Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[pyrohornIII 4846]

4 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I will be as honest as I can.  I never even heard of Kavanaugh before this recent SC nomination.  Frankly, I don't care if he gets appointed or not.  I think the alarming thing is the fact that someone can write a letter from a 35 year old event with no corroborating evidence and no plausible way to provide any additional evidence and that is enough to remove a SC nominee.  So all it takes is one accusation with no supporting evidence as long as the person doesn't seem crazy.   

 

Do you think a single accusation from a 35 year old event with no corroborating evidence is sufficient to withdraw a SC nomination?

 

Agreed.

 

Why do you think she is credible?  You haven't heard her testimony yet.  Seems a bit like a witch hunt.

Just curious in how much of this have you researched?  I mean beyond the headlines and soundbites? 

My stance is he was a douchebag twerp who for whatever reason hung out with a bunch of like minded guys who would rather ridicule, humiliate or otherwise treat women as something lesser than men.  Her accusation just made everyone stop and question what he was like back then, and if he has changed.  

They want to keep hanging the mug shot of Beto out there as an indication of his character...but not this for BK?   I would bet if some person came up and accused Beto of drunk driving and smashing his car into theirs in a parking lot 10 years ago, Cruz and company would sure as hell be all over that. 

[Js1 87214]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

So pretty much nothing she asked for, aside from not in the same room?

At least being questioned by an independent female examiner versus Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley calling her missy and asking how short her dress was and how much she drank and if she was on anti-abortion pills.

[jimmyjazz 47238]

This concern about DUIs in Texas didn't seem to stop Republicans from electing Kevin Brady to the US House.

[SimonBolivar 11065]

2 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I think Mojo has it right -- Garrett is probably in on this with Kavanaugh and Whelan. His name will be "cleared" once Kav is confirmed and they will hope this whole rape thing just fizzles out the way the Thomas scandal did. 

Is there no scandal that can't be what aboutted with you morons? Fine, throw Clinton up under the fucking jail. I don't give a shit. And it has absolutely no bearing on what's going on right now. 

I like how Trumpkins just assume that the rest of us are just Clintonites in the same way they are all in Trumps cult of personality. Put Bill in the slammer for the rest of his life. None of us get a shit. We just hate that shitbag living on Pennsylvania Ave.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

"Breaking now: GOP is offering to move the hearing to Wednesday and have an independent (read: probably a woman since every GOP senator on the committee is a man) lawyer question each of them, and they will not have them both in the same room. Looks like she's gonna talk, or at least is far more likely to talk now."

 

Keeps the bad optics out of play from R Senators going after Ford.  This is a great move by the R's if they can get her to agree to it.  

Actually this is a win for Dr. Ford.  The GOP has now officially backed off the bullshit Monday hearing deadline. 

Again, Dr. Ford has the leverage here. She can go on TV anytime and give her public testimony to the American people.  GOP does not want that and if she does that, it reduces her bargaining position.

They want the first crack at her in a hearing. She’s not going to accept this new offer straight up.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[pyrohornIII 4846]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

So pretty much nothing she asked for, aside from not in the same room?

Yep, pretty much you are right.  Got it moved from Monday, at least.  

Though as far as outside counsel doing the questioning, is that going both ways?   Is Kavanaugh being questioned by outside counsel as well, or just Senators?  

[Chrispy 132]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

This concern about DUIs in Texas didn't seem to stop Republicans from electing Kevin Brady to the US House.

I think it was the hit and run aspect that people found most alarming. 

[sachick 1189]

11 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

"Breaking now: GOP is offering to move the hearing to Wednesday and have an independent (read: probably a woman since every GOP senator on the committee is a man) lawyer question each of them, and they will not have them both in the same room. Looks like she's gonna talk, or at least is far more likely to talk now."

 

Keeps the bad optics out of play from R Senators going after Ford.  This is a great move by the R's if they can get her to agree to it.  

Yup, they don't have the balls to sit there and ask her questions because they know it'll appear like victim blaming.

[Dertyberd 394]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Actually this is a win for Dr. Ford.  The GOP has now officially backed off the bullshit Monday hearing deadline. 

Again, Dr. Ford has the leverage here. She can go on TV anytime and give her public testimony to the American people.  GOP does not want that and if she does that, it reduces her bargaining position.

