Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of terrible crap happened among high school students in the 1980s. And I can see many posters on this thread reliving their memories or the gossip they exchanged. And it's clear that many of the posters' reaction to Ford's allegation is because they want to believe this assault happened so that a perpetrator can finally be visibly punished, in revenge for all the unpunished rapes that happened 30+ years ago.

I'm very sympathetic to the desire, really, I am. However, it remains that this is still just an unproven allegation with very weak support for it. The simple fact is that a woman came forward with an allegation of a sexual assault, which is not proof in itself. The fact is that all the witnesses she named being present have refused to corroborate her and all have said the party did not happen. The simple fact is that the victim cannot remember the house where the assault happened, despite remembering the other witnesses. The simple fact is that there are small details in the victim's allegation that are not consistent with what she first told her therapist several years ago. Those are what we have. If I am to judge Kavanaugh, it is by those facts, not because there was a lot of unreported rapes 35 years ago or because Kavanaugh had a history of drinking a lot and being a bit lewd.

I agree with you that in a he-said, she-said alone, you can't reach a conclusion, and thus that should not be the basis for disqualifying him.

What I believe is a basis for disqualifying him is that he has not been honest in his defense against the accusations. He claims to have been a mostly innocent, church going kid. A pile of mounting evidence, from Judge's book to the yearbook to his rooomate's statement to now multiple women coming forward about the goings-on at these parties indicate he is lying about something. He should have just admitted being a partier from the beginning, but stuck to denials of assault/inappropriate sexual contact and behavior. Because nobody can prove a 40 year old assault or inappropriate behavior. But they *can* prove that he's lying about his partying. Which they have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No girl should EVER walk into a house where she knows drinking alcohol might be going on.

Teach your kids some common sense, people.

Teach your kids not to rape, people.

[Anonymous]

Seen on Twitter:

"If you’re interviewing a baby sitter and the background check comes up with an unconfirmed allegation of child rape, you don’t say, oh well innocent until proven guilty, and hire them because you’re a centrist."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So did this girl say why she went to parties with these guys who gang raped girls and decided to continue partying with them?

Because she was a teenager? Were you ever a teenager?

In answer to your question, no, the affidavit doesn't address that question.

Yes, I was a teenager and if I saw guys gang raping a girl there's no way in hell I would choose to go to parties with them.

There you go. You would make different choices than she did. Does that make her a liar, or an idiot, or just a different person than you?

Oh come on, your assertion is insane. No woman in her right mind would continue to hang out and go to parties with guys whom she believed participated in gang rape.

Would a 30 year old? Probably not. On the other hand, teenagers do dangerous things all the time. They think the bad thing won't happen to them.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lol. You have no idea how much he did or didn’t drink. This whole thing is bullshit. He’s qualified and will be confirmed.

can't believe you're a real person

I am and a woman and a Democrat who voted for Hillary. Also a lawyer. This campaign is transparently political and the allegations are drafted to be vague guilt-by-association nonsense with timing that is ridiculously and transparently politically-motivated. It’s a campaign to discredit him based on him being at parties where bad things may have happened. You are a sheep and a part of the brainless mob for believing this stuff.

sorry, don't believe you

LMAO. Go ask Jeff to check my IP. I posted tons in favor of Hillary. Is it really so unbelievable that I can think for my damn self and see that this campaign is vague and baseless. I’m a woman who can think for herself, thank you very much. I read and think critically and can see this latest #metoo campaign for what it is.

This poster asked other posters to ask me to check the poster's IP address. Two posters asked. So I checked and this poster has claimed to be a Hillary supporter in the past. However, the poster also claims to have been impressed by the Jordan Peterson videos and to have "seen the light" as a result. The poster also support the "Walk Away" movement which doesn't really exist.

Are you sure walk away doesn’t exist? I heard the guy who started it on a podcast the other day

Yes, it is completely astroturfed. The original tweets were largely faked and used stock photography.

