Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[Chuckie Finster 22571]

Can’t believe that in 30 years, we are going to have to listen to a SCOTUS nominee try and explain that his “” tweet was actually a reference to the peach and eggplant smoothie he just made.

[High Plains Drifter 10961]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

This kind of thing is why I don't like Booker.

 

Hate the game, not the playa.

[Nivek 16771]

On 9/26/2018 at 3:39 AM, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

On 9/25/2018 at 10:18 PM, Nivek said:

Had a conversation with my mother earlier. She doesn’t believe the accuser Ford, because she took so long. I mentioned some facts, which she wasn’t aware of. Then I asked her about Bill Cosby. She is happy he is going to prison. I then mentioned that the first accuser was character assassinated nearly a decade ago. She didn’t know about that claim. Then at first she didn’t believe the first accuser for the same reason, but as more came out. I reminded her that the Sandusky case included accusers long after the fact. It’s making her think and her support is wavering.

Her sisters are actually questioning each other’s loyalty to Trump.

 

Read more  

I've skipped around this thread so it might have already been addressed, but do Kavanaugh defenders think Cosby and Sandusky are innocent because it took years for allegations and charges to be made in those cases?

Off Subject and I missed this earlier.  But yes. The parallels of accusers coming forth after the fact many years later combined with the character assassination was working with her at first, and I pointed out the similar patterns and how she feels now about each incident.  She was made aware of Sandusky/Penn State after the fact and couldn't understand how people could support that piece of shit Paterno.  Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.   

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

23 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

Actually... not, not in the WSJ paper or online editions..

Shit like this infuriates me. People make up facts, cite a reputable source, people dont actually investigate the facts and then poof, a false narrative that is patently untrue is born.

Is it true that Lindsey Graham's meltdown immediately preceded the break when the Republicans gave Mitchell the boot?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

11 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

And it's important to get a vote on the record.

Why?

[Pancho 44183]

Republicans = rape and racism 

[David Dennison 18487]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Is it true that Lindsey Graham's meltdown immediately preceded the break when the Republicans gave Mitchell the boot?

Yes. They knew it was going poorly and the theatrics was their hail mary. It will work for the base, but it's going to cost them in future elections.

And it still might not work. We won't know until there's a vote or the nomination is pulled.

[Hank Kingsley 20594]

You know we're fucked when Graham's outburst is considered "heroic".  Republicans have created their own definition of courage. 

 

[High Plains Drifter 10961]

4 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Off Subject and I missed this earlier.  But yes. The parallels of accusers coming forth after the fact many years later combined with the character assassination was working with her at first, and I pointed out the similar patterns and how she feels now about each incident.  She was made aware of Sandusky/Penn State after the fact and couldn't understand how people could support that piece of shit Paterno.  Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.   

Might also use the Catholic church thing as an example.

[DDD Dad 14144]

Kennedy seems touched. 

And he reminds me of Mr. Haney.

[bad_teammate 13115]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

I don’t have time to fact check drinking games or names for farting. I’ll take you at your word. I guess he was dishonest during that hearing about some small details. Maybe were they “gaps” in his memory?

He says that he has never lost memory from drinking too much. (Another obvious lie.)

Do you think you hold men to a different standard than women with regard to their honesty and credibility?

Do you think that you hold liberals and conservatives to different standards with regard to their honesty and credibility?

Do you think forthright testimony should be a requirement for an SC nominee to be approved by the Senate?

[High Plains Drifter 10961]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

You know we're fucked when Graham's outburst is considered "heroic".  Republicans have created their own definition of courage. 

 

Pretty much the last word that comes to mind when speaking of any Senator, much less Graham or his ilk, is "heroic".

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Booker walked out.  

Just like the Russian ambassador At the UN when Israeli statehood was up for a Vote ???

[MixtyMotions 102]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Why?

Midterms.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10098]

49 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Would you lie about eating a donut to the Senate under oath and penalty of perjury? 

When I left the donut shop I saw more donuts being made, so how would you be sure I ate the last donut? Sometimes a lie is not a lie. Depends on perspective and the question asked.

