Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

Just now, cabowabo said:
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:
THE. NOMINATION. PASSED. OUT. OF. COMMITTEE. WITH. A. MAJORITY.
There's no more stalling for the Democrats.  Mitch will call a vote when he has the votes.   Any delay after next Friday is a lack of votes.
Anyone want to wager on the next stupid thing you say?

None of that shit will stop them from asking/demanding/protesting /crying like little bitches.

This might get him more Democratic votes.

That would be a great thing for the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Flake didn’t want to lose out on getting invites to give commencement addresses to Harvard and in his selfishness is extending the hell that Judge Kavanaugh and his family have to endure. The Flakes of the world need to get the message: “we don’t want you in our Party any more.” The best thing that Trump ever did was give Republicans the courage to tell the media to fuck off. Johnny Sack is completely correct: this farce has united the Never Trumpers, Ambivalent to Trump and Trumpkin Republicans. Kavanaugh and Graham displayed the conviction, fight and chops that I want members of my Party to take to battle. The Republican base has been energized and inspired. Watch out for the midterms.

weren't you voting for Beto just 2 days ago?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Do you agree that an FBI investigation that clears Brett Kavanaugh is a good thing for him?

For the eleventy billionth time an FBI investigation would be structured around "clearing".  Any detail they find out about Kavanaugh will be parsed to death.

"He got a parking ticket last week, OMFG"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gsoda3 said:

i'm late to this story-  heard a lot surrounding it but haven't been following.  has ford cited any evidence/witness to her claims?

No, so I think it is more about his lying about his statements yesterday.  He drank a lot and had to "put pieces back together"  like most people.  He denies this and lies about devils triangle and boof.  I remember as a young guy over embellishing about my sexual experience due to lack of, but I never wrote those down.  He should have said he was a teenager and did the same if that was the case.  It would possibly put his Supreme court nomination out of reach and make it a possibility of the event occurring (which can never be proved.)  .

 

There should be no place for a person on the court for someone who lies under oath.  Even white lies.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, B00M said:

This thread is hard to keep up with. I'm a few pages back so please forgive if already answered. FTR, I don't know if I believe her story to be accurate, but i know i don't believe him. I'm hoping a damning detail emerges so we can punt Bart.

However, since these are being cited as the "100% lies", how are we certain about Bart lying about "devils triangle" and "boof"? Did Judge define them in his book? Were they defined in BK's yearbook? Regardless of the modern day definitions, who knows what they meant in '82, especially in particular teenage social circles. While i believe he lied, i doubt he provably perjured himself.

 

You're obviously under 40.  Back in the 80's, "boof" meant butt fuck, and "Devil's Triangle" meant 2 guys and one girl.  It wasn't a regional thing either.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So after refusing to pursue a common sense FBI investigation of the allegations for a week, they decide to delay the floor vote by a week to pursue an FBI allegation to inform Senators voting. Really functional governance guys. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

i'm late to this story-  heard a lot surrounding it but haven't been following.  has ford cited any evidence/witness to her claims?

she has as much evidence that he did it as he does that he didn't.  who you believe is simply a matter of which party you belong to.  like i said, it doesn't matter whether he is innocent of the alleged crime, his demeanor when accused is enough to bar him from office.  he's childish, immature, slippery, slimy, sleazy, sweaty, evasive, dishonest, belligerent, angry, and vindictive.

what trips me out, is his primary evidence that he didn't do it is that he miraculously has he calendars from when he was 17.  does that seem normal to you?  if you don't have yours, you're fucked.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, B00M said:

This thread is hard to keep up with. I'm a few pages back so please forgive if already answered. FTR, I don't know if I believe her story to be accurate, but i know i don't believe him. I'm hoping a damning detail emerges so we can punt Bart.

However, since these are being cited as the "100% lies", how are we certain about Bart lying about "devils triangle" and "boof"? Did Judge define them in his book? Were they defined in BK's yearbook? Regardless of the modern day definitions, who knows what they meant in '82, especially in particular teenage social circles. While i believe he lied, i doubt he provably perjured himself.

 

I don't know what devil's triangle is but I damned sure know what "Boof" meant in 1983, when I graduated from high school.  Hint:  It's not farting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hammock said:

Today you will be accused of a sexual assault, by a person you don't know, on a day and a month and a year that cannot be pinpointed on a calendar, corroborated by 4 people that say the event never happened, your buddy that accompanied you in the assault says it didn't happen.

Now, open your wallet, go lawyer up, prove you're innocent, and come back and tell us how much you liked paying someone(s) to clear your innocent name.

Being on the Supreme Court is not a right.  He could just withdraw from consideration and save the lawyers fees, or just call for an FBI investigation to clear his name.  See how easy that is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

Love the race baiting by the left. Countless number of times Kav’s race brought up on CNN and MSNBC.

1.) I don’t think you know what the term race baiting means.

2.) your party—Republicans—race bait on a daily basis. In fact your party—and you—celebrate the fact that you are openly racist. 

3.) had salata for lunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Being on the Supreme Court is not a right.  He could just withdraw from consideration and save the lawyers fees, or just call for an FBI investigation to clear his name.  See how easy that is?

See how easy it is to derail someone's career with a 36 year old accusation with no evidence? 

 

So how many new allegations are going to come out during a week? I'd say probably two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hammock said:

Today you will be accused of a sexual assault, by a person you don't know, on a day and a month and a year that cannot be pinpointed on a calendar, corroborated by 4 people that say the event never happened, your buddy that accompanied you in the assault says it didn't happen.

Now, open your wallet, go lawyer up, prove you're innocent, and come back and tell us how much you liked paying someone(s) to clear your innocent name.

I can imagine that situation, and it would be horrible.   I do not want the responsibilities and burdens, or benefits, of being a public official.   But withstanding public scrutiny is an obligation and burden he has assumed.  It comes with the territory.   He could work at a law firm if he doesn't want the public to evaluate him for a lifetime Supreme Court job.   But you don't and shouldn't get that honor without a thorough public vetting, and this is part of it.  Because you are imagining, what if he is innocent, but the more important issue for the country is, what if he is guilty, and perjurying himself to get on the Supreme Court? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

Murkowski supporting flake per msnbc

 

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lisa Murkowski says she will support Jeff Flake.

McConnell seen under his desk shedding his skin in anguish.

 

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Murkowski supports Flake.

 

7 minutes ago, Mack Tripper said:

Murkowski supports Flake's position

 

7 minutes ago, Mapache said:

Murkowski says she will support Jeff Flake.....msnbc

i guess Murkowski supports Flake 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hammock said:

See how easy it is to derail someone's career with a 36 year old accusation with no evidence? 

 

So how many new allegations are going to come out during a week? I'd say probably two.

It won't be derailed if the FBI comes back with no new information. The only way his career is derailed is if they find reasons to derail it. He should welcome this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

So the Democrats will vote for Kavanaugh if he is cleared? 

I would hope not. He lied under oath. 100%. I don't care if it was a small lie, it was an unequivocal lie. Multiple lies in fact. He should not be a Supreme Court Justice. Before his testimony, I would have said yes. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Happy with Flake. It took him a while but this is the best move. If the FBI clears him he'll to be in the SCOTUS (elections and consequences and shit) and if they don't he'll be forced to withdraw. This should be a win for everyone but of course it wont be.

If the FBI clears him on all the allegations the dems still won’t vote for him. Waste of time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...