Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's lying about something.
She is telling the truth.
She was likely a mousey un popular girl of so so intelligence trying to hang out with much smarter, popular, domineering boys. Things got out of control, and she never forgot it. They forgot it soon after.
Most popular people NEVER remember the other folks. You see them two years later in the grocery store and they don't know who you were.

Girls of mediocre intelligence who are so traumatized they screw up the first two years of undergrad don’t usually go on to earn multiple graduate degrees from excellent universities.

And, she cannot remember if she gave a copy of her therapists notes to WAPO two months ago......there is something going on here besides intelligence or non-intelligence. Also, her statement says "me and four others" were at the party. This certainly doesn't sound like someone from an affluent background who has multiple degrees. Not knowing that the committee would have come to her, not knowing that her lawyers said she wouldn't fly, etc.

There is something wrong here--far more than the event described in the accusation.

This is deflecting and distracting. What is your point?

Based on your excellent sleuthing, she can't possibly have been rich enough to go to that elite private school.

The field that she is in is easy to climb really fast. That said, she is not as smart as BK. Funny enough, I think that she knows it. That is why she did not want to testify. That is also why she wanted to be "protected" from the smarter congressmen.
BTW, I am afraid to fly, and I only fly when absolutely necessary or to a GOOD vacation spot. I like to think that I will take only 20 more flights in my life, so I keep my list short. I hate the fact that I will have to fly next spring to settle something with my parents' estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he is a liar and a sexual predator, and he needs to be removed from the judiciary entirely.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but where is the evidence? His journal proves nothing.

It's the journal he presented as evidence to prove the party that Dr. Ford described never happened. Except the journal shows it DID happen. Contemporaneous notes are evidence, especially when the notes are your own.

At a minimum, it's proof of perjury.

I fully agree the July 1 event is potentially key. But your statement goes too far. It does not prove that. And it does not show the event at issue DID (your word) hapoen. Surely,the agents will take an extremely close look at this. It’s a big clue.

His own testimony was that he put everything in the calendar, so it's pretty good evidence. Perhaps he'll wriggle his way out by showing that particular event never occurred, but I doubt it.

But he crossed off when things didn't happen!!! lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:serious question for those who oppose BK because of the allegations (i.e., you'd support him even if you disagree with his judicial philosophy because he's qualified by the usual SCOTUS standards we've used, arguendo):

how much evidence should those accusing BK of rape have to provide to ruin his reputation and ruin his chances of moving to SCOTUS?

do you believe that BK must prove he's innocent beyond a reasonable doubt?

if it didn't happen, how would you propose BK prove this sufficiently to you?

finally, do you worry about moving toward a presumption of guilt standard in the political arena? And should this standard be applied equally regardless of whether someone is pro-Roe or anti-Roe?

It’s not about the assault now. It’s the lying. He’s lying about drinking. And his behavior when he drank. He lied and evaded the truth. Can’t have that in a SCJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder if Dr. Ford will be donating the $500k and growing GoFundMe money to the metoo movement?

Lawyer fees aren’t cheap. She would be wise to use that money for lawyers and security details.

Some to fellow victims would be nice.

The money was given to her. Start another GoFundMe as a general victim’s fund I’m sure you’ll get plenty.

Let her do as she pleases - maybe she’ll start a foundation or something. Don’t pressure her to toss it away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he is a liar and a sexual predator, and he needs to be removed from the judiciary entirely.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but where is the evidence? His journal proves nothing.

It's the journal he presented as evidence to prove the party that Dr. Ford described never happened. Except the journal shows it DID happen. Contemporaneous notes are evidence, especially when the notes are your own.

At a minimum, it's proof of perjury.

I fully agree the July 1 event is potentially key. But your statement goes too far. It does not prove that. And it does not show the event at issue DID (your word) hapoen. Surely,the agents will take an extremely close look at this. It’s a big clue.

His own testimony was that he put everything in the calendar, so it's pretty good evidence. Perhaps he'll wriggle his way out by showing that particular event never occurred, but I doubt it.

