Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“My whole life, I've heard you're innocent until proven guilty. But now you're guilty until proven innocent....I say that it's a very scary time for young men in America"

-Donald J Trump ( the guy who still encourages chants of lock her up, who still thinks the Central Park 5 are guilty, and who insisted Obama was a fake American)

Why is it scary just for young men?

Because it has been the system for minorities and women and now it is being applied to white men and he wants to get angry white guys to the polls. You know the fathers that describe their son's drunken sexual assault of a women behind a dumpster as "20 minutes of action." It's scary for those guys because they believe (whether they realize it or not) in a system that relegates that their daughters to second class citizenship. We'll believe you if you say someone stole your car, tv, or robbed you at gun point but if you say a clean cut looking white guy sexually assaulted or harassed you we will believe him until you can prove with physical or eye witness evidence that you are telling the truth. That's America folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will be two outcomes: 1) 60% chance Brett is confirmed, or 2) Republicans gains majority in the senate by ridding red-state democrats in the mid term. McConnell needs to wrap this up quickly. I prefer Kavanaugh is voted down by Manchin, Flake and Collins. It will be a sure thing for them to lose their next elections.

Sorry dear. Flake has no next election. Collins will meanwhile lose her election if she votes FOR BK and she knows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor said she couldn't prosecute the case, not that it wasn't credible. She also made no comment whatsoever about his own testimony, even though she was pulled just after he perjured himself.

If you can't prosecute a case based on the details from the accuser, it's over. Unless it's about politics.

Wait, was this a criminal trial or a job interview?

Most rape cases do not get prosecuted, btw. My cousin immediately reported hers, and had bruises and other marks of evidence, but because it was a date rape and a small town out west where everyone knows each other, nothing happened. Prosecutor wouldn't do anything because 1) they had been dating and 2) it was he-said, she said. This was just 2 years ago.

Doesn't mean her rape didn't happen. Or that I would ever hire the creep who did it, just because he wasn't prosecuted for it.

It doesn't matter. An expert in the field determined that Ms. Ford recollection of events is full of holes. Imagine going on a job interview' where when asked about an alleged crime, you presented a report as extensive as the one Mitchell prepared to the employer, only to have that potential employer say "well I think you are guilty anyway!". You'd feel pretty angry.

And if you were the interviewer and told the interviewee you were not hiring him because you believe he is guilty of the crime, get ready for a world of legal hurt. There's a difference between whether or not an attack happened and whether or not your interviewee was the attacker

And, by the way? It's not a job interview. It's a constitutional process, and there's a huge difference between the two.

THANK YOU. Finally, some much-needed common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh is not on trial. Would anyone here honestly hire the man who ranted and raved and sobbed and lied about his yearbook entries at Thursday's Congressional hearing?
If you watched the full hearing and can still say, yes, then I'd be interested in your reasoning.

I think a man who has had his family threatened would be angry as hell. I'm personally glad he showed that side of himself, and as an employer, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, if he was my company's counsel, it would be beneficial. He clearly cares about the truth.

The whole yearbook think was simply silly. What the senators were trying to do is CYA by saying that Kavanaugh could have been too drunk to remember the assault. They saw Ford's testimony and are smart enough to have seen the cobwebs that held it together.

I replied to this post as well, but it seems my post was deleted.
I also posted a video of Matt Damon from a few years ago talking about he would go all “scorched earth” if he were ever accused of sexual assault. Ironically, he portrayed an angry Kavanaugh on SNL. A bit hypocritical, IMO.

Video of Damon’s interview starts at 1:20: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7BKpSL2YT8

I remember this interview and thought about it while watching the SNL opening. I really wonder how Damon would react today if someone falsely accused him of assault. Somehow, I do believe he'd be mighty pissed off.

[Anonymous]

After Trumps statement today and his put down of the reporter (another woman) yday we are heading into Handmaid's Tale territory. Not funny but horrifying. Are they trying to bring it all back to the 1950s? Trump is psychotic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI investigations seems to be a Sham. They have not interviewed Ford, because WH has instructed them not to. The reason might be that WH does not want Kavanaugh interviewed.

In addition Ramirez's attorney has issued a statement that FBI has not reache dout to the witnesses. WSJ put out an article today saying the FBI investigation would wrap up today or early tomorrow.

There is a big cover-up going on. Call your senators, Flake, Collins, Murkowski, Corker, Sasse, Manchin and HeitKamp now. This is ridiculous.

Love this.
You all wanted an FBI investigation. Now, you want to tell the FBI how to do the investigation.
Hate to break it to you - Kavanaugh HAS been interviewed. AGAIN.
The WH is not directing this investigation. The FBI decides how it is done. If you think that Trump has some “in” with the FBI IRT this investigation, I just laugh at you. You really don’t know how they operate.

Kavanaugh has not been interviewed again and the White House is absolutely directing the investigation. The fact there are material witnesses who have not been interviewed should be a red flag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“My whole life, I've heard you're innocent until proven guilty. But now you're guilty until proven innocent....I say that it's a very scary time for young men in America"

-Donald J Trump ( the guy who still encourages chants of lock her up, who still thinks the Central Park 5 are guilty, and who insisted Obama was a fake American)

Why is it scary just for young men?

