Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

+1,000
He had been very calm and soft spoken during his interview with Martha Macallum (sp?), but that was several days before the other outrageous claims came out. By yesterday, I imagine it was all he could do to speak coherently without breaking down. I had to listen on the radio since I was driving, but was in tears listening to the anger and pain in his voice, trying to hold it together. I can’t even imagine what it must be like to be accused of things you didn’t do, and having no way to clear your name.

The man was accused of horrible things that he flatly denies. I don’t know who’s telling the truth here, but those of you who believe Ford without reservation, may I ask why? Every witness she has named has refuted her claim. Yes, even Mark Judge who did so in writing, under penalty of perjury. No one has corroborated her account. Why is it that you have such certainty that he did it? I don’t get this utter glee some of you have about ruining this man’s life - with zero evidence.

His rants betrayed his partisanship and hatred for fellow Americans who he will be asked to serve in the SCOTUS. His responsibility is NOT to the president or the GOP; it is to the Constitution. And that Constitution is as much as a "left" or Democratic Constitution as it is a "right" or Republican one. He was clearly unhinged as he threatened to take down the left. And over what?

There IS considerable evidence that at the very least, he demonstrated deep disregard for women in his life as a younger man. As a judge he has been noted to select women with a certain "look" - not based upon their talent, necessarily. A Devils Triangle is not a drinking game. Renate Alumnus is not a flattering comment. He belonged to a social group at Yale that reveled in disregard and sexual objectification of women. Yes, there are absolutely pieces of evidence that suggest Kavanaugh thinks little of women beyond their body parts.

He's a grown frat bro. Nothing more and totally unworthy of the seat he seems to think he's entitled to.

Sorry, but there has been zero evidence that he selected women with a certain "look" - that was all hearsay and innuendo. Did he select many female law clerks? Yes - TO HIS CREDIT. As for the ridiculous references to his yearbook, none of that absurdity has anything to do with the allegation and should not have even been brought up. What an embarrassment Sen. Whitehouse is. I don't blame Kavanaugh at all for being upset. I would be too if hammered with the kinds of questions we saw yesterday, that had ZERO to do with Ford's allegation. So pathetic.

Those "stupid" things had everything to do with Ford's allegation. He was accused of doing this reprehensible thing as a high school student. Looking at his yearbook entry is no different than him bringing his stupid calendars. Those yearbook entries speak to the kind of person he was at the time the alleged attack took place and represent his own way of representing himself at that time. He may have been "just a kid" but none of us believe the BS he was slinging about those yearbook entries. He presented himself as a hard partier in those entries. Why is this relevant? Because now he is flat out denying that he was that kind of partier or that he engaged in the kinds of exploits mentioned in that yearbook entry.

He's an entitled prick and a liar. All you PPs going on about his righteous rage are either suckers or just like the Republican senators that think your social agenda is worth putting a total asshole on the Court. Morally bankrupt every single one of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

Really? How about answering yes or no to yes or no questions?

How about NOT meanly asking a US Senator if SHE had a drinking problem? For which he apologized, so even HE recognizes that he did not handle himself well in at least that one exchange.

Sorry, but I know I would be mighty surly at the heavy insinuations that I had a “drinking problem” and that I tried to rape a girl. Especially if, you know, I didn’t and I hadn’t. There is no way he can win here. The Democratic senators - people like yourself - have already decided he’s guilty. It’s really pretty disgusting.

This, exactly. How can you possibly prove a negative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

+1,000
He had been very calm and soft spoken during his interview with Martha Macallum (sp?), but that was several days before the other outrageous claims came out. By yesterday, I imagine it was all he could do to speak coherently without breaking down. I had to listen on the radio since I was driving, but was in tears listening to the anger and pain in his voice, trying to hold it together. I can’t even imagine what it must be like to be accused of things you didn’t do, and having no way to clear your name.

The man was accused of horrible things that he flatly denies. I don’t know who’s telling the truth here, but those of you who believe Ford without reservation, may I ask why? Every witness she has named has refuted her claim. Yes, even Mark Judge who did so in writing, under penalty of perjury. No one has corroborated her account. Why is it that you have such certainty that he did it? I don’t get this utter glee some of you have about ruining this man’s life - with zero evidence.

+1

His published book says otherwise

His book makes no reference whatsoever to the allegation in question. And you know it.