But he crossed off when things didn't happen!!! lol

Didn’t Jeff just post that the July 1 event was at a house in Rockville? That’s a good 10 miles from Columbia, the are where Ford said she was that night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Despite what comes out in the FBI report, no Dems will vote for BK anyways.

Who really thinks that this BS calling for a FBI investigation will change anything.

So if the FBI clears him, then it will be we can’t vote for him cuz abortion, gun laws, etc.. it will then be another set off issues.

How exactly would the FBI “clear” him? Not turning up anything new would surprise no one, and wouldn’t mean that he has been proven innocent.

He's presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. And I know....I know....it's not a trial, but the same principle applies: you can't prove a negative.

SHE has to prove that he's guilty, not the other way around.

Huh? She does not have to prove anything. She just has to be truthful. Even Republicans found her credible.

So are you saying that an allegation, even if the person making it sounds credible, is sufficient to ruin someone’s career? Do you realize what that opens the door for? She essentially has no corroborating evidence, and the people she identified as being in a position to support her accusation either denied knowledge or outright refuted it. I can’t understand how so many are willing to destroy this guy (or anyone) over an unsubstantiated allegation. I guess I do understand - you hate his politics and/or the person who nominated him.

What? Whose career is getting ruined, exactly? Cavanaugh has a lifetime judgeship, just not at the court he wants. You make it sound like he's about to go panhandle at the corner of 18th and K. He was fine before this nomination and he'll be fine after it. His children will retain their well fed look, I assure you.

That's what liberals tell themselves to assuage their guilt for destroying a man.

OK, then please, explain. In what way is his career ruined? Is he losing his lifetime judgeship?

In what way is he destroyed? Is he losing his job? His house? His family? His legs or arms? His freedom? His friends? The worst that could happen to him is that he won't get a Supreme Court seat. If this is your definition of destruction then virtually everyone in this country has been destroyed. Since so few people get to sit on the highest court of the land.

You know who is destroyed? That guy in Syria who lost his infant twins, wife and house in the chemical attack. That's the picture of a life destroyed.

Kavanaugh? Nah. He'll be fine.

Why do you assume that people will stop at preventing him from being on the Supreme Court?
There have already been calls to try and remove him from the court of appeals: https://now.org/media-center/press-release/brett-kavanaugh-should-be-removed-from-the-bench/

So no, the "worst that could happen" isn't just not getting to be a Supreme Court Justice.

And, if you think he's guilty, and if you think he knows he's guilty, then this is reasonable. Not just because of what he did - we might be able to excuse a teenager's brutish behavior from way-back-when - but because he lied about it, which indicates a lack of remorse as an adult that makes him unfit to judge others.

But if you think he's guilty, but doesn't know he's guilty because he was black out drunk or whatever your preferred scenario is, then this might not be reasonable. If we start going after all of us middle aged people for the stuff we got away with (remembered or not) in our youth, even if we perform our current functions well and seem like perfectly reasonable people, we're going to have quite a line at the guillotine.

And if you think he's not guilty, then it's not even remotely reasonable.

Holy moly. So if he sexually molested a four year old and was black out drunk - you give him a pass since he doesn't remember? Or is a 15 year old just less worthy of justice since it causes you less outrage?

Huh, you even bolded it but you apparently didn't read it. It might not be reasonable to remove him from his current job, which by most accounts he does well, if he was sexually aggressive with someone when he was 17. Might. It's worth discussing. Do we believe people can change? Do we not? Are there some actions which we will not forgive, period, and people who engage in them should never be allowed particular jobs, or any job?

In any case, reading is fundamental.

I did read what you wrote. I'm challenging you on substance and you have to resort to snark. The rest of your comment is supporting not holding people accountable based on the logic that everyone did it. Your follow up comment is more reasonable in terms of discussing what actions are forgivable and which are red lines. I would not be comfortable with a lifetime judge appointment, SC or lower, if someone hadn't shown an incredible amount of remorse and self examination. Yesterday, he displayed no such thing.

My initial comment in no way supports not holding people accountable. It suggests considering the consequences. We may be entirely comfortable with holding all of ourselves completely accountable for all of our past actions. However we come down on it, it's worth discussing. Not just in this one case, but how it would be applied more generally.