To me he came off guilty as sin, but that doesn't mean he was lying.

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

12 minutes ago, sachick said:

How seriously is he considering a presidential run?

I think he's a more likely VP candidate. He's a politician so obviously the presidency is the pinnacle to shoot for, and if the money and polls and primaries take you there then great. But I think he'd be perfectly fine with being the VP candidate for whoever wins the Dem nomination. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by WhatTheBuck

[bad_teammate 13115]

 

[deech 2248]

This is truly a surreal two years so far in politics culminating in this rapists confirmation.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes. They knew it was going poorly and the theatrics was their hail mary. It will work for the base, but it's going to cost them in future elections.

And it still might not work. We won't know until there's a vote or the nomination is pulled.

"Peace with Honor" was a phrase U.S. President Richard M. Nixon used in a speech on January 23, 1973 to describe the Paris Peace Accord to end the Vietnam War. The phrase is a variation on a campaign promise Nixon made in 1968: "I pledge to you that we shall have an honorable end to the war in Vietnam."^[1] The treaty specified that a ceasefire would take place four days later. According to the plan, within sixty days of the ceasefire, the North Vietnamese would release all U.S. prisoners, and all U.S. troops would withdraw from South Vietnam. On March 29, 1973, the last U.S. soldier left Vietnam. On 30 April 1975, Saigon fell to North Vietnamese troops.^[2] While Nixon's campaign used the phrase, as a rhetorical trope it has a very long pedigree of use by politicians as can be seen by the list below.

Earlier uses

• 49 BC Cicero "Until we know whether we are to have peace without honour or war with its calamities, I have thought it best to for them to stay at my house in Formiae and the boys too."^[3]
• ca. 1145 Theobald II, Count of Champagne "Peace with honor" written in a letter to King Louis VII of France.^[4]
• 1607 William Shakespeare "That it shall hold companionship in peace/With honour, as in war."^[5]
• 1775 Edmund Burke "The superior power may offer peace with honor and with safety....But the concessions of the weak are concessions of fear." ^[6]
• 1878 Benjamin Disraeli (British prime minister) "Lord Salisbury and myself have brought you back peace—but a peace I hope with honour, which may satisfy our sovereign and tend to the welfare of our country."^[7] Said upon returning from the Congress of Berlin. Wags paraphrased this as "Peace with honour -- a

• 1916 Wilson Business Men's League "Wilson and peace with honor or Hughes with Roosevelt and War?" Part of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's reelection campaign.^[8]
• 1934 A. A. Milne (English writer) "'Peace with Honour' a denunciation of war" A. A. Milne#Biography
• 1938 Neville Chamberlain (British prime minister) "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is 'peace for our time.' Go home and get a nice quiet sleep." Said upon returning from the Munich Conference.^[9]
• 1938 Winston Churchill criticizing Chamberlain's appeasement with Hitler, commented: "You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war."^[10] Churchill's position was later vindicated by the German invasion of Poland, which compelled Britain to enter the war.

[David Dennison 18487]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

You know we're fucked when Graham's outburst is considered "heroic".  Republicans have created their own definition of courage. 

The outburst was for Republican true-believers only. Democrats and non-partisans see right through it. He didn't persuade anyone.

[DixonHur 11017]

12 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Yeah that seems just petulant to me

So you're saying he's SCOTUS worthy?

[Lat22 3974]

Vietnam.

[Hank Kingsley 20594]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

The outburst was for Republican true-believers only. Democrats and non-partisans see right through it. He didn't persuade anyone.

Obviously, but it's absolutely pathetic that it worked. 

 

[David Dennison 18487]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Obviously, but it's absolutely pathetic that it worked. 

Beta cuck incels love a good tantrum.

[Fudge Nuggets 19111]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If McConnell brings this vote to the floor and it fails, Republicans should immediately find new leadership because that would be political malpractice.

It won't fail.  We're proper fucked, well I shouldn't say we because I'm not poor or a minority.  Those people are proper fucked.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

10 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

Midterms.

Uh, if the votes are not there to confirm, not many want their vote on the record. 

