Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

Feinstein

Booker

Hirono

Coons

Klobuchar

Harris

Blumenthal

Whitehouse

Leaky

Durbin

Collectively: Ffffffffff#@k!!!

This goes along with something I posted here last night, in response to another poster with the same theme. Obviously partisanship has obscured every other variable, because if focused solely on how Kavanaugh conducted himself in that hearing there is no chance he should receive any votes for confirmation, let alone 50.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-500-law-professors-condemn-010208585.html

Awsi Dooger wrote:

This goes along with something I posted here last night, in response to another poster with the same theme. Obviously partisanship has obscured every other variable, because if focused solely on how Kavanaugh conducted himself in that hearing there is no chance he should receive any votes for confirmation, let alone 50.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-500-law-professors-condemn-010208585.html

Kavanaugh said he was (paraphrasing) the target of a political hit job fueled by hatred for Trump, Clinton revenge, and high money donors.

Everything about the statement is true. I guess in your world a judge that tells the truth is not qualified.

celery wrote:

Kavanaugh said he was (paraphrasing) the target of a political hit job fueled by hatred for Trump, Clinton revenge, and high money donors.

Everything about the statement is true. I guess in your world a judge that tells the truth is not qualified.

Then Dems can add 4 more SCOTUS justices who all believe that Trump is a criminal, and old white racists need to be deported. In your world those judges who tell the truth are qualified.

My goodnesss. wrote:

My goodness. Look at all the effort being made in this thread by the pro-Kavanaugh crowd trying to make get a rapist on the SCOTUS.

When all is said and done, Kavanaugh's has ZERO would-be "witnesses" support his version of events.

None.

A nice summation of all the times Kavanaugh refused to answer questions during testimony is laid out here:

Blue = answered question

Red = failed to answer question

Ford = 100% Blue

Kavanaugh = Total failure, filled with red

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart

I didn't want to dissect the whole thing because I have other sh* to do so I looked at a few of the blues (F) and reds (K) somewhat at random. If I had more time I'd do the whole thing but they're counting blues for her when she flat out says 'I don't know' (technically telling the truth) and giving him reds for asking for a clarification (technically not answering). I'm not saying they're wrong, but you have to take their assessments of did/didn't answer with an ocean of salt. Vox is simply a hard-left leaning media outlet, no more.

I'm not pro either of these people, I'm not on either red or blue team, I tend to think this is something that *if* it happened it would literally be impossible to prove and if it *didn't* happen it could be a genuine case of 35 years of time weathering memories. What I cannot stand in either case is presenting "detailed analysis" (opinion being masqueraded as scientific method) in this manner. To me, it is worse than flat out lying because it can actually trick smart people (particularly those prone to confirmation bias, as literally EVERY person whose picked their political tribe and will fight to the death for it is).

Those of us that analyze data for a living and have to defend their findings to shareholders before decisions are made tend to actually look for this stuff.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Under penalty of perjury Dr. Ford’s ex-boyfriend said the following:

1 Ford never mentioned sexual assault

2 Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh

3 Ford not scared of confined spaces

4 Ford not scared of flying

5 Ford knew how to beat polygraph

6 Ford cheated on him/committed fraud

I'm not American so I do not care as much as an American (working in NY on a work visa for another year), however living here, I have paid some attention to the news.

This, however stands out to me for falsely signifying that she isn't to be trusted.

1 She didn't need to mention sexual assault for it to have taken place. I was sexually assaulted as a child and have never told anyone (not my parents, not my friends, not my doctors, not even my therapist or my long-term boyfriend) about it until just last week. And I'm old.

2 Again, no one needs to mention their sexual assault or assailant to signify it has taken place.

3 IDK, to me, this is also kind of meaningless. We don't know what someone else is feeling. I don't tell my boyfriend a lot of how I'm feeling at times.

4 Same as above.

5 This is the only one that is interesting if true.

6 This means nothing in regards to her having been sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.

Inside the Senate Minority Leader's Office late last night:

Schumer: We're gonna lose on Kavanaugh

Booker: If I could just give a another Spartacus statement...

Everyone (in unison): STFU!

Feinstein: I got another letter that I been holding onto for the last 2 weeks, from a classmate of Ford's but she partied even more than Ford did in high school

Schumer: Are you nuts? uh no Dianne, we had enough of your screw-ups. We need a new hit piece on Trump. The Ford witnesses are all failing. What to do, oh what to do?

