Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me be clear: I don't really care how much Kavanaugh drank in the early 80s. I don't care whether or not he puked it up, threw ice, or said crass things about girls then either.

The ONLY reason it was even brought up in the hearing, was to try and imply that Kavanaugh could have gotten blackout drunk and assault Ford. It was ruse to sow doubt, and to try and get him to admit he was a choir boy, which he didn't do.

Ford, on the other hand, got to tell her story in a formal hearing in front of the whole world, was questioned by an expert in the field, and determined to not have enough detail or information to be deemed credible in her accusations against Kavanaugh.

Meanwhile, highly laughable individuals have come forward to take their turn at bat, one admitting she was wholly drunk and could not be sure herself, and the other with a sketchy history of lies, who backtracked on her own story.

And the latest is more of the same. And is making Democrats seem completely unhinged.

Let me repeat: I don't give one rat's a$$ about his high school years. Not one iota.

You must be crestfallen that Kavanaugh chose to lie about something so insignificant.

Exactly. Nobody cares about how much he drank in high school. But he lied about it anyway. Which makes it significant.

THIS

But, he didn’t lie. So, there’s that.

[Anonymous]

Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has stated that she doesn't have enough evidence to bring a "criminal case" of rape against Kavanaugh. Criminal cases have to be proved beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. A confirmation of a SJC is not a court. It is a job interview for arguably one of the most important and powerful jobs in America.

Kavanaugh fails MISERABLY on the most important aspect of being a judge: fairness and impartiality (FAIL) even temperedness (FAIL) and wisdom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me be clear: I don't really care how much Kavanaugh drank in the early 80s. I don't care whether or not he puked it up, threw ice, or said crass things about girls then either.

The ONLY reason it was even brought up in the hearing, was to try and imply that Kavanaugh could have gotten blackout drunk and assault Ford. It was ruse to sow doubt, and to try and get him to admit he was a choir boy, which he didn't do.

Ford, on the other hand, got to tell her story in a formal hearing in front of the whole world, was questioned by an expert in the field, and determined to not have enough detail or information to be deemed credible in her accusations against Kavanaugh.

Meanwhile, highly laughable individuals have come forward to take their turn at bat, one admitting she was wholly drunk and could not be sure herself, and the other with a sketchy history of lies, who backtracked on her own story.

And the latest is more of the same. And is making Democrats seem completely unhinged.

Let me repeat: I don't give one rat's a$$ about his high school years. Not one iota.

You must be crestfallen that Kavanaugh chose to lie about something so insignificant.

Exactly. Nobody cares about how much he drank in high school. But he lied about it anyway. Which makes it significant.

THIS

But, he didn’t lie. So, there’s that.

Right. Can you post the rules for the Devil's Triangle drinking game?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me be clear: I don't really care how much Kavanaugh drank in the early 80s. I don't care whether or not he puked it up, threw ice, or said crass things about girls then either.

The ONLY reason it was even brought up in the hearing, was to try and imply that Kavanaugh could have gotten blackout drunk and assault Ford. It was ruse to sow doubt, and to try and get him to admit he was a choir boy, which he didn't do.

Ford, on the other hand, got to tell her story in a formal hearing in front of the whole world, was questioned by an expert in the field, and determined to not have enough detail or information to be deemed credible in her accusations against Kavanaugh.

Meanwhile, highly laughable individuals have come forward to take their turn at bat, one admitting she was wholly drunk and could not be sure herself, and the other with a sketchy history of lies, who backtracked on her own story.

And the latest is more of the same. And is making Democrats seem completely unhinged.

Let me repeat: I don't give one rat's a$$ about his high school years. Not one iota.

You must be crestfallen that Kavanaugh chose to lie about something so insignificant.

Exactly. Nobody cares about how much he drank in high school. But he lied about it anyway. Which makes it significant.

THIS

Yep. If there’s anything I learned growing up in 1970’s Washington, it’s that the original act won’t necessarily take you down, but the coverup will.

[Anonymous]

I am not a big fan of decades-old allegations.

