Brett Kavanaugh, how to get a SC Nomination

[ryoder 1,590]

I've been saying for years that "conservative" no longer means what it once was. This opinion piece nails it on one paragraph.

As for “conservatism” these days, the term seems to have lost all meaning. It repudiates not only free markets and immigration, international leadership, science and the rule of law, but also the habits of mind and the norms of civil behavior that a democratic republic requires. It’s not so much that the GOP has collapsed but that anything resembling an intellectually solid conservative movement has disintegrated. These people are all about power. Kavanaugh is not an umpire but an operative able to select facts, shade truth and evade troubling data to reach a conclusion that his side wants. That’s the image of the left that conservatives used to hold. They’ve become what they loathed.

WaPo: ‘Conservatism’ seems to have lost all meaning
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/28/why-brett-kavanaugh-should-not-be-confirmed/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Phil1111 1,149]

ryoder

I've been saying for years that "conservative" no longer means what it once was. This opinion piece nails it on one paragraph.

As for “conservatism” these days, the term seems to have lost all meaning. It repudiates not only free markets and immigration, international leadership, science and the rule of law, but also the habits of mind and the norms of civil behavior that a democratic republic requires. It’s not so much that the GOP has collapsed but that anything resembling an intellectually solid conservative movement has disintegrated. These people are all about power. Kavanaugh is not an umpire but an operative able to select facts, shade truth and evade troubling data to reach a conclusion that his side wants. That’s the image of the left that conservatives used to hold. They’ve become what they loathed.

WaPo: ‘Conservatism’ seems to have lost all meaning
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/28/why-brett-kavanaugh-should-not-be-confirmed/

Well perhaps Jeff is not so much a moderate as he is an independent thinker in the lines of McCain. Calling out the trump cult takeover of the republican party. Has colored my opinions of him, favorably.

[ryoder 1,590]

Looks like the events of the past week have resulted in a lot of updates of the definitions in the Urban Dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils%20Triangle

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,989]

So now there is an FBI investigation, which per Trump will have "free reign" to look into the issues raised in his hearing - his dishonesty, his alcohol abuse, his sexual assaults.

But it turns out Trump was lying using alternative facts. The investigation will be artificially limited to the claim of sexual abuse, and barred from looking into Kavanaugh's other misdeeds. I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that Trump would not tell the truth!

=================
FBI's Kavanaugh investigation narrow in scope
By Eli Watkins, Jeff Zeleny and Josh Campbell, CNN

Updated 3:16 PM ET, Sun September 30, 2018

Washington (CNN) - The FBI investigation into allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is narrowly focused, top officials said in interviews on Sunday, with sources telling CNN that the White House is controlling the scope of the probe.

The investigation is the result of a dramatic day in Washington on Friday that by all appearances began with quick movement towards Kavanaugh's confirmation and ended with a pause in the process while the FBI steps in. Following the agreement for the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh, the focus has moved to how the probe will be handled, its ultimate findings and whether it will put to rest fears about a lack of due diligence over the nominee for the nation's highest court.
A source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN that the FBI would take its direction from the White House, not the Senate, and that the agency would interview a handful of people.
Kavanaugh's drinking history, the source said, which has come up in the allegations, is not part of the probe, which was being managed by the FBI's security division at the agency's headquarters in Washington.

While President Donald Trump declared Saturday that the FBI would have "free rein" in its investigation, people close to the matter say the scope is far more limited. White House counsel Don McGhan, who is the administration's leading advocate for Kavanaugh's confirmation, is overseeing the probe for the President and working closely with Senate Republican leaders.
===================

[headoverheels 333]

If a woman nominee whined and cried in a job interview like Kavanaugh did, she would not be getting the job. Neither should a man.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

If a man came forward after 35 years saying he had been molested by a priest he would be believed. Not ridiculed and questioned.

[billvon 2,989]

So far we've seen six people speak up about his behavior in high school and college, all of which indicate he lied under oath. Those people are:

Christine Ford
Deborah Ramirez
Julie Swetnick
Lynne Brookes
Liz Swisher
James Roche

Now we have a seventh - Chad Ludington.

