Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford's ex-boyfriend's letter is here:
https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1047293294567456770

He says he was with her from 1992 to 1998 until she cheated on him so he broke up with her. He says that over the course of a year after they broke up, she'd run up $600 on a credit card that he says that he took her name off of.

He says that she explained to a friend how polygraphs worked when the friend was going to take one for a background check and helped the friend be less nervous when she took one.

He also says she never told him about a sexual assault, a fear of flying, or a discomfort around enclosed spaces.

It's a data point, for sure. Still, I think she's credible. Upending your life and completely fabricating a story to get a free polygraph test seems like a stretch.

That's not news. She never said to whom she disclosed her assault. The other stuff is just repetition of right wing "gotcha" WRT to the fear of flying and door. It's like he reads Russian troll info.

FWIW, my wife's fear of flying developed gradually. When I first met her, she was fine with it.

I love all the Ford apologists here. No matter what comes out about her, her testimony, or her background (which we know very little about), you all have an excuse.
The main one is ...”It is not uncommon for a sexual assault victim to <fill in the blank>. Now, you are making excuses for the contradictions in her testimony as outlined in her former boyfriend’s letter. It is actually kind of amusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After all that has come out in the past couple weeks, I have changed my mind about Dr. Ford and her testimony.

I have thought all along that she had a case of mistaken identify because of trauma she suffered as a youth.

I don’t believe that any longer. I now believe she is making it all up. Why did she do this? I don’t know. But, because she first revealed this in couple’s therapy, she may have been desperate for an reason to attribute her behavior to, and this was an easy explanation. And, as the lie went on, it became more complicated, but she went with the lie to save her marriage.

Just my thoughts.

It would be great if you could hold yourself to the same standard that you hold Dr. Ford to regarding knowing every detail to prove credibility. But since you don't know why she would make this up, I can't take you seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After all that has come out in the past couple weeks, I have changed my mind about Dr. Ford and her testimony.

I have thought all along that she had a case of mistaken identify because of trauma she suffered as a youth.

I don’t believe that any longer. I now believe she is making it all up. Why did she do this? I don’t know. But, because she first revealed this in couple’s therapy, she may have been desperate for an reason to attribute her behavior to, and this was an easy explanation. And, as the lie went on, it became more complicated, but she went with the lie to save her marriage.

Just my thoughts.

From the moment her redacted letter was published, you thought she was mistaken about Kavanaugh but was right about Mark Judge? Or did you only think this after Kavanaugh began to float the idea of mistaken identity, after Whalen came up with the elaborate doppelganger theory?

I thought it from the moment she made her allegations and Kavanaugh proclaimed his innocence. Even before Kavanaugh said anything about mistaken identity. The Whelan stuff is crap.

But, not any more. I think she is lying. And, really good at it. I think her psychology training has helped with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only been two days of FBI investigation. Imagine what else is going to come out.

Your guy is TOAST. Trump hates drunks!

The FBI is wrapping up. They're just about done.

Highly unlikely. But in any event, The New York Times and other investigative media outlets are still very busy and keep exposing him as a liar - forget the sexual assault charges. The country is finding out he is unfit and he now has the lowest public approval rating of any SC nominee ever.

I read the NY Times every day and am truly shocked that such an unbiased news source would continue to stay busy trying to find anything they can that might possibly bring him down. Shocked!

+1
They are gleefully looking under any and every stone, trying to manufacture something where there is nothing. I knew NYT was left-leaning, but this is absurd. Really detracts from whatever credibility they had left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy Smoke. Just read the beach rental letter. That has to be fake. Is it fake? "Bart"? "Welcomed with open _________"? FFFF. OMG. OMG. Where did they get this letter? Is it really from 1983?

I know, I would like to see that corroborated somewhere else, too. It just hits too many of the same notes -“fffff” “Bart,” etc. If it’s real though

It is real.

Source? Who hung onto it all these years? Who supplied it to the media?

I'm guessing Mark Judge and his lawyer.

It'll be great when this is resolved. I'm weak and check this thread a ton and I'm sick of "multiple," "honey, there are many of us," who are totally gonna "walk away," and of course the classic "I'm A Woman," "different" and of course totally unique posters attacking Ford, Ramirez, Swetnick, and Feinstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who wonders why women don't tell about these assaults, just watch the president's speech tonight and the reactions from the audience.

