Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

BNB

BNB 100

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She’s willing to take a polygraph and welcomes an FBI investigation.

Kavanaugh?  Not so much

 

Last I read, she had claimed a couple of sexual complains against 2 past employers.  I don't know if that is the truth?  Also her B/f thing.  I don't wan't to not believe her, but is that a pattern?  

I am just the objective rightest.  I just want all the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Didn't Flake say he would vote no if it were proven that Kavanaugh lied to the committee? The allegation that he was texting about the Ramírez story before it was published can be quickly confirmed or discredited by the FBI.

Even with that he has to fade the reality of getting Collins or Murkowski too to matter. A small lie probably doesn’t bring another R with him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16807

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Maybe you don’t have a bunch of people who as soon as you were announced stated they weren’t going to vote in favor of you supporting trumped up bullshit that ruins your reputation.  

I spoke about yesterday.  Go read it.  You wouldn't get a job at McDonald's with an allegation like that.  So why should we allow a person with 0 oversight, and a lifetime appointment be held to a lesser standard?   

And how do you know the charge is trumped up? Were you there?  

 

You do realize the Democrats have ZERO power to stop this right? 

Lastly, the first sentence is even funnier since you ignore that the Republican party did just that to Garland.    

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

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, BNB said:

Last I read, she had claimed a couple of sexual complains against 2 past employers.  I don't know if that is the truth?  Also her B/f thing.  I don't wan't to not believe her, but is that a pattern?  

I am just the objective rightest.  I just want all the facts.

Sounds like you’re looking for reasons to discredit her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Who are you to call anyone a troll?  You don't even know what that means.  You are one of the few posters that would fail a Turing test.  I could make an algorithm that could replicate your posting style and no one would realize that it wasn't you.  All it would have to do is link political twitter posts every 5 minutes and periodically post a random sentence or two from an MSNBC article.  No one would know the difference.  

Behold the observer is the subject.

 

tested-checks-out-a-mechanized-s.jpg?qua

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32290

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Didn't Flake say he would vote no if it were proven that Kavanaugh lied to the committee? The allegation that he was texting about the Ramírez story before it was published can be quickly confirmed or discredited by the FBI.

Well, sure, probably.  And his brow was furrowed at the time

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EuroHorn

EuroHorn 3204

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She’s willing to take a polygraph and welcomes an FBI investigation.

Kavanaugh?  Not so much

 

She seems very credible 

 
Quote

 

Julie Swetnick, in her first broadcast television interview since accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, told NBC News national correspondent Kate Snow she couldn't be sure that Kavanaugh was one of the boys who assaulted her during a party in the 1980s.

Swetnick, in a sworn affidavit released last week by her attorney Michael Avenatti, said she was the victim of a gang rape at a party, at which she also saw Kavanaugh behave inappropriately toward women.

"I cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me," Swetnick told Snow

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nbc-news-sits-down-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-but-cant-verify-claims-1148414

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Even with that he has to fade the reality of getting Collins or Murkowski too to matter. A small lie probably doesn’t bring another R with him.  

What these people say means little.  They will course correct if it’s politically advantageous in the moment.

McConnell is too scared to take a vote and have it fail so he keeps bullying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goofyboy

Goofyboy 3156

Posted
Posted
As far as I can tell most of the posters here are disaffected center right people like me who know Trump is a moron and that the GOP has lost every iota of decency. 
 
I guess it is maybe a silo for that, but there's still a few leftie posters too, with our token looney right guys.


I have to agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Who are you to call anyone a troll?  You don't even know what that means.  You are one of the few posters that would fail a Turing test.  I could make an algorithm that could replicate your posting style and no one would realize that it wasn't you.  All it would have to do is link political twitter posts every 5 minutes and periodically post a random sentence or two from an MSNBC article.  No one would know the difference.  

That sounds complicated.  You should create the algorithm anyway though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman 3903

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Didn't he tell Hatch the first time he heard about these allegations were when the article came out in the New Yorker???  That would be yet another lie under oath.

Looks like Ramirez's reputation amongst her former classmates was strong.....

Just to flesh this out....

Quote

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett's guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

Bob Bauer, former White House counsel for President Barack Obama, said: "It would be surprising, and it would certainly be highly imprudent, if at any point Judge Kavanaugh directly contacted an individual believed to have information about allegations like this. A nominee would normally have been counseled to leave to his legal and nominations team the job of following up on any questions arising from press reports or otherwise, and doing so appropriately."

Further, the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.

 

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, when he first heard of Ramirez’s allegations. Kavanaugh answered: “In the New Yorker story.”

Follow up on this..... If Yarasavage is to believed, then Kavanuagh definitely lied under oath.  Start about the 4:30 mark.  Kavanaugh states, under oath, he hadn't hear about the Ramirez's allegation until the New Yorker article.  

What this also proves...... is how Matt Damon nailed his impersonation of Kavanaugh on SNL.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Just to flesh this out....