Ludington:
=====================
I have been contacted by numerous reporters about Brett Kavanaugh and have not wanted to say anything because I had nothing to contribute about what kind of Justice he would be. I knew Brett at Yale because I was a classmate and a varsity basketball player and Brett enjoyed socializing with athletes. Indeed, athletes formed the core of Brett's social circle.

In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man's face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.

I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18 or even 21 year old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett's actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation's most powerful judges.

I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.

I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will however, take my information to the FBI.
=====================

Not only are these witnesses providing evidence of perjury that is corroborated by other witnesses - the last two have been men. And while the GOP has had a lot of experience in ignoring what women say, they will find it harder to ignore what men say.

[theplummeter 15]

I don't understand why they haven't ditched him yet. They can easily replace him with another pro life conservative who will vote the same without all of the baggage attached to his background.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

theplummeter

I don't understand why they haven't ditched him yet. They can easily replace him with another pro life conservative who will vote the same without all of the baggage attached to his background.

Because it would mean they have to admit defeat. They would have to admit they made a bad choice.

They would have to admit they were wrong.

And, worse than that, they would have to admit that the Democrats were right.

Not gonna happen.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DanG 1]

And they'd have to find another unashamed partisan who thinks there are no limits to presidential power.

Remember Trump is trying to place a potential swing vote in cases involving himself. Brent's his boy, quite obviously.

- Dan G

[billvon 2,989]

And now new evidence of his drinking to excess. No wonder they tried to ram his nomination through before anyone could look into his past.


============
Kavanaugh Was Questioned by Police After Bar Fight in 1985
Image

By Emily Bazelon and Ben Protess
NYT

Oct. 1, 2018

NEW HAVEN — As an undergraduate student at Yale, Brett M. Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a local bar during which he was accused of throwing ice on another patron, according to a police report.

The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. . . .

The report referred to the altercation, which occurred at a bar called Demery’s, as “an assault.” It did not say whether anyone was arrested, and there is no indication that charges were filed.
=============

[DJL 235]

theplummeter

I don't understand why they haven't ditched him yet. They can easily replace him with another pro life conservative who will vote the same without all of the baggage attached to his background.

Kavanaugh has a long history in DC and many people have spent a lot of time and political capital to put him in this position.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[mr2mk1g 10]

There's also this theory:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1046915870675619841.html

[ryoder 1,590]

Brett Kavanaugh’s Fox News Interview Is Now Testimony Under Oath
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brett-kavanaughs-fox-news-interview-731612/

In the Judiciary Committee transcript, the Fox News interview is placed retroactively under oath. A staffer, whose name is redacted, asks Kavanaugh: “Everything that you said on that interview, do you — do you affirm that today? Do you adopt that as your testimony today?” Kavanaugh replies, “Yes.” The SCOTUS nominee also responds in the affirmative when the questioner asks if Kavanaugh understands that entering his answers to Fox News as testimony means that he is “subject to felony prosecution if you’re lying.”

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,989]

Some things he said at that interview:

"I was never at any such party. The other people who are alleged to be present have said they do not remember any such party. . . . I was not anywhere at any place resembling that in the summer of 1982. "

So if he was at a party like that - he has committed perjury

"The women I knew in college and the men I knew in college said that it’s unconceivable that I could’ve done such a thing."

We already have statements from two people saying that it's the kind of thing he does when he's drunk. Including his roommate.

"And the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there."

The drinking age was 19 in 1982.

" . . .was there ever a time that you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened the night before?" "No, that never happened."

At least three people have stated that that did happen.

[DJL 235]

billvon

Some things he said at that interview:

"I was never at any such party. The other people who are alleged to be present have said they do not remember any such party. . . . I was not anywhere at any place resembling that in the summer of 1982. "

So if he was at a party like that - he has committed perjury

"The women I knew in college and the men I knew in college said that it’s unconceivable that I could’ve done such a thing."

