Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

Just now, Mojo Hand said:

You can't get into the FBI without passing a lie detector test on mundane issues like whether you've used drugs before.  Why shouldn't it be used for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court? 

Now this is a great idea.  I think that we should strap them all into the chair during their confirmation hearing moving forward.  Cspan can put the results up as a scroll across the bottom. No need to strap in the Senators.  We know that they are all totally full of shit. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Now this is a great idea.  I think that we should strap them all into the chair during their confirmation hearing moving forward.  Cspan can put the results up as a scroll across the bottom. No need to strap in the Senators.  We know that they are all totally full of shit. 

They are also accountable to voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

So are we going to get testimony from this Mark Judge guy? 

Yeah.  Here's what he'll say:

Oh, I remember that!  That was the party at Steve's house.  Jim and Joe were there too.  The four of us used to get smashed together all the time.  And Steve told her his name was Brett.  Any time Steve was up to no good, or even ordering food he'd say his name was Brett because Brett was such a goody two shoes.  ... Yeah, Steve did that.  I was there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fozzz said:

Why does Bari Weiss have a public platform?  It's like she's paid to put forth the dumbest fucking opinion about every topic.  Is she paid to drive hate clicks?  

 

 

Yes. It should absolutely disqualify you from a seat on the Supreme Court.

The consolation prize is a seven figure partnership in a white shoe law firm.

Whatever will Brett Kavanaugh do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

I’m not going to go after you, Jimmy. I know how you like to get the moderators involved. 

What specifically are you referring to?  Are you concerned that you can't control yourself and will go outside the bounds of whatever the moderators deem appropriate?  That's not my problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

It’s possibe, but I’m going to need more to tarnish a man’s reputation and career. 

Lol. Whatever. There could be a video of it, Brett would deny its authentic calling it fake news, and then you’de want more to “tarnish a man’s reputation and career” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What specifically are you referring to?  Are you concerned that you can't control yourself and will go outside the bounds of whatever the moderators deem appropriate?  That's not my problem.

I’m not getting into those details, suffice it to say that you’re more sensitive than you portray yourself. And that’s ok. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chrispy said:

Just show me the proof, no need to get snippy. 

There is no proof. It's her word against his.

You believe him.

It's not going to be enough. He's finished. They're gonna cut him loose because the politics of Republicans peppering this woman with questions a la Anita Hill are terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Just show me the proof, no need to get snippy. 

Back to the reasonable troll act eh? 

The proof will be when she testifies, provides evidence of a lie detector test, and therapists notes. Brett will then refuse to take a lie detector test. 

then you will argue there’s no “proof” and around and around we go with the troll, the reasonable sounding troll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

There is no proof. It's her word against his.

You believe him.

It's not going to be enough. He's finished. They're gonna cut him loose because the politics of Republicans peppering this woman with questions a la Anita Hill are terrible.

That’s all it takes? What a time to be alive. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Back to the reasonable troll act eh? 

The proof will be when she testifies, provides evidence of a lie detector test, and therapists notes. Brett will then refuse to take a lie detector test. 

then you will argue there’s no “proof” and around and around we go with the troll, the reasonable sounding troll. 

Circumstantial at best. 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Like I said. Nothing will ever convince you since that’s your job. 

Sorry, that’s just not very convincing.

I see you’re negging all my posts, you’re such a crybaby. I love it. 

Edited by Chrispy
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Stros said:

So a liberal activist sends a letter to Dianne Feinstein claiming she was grouped by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, while they were drinking at a High School party. Is that correct?
 

5 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

No.

lol. Sorry I haven't read the last 10 pages. Just catching up. blah blah blah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stros said:

So a liberal activist sends a letter to Dianne Feinstein claiming she was grouped by Brett Kavanaugh 36 years ago, while they were drinking at a High School party. Is that correct?
 

So, you didn't have time to read about the story because you were handing out free candy to little boys near the schoolyard. Is that correct?

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

What are you saying then? Posters like Mojo and DD are saying the standard of proof is practically irrelevant.

No, we're saying that courtroom standards of proof are irrelevant.   That doesn't mean the allegations and denials shouldn't be evaluated for credibility by each Senator.   And they don't need to be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or even a preponderance of evidence, to conclude that there is enough merit to decide not to give him the job.   Because this is essentially just a high-profile job interview, and you don't need to have a court judgment to reject a job applicant who has some question marks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...