Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh

[TECSHARE]

Americans are going overboard on this Kavanaugh thing.  Do we not think that it is pointless bringing a school boy error after over 30yrs to hunt a grown man because he seeks a public position? Is there no one here who was never caught up with youth exuberance let them cast the first stone.

Jesus what a sad comment.

IF it turns out the allegations are true what a sad state the USA is in when the bar for youthful exuberance is set as low as attempted rape.  I assure you there are millions of men who have never tried to forcefully take a womens clothes off while covering her mouth so she can't scream, me being one of them.

The above is completely aside from the fact that it's a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, surely they could find a guy with great moral fortitude.

They already did. This is all a projection. The problem the Democrats have is not with his moral fortitude, they don't care about that, at all. It is his ideological fortitude that concerns them. Slandering him as a rapist is just easier to sell to dumb people who think they would never stoop so low to make false accusations, and they are happy to perceive anything that aligns with their confirmation bias no matter how illogical.

[Moloch]

Exactly, and thanks for pointing that out. You now begin to ask why the so much heat for something that happened over three decades ago when some of the present laws were not even there. Am against rape but I think this is more of witch hunting.

Rape was illegal 30 years ago, that law hasn't changed.

For me, the most important thing is the 5 times he lied under oath... Anyone who lies under oath should automatically be disqualified from being the highest judge in the land.  They have proven themselves untrustworthy.  You cannot appoint a known liar and expect them to judge others fairly.  That's stupid as fuck

[Quickseller]

Exactly, and thanks for pointing that out. You now begin to ask why the so much heat for something that happened over three decades ago when some of the present laws were not even there. Am against rape but I think this is more of witch hunting.

Rape was illegal 30 years ago, that law hasn't changed.

For me, the most important thing is the 5 times he lied under oath... Anyone who lies under oath should automatically be disqualified from being the highest judge in the land.  They have proven themselves untrustworthy.  You cannot appoint a known liar and expect them to judge others fairly.  That's stupid as fuck

When has he lied under oath?

[Moloch]

Exactly, and thanks for pointing that out. You now begin to ask why the so much heat for something that happened over three decades ago when some of the present laws were not even there. Am against rape but I think this is more of witch hunting.

Rape was illegal 30 years ago, that law hasn't changed.

For me, the most important thing is the 5 times he lied under oath... Anyone who lies under oath should automatically be disqualified from being the highest judge in the land.  They have proven themselves untrustworthy.  You cannot appoint a known liar and expect them to judge others fairly.  That's stupid as fuck

When has he lied under oath?

Did Brett Kavanaugh give false testimony under oath?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/did-brett-kavanaugh-give-false-testimony-under-oath/

Democratic senators allege that Kavanaugh gave untruthful testimony at his prior confirmation hearings for the appeals court, which were held in 2004 and 2006, and that those untruths disqualify him as a Supreme Court nominee.

They say Kavanaugh misled senators into believing he had no role in the selection and vetting process for three of Bush’s most controversial candidates for the federal courts: Jim Haynes, Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor. Democrats also say Kavanaugh misled the Judiciary Committee in 2006 about his knowledge of a Bush-era warrantless surveillance program run by the NSA to monitor terrorists.

The overarching accusation is that Kavanaugh whitewashed his record, distancing himself from thorny political events instead of owning up to his role. A cache of emails and documents that have been released over the last few weeks proves Kavanaugh did not tell the truth, Democrats say. At his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court this month, Kavanaugh rejected these allegations, and the White House has denied them.

“Time and again, Kavanaugh appears to have misled the Senate under oath,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed on Sept. 13.
(...)

Five Times Brett Kavanaugh Appears to Have Lied to Congress While Under Oath
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has made declarations under oath during his current and past confirmation hearings that are contradicted by documents from his time as a counsel to the president and staff secretary in the George W. Bush White House. Newly released documents have undermined Kavanaugh’s declarations to the Senate Judiciary Committee, contradictions that are drawing close scrutiny from many Democrats. Kavanaugh has denied making any misleading or false statements.