But Kavanaugh's belligerent tone and blaming the Clintons disqualify him as a competent justice. A total disgrace. Case closed.

[Anonymous]

A man’s life is shattered.

-Donald J. Trump 10/2/2018

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me be clear: I don't really care how much Kavanaugh drank in the early 80s. I don't care whether or not he puked it up, threw ice, or said crass things about girls then either.

The ONLY reason it was even brought up in the hearing, was to try and imply that Kavanaugh could have gotten blackout drunk and assault Ford. It was ruse to sow doubt, and to try and get him to admit he was a choir boy, which he didn't do.

Ford, on the other hand, got to tell her story in a formal hearing in front of the whole world, was questioned by an expert in the field, and determined to not have enough detail or information to be deemed credible in her accusations against Kavanaugh.

Meanwhile, highly laughable individuals have come forward to take their turn at bat, one admitting she was wholly drunk and could not be sure herself, and the other with a sketchy history of lies, who backtracked on her own story.

And the latest is more of the same. And is making Democrats seem completely unhinged.

Let me repeat: I don't give one rat's a$$ about his high school years. Not one iota.

You must be crestfallen that Kavanaugh chose to lie about something so insignificant.

Exactly. Nobody cares about how much he drank in high school. But he lied about it anyway. Which makes it significant.

THIS

But, he didn’t lie. So, there’s that.

Right. Can you post the rules for the Devil's Triangle drinking game?

Easy. Find a buddy, drink. Find a girl, have her drink while you drink more. Then attempt or actually commit sex acts with all three of you. There may or may not be Quarters involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A man’s life is shattered.

-Donald J. Trump 10/2/2018

A woman's life is shattered, too. But apparently womens' lives don't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting water cooler talk in my office today. 4 co-workers. All DMV professionals. Aged 30-45. 2 white women, 1 white male, one AA male. One grew up in the DMV and went through FCPS. One from the South. One from the Midwest. some public HS, some private. Ect.

We all believe Ford, because we all knew the Bart O’Kavanaughs in our HS classes. The members of the football/basketball teams who hosted the keggers and did whatever it took to get under the cheerleaders’ skirts. They drank underage, and drove underage. In fact, one of the Bart’s in my high school was driving drunk and killed a cheerleader in an car accident my freshman year. He ended up in jail. And usually didn’t let little things like lack of consent stop them if they found themselves alone in a car with a girl. Three of us went to colleges where bad things happened at DKE parties. At my college, they were kicked off campus a couple years after I graduated.

The point is that we now literally have 700 pages of discussion about this for a reason. Yes, SCOTUS is important. And yes, this has become the train wreck you can’t look away from. But for many of us, what Ford is saying just rings true. We saw it happen in our high schools. We heard the whispers about the girls Monday mornings. We know girls who were date raped and became the talk of the school. We know that, for the most part, the boys went on to have pretty wives and nice UMC lives, occasionally punctuated by rehab stints. Then again, it is not uncommon for them to cheat on those women.

So now, you have two groups of people. Those who never thought it was fair that the Bart O’Kavanughs of the world were so untouchable and could get way with anything. And women especially are angry that took advantage of us, and then made jokes about the xxx alumni in the high school yearbook. We want Kavanugh voted down because we want it to be clear that what happened to us was not okay, and as a country we have come to realize that. We know that if Kavanaugh is seated, it says to the 2018 high school aged Bart O’Kavanaughs that they can take advantage of our daughters.

And I would imagine that it is dawning on all the Bart O’Kavanaughs out there that #MeToo could be coming for them.

This is so not about who did what to whom in the 1980s in Bethesda. Or a bar fights or what a Devils Triangle is. Or even liberals and conservatives. It’s about power. The power of the wealthy and men to get what they want at the expense of others. The power of women to have an equal say. In sex, in politics, at home, and in high school.

I am so over Ford and Brett and Sqi and PJ and why was the music already on. But I care 700 pages of DCUM about this because I want the Bart O’Kavanaugh of my DD’s high school to think twice before he touching my DD without her consent.