Follow up on this..... If Yarasavage is to believed, then Kavanuagh definitely lied under oath.  Start about the 4:30 mark.  Kavanaugh states, under oath, he hadn't hear about the Ramirez's allegation until the New Yorker article.  

What this also proves...... is how Matt Damon nailed his impersonation of Kavanaugh on SNL.....

What was great about Matt Damon’s impersonation is that he could basically use most of the same words that Kavenaugh used in response to questions to show how full of shit he was. Didn’t even have to exaggerate all that much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23356

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

What was great about Matt Damon’s impersonation is that he could basically use most of the same words that Kavenaugh used in response to questions to show how full of shit he was. Didn’t even have to exaggerate all that much. 

“Handsy Hank and gang rape Gregg, which I’m sure the liberal media will unfairly spin.”

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

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)

All of this that has come out makes the previous “spin” that Kavenaugh who prosecuted Clinton about his blow job affair and his supposed later in life realization that this was an abuse by a special prosecutor so egregious and unfair so great. He’s full of shit of course.

He loved prosecuting Clinton, and his memo on that shows he wanted him to answer all sorts of questions about blow jobs and Monica and what not. He didn’t have some sort of come to Jesus realization, the only difference now is that there is an R being investigated by a special presecutor who Kavanaugh now wants to get on the court so he can let trump go free.

He is the ultimate political hack. And if he makes it on the Supreme Court it marks the beginning of the end of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Court packing, impeachment, and the end of judicial review via Marbury v. Madison is the end result of this guy getting on the court. Neither side should want that as it introduces chaos.

But then again maybe that’s what Trump and Putin want anyway. 

Edited by JimmyJames
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25865

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Iconoclast reminds me of Rocko.  He doesn’t really understand politics and has latched on to a side that makes him feel better about himself even though none of the policies from that side are meant for him at all. So he uses the fact that he’s on the side of the party currently in power and oh gee doesn’t it make him feel smarter and better about himself!?

Rocko's a self-loathing idiot, but he's a better poster

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I bet that concert kicked ass.

I'm about Kavanaugh's age.  I was a big fan, and I saw UB40 many times.  Always a pretty good show.

48 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You pay people to go away before they file suit and it hits the media.  Not after.  

Didn't work on Stormy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
softlynow

softlynow 1774

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

No, the senate. 

How will Trump maintain control without the bureaucracy? Will the regional governors now have direct control over their territories? Will fear keep the local systems in line? Fear of the Space Force?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14867

Posted
Posted
Anastasis is THE master troll.
The fake neutrality/both sides stuff is genius.


I LOVE how much the both sides stuff winds you guys up.

The other two bullets missing from Aphelion’s list:

-The constant use of “My opinion is xyz and anyone who disagrees is a fucking moron.”

-All the hyperbole, all the time
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GabrielsHorn

GabrielsHorn 2142

Posted
Posted (edited)

It’ll be really interesting to see what happens if none of the sexual assault allegations are found to be substantiated but that he may have lied to the committee (which is the most likely outcome based on the reports from today). It’ll likely effect the senate map which should be very very interesting. 

Edited by GabrielsHorn
Cant get my double negatives to work dammit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buzzrock

Buzzrock 14867

Posted
Posted
I spoke about yesterday.  Go read it.  You wouldn't get a job at McDonald's with an allegation like that.  So why should we allow a person with 0 oversight, and a lifetime appointment be held to a lesser standard?   
And how do you know the charge is trumped up? Were you there?  
 
You do realize the Democrats have ZERO power to stop this right? 
Lastly, the first sentence is even funnier since you ignore that the Republican party did just that to Garland.    


I was thinking about this “job interview” take earlier today. There’s really no comparison. The job interview part is where the President nominates you. That’s much more like a job interview. The senate confirmation hearing is this weird courtroom-like situation which really has no equivalent anywhere in the professional world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18603

Posted
Posted
Just now, Buzzrock said:

I was thinking about this “job interview” take earlier today. There’s really no comparison. The job interview part is where the President nominates you. That’s much more like a job interview. The senate confirmation hearing is this weird courtroom-like situation which really has no equivalent anywhere in the professional world.

 

Academia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman 3903

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, GabrielsHorn said:

It’ll be really interesting to see what happens if none of the sexual assault allegations are found to be substantiated but that he may have lied to the committee (which is the most likely outcome based on the reports from today). It’ll likely effect the senate map which should be very very interesting. 

Found to be unsubstantiated or false?  I think it would matter which.  

It's always the cover up, never the crime....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
retread

retread 2951

Posted
Posted
Quote

Sen. Susan Collins wants the FBI to investigate the allegations brought by Julie Swetnick as part of the agency’s probe of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Collins and Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska “advocated for the additional background investigation because she believed that it could help the Senators evaluate the claims that have been brought to the Judiciary Committee,” said spokeswoman Annie Clark in a statement Monday to the Press Herald. “That would include the allegations that were brought by Julie Swetnick.”

 

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...