We already have statements from two people saying that it's the kind of thing he does when he's drunk. Including his roommate.

"And the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there."

The drinking age was 19 in 1982.

" . . .was there ever a time that you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened the night before?" "No, that never happened."

At least three people have stated that that did happen.

I don't think any of that really has legs.

"Parties like that.." Easily a figure of speech in which he can say "that" means a party in which Ford was in attendance or including some combination of any specifics he could state or dismiss after the fact. Because he was at a party with four other people that was "like that" isn't grounds enough to fry him because of some literal comparison.

"The women I knew in college and the men I knew..." Easy to have a higher opinion of yourself than others do, especially if you're prone to blacking out.

"And the drinking age was 18.." He simply got it wrong.

" . . .was there ever a time that you drank so much that..." This is sort of paradoxical because by definition you're not going to remember what you didn't remember. Besides, nobody can state what another person didn't remember.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jakee 1,489]

DJL

" . . .was there ever a time that you drank so much that..." This is sort of paradoxical because by definition you're not going to remember what you didn't remember.

No, it's not. You know when you can remember getting to bed, and you know when you've woken up and don't know where you are or how you got there.

"Did you ever do XYZ while you were black out drunk?" could be a paradoxical question (assuming your friends, family or the police didn't tell you later what you did). "Did you ever get blackout drunk?" is not a paradoxical question.

Quote

Besides, nobody can state what another person didn't remember.

They could state if that person told them they didn't remember something (like in the email quoted), or if they were talking to them about the events of the evening and they had no idea what was being referred to.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,989]

Quote

This is sort of paradoxical because by definition you're not going to remember what you didn't remember. Besides, nobody can state what another person didn't remember.

Joe: Hey, Brett, that was a wild party last night! Did you get her number?
Brett: Whose number?
Joe: That chick you were talking to right before we left. She seemed into you.
Brett: Uh . . . .
Joe: You know, that blonde chick, with the blue dress? I think it was Jackie's friend.
Brett: Totally don't remember that.
Joe: What's the last thing you remember?
Brett: Well, we got some 'skis from the downstairs keg and we went outside. Then we . . . well . . . I remember getting home at like 2am.

Joe can then state that Brett doesn't remember talking to Jackie's friend.

[DJL 235]

I'm sure you guys have seen someone walk in after getting trashed and say, "Oh man, what happened last night?"

Even with a statement like that and the hypothetical conversation you posted you're still asking a witness to make an assessment of what someone's drunkenness was 30 years ago. It's pretty thin footing and fairly subject to someone becoming the subject of the rumor mill that they get black-out drunk.

Even K stating that he drank responsibly in college is pretty hard pin on him as a lie considering the frat-boy scale of drinking.

So yes, we can agree with the assessment that people remember K as a pretty bad drunk without K thinking that of himself.

Remember this DOES now become provable in a courtroom if it's a perjury issue and those requirements are much more stringent than our professional opinion.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[SkyDekker 1,465]

The text messages in which he is trying to shape the story of an issue he has stated under oath he didn't know yet is much more proof of perjury.

[DJL 235]

SkyDekker

The text messages in which he is trying to shape the story of an issue he has stated under oath he didn't know yet is much more proof of perjury.

With the girl he wiggled his dick at? Yes, if he said in court that it never happened (or this was the first he's heard of it) and there's proof of him acknowledging that it happened a while back... I saw a glimpse of that earlier. Can't find the link now.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Here is one of the links:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/02/kavanaugh-tried-to-refute-sex-misconduct-claim-before-it-went-public.html

[rushmc 23]

He will be confirmed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JoeWeber 2,720]

rushmc

He will be confirmed

Welcome back! I've missed my daily dose of stultifying commentary.

[kallend 2,026]

rushmc

He will be confirmed

Probably. The GOP is so anxious to get a right wing ideologue on the SCOTUS before the mid-terms that they'd confirm Jeffrey Dahmer if he were far enough to the right.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.