was punished for the myriad of enormously consequential crimes that led to the great recession has a lot to do with why we are where we are now.

Of course, it would be just like the Dems to win the House and even the Senate and then pick Chuck Schumer as a majority leader to repeat their past mistakes.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Well, the media ridiculed his performance. Trump's goons know how to manipulate the patsies (aka the GOP base). 

 

That was by design to further the very unfair media bias narrative.

Kavanaugh’s ridiculous over the top performance was intended to make him the story in the media and not Dr. Ford.

Once Kavanaugh’s circus concluded, Dr. Ford’s remarkable testimony was an afterthought.  As if it didn’t even happen.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

34 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The democrats were gonna make the republicans pay for the last SCOTUS appointment . just admit it. Kavannnaugh was a gift apparent;y.

Gorsuch?

[Hank Kingsley 20967]

 

[Gil Bang 25975]

2 hours ago, pepper brooks said:

she definitely handled being questioned well

 

 

 

So she changed outfits and took off her glasses during the hearing?

 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

4 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

So she changed outfits and took off her glasses during the hearing?

 

Pretty sure they were 2-3 days long as she was questioned for 11 hours.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[RomaVicta 29929]

2 hours ago, Celery Man said:

prediction - the ability of the "conservative" media to shred Ford's story will be dependent on how successful the Trumpers are at impeding the FBI

Don't forget knowingly repeating lies and distortions to muddy the waters. Just like their favorite son, Bart O'Kavanaugh (no relation!).

[Incredulity 11675]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

Don't forget knowingly repeating lies and distortions to muddy the waters. Just like their favorite son, Bart O'Kavanaugh (no relation!).

like calling Kavanaugh a rapist. ad nauseum.

or claiming the last two accusations were Republican plants.

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

59 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

I get the feeling that the phrase "sexual predator, a gang rapist, and a bumbling stumbling alcoholic" tested well in riling up the morons - Lindsay repeats it every fucking chance he gets.

Kavanaugh-Graham 2024 GOP Presidential ticket. Sign me up 

[RomaVicta 29929]

2 hours ago, Ghost of Shag said:

I'm neither Democratic nor Republican and whether it's Kavanaugh or the next candidate to the seat, I don't really care.  I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary; they were both dogshit.

This is the new "I voted for Gary Johnson."  I'm above it all and veddy,  veddy objective.

I should neg you for lying, but it can't be absolutely refuted like the other obfuscators around here.

[MixtyMotions 102]

25 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That article has zero evidence to back it's claim in the headline. Their "denial" is repeating that they don't rembember such a party. Which is not evidence that it didn't happen. 

You're missing what I think is the issue: I think this FBI exercise is an "opportunity" for the anti-Kavanaugh forces to produce a confirming witness - somebody who saw Kavanaugh at the party with Ford, or saw him expose himself to Debbie.  If the FBI goes through the list of "prospects" identified by Ford and Ramirez and there is no witness that can say one of those two things then we're done.  And I think this article says there is no witness to the Ford party.  All we're left with is the second question.

[Chuckie Finster 22700]

9 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Kavanaugh-Graham 2024 GOP Presidential ticket. Sign me up 

Yeah, Icono is definitely trolling.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[David Dennison 18922]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

The Democrats must have had a secret Politics for Dummies retreat, because they are playing this better than anything I've seen them play in a long, long time.

[Captainant 27680]

12 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

You're missing what I think is the issue: I think this FBI exercise is an "opportunity" for the anti-Kavanaugh forces to produce a confirming witness - somebody who saw Kavanaugh at the party with Ford, or saw him expose himself to Debbie.  If the FBI goes through the list of "prospects" identified by Ford and Ramirez and there is no witness that can say one of those two things then we're done.  And I think this article says there is no witness to the Ford party.  All we're left with is the second question.

And the multiple other accusers, AND investigating a number of his statements made under oath that one their face are untruthful and/or misleading. But who am I kidding? Most GOP'ers love a good liar now a days and don't consider honesty an important quality for the top jurist seat.

[Mack Tripper 696]

In thinking back on last week and seeing Graham's shenanigans and Kavanaugh's tirade, I'm starting to wonder whether Kavanaugh truly did his statement all by himself and "showed it to no one" before the hearing.

It was a bizarre thing to say - “This is my statement!!! I wrote it myself!!!!”

[RomaVicta 29929]

9 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

like calling Kavanaugh a rapist. ad nauseum.

or claiming the last two accusations were Republican plants.

 

Apparently you think the alleged lies of others justify your own side's lies. That's a pretty lousy standard, but it's well worn with you I'm-not-really-a-GOP-(actually I am a GOP)-guys over the years. You're better than the evil Dems until you get caught then it's all, well it's okay because the evil Dems do it!

There actually is evidence that Kavanaugh is a would-be rapist. I believe Dr. Ford. It has nothing to do with political ideology. You'll scoff, but here is why that statement about ideology is true:

No matter if Kavanaugh is rejected and the Dems get control of Congress: the president still chooses candidates for the Supreme Court. No matter Kavanaugh's fate, there will be a conservative nominee who can pass through the process. I'd rather that not be the case, but that's the way it works. That takes ideology out of the equation.