What you're effectively saying that despite believing Ford it also doesn't really matter whether or not Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her or not. What truly and seriously matters here is that *someone* of the typecast mold of Brett Kavanaugh circa the early 1980s is punished for all the other attacks and assaults that happened to all the other women.

Your post is a perfect example of why this has blown way beyond a simple he/she said story and why people continue to conveniently ignore the so many holes in Ford's story and testimony or that it could be reinterpreted so differently using the same basic information. You have simply swapped Ford for the other women you knew who were sexually assaulted and you are seeking Kavanaugh to be punished, not for what he allegedly did to Ford, but for those other victims. The truth of what happened that night doesn't matter here (if we were sincerely seeking the truth, the reaction to Ford would be very different). You say you believed Ford, but it's not because of her testimony, it's because you heard of similar sexual assaults happening elsewhere at the time and which went unreported or unresolved. You are simply seeking vengeance and Brett Kavanaugh must be the sacrificial victim.

Of course I knew assholes like Brett Kavanaugh when he was a teenager. I didn't like them. I especially did not like them. I'm very well aware that there have been scores of attacks of varying degrees on women and which were hushed up and hidden away. But I draw the line at punishing Brett Kavanaugh as a sacrificial victim for things he did not do. For that's not right. Two wrongs don't make a right. I view this matter solely as the situation between him and Ford and unfortunately it's too inconclusive and too weak to convincingly side with Ford. I don't wish to see Kavanaugh on the court, but I cannot also justify declaring him guilty based on what Ford told us and what we know of the circumstances.

It’s called Occam’a Razor. Either Ford is lying, which means back in 2012 or earlier she was such a political partisan that she started plotting this whole thing, found out there was a conservative judge around her age who grew up in Bethesda like she did did some research that he was a heavy drinker and had a best buddy named Mark JUdge who was also a hard partier, took a chance that BK would someday be nominated to SCOTUS, and started telling lies about him so that she would have a story for when someday she might be called to testify against him. Or she is telling the truth.

I choose the latter scenario because it involves less mental pretzel-twisting.

Exactly.

But the deplorables don’t mind pretzels as long as they get their SCOTUS seat. Doesn’t matter who has that seat. As long as that person is willing to support the corruption of the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A man’s life is shattered.

-Donald J. Trump 10/2/2018

A woman's life is shattered, too. But apparently womens' lives don't matter.

Only white men matter. Get with the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Having conveniently developed amnesia that not too long ago, they supported a candidate who didn't pay his taxes, had multiple allegations of sexual assault against him and who insulted heads of state around the world in a way that embarassed our great nation.

I’m a republican, and DJT embarrasses me. I’m glad that a career politician is not in office, but I’m sad it’s he. And that is one of the differences between DJT and many other accused, both R and D, is that he was not an elected official at the time, but exactly as he lived his life as a wealthy playboy. I have not seen any sexual allegations or affairs which he has currently engaged since he has become president.

As it stands, one of the reasons I voted for him is exactly this issue: SCOTUS appointments. He has done an excellent job. Judge Kavanaugh has a 12 year record of being an outstanding judge and an exceptional, world class legal scholar - all his opinions are available for public inspection.

The last minute allegations come across exactly as Kavanaugh characterized them: a political hit job. On that principle alone he should be confirmed, and the confirmation process re-examined. Otherwise, get ready when any nominee of the majority is nominated to see more slimy tactics. I’m assuming that the D’s will be majority this next election cycle.

The R’s now look classy as to how they handled Merrick Garland. Even though it was manipulative to instigate procedural delays, they not destroy his character. This is beyond the pale.

So it doesn’t matter if the allegations are true. It doesn’t matter if he perjured and greatly misrepresented himself. It doesn’t matter that his judicial behavior has been questionable (and called out by multiple groups).

The ONLY thing that matters to you is getting back at the Ds for the TIMING of the allegations (not the content).

Got it. Spiteful to the end.

You are twisting my words.