Edited September 28, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Anastasis 23329]

How this could have, and should have, gone better.

1. Feinstein notifies majority when she receives the accusation.

2. FBI immediately called in to investigate and update the BI.

3. Results of investigation provided to committee. 

4. Closed door hearings with Ford and Kavanaugh and other witnesses if necessary. 

 

But no, not circusey enough. 

[Mojo Hand 4580]

9 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

When I left the donut shop I saw more donuts being made, so how would you be sure I ate the last donut? Sometimes a lie is not a lie. Depends on perspective and the question asked.

To me he came off guilty as sin, but that doesn't mean he was lying.

There are situations in which something was not technically a lie, but was misleading.  Kavanaugh's testimony was riddled with both forms of deception. Doesn't matter what you want to call it or how he rationalized it.   He doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Uh, if the votes are not there to confirm, no one wants their vote on the record. 

 I don’t think that’s necessarily true. The Republicans want the vulnerable Democrats to have to vote no before the elections. That would be a big get out the vote reminder for the base. 

[Aqua Buddha 14464]

7 minutes ago, deech said:

This is truly a surreal two years so far in politics culminating in this rapists confirmation.

They're demanding iron clad proof but we all know there is 40% of the population that would still want him on the SC even if he were on video tape raping a woman at knife point.

[bad_teammate 13115]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

How this could have, and should have, gone better.

1. Feinstein notifies majority when she receives the accusation.

2. FBI immediately called in to investigate and update the BI.

3. Results of investigation provided to committee. 

4. Closed door hearings with Ford and Kavanaugh and other witnesses if necessary. 

 

But no, not circusey enough. 

Feinstein should have revealed Ford against Ford's wishes?

[wildcat09 29146]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yes. They knew it was going poorly and the theatrics was their hail mary. It will work for the base, but it's going to cost them in future elections.

And it still might not work. We won't know until there's a vote or the nomination is pulled.

Dems have been saying shit like this for decades now every time the GOP does something abhorrent, yet here we are. This shit might hurt them in November and in 2020, but after that it will be long forgotten by the voters/nonvoters who swing elections. The American people have extremely short political memories.

[David Dennison 18487]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

There are situations in which something was not technically a lie, but was misleading.  Kavanaugh's testimony was riddled with both forms of deception. Doesn't matter what you want to call it or how he rationalized it.   He doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. 

Neither does Clarence Thomas.

Republicans will have two now.

Good job, fellas.

[Mack Tripper 693]

How this could have, and should have, gone better.

1. Feinstein notifies majority when she receives the accusation.

2. FBI immediately called in to investigate and update the BI.

3. Results of investigation provided to committee. 

4. Closed door hearings with Ford and Kavanaugh and other witnesses if necessary. 

 

But no, not circusey enough. 

The problem is that 1 would not have led to 2 so there’s no 3 or 4. The White House would have to had told the FBI to investigate and that would never happen.

[Anastasis 23329]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Feinstein should have revealed Ford against Ford's wishes?

Not publicly, but to the committee or at a minimum the chair, yes.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

1. Feinstein notifies majority when she receives the accusation.

Really?  You think that would have been wise? 

Did you not see the Republicans actively concealing anything potentially damaging to Kavanaugh?  

[Aqua Buddha 14464]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Uh, if the votes are not there to confirm, no one wants their vote on the record. 

Flake and Corker are a Yes but they're retiring.

Doug Jones -- No

Bill Nelson -- No

Joe Donnelly -- No

Jon Tester -- No

Collins -- Undecided

Murkowski -- Undecided

Manchin -- Undecided

Heitkamp -- Undecided

I find it interesting that Democratic Senators in tight races so far are voting no.  Not wanting to cross the base and must be some polling numbers that tells them they won't lose anything by voting no.  Manchin could vote no and still win his race.  Although, they might go in with each other, let Collins and Murkowski vote no, kill the whole thing and then let everyone else vote yes for political cover.  Neither Collins or Murkowski would suffer politically with a no vote.

