>>2921179

I never mentioned the Democrats because it is not relevant. So why did you?

What is relevant is Kavanaughs history working for the Bushes and his connection to Washington DC, Yale (Skull & Bones) and known corrupt individuals.

That is what I researched and wrote about.

>>2921277

How can it be redundant when the common opinion here is that Kavanaugh is an excellent choice for SC and I argue for the opposite?

Common opinion: Kavanaugh is good.

My research: Kavanaugh is evil.

How is that redundant?

And how redundant is the opinion that the Trump administration is setting a trap for Kavanaugh (you know, the good guy) and the Bushes? I've never heard of it before.

You are full of shit.

>>2921411

Sauce:

>>2919992

>>2919996

Like to hear your opinion.

>>2921497

>We don't know if Trump is setting up a trap. We got a lot of speculations.

And it will stay that way if research is buried.

>>2921565

Thank you!

I did some digging in the Estes family but did not include it. Too much to research.

The Kavanaugh family is not as exciting, but the Estes — OH BOY!

>>2921635

My research was primary on Kavanaugh and the fact that he has relations with the swamp.

Have you not thought about why DOJ appointed the equivalent of 100 full-time lawyers for weeks to review Kavanaugh SC nomination? That feels strange if they think he is a good candidate. Perhaps they want to introduce Kavanaughs documents as evidence, something they can do under the cover of reviewing him for SC.

>>2921515

So your reasoning is;

Ignore Kavanaughs suspicious history because Trump nominated him for SC?

AND

Ignore the fact that the Trump administration is known for trolling their opponents.

AND

Ignore the fact that a new SC can be nominated.

AND

Ignore the fact that the SC is now in stall until a new SC is appointed — Kavanaugh or another.

OR my reasoning is correct. Your call.