Me here. I don’t know who started the walkaway movement but I know real human beings who participated. Yes, I agree with a lot of Jordan Peterson videoed. But yes, I am a woman lawyer who voted for Hillary as plenty of my posts over the years show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No girl should EVER walk into a house where she knows drinking alcohol might be going on.

Teach your kids some common sense, people.

Teach your kids not to rape, people.

Word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So did this girl say why she went to parties with these guys who gang raped girls and decided to continue partying with them?

Because she was a teenager? Were you ever a teenager?

In answer to your question, no, the affidavit doesn't address that question.

Yes, I was a teenager and if I saw guys gang raping a girl there's no way in hell I would choose to go to parties with them.

There you go. You would make different choices than she did. Does that make her a liar, or an idiot, or just a different person than you?

Oh come on, your assertion is insane. No woman in her right mind would continue to hang out and go to parties with guys whom she believed participated in gang rape.

Would a 30 year old? Probably not. On the other hand, teenagers do dangerous things all the time. They think the bad thing won't happen to them.

Come one. Teen girls don't choose to hang out with rapists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Lol, really moving the goal posts aren’t we? Do you know how to argue? Do you understand logic? They released an unprecedented amount of documents. Kavanaugh has a long record so, yes, a lot of the documents were reasonably subject to the objection that they were protected by executive privilege. Once again, I’m a lawyer. The GOP objection was reasonable.

OMG! How many times are you going to tell us you are a lawyer. NO ONE CARES. Half the people on dcum are lawyers. It's a damn job, not a super power.

A lot of you are apparently really bad lawyers. So, yeah, I’ll repeat myself and speak more slowly if I have to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No girl should EVER walk into a house where she knows drinking alcohol might be going on.

Teach your kids some common sense, people.

Teach your kids not to rape, people.

Word.

"No means yes, yes means..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No girl should EVER walk into a house where she knows drinking alcohol might be going on.

Teach your kids some common sense, people.

Teach your kids not to rape, people.

Word.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lol. You have no idea how much he did or didn’t drink. This whole thing is bullshit. He’s qualified and will be confirmed.

can't believe you're a real person

I am and a woman and a Democrat who voted for Hillary. Also a lawyer. This campaign is transparently political and the allegations are drafted to be vague guilt-by-association nonsense with timing that is ridiculously and transparently politically-motivated. It’s a campaign to discredit him based on him being at parties where bad things may have happened. You are a sheep and a part of the brainless mob for believing this stuff.

Thank you. It is ludicrous.
So, what is her evidence? Dates? Witnesses? Proof?

It hasn't even hit the major news sites yet and you're discounting it because additional information hasn't been presented? I think it's pretty clear that you've already decided what you will and will not believe regardless of what is said.

The affidavit is online. What should I be waiting for? You don’t think waiting for literally the day before he testifies shows how politically motivated this campaign is? Sorry, the man was nominated long ago and has been sitting on the bench of an important court for years. This is total bullshit.

Where you just as upset about the GOP withholding 90% of his written documents? Or that they released 56,000 pages one day before the senate judiciary hearings?

Lol, really moving the goal posts aren’t we? Do you know how to argue? Do you understand logic? They released an unprecedented amount of documents. Kavanaugh has a long record so, yes, a lot of the documents were reasonably subject to the objection that they were protected by executive privilege. Once again, I’m a lawyer. The GOP objection was reasonable.

Sure, they released an unprecedented amount of documemts. But they also withheld an unprecedented amount of documents. And you may think it's reasonable, but the members on the SJC, who were also lawyers, do not.

And the one moving the goalposts is you.

Your logic:

Avenatti and Dr. Ford coming forward at the last minute?

Bullshit.
GOP releasing 56,000 pages at the last minute? T

Totally reasonable!

I said the withholding was reasonable, not the timing. In any event, docs were released over time and the fact that a portion came out the day before is not remarkable in the context of congressional hearings that you probably have zero experience (though I do). There’s been plenty of time that’s passed and I haven’t heard about anything earth shattering in those docs. You’re probably one of the idiots who was whipped into a frenzy over Hillary’s dumb emails, too. OMG they’re on Huma’s computer! Stop the presses.