First, I don’t believe the allegations, and I don’t believe in coincidences. I would have to believe accidentally the letter was leaked almost 6 weeks after Democrats had it and after having already extensively interviewed Kavanaugh, privately interviewed Kavanaugh, where Dr. Ford’s wishes for anonymity might have been honored. Do you believe in that coincidence?

Secondly, I never said I wanted to ‘get back at D’s.’ You said that. I said this process should be re-examined and defined, no matter who is in power, R or D. Do you think it should stand as it is? I am suggesting if it is not reformed, it could be another circus, when D’s may have a nominee. I am explaining that the process is flawed. What is wrong with you?

Your words are your words:
“On that principle alone he should be confirmed”

Did you mean what you wrote or not?

Based the principle he is well qualified reviewing his 12 year record as an appellate judge, his solid reputation as being fair, and his reputation as a top legal scholar. Based on that I don’t believe the allegations, and they remain allegations whether YOU believe them or not.

So you believe that accidentally, after hundreds of hours of interviews, where Dr. Ford might have been allowed to remain a private person, her wishes for confidentiality honored, where the allegations might have been shared with Republicans on the SJC in strict confidence 6 weeks ago, accidentally, coincidentally this was leaked and revealed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a big fan of decades-old allegations.

But Kavanaugh's belligerent tone and blaming the Clintons disqualify him as a competent justice. A total disgrace. Case closed.

Agree. We as a country can do better for a Supreme Court seat. Heck, even the partisan Republicans can do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has stated that she doesn't have enough evidence to bring a "criminal case" of rape against Kavanaugh. Criminal cases have to be proved beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. A confirmation of a SJC is not a court. It is a job interview for arguably one of the most important and powerful jobs in America.

Kavanaugh fails MISERABLY on the most important aspect of being a judge: fairness and impartiality (FAIL) even temperedness (FAIL) and wisdom.

That’s your opinion.
I think he is imminently qualified. And, this was not a job interview. It was a sham of a Constitutional process.
I cannot imagine going to a job interview with the knowledge that people sitting in front of me had called me “evil” and a “danger to the Constitution.” And, that they had stated prior to my interview that they “believe her.” Despite lack of evidence.
No, this was far from a job interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A man’s life is shattered.

-Donald J. Trump 10/2/2018

He should have thought about his past before he put himself forward as a SCJ. Even *I* would not put myself forward for a public office because I partied when I was younger. And I never assaulted anyone. But if they started looking at my high school days, I hung around with some low lifes (think Judge) and was at some crazy parties. I wouldn't want to have to claim "I didn't inhale".

I think the lesson is, just be honest about your youthful indiscretions. It's not the sex, it's the cover up. it's not the underage drinking, it's the prevarication and obfuscation he engaged in. It's not the vomiting, it's that he lied when he said that "ralphing" was because he ate too much Thai food.

You can't lie to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And he did. Some of the lies were lies of omission, of refusal to answer, of minimizing "WE drank... only BEER... only on WEEKENDS" but you can't try to bamboozle under oath and expect to be a SCJ. The guy is a lawyer and a judge. Do you think he'd accept that behavior from a witness in his own courtroom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell has stated that she doesn't have enough evidence to bring a "criminal case" of rape against Kavanaugh. Criminal cases have to be proved beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. A confirmation of a SJC is not a court. It is a job interview for arguably one of the most important and powerful jobs in America.

Kavanaugh fails MISERABLY on the most important aspect of being a judge: fairness and impartiality (FAIL) even temperedness (FAIL) and wisdom.

That’s your opinion.
I think he is imminently qualified. And, this was not a job interview. It was a sham of a Constitutional process.
I cannot imagine going to a job interview with the knowledge that people sitting in front of me had called me “evil” and a “danger to the Constitution.” And, that they had stated prior to my interview that they “believe her.” Despite lack of evidence.
No, this was far from a job interview.

And the same people said Ford wasn't credible before talking to her and rejecting talking to any of her witnesses. So yes, it was a sham process. What the White House is doing with the FBI is making a bad sham worse. Flake won't support it - he has already signaled that. And Collins and Murkowski won't take kindly to Trump's words from last night. McConnell can try to ram this through but it won't pass.