[Anastasis 23329]

Just now, Mack Tripper said:

The problem is that 1 would not have led to 2 AJ there’s no 3 or 4. The White House would have to had told the FBI to investigate and that would never happen.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I am not going to let that get in the way of outlining one way that a functional judiciary committee could function in this case.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

How this could have, and should have, gone better.

1. Feinstein notifies majority when she receives the accusation.

2. FBI immediately called in to investigate and update the BI.

3. Results of investigation provided to committee. 

4. Closed door hearings with Ford and Kavanaugh and other witnesses if necessary. 

 

But no, not circusey enough. 

Except here is how it would have gone down:

 

1.  Feinstein notifies majority when she receives the accusation.

2.  FBI immediately called in to investigate

3.  Feinstein honors request of Dr. Ford to remain anonymous

4.  FBI.......?????????  Maybe they ask Kavanaugh if he attacked someone.  I'm guessing he says no.

5.  We end up with the same hearing as yesterday

[David Dennison 18487]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Dems have been saying shit like this for decades now every time the GOP does something abhorrent, yet here we are. This shit might hurt them in November and in 2020, but after that it will be long forgotten by the voters/nonvoters who swing elections. The American people have extremely short political memories.

Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace.

Robert Bork got voted down.

Newt Gingrich lost his speakership.

Republicans lose re-election or quit before they can all the time. Same for Democrats.

Democrats will be in this exact same position of power again. They will have the Executive and Legislative Branches again.

Rinse. Repeat.

[Hank Kingsley 20594]

 

[High Plains Drifter 10961]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

How this could have, and should have, gone better.

1. Feinstein notifies majority when she receives the accusation.

2. FBI immediately called in to investigate and update the BI.

3. Results of investigation provided to committee. 

4. Closed door hearings with Ford and Kavanaugh and other witnesses if necessary. 

 

But no, not circusey enough. 

Yeah, maybe just completely do away with the cameras in the hearing room. Allow reporters in, sort of like a trial.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

37 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

If true glad I don’t shop there. 

Better not be HEB. 

It's owned by Safeway now, but you should still be glad you don't shop there because it sucks. I got food poisoning from a tray of store-made enchiladas a couple of months ago, for one thing. And as my daughter put it when I took her in one for convenience sake about a year ago, "Dad, there's, like, no food here." 

It's a zombie chain at this point. 

Fun fact: when Sack's family owned it they didn't sell booze. Too sinful.  

[EuroHorn 3204]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Not publicly, but to the committee or at a minimum the chair, yes.

The committee Democrats could have opened their own investigation.  

[bad_teammate 13115]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Not publicly, but to the committee or at a minimum the chair, yes.

And what do you imagine the chair would have done with Ford's identity? Perhaps tell people outside the process like... uh... Ed Whelan, who would then go digging up dirt around Ford?

[David Dennison 18487]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Bravo.

[landman 559]

She had zero people back up her story.  He has multiple people saying it didn't happen, including a close friend of hers.

And based on this he's guilty?  Hope I never end up on a jury with some of you.

[bad_teammate 13115]

Just now, landman said:

She had zero people back up her story.  He has multiple people saying it didn't happen, including a close friend of hers.

And based on this he's guilty?  Hope I never end up on a jury with some of you.

Her friend said she didn't recall, not that it didn't happen.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you think forthright testimony should be a requirement for an SC nominee to be approved by the Senate?

I think forthright testimony should be a requirement for forthright questioning.  If people were to ask me about high school yearbook entries, the meaning of slang, and whether I drank too much at some college parties to imply that it is plausible I'm a rapist, then I would be as evasive as possible.  Now I understand the argument that one should answer honestly no matter what, but I personally wouldn't feel it my duty to give direct answers to such dishonest, slanderous questioning.  Very few people even asked about the alleged incident.  The truth is at the bottom of a bottomless pit in this case and this is merely a politics game for all involved.  

[David Dennison 18487]

1 minute ago, landman said:

She had zero people back up her story.  He has multiple people saying it didn't happen, including a close friend of hers.

And based on this he's guilty?  Hope I never end up on a jury with some of you.

This isn't a trial. It's a job interview. He's unfit for the job. He proved that yesterday.