They want the first crack at her in a hearing. She not going to accept this new offer straight up.

So they are saying that Ford and Kav will be interviewed by the independent attorney first, in public, then get their chance to grill her.  Or is this independent attorney will be the only questioning?

[hornbri 1511]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Actually this is a win for Dr. Ford.  The GOP has now officially backed off the bullshit Monday hearing deadline. 

Again, Dr. Ford has the leverage here. She can go on TV anytime and give her public testimony to the American people.  GOP does not want that and if she does that, it reduces her bargaining position.

They want the first crack at her in a hearing. She’s not going to accept this new offer straight up.

I don't know, the more she puts it off the more it looks politically motivated on her part. This seems like a pretty good chance for her to tell her story. The accuser should always testify first so the accused has a chance to defend. 

[happyfunball 481]

[Dertyberd 394]

They have the votes no matter what and if they can keep their old man mugs off of TV questioning her it's a fucking win.  Process doesn't matter anymore, just appearance.  All they have to worry about is Cruz looking like a bigger dickhead and anyone who is up in 2020.  

Edited September 21, 2018 by Dertyberd

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, sachick said:

Yup, they don't have the balls to sit there and ask her questions because they know it'll appear like victim blaming.

Really a chickenshit move by the Senators.  “We aren’t going to do our job because optics. “

Probably Ted Cruz’s idea since he’s the most vulnerable.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

So they are saying that Ford and Kav will be interviewed by the independent attorney first, in public, then get their chance to grill her.  Or is this independent attorney will be the only questioning?

From everything I’ve read Dr. Ford wants it to be public.

She doesn’t want to be questioned by outside counsel.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

No, I think the accuser should be heard completely so that the public and the Senate can assess his moral character.  You, like many others, keep conflating this with a trial.  It isn't.  Your last sentence is only relevant in that we are choosing someone to uphold that "basic concept" for all of us.  That's why the standard here should be much higher that it would be if Kavanaugh was a defendant in a courtroom.  We aren't deciding whether to take away his liberty.  We are deciding whether we should give him a job where he has the ability to take away the liberty of others.  If he was interviewing for a job at a private company, we'd already have told him "thanks, but no thanks" based on this.

It's not a trial, but it will involve two people being placed under oath with threat of perjury.  That seems more substantial than a garden variety job interview.   There is a lot more at stake than a secretary job working for Brisket and so even though we do not need a guilty verdict in a court of law I do think there should be more than a gut feeling by political opponents to remove someone from consideration. 

 

12 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

is being pulled over for suspected dwi enough for someone to lose their job? because that happens all the time. without a guilty verdict; merely the accusation and arrest is enough. you cool with that?

No.

 

12 minutes ago, sachick said:

1. We're not talking about ANY judge or politician. We're talking about a life time appointment to the highest court. Their conduct in all areas should be beyond reproach. If an accusation is made, it should most definitely be considered.

 

2. This is not a legal proceeding. Guilt does not have to be proven without a doubt. If accusation is credible and it "probably" occurred then he should not be confirmed because of #1. I'm sure there are plenty of other eligible candidates.

In general I agree with this.  But I think some are quick to say the accusation is credible.  What is that based on?  We haven't even heard her speak.  Is it merely because she has a phd?  I can tell you that I know many phd's that are pretty fucked up and outside of their field of expertise I don't know why they would be considered any more credible than non-phd's.  Is it because of a polygraph she passed?  Polygraphs are pseudoscience.  We might as well give her a tarot card reading.  

But I agree that she deserves to be heard.  I think both parties do.  But who will consider him as "probably" being guilty is probably going to miraculously line up with people's political affiliations.  

 

7 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

a rigged witch hunt!

If all it takes is an accusation then it has that element in common with witch hunts.  

 

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Aphelion is trolling.

I said quite clearly that an allegation alone - with no corroboration or other evidence - is not enough to derail a nomination.

But if there IS corroboration/other evidence, it may be.

Aphelion keeps repeating a straw man. Which is a logical fallacy. Which is a lie. Which makes aphelion a liar.

If you said that "an allegation alone - with no corroboration or other evidence - is not enough to derail a nomination" then we are in agreement.  There is no need for the gratuitous slander.  

[hornbri 1511]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

From everything I’ve read Dr. Ford wants it to be public.

She doesn’t want to be questioned by outside counsel.