His role in accessing stolen documents: In 2002, a GOP aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Manuel Miranda, stole thousands of documents belonging to the committee’s Democratic staff. At the time, Kavanaugh was a White House lawyer working on judicial nominations, which included working alongside Miranda. In 2003, President Bush nominated Kavanaugh to his current position on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and his confirmation hearing was held in 2004—though he was not confirmed until two years later. During his 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh denied ever receiving any of the documents Miranda stole. Asked if he “ever come across memos from internal files of any Democratic members given to you or provided to you in any way?” he replied, “No.” In 2006, also under oath, he again denied ever receiving stolen documents.

But newly released documents show that Miranda had indeed sent Kavanaugh information from the stolen internal documents. The nominee continues to deny he knew the information was stolen. But he can no longer deny he received it.
(...)

[Quickseller]

Exactly, and thanks for pointing that out. You now begin to ask why the so much heat for something that happened over three decades ago when some of the present laws were not even there. Am against rape but I think this is more of witch hunting.

Rape was illegal 30 years ago, that law hasn't changed.

For me, the most important thing is the 5 times he lied under oath... Anyone who lies under oath should automatically be disqualified from being the highest judge in the land.  They have proven themselves untrustworthy.  You cannot appoint a known liar and expect them to judge others fairly.  That's stupid as fuck

When has he lied under oath?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/did-brett-kavanaugh-give-false-testimony-under-oath/

Democratic senators allege that Kavanaugh gave untruthful testimony at his prior confirmation hearings for the appeals court, which were held in 2004 and 2006, and that those untruths disqualify him as a Supreme Court nominee.

They say Kavanaugh misled senators into believing he had no role in the selection and vetting process for three of Bush’s most controversial candidates for the federal courts: Jim Haynes, Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor. Democrats also say Kavanaugh misled the Judiciary Committee in 2006 about his knowledge of a Bush-era warrantless surveillance program run by the NSA to monitor terrorists.

The overarching accusation is that Kavanaugh whitewashed his record, distancing himself from thorny political events instead of owning up to his role. A cache of emails and documents that have been released over the last few weeks proves Kavanaugh did not tell the truth, Democrats say. At his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court this month, Kavanaugh rejected these allegations, and the White House has denied them.

“Time and again, Kavanaugh appears to have misled the Senate under oath,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed on Sept. 13.

I am fairly confident those senators know that is about as a BS of a charge as the charges made by the women from CA and the women from Yale.

[Moloch]

Exactly, and thanks for pointing that out. You now begin to ask why the so much heat for something that happened over three decades ago when some of the present laws were not even there. Am against rape but I think this is more of witch hunting.

Rape was illegal 30 years ago, that law hasn't changed.

For me, the most important thing is the 5 times he lied under oath... Anyone who lies under oath should automatically be disqualified from being the highest judge in the land.  They have proven themselves untrustworthy.  You cannot appoint a known liar and expect them to judge others fairly.  That's stupid as fuck

When has he lied under oath?

Did Brett Kavanaugh give false testimony under oath?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/did-brett-kavanaugh-give-false-testimony-under-oath/

Democratic senators allege that Kavanaugh gave untruthful testimony at his prior confirmation hearings for the appeals court, which were held in 2004 and 2006, and that those untruths disqualify him as a Supreme Court nominee.

They say Kavanaugh misled senators into believing he had no role in the selection and vetting process for three of Bush’s most controversial candidates for the federal courts: Jim Haynes, Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor. Democrats also say Kavanaugh misled the Judiciary Committee in 2006 about his knowledge of a Bush-era warrantless surveillance program run by the NSA to monitor terrorists.

The overarching accusation is that Kavanaugh whitewashed his record, distancing himself from thorny political events instead of owning up to his role. A cache of emails and documents that have been released over the last few weeks proves Kavanaugh did not tell the truth, Democrats say. At his confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court this month, Kavanaugh rejected these allegations, and the White House has denied them.

“Time and again, Kavanaugh appears to have misled the Senate under oath,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed on Sept. 13.
(...)