Devils triangle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

+1,000
He had been very calm and soft spoken during his interview with Martha Macallum (sp?), but that was several days before the other outrageous claims came out. By yesterday, I imagine it was all he could do to speak coherently without breaking down. I had to listen on the radio since I was driving, but was in tears listening to the anger and pain in his voice, trying to hold it together. I can’t even imagine what it must be like to be accused of things you didn’t do, and having no way to clear your name.

The man was accused of horrible things that he flatly denies. I don’t know who’s telling the truth here, but those of you who believe Ford without reservation, may I ask why? Every witness she has named has refuted her claim. Yes, even Mark Judge who did so in writing, under penalty of perjury. No one has corroborated her account. Why is it that you have such certainty that he did it? I don’t get this utter glee some of you have about ruining this man’s life - with zero evidence.

His rants betrayed his partisanship and hatred for fellow Americans who he will be asked to serve in the SCOTUS. His responsibility is NOT to the president or the GOP; it is to the Constitution. And that Constitution is as much as a "left" or Democratic Constitution as it is a "right" or Republican one. He was clearly unhinged as he threatened to take down the left. And over what?

There IS considerable evidence that at the very least, he demonstrated deep disregard for women in his life as a younger man. As a judge he has been noted to select women with a certain "look" - not based upon their talent, necessarily. A Devils Triangle is not a drinking game. Renate Alumnus is not a flattering comment. He belonged to a social group at Yale that reveled in disregard and sexual objectification of women. Yes, there are absolutely pieces of evidence that suggest Kavanaugh thinks little of women beyond their body parts.

He's a grown frat bro. Nothing more and totally unworthy of the seat he seems to think he's entitled to.

Sorry, but there has been zero evidence that he selected women with a certain "look" - that was all hearsay and innuendo. Did he select many female law clerks? Yes - TO HIS CREDIT. As for the ridiculous references to his yearbook, none of that absurdity has anything to do with the allegation and should not have even been brought up. What an embarrassment Sen. Whitehouse is. I don't blame Kavanaugh at all for being upset. I would be too if hammered with the kinds of questions we saw yesterday, that had ZERO to do with Ford's allegation. So pathetic.

I think the intent was to show what the mind set was at the time the alleged event happened. What was he like then as opposed to now. I know this isn't supposed to a court room but it was certainly treated as one, but for the corroborating evidence.

You are forgetting that sworn statements and testimony are considered corroborating evidence, as are medical records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the clips I've seen and my experience with alcoholics, I'm going to posit that Kavanaugh is most likely a full-blown alcoholic who went from binge drinking and blackouts in his teens and twenties to steady, daily (probably all day some days) consumption to keep his addicted, altered biochemistry in check. I'm only guessing.

But first it would explain some physical things--his puffiness, extremely broken facial capilaries, and brown teeth. For moneyed folk who have the means for elective procedures, brown teeth are usually an indicator of something internal manifesting outward that can't be repaired through cosmetic dentistry, like long-term liver or kidney disease.

Second and most importantly, his behavior. He acts and over-emotes *exactly* the way an addict acts and emotes when they are forced into a situation where they *have* to be sober. Worse, he's forced into that situation because of a questioning of his prior behavior while intoxicated. Shouty, ultra-defensive, deflective, trying to seem "regular" angry except that internal gauge is broken so unable to recognize that he's coming off as rage angry, etc.

He also seems like someone who's yet to admit a problem or, worse, think he has one--so his rage never ends at having to be sober while presenting in a high pressure public forum. I bet he used to down lots of hard liquor, but switched to beer because you "can't be an alcoholic with just beer." Hence all the beer talk.

Oh my ...the man has been crying, not sleeping and traumatized for days. Anyone who have been accused of something like this would look traumatized.
Yeah I noticed the puffy face too , you have to wonder when was the last time he did a physical . I’d be curious to know what his liver looks like .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. No matter what you think about he assault allegations he demonstrated extreme partisanship, belief in conspiracy theories and an unhinged demeanor that do not suit a SC Justice.

Well, when you have one side calling you “evil” and stating that you will “destroy people,” it tends to have an effect on how you view them. He had every right to call out their games, their smears, their efforts to delay.

He was defending his reputation and his livelihood. I actually think he showed some restraint. I would have been a hell of a lot angrier had these false allegations been leveled at me.

Precisely. I saw controlled - and *justified*- anger. If my husband or son were accused of something that they flatly denied doing, I would fully understand their anger, frustration, and tears. Those PPs mocking Kavanaugh for becoming emotional obviously have no empathy whatsoever for someone trying to defend their honor while simultaneously being smeared in front of millions of people. Even if he is able to officially clear his name, his life will never be the same again. This is all that his kids will see on Google for the rest of their lives. Forget about all the great things he's done. He's being judged guilty in the court of public opinion. We might as well be back in Salem, 1692.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

Really? How about answering yes or no to yes or no questions?