There's more of your stellar logic at work. Yes, I was whipped into a frenzy over Hillary's emails, and at the same time, I am opposed to the Trump/GOP agenda. Brilliant! /s

And more goalpost moving, too.

[Anonymous]

Can someone please explain why Swetnick would be using Avenatti if she wants to be taken seriously?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So did this girl say why she went to parties with these guys who gang raped girls and decided to continue partying with them?

Because she was a teenager? Were you ever a teenager?

In answer to your question, no, the affidavit doesn't address that question.

Yes, I was a teenager and if I saw guys gang raping a girl there's no way in hell I would choose to go to parties with them.

There you go. You would make different choices than she did. Does that make her a liar, or an idiot, or just a different person than you?

Oh come on, your assertion is insane. No woman in her right mind would continue to hang out and go to parties with guys whom she believed participated in gang rape.

Would a 30 year old? Probably not. On the other hand, teenagers do dangerous things all the time. They think the bad thing won't happen to them.

Come one. Teen girls don't choose to hang out with rapists.

Did teenagers think this was rape in '82? They knew not to drink the punch. They would talk about it in the halls at school. But did they know it was rape? Or was it just something they didn't want to have happen to them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Lol. You have no idea how much he did or didn’t drink. This whole thing is bullshit. He’s qualified and will be confirmed.

can't believe you're a real person

I am and a woman and a Democrat who voted for Hillary. Also a lawyer. This campaign is transparently political and the allegations are drafted to be vague guilt-by-association nonsense with timing that is ridiculously and transparently politically-motivated. It’s a campaign to discredit him based on him being at parties where bad things may have happened. You are a sheep and a part of the brainless mob for believing this stuff.

Thank you. It is ludicrous.
So, what is her evidence? Dates? Witnesses? Proof?

It hasn't even hit the major news sites yet and you're discounting it because additional information hasn't been presented? I think it's pretty clear that you've already decided what you will and will not believe regardless of what is said.

The affidavit is online. What should I be waiting for? You don’t think waiting for literally the day before he testifies shows how politically motivated this campaign is? Sorry, the man was nominated long ago and has been sitting on the bench of an important court for years. This is total bullshit.

Where you just as upset about the GOP withholding 90% of his written documents? Or that they released 56,000 pages one day before the senate judiciary hearings?

Lol, really moving the goal posts aren’t we? Do you know how to argue? Do you understand logic? They released an unprecedented amount of documents. Kavanaugh has a long record so, yes, a lot of the documents were reasonably subject to the objection that they were protected by executive privilege. Once again, I’m a lawyer. The GOP objection was reasonable.

Sure, they released an unprecedented amount of documemts. But they also withheld an unprecedented amount of documents. And you may think it's reasonable, but the members on the SJC, who were also lawyers, do not.

And the one moving the goalposts is you.

Your logic:

Avenatti and Dr. Ford coming forward at the last minute?

Bullshit.
GOP releasing 56,000 pages at the last minute? T

Totally reasonable!

I said the withholding was reasonable, not the timing. In any event, docs were released over time and the fact that a portion came out the day before is not remarkable in the context of congressional hearings that you probably have zero experience (though I do). There’s been plenty of time that’s passed and I haven’t heard about anything earth shattering in those docs. You’re probably one of the idiots who was whipped into a frenzy over Hillary’s dumb emails, too. OMG they’re on Huma’s computer! Stop the presses.

There's more of your stellar logic at work. Yes, I was whipped into a frenzy over Hillary's emails, and at the same time, I am opposed to the Trump/GOP agenda. Brilliant! /s

And more goalpost moving, too.

So you basically admit that you don’t understand how congressional investigations work. Great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain why Swetnick would be using Avenatti if she wants to be taken seriously?

I think he has done better than the lawyer for the other women by releasing it as a sworn statement, punishable by perjury.

Plus, her accusation was instantly seen and considered with his platform.