Five Times Brett Kavanaugh Appears to Have Lied to Congress While Under Oath
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has made declarations under oath during his current and past confirmation hearings that are contradicted by documents from his time as a counsel to the president and staff secretary in the George W. Bush White House. Newly released documents have undermined Kavanaugh’s declarations to the Senate Judiciary Committee, contradictions that are drawing close scrutiny from many Democrats. Kavanaugh has denied making any misleading or false statements.

His role in accessing stolen documents: In 2002, a GOP aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Manuel Miranda, stole thousands of documents belonging to the committee’s Democratic staff. At the time, Kavanaugh was a White House lawyer working on judicial nominations, which included working alongside Miranda. In 2003, President Bush nominated Kavanaugh to his current position on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and his confirmation hearing was held in 2004—though he was not confirmed until two years later. During his 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh denied ever receiving any of the documents Miranda stole. Asked if he “ever come across memos from internal files of any Democratic members given to you or provided to you in any way?” he replied, “No.” In 2006, also under oath, he again denied ever receiving stolen documents.

But newly released documents show that Miranda had indeed sent Kavanaugh information from the stolen internal documents. The nominee continues to deny he knew the information was stolen. But he can no longer deny he received it.
(...)

I am fairly confident those senators know that is about as a BS of a charge as the charges made by the women from CA and the women from Yale.

I don't suppose you actually read the article(s) I posted?

They literally quoted a Senator... so... you really can't say that "senators know that is about as BS of a charge"... because that's contradicted by the quote you quoted (and apparently didn't bother reading)

[Spendulus]

....

But newly released documents show that Miranda had indeed sent Kavanaugh information from the stolen internal documents. The nominee continues to deny he knew the information was stolen. But he can no longer deny he received it.
(...)

How exactly would one know if a given "piece of information" was "stolen?"

[Moloch]

https://twitter.com/Tennesseine/status/1044285228376821762

A judge making about 200k was able to pay a 92k country club membership joining fee and put a cash down payment (that exceeded his ENTIRE STATED NET WORTH) on a house worth over a million dollars. His name is Brett Kavanaugh. And he was shady AF before anyone knew about Ford.

[Quickseller]

The Wall Street journal is reporting that the creepy porn lawyer has released an affidavit in which someone who hold a security clearance claims she was drugged in a party in 1982 in which Kavanaugh was in attendance.

Based upon the fact she hired the creepy porn lawyer, I am unwilling to give her any credibility at this time.

[Spendulus]

https://twitter.com/Tennesseine/status/1044285228376821762

A judge making about 200k was able to pay a 92k country club membership joining fee and put a cash down payment (that exceeded his ENTIRE STATED NET WORTH) on a house worth over a million dollars. His name is Brett Kavanaugh. And he was shady AF before anyone knew about Ford.

I think I'll believe six FBI background checks (having been through just ONE) way, way, WAY before I believe twatter.

[Spendulus]

....
They literally quoted a Senator... so... you really can't say that "senators know that is about as BS of a charge"... because that's contradicted by the quote you quoted (and apparently didn't bother reading)

You think you are going to find anyone that considers something Truey because 'a Senator said it'?

Oh, wait...

It was Truey because a Democratic senator said it.

Got it.

Sorry I'm a bit slow today.

[suchmoon]

Here is the other thing that stands out to me - aside from not wanting an FBI investigation - why did Kavanaugh set the bar so impossibly high by not only denying the allegations but also by denying underage drinking and even having sex? That contradicts some known facts, including what his friends and supporters are saying about that time in high school and college. Of course lying to Fox News is not the same as lying under oath but it's just stretching credulity for no good reason that I can see. That might come around to bite him in tomorrow's hearings. There's a chance someone's gonna bring up something like "are you sure you NEVER had a drink in Maryland before 1986" and we're gonna cringe watching him stutter through that.

The Wall Street journal is reporting that the creepy porn lawyer has released an affidavit in which someone who hold a security clearance claims she was drugged in a party in 1982 in which Kavanaugh was in attendance.

Based upon the fact she hired the creepy porn lawyer, I am unwilling to give her any credibility at this time.