Coons: I hear the NY Times is working on a decades-old possible tax case, involving Fred Trump.

Schumer: That's our Hail Mary! I'll call the editor.

Inside the Senate Majority Leader's Office late last night:

Grassley: We're gonna lose on Kavanaugh

Hatch: If I could just give a another Spartacus statement...

Everyone (in unison): STFU!

Cruz: I got a letter that I been holding onto for the last 2 weeks, from a classmate of Kav's that he partied even more than Judge did in high school

Grassley: Are you nuts? uh no Ted, we had enough of your screw-ups. We need a new hit piece on Ford. The KAV support letters are all failing. What to do, oh what to do?

Everyone: We hear that Fox News is convinced a guy who failed in a few dates to score with accuser #3, and has a bipolar II mental disorder, and is willing to make up any story you ask him to, to claim she was a sex-crazed slut!

Grassley: That's our Hail Mary! I'll call the editor.

itai wrote:

Kavanaugh supporters:

this sums nicely why he shouldn't be nominated:

Plus the fact that GOI likes him, which is all the evidence that is needed.

Bart O'Kavanaugh wrote:Wrote Bart O'Kavanaugh to PJ: “...warn the neighbors that we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us. Advise them to go about 30 miles...”

Bart is Brett wrote:

He signed the handwritten letter 'Bart' (in 1983), who "Brett' said, under oath, was a fictional character in Mark Judge's tell all book.

More lies by Kavanaught wrote:

Bart O'Kavanaugh wrote:Wrote Bart O'Kavanaugh to PJ: “...warn the neighbors that we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us. Advise them to go about 30 miles...”

Bart is Brett wrote:

He signed the handwritten letter 'Bart' (in 1983), who "Brett' said, under oath, was a fictional character in Mark Judge's tell all book.

Out of ammo?

No, she's a saint, she couldn't possibly be lying. She's a pillar of strength and honesty. All of her tales are well corroborated and make logical sense.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Testimony on polygraph:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/ford-testimony-lies-polygraph.jpg

I didn't think it was as long as it was going to be.

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!

More lies by Kavanaught wrote:

Bart O'Kavanaugh wrote:Wrote Bart O'Kavanaugh to PJ: “...warn the neighbors that we’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us. Advise them to go about 30 miles...”

Bart is Brett wrote:

He signed the handwritten letter 'Bart' (in 1983), who "Brett' said, under oath, was a fictional character in Mark Judge's tell all book.

Excellent post.

Hardloper wrote:

Out of ammo?

The sound of trumpette desperation.

celery wrote:

Kavanaugh said he was (paraphrasing) the target of a political hit job fueled by hatred for Trump, Clinton revenge, and high money donors.

Everything about the statement is true. I guess in your world a judge that tells the truth is not qualified.

Lmao its the ((((Clintons')))) isn't it?

Actually, there is substantial evidence the protestors that cornered Flake in the elevator were paid activists (making upwards of $180k a year paid for in part by George Soros) and made the whole thing up (good theater, nothing else). We already know that DiFi and the Dems purposefully withheld information from the nominating committee and then likely leaked it to the press. And then there is their darling little Manchurian Accuser, Chrissy Blasey Ford, who spins a plausible yarn to draw sympathy from the #movementoftheyear and is paraded out for all to see to demonstrate how evil republicans are and how they do not care about the plight of women just in time for the midterm elections. Completely uncorroborated, and now we are learning lied under oath about knowledge of lie detector tests, has co-authored papers about how to use yoga and hypnosis to alter memories, and made up a fear of flying. There is plenty of hard evidence to support the idea of a left wing conspiracy, and yet no substantive evidence to support claims of any of the accusers.

joedirt wrote:

darling little Manchurian Accuser, Chrissy Blasey Ford, who spins a plausible yarn to draw sympathy from the #movementoftheyear

Don't forget the sweet innocent little girl voice, she's proving to be anything but the sweet innocent.

"made up a fear of flying' - And a fear of confined spaces with single door.

This thread reminds of the classic LR cheater threads that slowly unravel as the sleuths and truth seekers slowly find more incriminating information.

Dude this is trolling or LARPing or something right?

It's ((((Soros))))) and the (((((Clintons')))))

IM dead