It's this specific guy who is wrapped in a veil of delays, distortions, lies and believable accusations who doesn't belong on the court. 

Check out this find by retread on the Trump thread. It's this kind of thing that I believe makes Kavanaugh so important to Trump and the criminal GOPs.

 

[Cacti 191]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Are you seriously asking why perjury should be a bigger deal than non-perjurious lying FOR SOMEONE BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?

You seem to think that there is a distinction between lying under oath to Congress and lying to Congress while not under oath. Both are considered perjurious and both have essentially the same penalties.

But back to my first question: “From a moral standpoint, is lying under oath about such matters worse than lying while not under oath?” Only one person replied in the affirmative. So if you’re not using the moral argument, then you’re left with the legal argument. And it’s not word games to point out that the statements “one lied under oath” and “one committed perjury” are not synonymous. The former is an opinion, or perhaps charge, not yet proven, while the latter is a conviction in a court or in some other setting covered by law.

It may be clear that Kavanaugh lied—just as it was clear that Bill Clinton lied—but Bill was never found guilty of perjury and, therefore, was not removed from office. Kavanaugh won’t be found guilty of perjury either, but that doesn’t mean accusations and innuendo won’t end his SCOTUS ambitions.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying

[GHOSTUSER 361]

16 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

You fucking idiot he was criticized for not showing emotion on his Fox News interview last week. It’s a game of gotcha which the Republican base is sick of. What we appreciate is the President not playing into Democrat hands but idiots like Flake don’t get it and fell for the act of that screaming fool in the elevator. I’m sorry she was abused but her ordeal has NOTHING to do with nominating Kavanaugh. We can have a million women gathering in DC and commiserating about sexual abuse and it will have zero impact on the veracity of this 36 year old allegation. I’m sure it would be empowering if they had such a thing where they would direct their rage and desire for collective punishment on the Kavanaugh scapegoat. It would have been a tremendous victory for the Party to have him confirmed this week and would have demoralized our enemies. That is what the RINOs don’t get. Thankfully they are going by the wayside and more cutthroat Republicans are coming up the pipeline 

[Js1 85409]

Trump and Kav have unleashed hell on the GOP. Such bad optics 

 

[RomaVicta 29929]

2 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I’m sure you were itching to say “white” too. Right? White people from good families who are achievers and went to the top schools and shined in every endeavor are to be hated upon by the woke crew. That again is why I will vote Republican.

I could support a ten year ban on white men serving in any capacity of federal and state government. I'm a white man born of the upper middle class (comfortable suburban upbringing but no gold spoon).  Me too, Black Lives Matter, and the Trump/Kavanaugh shitshow are all the evidence I need to volunteer that white men like me or Iconoclast or anyone else should sit the bench for awhile.

We'll face about a tenth of the prejudice that the non white males have regularly faced. It will probably do us all good. After ten years, white men can start again with total equality.

We have absolutely nothing, NOTHING!, to lose by doing so.

[Hank Kingsley 20967]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

You fucking idiot he was criticized for not showing emotion on his Fox News interview last week. It’s a game of gotcha which the Republican base is sick of. What we appreciate is the President not playing into Democrat hands but idiots like Flake don’t get it and fell for the act of that screaming fool in the elevator. I’m sorry she was abused but her ordeal has NOTHING to do with nominating Kavanaugh. We can have a million women gathering in DC and commiserating about sexual abuse and it will have zero impact on the veracity of this 36 year old allegation. I’m sure it would be empowering if they had such a thing where they would direct their rage and desire for collective punishment on the Kavanaugh scapegoat. It would have been a tremendous victory for the Party to have him confirmed this week and would have demoralized our enemies. That is what the RINOs don’t get. Thankfully they are going by the wayside and more cutthroat Republicans are coming up the pipeline 

[Huckleberry 32997]

Iconoclast is a Persian moron, not a white one.

[Captainant 27680]

3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

You fucking idiot he was criticized for not showing emotion on his Fox News interview last week. It’s a game of gotcha which the Republican base is sick of.

Holy shit it's like there's no middle ground between HRC-esque overpracticed/overtested statements and pure trumpian shouting and bluster.

You're pretty despicable for acting like every sexual assault victim is just some democratic party operative. And it isn't really all that surprising, just disappointing because I know there's lots of other folks just like you who are willfully uninformed spouting off the same false talking points.

[David Dennison 18922]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Iconoclast is a Persian moron, not a white one.

Does he like blue carpet, white statues, and gold curtain rods?

[G650 14263]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Iconoclast is a Persian moron, not a white one.

I'm pretty sure the Persians are ok with him pretending to be white.

[David Dennison 18922]

7 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

You fucking idiot he was criticized for not showing emotion on his Fox News interview last week. It’s a game of gotcha which the Republican base is sick of.

This is rich.

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Iconoclast is a Persian moron, not a white one.

Persians are white, non-Arabs, no?  Even if he's not, it's definitely the tribe he identifies with.