Because it has been the system for minorities and women and now it is being applied to white men and he wants to get angry white guys to the polls. You know the fathers that describe their son's drunken sexual assault of a women behind a dumpster as "20 minutes of action." It's scary for those guys because they believe (whether they realize it or not) in a system that relegates that their daughters to second class citizenship. We'll believe you if you say someone stole your car, tv, or robbed you at gun point but if you say a clean cut looking white guy sexually assaulted or harassed you we will believe him until you can prove with physical or eye witness evidence that you are telling the truth. That's America folks.

*Rich* or connected white guys have gotten away with these sorts of assaults for years; it looks like the tide is turning and they are afraid they will be held to the same standards as everyone else.

[Anonymous]

It dawned on my this morning, after reading (again) the horrible bludgeoning of Butera because she dared question the sincerity in Ford's voice, that Democrats are out to simply silence through attack.

The phrase 'overkill' comes to mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

2

I've got a question about these allegations. Wasn't it Ramirez who spent six days calling, texting, emailing her Yale buddies to try and decide whether it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself? And in doing so, isn't it obvious that she actually had no real memory of Kavanaugh doing this?
I'm sure Kavanaugh was alerted by mutual friends to Ramirez's intent to smear him. How is it fair to say it's perfectly fine for her to drum up friends' support about something that may (or may not) have occurred (she isn't even positive herself, for crying out loud), but that Kavanaugh is not to talk to *his* friends about supporting him?

What an incredible double standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It dawned on my this morning, after reading (again) the horrible bludgeoning of Butera because she dared question the sincerity in Ford's voice, that Democrats are out to simply silence through attack.

The phrase 'overkill' comes to mind.

She did do a spot-on impression of Ford's voice.

[Anonymous]

Ramirez Facts:

Deborah Ramirez, who was contacted by the New Yorker, was reluctant to share her story since she had been drinking heavily at the time of the alleged incident. (Doubt)

“I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” Ms. Ramirez told the magazine. (Motive)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh is not on trial. Would anyone here honestly hire the man who ranted and raved and sobbed and lied about his yearbook entries at Thursday's Congressional hearing?
If you watched the full hearing and can still say, yes, then I'd be interested in your reasoning.

I think a man who has had his family threatened would be angry as hell. I'm personally glad he showed that side of himself, and as an employer, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, if he was my company's counsel, it would be beneficial. He clearly cares about the truth.

The whole yearbook think was simply silly. What the senators were trying to do is CYA by saying that Kavanaugh could have been too drunk to remember the assault. They saw Ford's testimony and are smart enough to have seen the cobwebs that held it together.

I replied to this post as well, but it seems my post was deleted.
I also posted a video of Matt Damon from a few years ago talking about he would go all “scorched earth” if he were ever accused of sexual assault. Ironically, he portrayed an angry Kavanaugh on SNL. A bit hypocritical, IMO.

Video of Damon’s interview starts at 1:20: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7BKpSL2YT8

I remember this interview and thought about it while watching the SNL opening. I really wonder how Damon would react today if someone falsely accused him of assault. Somehow, I do believe he'd be mighty pissed off.

https://youtu.be/J31kzUErvZA

Whoa it's almost like Matt realized he was wrong and managed to apologize. Don't think your boy Brett would ever be as conciliatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It dawned on my this morning, after reading (again) the horrible bludgeoning of Butera because she dared question the sincerity in Ford's voice, that Democrats are out to simply silence through attack.

The phrase 'overkill' comes to mind.

She did do a spot-on impression of Ford's voice.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

2

I've got a question about these allegations. Wasn't it Ramirez who spent six days calling, texting, emailing her Yale buddies to try and decide whether it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself? And in doing so, isn't it obvious that she actually had no real memory of Kavanaugh doing this?
I'm sure Kavanaugh was alerted by mutual friends to Ramirez's intent to smear him. How is it fair to say it's perfectly fine for her to drum up friends' support about something that may (or may not) have occurred (she isn't even positive herself, for crying out loud), but that Kavanaugh is not to talk to *his* friends about supporting him?

What an incredible double standard.

Because he's applying for the highest court of the land, so his behavior should be impeccable, unquestionable. Not problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“My whole life, I've heard you're innocent until proven guilty. But now you're guilty until proven innocent....I say that it's a very scary time for young men in America"

-Donald J Trump ( the guy who still encourages chants of lock her up, who still thinks the Central Park 5 are guilty, and who insisted Obama was a fake American)

Why is it scary just for young men?

Because it has been the system for minorities and women and now it is being applied to white men and he wants to get angry white guys to the polls. You know the fathers that describe their son's drunken sexual assault of a women behind a dumpster as "20 minutes of action." It's scary for those guys because they believe (whether they realize it or not) in a system that relegates that their daughters to second class citizenship. We'll believe you if you say someone stole your car, tv, or robbed you at gun point but if you say a clean cut looking white guy sexually assaulted or harassed you we will believe him until you can prove with physical or eye witness evidence that you are telling the truth. That's America folks.

*Rich* or connected white guys have gotten away with these sorts of assaults for years; it looks like the tide is turning and they are afraid they will be held to the same standards as everyone else.

This, right here in a nutshell, is why liberals are so rabid about Kavanaugh. He is a wealthy, connected, white guy and you want to see him go *down*. Doesn't matter if he's actually guilty or not - you just want to make an example of him.