Which gives weight to the argument this is politically. She wants the R senators to have to question her so they they can get raked across the coals buy the Ds. If she really just wants the truth to come out it should not matter who asks the questions. 

[Brisketexan 106952]

40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In short, a mere allegation shouldn’t be enough. Anyone can say anything. There has to be SOME additional corroboration/evidence.

 

2 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

If you said that "an allegation alone - with no corroboration or other evidence - is not enough to derail a nomination" then we are in agreement.  There is no need for the gratuitous slander.  

The evidence clearly demonstrates that my negative characterization of you was not gratuitous.

You are a liar.  A lying liar who lies.  That much is clear.

[Chrispy 132]

1 minute ago, hornbri said:

Which gives weight to the argument this is politically. She wants the R senators to have to question her so they they can get raked across the coals buy the Ds. If she really just wants the truth to come out it should not matter who asks the questions. 

This isn’t about truth. 

[Dertyberd 394]

1 minute ago, hornbri said:

Which gives weight to the argument this is politically. She wants the R senators to have to question her so they they can get raked across the coals buy the Ds. If she really just wants the truth to come out it should not matter who asks the questions. 

Problem with that is she asked for an FBI investigation so it doesn't look totally political.  I don't think it's her that wants the R's to look like shit, it's me.  I'm sure she still believes this is a serious thing put on by the Judiciary committee.  If it was serious they would take their time and do an investigation like she originally asked for.  They won't.   

[sachick 1189]

2 minutes ago, hornbri said:

Which gives weight to the argument this is politically. She wants the R senators to have to question her so they they can get raked across the coals buy the Ds. If she really just wants the truth to come out it should not matter who asks the questions. 

Actually, she wants the FBI to investigate. If not, she may want it public so she doesn't have to repeat her story or so that EVERYONE hears it coming from here so there is no doubt of what she said. And if these senators are so insistent on there not being an FBI investigation because the Judicial Committee can handle it, then the Judicial Committee should handle it. You want to ask her what she was wearing or if she had been drinking, then do so face to face.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

The evidence clearly demonstrates that my negative characterization of you was not gratuitous.

You are a liar.  A lying liar who lies.  That much is clear.

I never claimed you didn't say that.  I said "if you said A, then we agree."  You said "I did say A, therefore you lied."  This does not follow.  

Liar is a big accusation that you should not throw around so lightly.

[Chooky 13340]

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13740]

I would be surprised if there are really many questions from the GOP senators (via the appointed attorney) to Ford.  I'm sure there will be some to keep the testimony going forward and not turn into a 8 hour speech by Ford or the Dem Senators, but the GOP has zero benefit to ask many questions as they don't know the answers in advance, and they don't want to come across as attacking Ford. 

At most they will point out the weak areas of her accusation but I cannot see them attempting to get her to admit that she's lying and/or the attack never occurred.   It could backfire too easily in terms of the confirmation or the mid-terms.

[HenryJames 67423]

1 minute ago, Chooky said:

 

Is that why it blows through stop signs?

Edited September 21, 2018 by HenryJames

[Nice Guy Eddie 13740]

I think the more interesting part of the hearing will be the questions for Kavanaugh.  What's his answer when a Dem senator asks him if he wants the FBI to clear his name of this accusation?  

[Chooky 13340]

HenryJames is an assassin.

[Brisketexan 106952]

3 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I never claimed you didn't say that.  I said "if you said A, then we agree."  You said "I did say A, therefore you lied."  This does not follow.  

Liar is a big accusation that you should not throw around so lightly.

I don't.  You are a liar.  Either that, or you 1) replied to my original post 2) without reading it.  Being that you replied with substantive comment, it is reasonable to conclude that you did read it.  When you disingenuously couched your statement as an "if," when you knew that there was no uncertainty as to the matter, that was also a lie.

The only question is how many layers of lies you tell, not whether you tell them.

You are a disingenuous liar, and any further statements you make on this matter should be given their appropriate weight: zero.  That's what happens when you demonstrably burn your credibility.

[Dertyberd 394]

9 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

This isn’t about truth. 

To her it is. You seem miserable.

