Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

Man I bet you'd have a completely different attitude about baseless claims of criminal behavior if this was a Muslim and he was being accused of hanging around terrorist organization, or sympathizing with them in his youth.

A former classmate comes forward and say in HS this dude was kinda cool with the 9/11 attacks, yet he has not 1 shred of evidence other than the guy is Muslim and had other Muslim friends at age 18. You'd $hit your pants.

So yeah, that "job interview" stuff is out the door... it's complete BS.

In a year it will be “Brett WHO?”

more bs please wrote:

I love pretend "moderates" who quote right wing talking points.

They certainly can't quote evidence, since they always refused to look at it.

Well, that's all they've got wrote:

more bs please wrote:

duhhh heerrr deerrr dohhh derrr hurrr durrr.

Dirrr!!! duhhh deerrr durrr dohhh deeerrrrrr!!!.

Repubs playing their constituents for fools wrote:

"Swetnick gave NBC News the names of four friends she said could corroborate her story. The Republicans made up a story that two of those people had not responded to requests for comment, a third was deceased and a fourth said he could not recall knowing Swetnick. Kavanaugh has called Swetnick's accusations a "joke.""

What does it take for you to see what is happening here? You are being PLAYED by Republicans. Wake up and THINK for yourselves for a change.

Most of the Republicans are so full of hate that they'll just vote in the worse person that they find.

Barf O'Rapist de-Kavanaugh wrote:

Repubs playing their constituents for fools wrote:

"Swetnick gave NBC News the names of four friends she said could corroborate her story. The Republicans made up a story that two of those people had not responded to requests for comment, a third was deceased and a fourth said he could not recall knowing Swetnick. Kavanaugh has called Swetnick's accusations a "joke.""

What does it take for you to see what is happening here? You are being PLAYED by Republicans. Wake up and THINK for yourselves for a change.

duuuhhh dirrr derrr dorrr dummm demmm!!!

yuseffasshat wrote:

Ever heard the old saying that you can attract more flies with honey than vinegar?

You sure have attracted a lot of them.

split it into two wrote:

It is time to split the country into two. Let the Trumpers who want it only their way all co-locate in a contiguous red area (ND, SD, NE, MT, ID & WY). They can create Trumpland with Trump voted in as their dictator for life. They will be required to build a wall completely around themselves to create their ideal safe place. They can then ban all imports. They will have to ban all exports to make that work.

dunes runner wrote:

That's a wonderful idea. We should do it immediately. There's no better time than the present!

start runnin' wrote:

Good... get ur'ass on down to the south, that you fought so hard to save.

Good grief, at least try to learn how to speak proper English. A typical retarded Republican,

trying to tell people how to think, and trying to tell them where to live, exactly what Trump's doing too.

This is exactly why this country should be divided in half geographically.

Outraged wrote:

You also believe her testimony that she needed an extra room as an escape route due to panic attacks?

That's what she testified to.

Even though it was built as an add-on for use as a rental?

That's how the Republicans twisted it.

Republicans - the party of "can't tell the truth."

not a pretend moderate. reread my post. Or don't. You're obviously a troll.

Dr. Ford WAS the evidence? Say it with me slowly: ACCUSATION. That's what she is. The source of the accusation. Hopefully you'll never be on the receiving end of a false accusation with criminal consequences. But if you are, I sincerely hope you aren't judged the way many on the left are judging Kav. He's been called a rapist by many, despite the fact that even if what Ford claimed he did was true, it's most certainly not rape.

Oh and also,

He did not lie. Can spell all this out for you if you're too lazy or dense to look it up.

uncontrolled rage? Try being accused publicly of sexual assault. If you didn't do it, rage is a pretty normal response.

The rest of your tinfoil hat nonsense I couldn't be bothered to look up.

And he wouldn't "still remain an appeals court judge". He'd remain an appeals court judge with his name forever besmirched. Robert Bork's name was turned into a verb, and he never made it on the Supreme Court.

not sure why I'm arguing with you. You're either a troll, or hopelessly stupid. Just habit I guess.

Presumer of innocence wrote:

Democrats insist that it is acceptable to assassinate unborn human beings; compared to that, assassinating an innocent person's character is no big deal.

Even assassination of born folks is OK with some Dems (presuming the Democrat Party is what team refers to):

Repubs playing their constituents for fools wrote:

"Swetnick gave NBC News the names of four friends she said could corroborate her story. The Republicans made up a story that two of those people had not responded to requests for comment, a third was deceased and a fourth said he could not recall knowing Swetnick. Kavanaugh has called Swetnick's accusations a "joke.""

What does it take for you to see what is happening here? You are being PLAYED by Republicans. Wake up and THINK for yourselves for a change.

Republicans didn't make that up, that's exactly what they reported on the NBC interview!

the real atticus wrote:

I'm sorry was it a trial? The OP brought up the presumption of innocence which is a tenant of our TRIAL system. So do use terms only when they help prove a point but ignore them when they don't. It's dishonest. (it's also especially insulting when only rich white people are given the presumption of innocence.)

I had you figured out as an entitled white mail Trumper from the jump. Thanks for proving it.

I have no entitlement, I'm mostly white, I'm not mail, and I'm not a Trumper. I'll round you up to 25%.

The OP brought up the presumption of innocence which is a tenant of our TRIAL system

If this is a reference to me, again you're wrong. I didn't specifically bring up presumption of innocence in legal terms, I replied to someone who said something along the lines of "he didn't convince me he didn't do it" with a statement about not needing to prove a claim false for to definitively prove the claim didn't happen. All legal jargon and proceedings aside, this argument stand on its own.

But I see you failed to answer my question which is, you still see her as a credible 'witness' (I'm not sure the alleged victim counts as a witness, you seem to be Mr Law Knowledge so you tell me) after she stated under oath that her second front door was installed as an escape route because she was having panic attacks related to the alleged incident? Then we find out later that it was an add-on so she could rent the space out? Enlighten me how you reconcile this.

More lies by Republicans wrote:

Outraged wrote:

You also believe her testimony that she needed an extra room as an escape route due to panic attacks?

That's what she testified to.

Even though it was built as an add-on for use as a rental?

That's how the Republicans twisted it.

Republicans - the party of "can't tell the truth."

I'm not sure what you mean by "the republicans" but it was clearly being used as a rental space. Documented. If you have panic attacks due to feeling unsafe, is it reasonable to bring strangers into your house? This front door thing is very clearly a lie, I don't see how there's any other way to reconcile it.

This thread LIVES!

Republicans eat their own.

Bret Baier, of Fox News, said that SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts has referred allegations of judicial misconduct claims against Kavanaugh to outside judges for investigation.

Judge Karen Henderson, a Bush appointee, sent more than a dozen misconduct complaints to the Roberts after determining they were substantive enough that they needed to be investigated by judges outside the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. (Kavanaugh serving as a judge on that court).

“Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is asking federal judges outside the beltway to investigate complaints over statements made by now-Justice Brett Kananaugh during his contentious nomination,” Bret Baier reported Wednesday.

A real investigation or a faux investigation like the FBI did? No chance he gets impeached in this environment, so what is the point?