[Stros 153]

I could support a ten year ban on white men serving in any capacity of federal and state government. I'm a white man born of the upper middle class (comfortable suburban upbringing but no gold spoon).  Me too, Black Lives Matter, and the Trump/Kavanaugh shitshow are all the evidence I need to volunteer that white men like me or Iconoclast or anyone else should sit the bench for awhile.
We'll face about a tenth of the prejudice that the non white males have regularly faced. It will probably do us all good. After ten years, white men can start again with total equality.
We have absolutely nothing, NOTHING!, to lose by doing so.

You’re a first class idiot, and you’re an internalized racist.

[Huckleberry 32997]

Well Persia is certainly closer to the Caucasus mountains than Bumfuck, Alabama. But within a discussion of American identity politics I think it's pretty safe to say that a Persian shouldn't be considered white.

[RomaVicta 29929]

1 hour ago, MixtyMotions said:

Some of you are engaging in silly, wishful thinking. 

If the Dems (or anybody) are allowed to create an FBI process that chases rabbits or lasts a long time, the nomination is over.  McConnell and Trump would not have initiated such a process and will prevent it.  Flake, Collins and Murkowski will buy it or not.  I strongly believe they've already agreed to the nature of the investigation which is:

 Interview the potential witnesses to assault.  The idea is to find witnesses to assault, not witnesses to some other fact, like heavy drinking.

You are dreaming if you think the GOP will allow an investigation which chases every little bit of dirt somebody has on Kavanaugh.

There are two serious allegations of sexual misconduct.  "Witnesses" to those incidents will be interviewed.  

So if PJ or Squee say that they watched Kavanaugh shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die, that would be a "rabbit chase?"

Interesting take. Thorough understanding of police work. Well done!

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

1 minute ago, Stros said:

You’re a first class idiot, and you’re an internalized racist.

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I could support a ten year ban on white men serving in any capacity of federal and state government. I'm a white man born of the upper middle class (comfortable suburban upbringing but no gold spoon).  Me too, Black Lives Matter, and the Trump/Kavanaugh shitshow are all the evidence I need to volunteer that white men like me or Iconoclast or anyone else should sit the bench for awhile.

We'll face about a tenth of the prejudice that the non white males have regularly faced. It will probably do us all good. After ten years, white men can start again with total equality.

We have absolutely nothing, NOTHING!, to lose by doing so.

What utter and complete bullshit. If your son was denied opportunity that he was deserving because of his skin color you’d be singing quite a different tune. I know several Jewish South Africans. You should talk to them about how things turned after Mandela died and shitheels like Zuma took over.

Edited October 1, 2018 by Iconoclast Texan

[DDD Dad 14339]

12 minutes ago, Cacti said:

You seem to think that there is a distinction between lying under oath to Congress and lying to Congress while not under oath. Both are considered perjurious and both have essentially the same penalties.

But back to my first question: “From a moral standpoint, is lying under oath about such matters worse than lying while not under oath?” Only one person replied in the affirmative. So if you’re not using the moral argument, then you’re left with the legal argument. And it’s not word games to point out that the statements “one lied under oath” and “one committed perjury” are not synonymous. The former is an opinion, or perhaps charge, not yet proven, while the latter is a conviction in a court or in some other setting covered by law.

It may be clear that Kavanaugh lied—just as it was clear that Bill Clinton lied—but Bill was never found guilty of perjury and, therefore, was not removed from office. Kavanaugh won’t be found guilty of perjury either, but that doesn’t mean accusations and innuendo won’t end his SCOTUS ambitions.

As to your first question, in my view, no, it is not worse from a moral standpoint.  As to your conclusion, you are mistaken.  Both conclusions are opinions.  Saying someone committed perjury is akin to saying someone committed murder.  Neither requires a conviction to be a valid opinion.  Both would require a conviction to require sentencing.

Clinton's lies under oath should have resulted in his removal from office by impeachment.  Impeachment is, however, a political process, and the senate was unwilling to convict.  What does it have to do with Kavanaugh?  (Narrator: nothing).

[GHOSTUSER 361]

4 minutes ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

Persians are white, non-Arabs, no?  Even if he's not, it's definitely the tribe he identifies with.

We are white 

[RomaVicta 29929]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You do know that's part of the game plan.  Stall and hope for a change in the Senate head count  They were gonna drag this out for any reason they could. Kavannaugh seems to have just made it that much easier for them.

Again, Trump has two years to nominate qualified conservative judges even if the GOPs lose the Senate and House. It's not about a conservative justice; it's about this nominee in particular.

[David Dennison 18922]

2 minutes ago, Stros said:

You’re a first class idiot, and you’re an internalized racist.

Won't someone think of the wypipo??!!

[DDD Dad 14339]

7 minutes ago, G650 said:

I'm pretty sure the Persians are ok with him pretending to be white.

Since when did Persians become not white?

[Captainant 27680]

Like always once facts start turning negative, the trumpsters use their favorite tactic: derail

[DDD Dad 14339]

5 minutes ago, Stros said:

You’re a first class idiot, and you’re an internalized racist.

Well this really added to the discussion.

[G650 14263]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Since when did Persians become not white?

In Donald Trump's America, they are 100% not white.