Anyone who wonders why women don't tell about these assaults UNTIL 35 YEARS LATER, just watch the president's speech tonight and the reactions from the audience.

FIFY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well now that we know that Brett called himself "Bart" I'm going to re-post the link to this law school admissions message board where someone with the name "Bart O'Kavanaugh" was posting about giving his girlfriend a wine enema (ie: "boofing") in 2012. Its got to be either him or Mark Judge right? Does anyone know how long that poster had been around?

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2005720&mc=3&forum_id=2

If ever there was a post that should be deleted... you are sick.

DP. Did you click through to that link? It’s literally like Fairfax Underground for people nominally connected to law. The screenname “Bart O Kavanaugh” isn’t proof it was him writing, but it seems most likely to be him or Judge. Probably not a lot of Mark Judge superfans.

Yes, I did click the link and regretted it immediately. This is the kind of unsubstantiated crap that should not be put out there unless it's actually true. Do you people understand that?

I don't believe you have standards. You're probably a Gateway Pundi fan, so.

[Anonymous]

He’s Bart after all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford's ex-boyfriend's letter is here:
https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1047293294567456770

He says he was with her from 1992 to 1998 until she cheated on him so he broke up with her. He says that over the course of a year after they broke up, she'd run up $600 on a credit card that he says that he took her name off of.

He says that she explained to a friend how polygraphs worked when the friend was going to take one for a background check and helped the friend be less nervous when she took one.

He also says she never told him about a sexual assault, a fear of flying, or a discomfort around enclosed spaces.

It's a data point, for sure. Still, I think she's credible. Upending your life and completely fabricating a story to get a free polygraph test seems like a stretch.

That's not news. She never said to whom she disclosed her assault. The other stuff is just repetition of right wing "gotcha" WRT to the fear of flying and door. It's like he reads Russian troll info.

FWIW, my wife's fear of flying developed gradually. When I first met her, she was fine with it.

I love all the Ford apologists here. No matter what comes out about her, her testimony, or her background (which we know very little about), you all have an excuse.
The main one is ...”It is not uncommon for a sexual assault victim to <fill in the blank>. Now, you are making excuses for the contradictions in her testimony as outlined in her former boyfriend’s letter. It is actually kind of amusing.

What contradictions in her testimony?

Obviously they had the boyfriend's info before the hearing because the "lady prosecutor" asked her 3 times specifically about the polygraph. Either it didn't happen or she forgot because it's not something she'd purposely lie about. She has a PhD in psychology and has done research on memory, trauma, etc so it's evident she knows about polygraphy.

The Republicans are just being so sad. Kavanaugh doesn't deserve to be on the Court and this partisan push by the GOP is very damaging to our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's only been two days of FBI investigation. Imagine what else is going to come out.

Your guy is TOAST. Trump hates drunks!

The FBI is wrapping up. They're just about done.

Highly unlikely. But in any event, The New York Times and other investigative media outlets are still very busy and keep exposing him as a liar - forget the sexual assault charges. The country is finding out he is unfit and he now has the lowest public approval rating of any SC nominee ever.

I read the NY Times every day and am truly shocked that such an unbiased news source would continue to stay busy trying to find anything they can that might possibly bring him down. Shocked!

+1
They are gleefully looking under any and every stone, trying to manufacture something where there is nothing. I knew NYT was left-leaning, but this is absurd. Really detracts from whatever credibility they had left.

Looking under every stone is their job. The Senate Committee sure as hell doesn’t want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this near the end of thread 3. I’m curious what Kavanaugh supporters think, particularly of the last paragraph.

“I honestly don’t know who is telling the truth. I don’t believe her blindly, but I also don’t think she’s involved in some big conspiracy (even if one is happening around her.) And certainly some people screwed the pooch procedurally here.

All that said, his behavior on Thursday was absolutely horrific and completely unbecoming of a Supreme Court Justice. He is hot tempered and blatantly partisan. Yes, lots of people in the room were being partisan, but he was the only one trying to become a Supreme Court Justice.”

As I’ve said before, if he had been polite and answered the questions cordially and directly, this would all be over. He has humiliated himself and shown he can’t remain calm and impartial in tense situations.”