How about a link in addition to your opinion:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-kavanaugh-accuser-says-he-was-present-when-she-was-gang-raped

[Flying Hellfish]

WOW I just watched (R) Senator Flakes speech on Capital Hill from this afternoon and I give him mad props for being what seems to be one of the only motherfuckers on either side of the aisle to be fucking reasonable at this point...

[Spendulus]

....
How about a link in addition to your opinion:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-kavanaugh-accuser-says-he-was-present-when-she-was-gang-raped

How about a link that doesn't try to download malware through a fake "flash update?"

I realize it's the site and not you, just saying ....

[Spendulus]

Here is the other thing that stands out to me - aside from not wanting an FBI investigation - why did Kavanaugh set the bar so impossibly high by not only denying the allegations but also by denying underage drinking and even having sex? That contradicts some known facts, including what his friends and supporters are saying about that time in high school and college. ....

I found this article which explains all of it quite nicely!

http://scrappleface.com/blog/2018/09/21/kavanaugh-victim-asks-delay-to-finish-final-draft/

[suchmoon]

....
How about a link in addition to your opinion:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-kavanaugh-accuser-says-he-was-present-when-she-was-gang-raped

How about a link that doesn't try to download malware through a fake "flash update?"

I realize it's the site and not you, just saying ....

Sorry, it's a shitty site but it's never done anything of the sort to me. Try this: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=651797758

[Flying Hellfish]

And now Trump has set the stage for being able to flip on Kavanaugh and stab him in the back! 

Trump said he could be persuaded to change his mind if Dr. Ford was credible (paraphrasing)...  He doesn't have the votes lmfao and he is not getting them!  Trump will be the first one to dump him if McConnell isn't really sure they have the votes after the hearing tomorrow!

There's way too much evidence now, the republicans lost this nom and Trump will cut Kavanaugh loose the second he see's it as in his best personal political interest he's already hedged his bet!

When Trump pulls the nomination (or Kavanaugh withdraws) the republicans and trump himself might just start to poll better something they need right now!

[suchmoon]

When Trump pulls the nomination (or Kavanaugh withdraws) the republicans and trump himself might just start to poll better something they need right now!

"I barely knew that Bart dude, he was just loitering around the White House for a couple of months and appeared on Fox News only once - how was I supposed to know he's a creep? Never touched me inappropriately."

Seriously though, McConnell is insisting they'll vote in the committee immediately regardless of hearing results. That's either very confident or very stupid.

[Flying Hellfish]

When Trump pulls the nomination (or Kavanaugh withdraws) the republicans and trump himself might just start to poll better something they need right now!

"I barely knew that Bart dude, he was just loitering around the White House for a couple of months and appeared on Fox News only once - how was I supposed to know he's a creep? Never touched me inappropriately."

Seriously though, McConnell is insisting they'll vote in the committee immediately regardless of hearing results. That's either very confident or very stupid.

Some times folks have trouble admitting when they're wrong! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErFKxSjpXdI
He's also "pot committed" on this nom and it looks like he's got one last shot to bully the holdouts!  Not a bad bluff either since it doesn't matter if/when he "folds" on Kavanaugh before the vote, no need to do it to early just in case!

[Spendulus]

....
How about a link in addition to your opinion:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-kavanaugh-accuser-says-he-was-present-when-she-was-gang-raped

How about a link that doesn't try to download malware through a fake "flash update?"

I realize it's the site and not you, just saying ....

Sorry, it's a shitty site but it's never done anything of the sort to me. Try this: https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=651797758

Thanks. That is better.

This is rather amusing. Facebook is censoring pro-Kavanaugh views.

https://www.halseynews.com/2018/09/26/amy-dryden-found-herself-banned-from-facebook-after-sharing-truth-about-cnn/

Facebook is currently doing everything in their power to protect CNN after they censored evidence that one of their producers, Scott Bronstein has been randomly calling people who used to attend school with Judge Brett Kavanaugh in an attempt to dig up dirt on the Supreme Court nominee that might be used to prevent his confirmation to the Supreme Court from taking place. Mark Zuckerberg’s social media platform took things a step further when they not only censored the evidence, but they deleted all media articles related to the evidence that was presented by Amy Dryden and banned Amy Dryden herself from the social media platform.