[Anonymous]

Maybe he would be able to land on his feet if he lost his current job. I don't know. I think it's wrong to assume that his current job is safe. People are riled up, and Kavanaugh is kind of a perfect target. He's a white man, prep school kid, drinking sporty party guy, seriously privileged, and a catholic.

Don't forget lying douchebag, long-time Republican dirty-tricks operative, Trump toady, and Man Who's Unafraid to Weep Like a Li'l Girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you assume that people will stop at preventing him from being on the Supreme Court?
There have already been calls to try and remove him from the court of appeals: https://now.org/media-center/press-release/brett-kavanaugh-should-be-removed-from-the-bench/

So no, the "worst that could happen" isn't just not getting to be a Supreme Court Justice.

And, if you think he's guilty, and if you think he knows he's guilty, then this is reasonable. Not just because of what he did - we might be able to excuse a teenager's brutish behavior from way-back-when - but because he lied about it, which indicates a lack of remorse as an adult that makes him unfit to judge others.

But if you think he's guilty, but doesn't know he's guilty because he was black out drunk or whatever your preferred scenario is, then this might not be reasonable. If we start going after all of us middle aged people for the stuff we got away with (remembered or not) in our youth, even if we perform our current functions well and seem like perfectly reasonable people, we're going to have quite a line at the guillotine.

And if you think he's not guilty, then it's not even remotely reasonable.

this, this, this.

If you raped someone in high school, you should be in jail. ( Some states have a SOL on sexual assault for crimes committed when the victim was an adult, some do not. )

This was not drinking or shoplifting, or getting in a fist fight. This wasn't stealing the rival school's mascot. Stop acting like sexual assault isn't a BFD. It is.

+1, what are you suggesting first pp? that sexual assault is "stuff middle aged people got away with in their youth?" Ford said they shut the door and turned the music up loud and that she called out hoping someone would hear her. The boys laughed.

Sexual assault is indeed exactly the kind of thing middle aged people got away with in their youth. But middle aged people also got away with physical assault. Shoplifting. Theft. Breaking and entering. Speeding. Illegal drug use. Drug dealing. Using prostitutes. Being prostitutes. Illegal consumption of alcohol. Name it, some or even many of us in our middle age got away with it. To what extent do we hold us all responsible now?

A SCOTUS pick is understandably held to a much higher standard.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t Jeff just post that the July 1 event was at a house in Rockville? That’s a good 10 miles from Columbia, the are where Ford said she was that night.

I was going by a LA Times article in which the author had visited the house in which he believed Timmy's family lived in the early 80s. But, the article has been modified and all of that was removed. I see on the author's Twitter feed that he later learned Timmy's family sold the house in 1979. So he is not sure where they were living in 1982.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you assume that people will stop at preventing him from being on the Supreme Court?
There have already been calls to try and remove him from the court of appeals: https://now.org/media-center/press-release/brett-kavanaugh-should-be-removed-from-the-bench/

So no, the "worst that could happen" isn't just not getting to be a Supreme Court Justice.

And, if you think he's guilty, and if you think he knows he's guilty, then this is reasonable. Not just because of what he did - we might be able to excuse a teenager's brutish behavior from way-back-when - but because he lied about it, which indicates a lack of remorse as an adult that makes him unfit to judge others.

But if you think he's guilty, but doesn't know he's guilty because he was black out drunk or whatever your preferred scenario is, then this might not be reasonable. If we start going after all of us middle aged people for the stuff we got away with (remembered or not) in our youth, even if we perform our current functions well and seem like perfectly reasonable people, we're going to have quite a line at the guillotine.

And if you think he's not guilty, then it's not even remotely reasonable.

this, this, this.

If you raped someone in high school, you should be in jail. ( Some states have a SOL on sexual assault for crimes committed when the victim was an adult, some do not. )

This was not drinking or shoplifting, or getting in a fist fight. This wasn't stealing the rival school's mascot. Stop acting like sexual assault isn't a BFD. It is.