How about NOT meanly asking a US Senator if SHE had a drinking problem? For which he apologized, so even HE recognizes that he did not handle himself well in at least that one exchange.

Sorry, but I know I would be mighty surly at the heavy insinuations that I had a “drinking problem” and that I tried to rape a girl. Especially if, you know, I didn’t and I hadn’t. There is no way he can win here. The Democratic senators - people like yourself - have already decided he’s guilty. It’s really pretty disgusting.

This, exactly. How can you possibly prove a negative?

By calling for a FBI investigation! In the hearing the Democrats REPEATEDLY asked him if he wanted one. Something like 19 times! (He declined every time if you were not watching.)

Why so scared?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I'm SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that when 5/6 of the main news networks run stories floating the idea of gang rapes by a nominee to a marginally attentive public that the nominee's "approval" drops. Just astounding. "


I haven't been following this closely, but I thought the allegation was that he lay on top of her fully clothed? How does that translate to "gang rape" do tell? Much ado about nothing it appears.

The “gang rape” is an accusation from a different party.

Thank you. And how credible does his/her accusation appear to be?

Sworn statement and she has multiple security clearances. She is risking perjury and losing her security clearances. So credible, although the GOP would tell you otherwise.

My guess is she'd trade that for attention and a cool 1/2 mil.

[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.

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.

Which party is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. No matter what you think about he assault allegations he demonstrated extreme partisanship, belief in conspiracy theories and an unhinged demeanor that do not suit a SC Justice.

Well, when you have one side calling you “evil” and stating that you will “destroy people,” it tends to have an effect on how you view them. He had every right to call out their games, their smears, their efforts to delay.

He was defending his reputation and his livelihood. I actually think he showed some restraint. I would have been a hell of a lot angrier had these false allegations been leveled at me.

Precisely. I saw controlled - and *justified*- anger. If my husband or son were accused of something that they flatly denied doing, I would fully understand their anger, frustration, and tears. Those PPs mocking Kavanaugh for becoming emotional obviously have no empathy whatsoever for someone trying to defend their honor while simultaneously being smeared in front of millions of people. Even if he is able to officially clear his name, his life will never be the same again. This is all that his kids will see on Google for the rest of their lives. Forget about all the great things he's done. He's being judged guilty in the court of public opinion. We might as well be back in Salem, 1692.

Save your faux outrage. He acted like a huge baby as a strategy. But what works for our entertainer/celebrity/POTUS doesn't work for a federal judge. He is unfit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

+1,000
He had been very calm and soft spoken during his interview with Martha Macallum (sp?), but that was several days before the other outrageous claims came out. By yesterday, I imagine it was all he could do to speak coherently without breaking down. I had to listen on the radio since I was driving, but was in tears listening to the anger and pain in his voice, trying to hold it together. I can’t even imagine what it must be like to be accused of things you didn’t do, and having no way to clear your name.

The man was accused of horrible things that he flatly denies. I don’t know who’s telling the truth here, but those of you who believe Ford without reservation, may I ask why? Every witness she has named has refuted her claim. Yes, even Mark Judge who did so in writing, under penalty of perjury. No one has corroborated her account. Why is it that you have such certainty that he did it? I don’t get this utter glee some of you have about ruining this man’s life - with zero evidence.

For me personally? Because I've grown up in a political climate where the Republicans I knew touted family values, yet the cheated, lied, hit their spouses, yet flat out vehemently opposed the "godless" Dems. I grew up around men who molested young girls, lied about it, said women who dressed a certain way were sluts, yet at home with their wives literally raped their wives and go on and on about Bill Clinton at every possible occasion. Because I was punched and told it never happened. Because I was molested and told that my 7 year old-self probably did something to deserve/bring it on. Because I have seen this circle repeatedly tell me it's not OK to destroy families, and had no problem destroying Hillary and Chelsea. Had no problem trying to destroy Obama's daughters. Because this party has no credibility, and therefore I assume the lying hypocrisy is just part of their MO.

If Kavanaugh is truly the upstanding choir boy he is, he should have come out and said: This nomination isn't worth more to me than my family, I withdraw. I request the attacks and character assassinations on a woman we presume is a victim of assault stop. While I know in my heart that I am innocent of this charge, I will not character assassinate a woman and ruin her entire life, as my life and my family aren't worth more than hers, and victims of sexual assault have suffered long enough in this country. Maybe this is a moment for us all to look inward and understand that we have failed victims of sexual assault, and that more needs to be done. Then, Kavanaugh, you'd have had my backing and my sympathy. Till then, you're just one more man who rapes behind closed doors, and then rants on about Dems wanting abortions.