[hornbri 1511]

4 minutes ago, sachick said:

Actually, she wants the FBI to investigate. If not, she may want it public so she doesn't have to repeat her story or so that EVERYONE hears it coming from here so there is no doubt of what she said. And if these senators are so insistent on there not being an FBI investigation because the Judicial Committee can handle it, then the Judicial Committee should handle it. You want to ask her what she was wearing or if she had been drinking, then do so face to face.

They are going to pretty much ask what the FBI would ask. 

When and where did this occur? Were there any other witnesses that can back this up? Any other proof? If the answer to all that is I don't know and No then they are done, there is no way anyone could investigate more as there is no where to go. 

[Dertyberd 394]

Just now, hornbri said:

They are going to pretty much ask what the FBI would ask. 

When and where did this occur? Were there any other witnesses that can back this up? Any other proof? If the answer to all that is I don't know and No then they are done, there is no way anyone could investigate more as there is no where to go. 

Lulz.  The FBI would go out and question the other witnesses.  The committee isn't going to subpoena or question any of the other relevant people.  That's a big difference.  It's a crime to lie to the FBI, which they still convict people for.  It is technically is a crime to lie to Congress, but we've seen that no longer matters.  

[Hanrahan 1306]

Was this chick hot back in the day?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, hornbri said:

They are going to pretty much ask what the FBI would ask. 

You’ve obviously never been questioned by the FBI

[hornbri 1511]

1 minute ago, Dertyberd said:

Lulz.  The FBI would go out and question the other witnesses.  The committee isn't going to subpoena or question any of the other relevant people.  That's a big difference.  It's a crime to lie to the FBI, which they still convict people for.  It is technically is a crime to lie to Congress, but we've seen that no longer matters.  

What other witnesses? 2 of the 3 people are already being asked to testify, I guess they could ask the Judge guy to come in and I think he in fact would. 

[Incredulity 11879]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

No, he wouldn't be done.  You would support him using the "but Franken!, but Clinton!" model even if there was a video of him raping her.  Your favorite President has been caught paying off multiple women for inappropriate contact and got caught on tape saying he grabbed women in the pussy.  This is behavior you condone.  In fact, you support Kavanaugh largely because you long for an era when women had fewer rights and you want this behavior to be okay.  This is why you actually dislike Franken.  It isn't because Franken did inappropriate things.  Its because he found fault in himself and stepped down.  You want someone who both does and approves of doing inappropriate things.

Again, Franken was jettisoned as quickly as possible even though he was otherwise a champion of women's rights in Congress.  So its time for you to jettison Kavanaugh in favor of another judge with stone age social ideals who hasn't been accused of rape.  

This is completely unhinged.

Expecting that an accusation of sexual assault have some sort of verification isn't the same as condoning the behavior, nor is it longing for an era when women had fewer rights.

 

[bad_teammate 13561]

2 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

Was this chick hot back in the day?

15 years old. So... maybe go somewhere else with this act.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't.  You are a liar.  Either that, or you 1) replied to my original post 2) without reading it.  Being that you replied with substantive comment, it is reasonable to conclude that you did read it.  When you disingenuously couched your statement as an "if," when you knew that there was no uncertainty as to the matter, that was also a lie.

The only question is how many layers of lies you tell, not whether you tell them.

You are a disingenuous liar, and any further statements you make on this matter should be given their appropriate weight: zero.  That's what happens when you demonstrably burn your credibility.

1. I didn't read all of your post.  You write a lot (like me) and I skimmed it.
2. You have no idea how conditional statements work.  Saying "if A, then B" in no way implies that the speaker is suggesting that A is not true. I actually assumed that it was true.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The FBI would be seeking information in pursuit of the truth.

The Senator’s will be asking questions to cast doubt on her credibility.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/brett-kavanaugh-is-a-man-the-right-can-get-behind-1829225731

This is a pretty good article on why Republicans won't drop Kavanaugh even when there are 50 other judges they could nominate that would have the same end result. The most pertienent part: 

It’s a bit late for anyone not to have figured this out yet, but the skeleton key to understanding American conservatism is this: At bottom, it lacks absolutely any moral or ideological underpinning beyond the reactionary protection of moneyed white men—of their station, their wealth and power, and their egos. Its supposed ideas and abstractions are just a framework for spasmodic lashing-out against anything that can be interpreted as a threat to rich white dudes. It likes supply-side economics because the supply side is made of rich white dudes. It likes tax cuts because the taxes are mostly cut for rich white dudes. It likes cops and soldiers because cops and soldiers uphold a social order with rich white dudes at the top. It likes “traditional family values” because social, economic, and sexual dominion over women are the most traditional family values of all. It likes “Make America Great Again” because rich white dudes used to roll through society and over everyone else with even greater impunity than they do now. All of these things are just proxies for reiterating, over and over and over, forever, the power and security and primacy of rich white dudes.