+1, what are you suggesting first pp? that sexual assault is "stuff middle aged people got away with in their youth?" Ford said they shut the door and turned the music up loud and that she called out hoping someone would hear her. The boys laughed.

Sexual assault is indeed exactly the kind of thing middle aged people got away with in their youth. But middle aged people also got away with physical assault. Shoplifting. Theft. Breaking and entering. Speeding. Illegal drug use. Drug dealing. Using prostitutes. Being prostitutes. Illegal consumption of alcohol. Name it, some or even many of us in our middle age got away with it. To what extent do we hold us all responsible now?

It doesn't bother me that he did bad things in the distant past. It bothers me that he lied to Congress about it, and even lied about non-crimes like the thing about Renate in his yearbook. Shows he is dishonest. "Lie in a small thing, lie on everything" I think the lawyers say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he is a liar and a sexual predator, and he needs to be removed from the judiciary entirely.

Your opinion does not matter.

r

All you liberal fools keep setting each other off on how bad he is, ohhhh he has to be removed from his position, he is a rapist.....

So after hearing yourself and people like you write about this for days, how can anyone disagree with you?

So many other message boards in the country have majority people supporting BK. You should read there point of view as well on this whole issue.


It’s people like this on the board who were like Trump has no chance of winning the election. I know nobody who will vote for him.... and then he wins.

Get out of your bubble...

National polling on this from right to left, vehemently disagree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you assume that people will stop at preventing him from being on the Supreme Court?
There have already been calls to try and remove him from the court of appeals: https://now.org/media-center/press-release/brett-kavanaugh-should-be-removed-from-the-bench/

So no, the "worst that could happen" isn't just not getting to be a Supreme Court Justice.

And, if you think he's guilty, and if you think he knows he's guilty, then this is reasonable. Not just because of what he did - we might be able to excuse a teenager's brutish behavior from way-back-when - but because he lied about it, which indicates a lack of remorse as an adult that makes him unfit to judge others.

But if you think he's guilty, but doesn't know he's guilty because he was black out drunk or whatever your preferred scenario is, then this might not be reasonable. If we start going after all of us middle aged people for the stuff we got away with (remembered or not) in our youth, even if we perform our current functions well and seem like perfectly reasonable people, we're going to have quite a line at the guillotine.

And if you think he's not guilty, then it's not even remotely reasonable.

this, this, this.

If you raped someone in high school, you should be in jail. ( Some states have a SOL on sexual assault for crimes committed when the victim was an adult, some do not. )

This was not drinking or shoplifting, or getting in a fist fight. This wasn't stealing the rival school's mascot. Stop acting like sexual assault isn't a BFD. It is.

There are all sorts of sexual assaults.
Ford does not say he raped her.

In any case, attempted rape or rape, if he had been charged at the time, even if a judge had thrown the book at him which we all know never would have happened, he'd be out by now.

But he wouldn't be a judge, or in a position to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

While I would like that to be the case, I am not confident. If he had been charged and convicted as a minor, do you think it would have prevented him from being accepted to the bar?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t Jeff just post that the July 1 event was at a house in Rockville? That’s a good 10 miles from Columbia, the are where Ford said she was that night.

I was going by a LA Times article in which the author had visited the house in which he believed Timmy's family lived in the early 80s. But, the article has been modified and all of that was removed. I see on the author's Twitter feed that he later learned Timmy's family sold the house in 1979. So he is not sure where they were living in 1982.

Ah gotcha. Thanks for clarifying

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Del Quinton Wilbur is walking this back.

Interesting. In an earlier version of this article:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kavanaugh-ford-fbi-clues-20180928-story.html

It said that a reporter visited the house and talked to the current owner. The reporter even described the house's interior. Now all of that is gone with no explanation. That's really weird. Did the LA Times get punked?

Per Twitter, the dates on when the family lived in that particular house was wrong, so he is amending it.

[Anonymous]

Pp asking if we middle aged people should be held accountable NOW : this is why I would never run for public office. Because I WAS a part of wild antics in my younger years. I know it would be used against me. So I don’t go for a job where I have to have an FBI background check. Duh