The only person in this scenario who has truly had his character assassinated is Brett Kavanaugh. With no evidence, no corroborating witnesses, nothing - he is judged guilty of Ford's allegation. To you, he's guilty, even though there is zero proof or evidence. I honestly can't even believe that people like you call yourselves Americans. I certainly wouldn't wish what Kavanaugh and his family have gone through on my worst enemies.

Her allegations and testimony were credible enough to warrant the hearing and they warrant an investigation. If he is innocent, he should welcome the chance to truly clear his name with a thorough evaluation of witnesses etc. But he doesn't want that, because either he knows he's guilty, or he was so drunk back then that he can't remember it but knows it was possible. All his indignation and rage made it so evident that he is just mad that anyone would question him at all. His carefully cultivated image has evaporated and he's pissed.

I will agree with you that what has happened to his family is awful and unfair. Anyone who has harassed him, his family, Dr. Ford, or her family is just a plain out asshole. One of the horrific downsides of social media and the internet age.

[Anonymous]

I think it's interesting that so many of you have compared our lives today to something out of "The Handmaid's Tale," when what's going on with the Kavanaugh hearing is like something out of 1984. It's like we've devolved into a society in which the accused actually has to prove his innocence, rather than being proven guilty. I am honestly frightened for all of us, if all it takes to claim someone is guilty is simply saying so. So much for due process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did you watch his 30+ hours of testimony 2 weeks ago?
Yesterday he was there defending his reputation, his integrity and his livelihood. He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “danger to all.” He was facing people who had proudly and publicly said, “I believe her” before hearing any testimony. He had every right to be angry. He had every right to show his fury at these ridiculous charges.
And, no, he could not adequately defend himself without showing his outrage. Had he done that, you folks would still say, “Look... he really is guilty. An innocent man would have more anger.”
Face it - NOTHING he did would please you.

This. So much this.

I honestly cannot believe some people think he should have somehow handled himself better. The man is being acused of sexual assault. I expect him to be angry and show it.

He is not presiding over a court case. He is defending his reputation.

Really? How about answering yes or no to yes or no questions?

How about NOT meanly asking a US Senator if SHE had a drinking problem? For which he apologized, so even HE recognizes that he did not handle himself well in at least that one exchange.

Sorry, but I know I would be mighty surly at the heavy insinuations that I had a “drinking problem” and that I tried to rape a girl. Especially if, you know, I didn’t and I hadn’t. There is no way he can win here. The Democratic senators - people like yourself - have already decided he’s guilty. It’s really pretty disgusting.

This, exactly. How can you possibly prove a negative?

By calling for a FBI investigation! In the hearing the Democrats REPEATEDLY asked him if he wanted one. Something like 19 times! (He declined every time if you were not watching.)

Why so scared?

He wasn't scared but if he said yes it would impact the time line. What he said was that he would go along with whatever the committee recommended and that he had asked to be brought before the committee immediately but they stalled. He was not in a position to say yes, go ahead investigate. It wasn't an answer he could give. Why didn't the Dems ask for it as soon as they found out about the allegations? Why were they so scared?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's interesting that so many of you have compared our lives today to something out of "The Handmaid's Tale," when what's going on with the Kavanaugh hearing is like something out of 1984. It's like we've devolved into a society in which the accused actually has to prove his innocence, rather than being proven guilty. I am honestly frightened for all of us, if all it takes to claim someone is guilty is simply saying so. So much for due process.

Yea, Republicans really care about due process. That’s why they were so eager to have a thorough investigation before the hearing! Oh wait, it was totally within their control to schedule the hearing for when it was, and they chose to move full steam ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I fully agree. It's huge. Huge enough to perhaps GO TO THE LOCAL POLICE SINCE THERE IS NO STATUE OF LIMITATIONS.

This was addressed by someone upthread. I am not an attorney and have not researched it. Upthread it was stated the SOL was changed by law - increased - since the year of the attack so does not apply to this case. It would fall under the old SOL for which this attack would not be something that could be prosecuted.

Anyway, I don't think the bar for SC should be "crimes that you were convicted of" but rather much higher than that. It has been up to this point and I do think it should stay this way.

Does anyone think that Judge Kavanaugh has any business hearing cases like Brock Turner's, for example? Just no.