[Brisketexan 106952]

Just now, hornbri said:

What other witnesses? 2 of the 3 people are already being asked to testify, I guess they could ask the Judge guy to come in and I think he in fact would. 

I investigate things for a living.

I would speak to her therapist (with her permission/release). 

I would speak to other people she identified as being at the party (not all of them, but the ones who would seem likely to have relevant information).

I would speak to any other person who she identifies who might have relevant information.

I would speak to Kavanaugh.

I would speak to anyone who HE identifies who might have relevant information.

 

If your interview of a person is "do you allege that he assaulted you?  You got any proof?", then you're the worst fucking investigator in the world.

[Dertyberd 394]

Just now, hornbri said:

What other witnesses? 2 of the 3 people are already being asked to testify, I guess they could ask the Judge guy to come in and I think he in fact would. 

That's a pretty big person to question don't you think?

The FBI has resources to do it due diligence.  The committee has every incentive to not do it's best to figure out if her allegations are true.  

[Brisketexan 106952]

1 minute ago, Aphelion said:

1. I didn't read all of your post.  You write a lot (like me) and I skimmed it.
2. You have no idea how conditional statements work.  Saying "if A, then B" in no way implies that the speaker is suggesting that A is not true. I actually assumed that it was true.  

You think you're being clever.

You're not.  It was literally the first line of text that I typed.

You just got pantsed by your lie.

And now we're all laughing at this:

[hornbri 1511]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

I investigate things for a living.

I would speak to her therapist (with her permission/release). 

I would speak to other people she identified as being at the party (not all of them, but the ones who would seem likely to have relevant information).

I would speak to any other person who she identifies who might have relevant information.

I would speak to Kavanaugh.

I would speak to anyone who HE identifies who might have relevant information.

 

If your interview of a person is "do you allege that he assaulted you?  You got any proof?", then you're the worst fucking investigator in the world.

That is fine, but I was responding to the "question the other witnesses" part. I agree those are relevant parties that could be talked to, of course any FBI investigation is going to start by questioning her. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13740]

It makes zero common sense to not invite (subpoena) the alleged 3rd person in the room.  Now perhaps he would say exactly what he's already said, or perhaps he won't.   And to be clear, he didn't exactly exonerate Kavanaugh in his public, not-under-oath statements.   And odds are that this guy would most likely not support Ford .  I assume that the GOP can't invite him because if he backed up Ford even a tiny bit, Kavanaugh is done.  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You think you're being clever.

You're not.  It was literally the first line of text that I typed.

You just got pantsed by your lie.

And now we're all laughing at this:

 

Answer the following simple question:  does "if A, then B" logically imply "A is false"?   

[Patrick Bateman 3982]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Collins brow is furrowed.  

I dislike her a lot.

[Chrispy 132]

29 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

To her it is. You seem miserable.

Miserable about what? This is a high stakes game of a Supreme Court nomination. 

[retread 2951]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Collins brow is furrowed.  

I dislike her a lot.

Actors on a stage.

[Mdhorn 6166]

1 hour ago, pyrohornIII said:

Just curious in how much of this have you researched?  I mean beyond the headlines and soundbites? 

My stance is he was a douchebag twerp who for whatever reason hung out with a bunch of like minded guys who would rather ridicule, humiliate or otherwise treat women as something lesser than men.  Her accusation just made everyone stop and question what he was like back then, and if he has changed.  

They want to keep hanging the mug shot of Beto out there as an indication of his character...but not this for BK?   I would bet if some person came up and accused Beto of drunk driving and smashing his car into theirs in a parking lot 10 years ago, Cruz and company would sure as hell be all over that. 

Back in the day, Sessions would have accused him of baseless stuff which he couldn't clear until after the election and the damage was done.  

[Js1 87214]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Collins brow is furrowed.  

I dislike her a lot.

And yet you can't stop sucking Flake's dick? He's just as bad!