Up until this morning I felt the same way as you, I didn't necessarily know who was telling the truth. After the Rachel Mitchell memo I am inclined to believe BK. there are too many loopholes in her story some of which make me think she is intentionally being dishonest. That being said I think his explanations of the meanings of his yearbook statements amounts to perjury and he probably did himself in on that alone. However, I do not believe he assaulted Christine Ford.

The Rachel Mitchell memo is insignificant. You are falling for political BS. She is saying she doesn't have the evidence to take it to court. And how would she? She was not even permitted to have an interview with Kavanaugh? do you know how many cases where there IS evidence that the prosecutor refuses to take to court? The only take things where they are pretty sure they will get a conviction.

She never ever ever says that she thinks he is innocent.

You should read this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/?utm_term=.5ba1f80d92bc

Most sexual assaults are not reported. The ones that are mostly NEVER go to trial. It DOES NOT MEAN THEY DID NOT HAPPEN.

In this case, he could have done it. He should not be on the SC if he could have done it. We don't give positions to people who could have done it. Would you hire a tutor who MAYBE slept with his/her last student? Would you hire a housekeeper who MAYBE stole jewelry from her last employer?

NO YOU WOULD NOT.

And, to the poster who wanted to know why the future is scary for young men.....

Read the bolded paragraph above. It is all about IF. If he could have done it. If he is guilty. If, If, If.....
Despite the fact that the only 3 people who were reportedly there have failed to corroborate her claims, and her dear friend doesn’t even know Kavanaugh.....he should be subject to penalty because.... IF.
This is why young men should be scared. Because, all it takes is an allegation.

Enough with all young men being scared. All men don't have to be scared. The people who are scared are the men who behaved like they were in Animal House when they were younger. Too drunk to control themselves. Mistreated women. Any guy who acted like the stuff they are saying BK did is getting nervous? Fine with me.

Women and POC have been scared for years...decades...centuries, putting up with men who mistreat them for their own amusement and having little to NO recourse.

So pardon me while I don't cry a river for some white dude who acted like an ass in his teens and twenties having a moment of fear about what he might have done.

I have a father, brothers, male cousins, sons that I love. I'm not worried for them. They don't act like assholes.

Nor do they need to. All it takes is one false accusation.

+1 and then all the "might have done it" accusations

+2
And the "IF he did it..." speculation. Or the "He hung around with a lot of unsavory guys and they all drank a lot, so he probably did it!" I thought we weren't supposed to judge the accuser on how much she had to drink or what her sexual proclivities are. Why is it ok to judge the accused on the same criteria?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy Smoke. Just read the beach rental letter. That has to be fake. Is it fake? "Bart"? "Welcomed with open _________"? FFFF. OMG. OMG. Where did they get this letter? Is it really from 1983?

I know, I would like to see that corroborated somewhere else, too. It just hits too many of the same notes -“fffff” “Bart,” etc. If it’s real though

It is real.

Source? Who hung onto it all these years? Who supplied it to the media?

I'm guessing Mark Judge and his lawyer.

It'll be great when this is resolved. I'm weak and check this thread a ton and I'm sick of "multiple," "honey, there are many of us," who are totally gonna "walk away," and of course the classic "I'm A Woman," "different" and of course totally unique posters attacking Ford, Ramirez, Swetnick, and Feinstein.

What, you don't think all these people who have voted Democrat for the past 50 years who are now going to vote Republican all the way down the ticket because of Kavanaugh, the least popular SC nominee ever, are being honest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Letter from Ford’s former boyfriend. It’s pretty damning.

They dated for 6 yrs, never told of sex assault, Ford coached friend on taking polygraph, flew frequently w/o expressing any fear of flying/tight spaces/limited exits. Doesn’t want to b/c “involved”.

Very interesting. And a lot more relevant than some stupid beach week letter, which so far, has no source.

[Anonymous]

I find the letter from 3 of his former clerks fascinating. Then there is 2 of his former law school classmates withdrawing their support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Letter from Ford’s former boyfriend. It’s pretty damning.

They dated for 6 yrs, never told of sex assault, Ford coached friend on taking polygraph, flew frequently w/o expressing any fear of flying/tight spaces/limited exits. Doesn’t want to b/c “involved”.

Very interesting. And a lot more relevant than some stupid beach week letter, which so far, has no source.

What are you talking about? The beach week letter directly contradicts his testimony. That is very relevant.