Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of y'all's victim-blaming is starting to sound like the Taliban. Under Shari'a law, the testimony of the woman about her rape is not enough. What she needs is the corroborating eye-witness testimony of 4 males to accuse her rapist. Is that what you'd like to see in America?

Um, no. We have (1) rape kits, (2) ability to report rape contemporaneously, and (3) what’s more, even if reporting late, the ability to do that not on the time table of Democratics who are trying to gin up enthusiasm for midterms.

[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:

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.

I'm seeing how hypocrisy and evasion works for you.

Let me speak slowly. Reporting a vague gang rape conspiracy the day before testimony is not the same as releasing one portion of a huge body of background documents the day before a hearing.

[jsteele]

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.

Jeff, has she only claimed to be a Hillary supporter in the past or her behaviors (original posting supporting Hillary, defending Hillary/praising Hillary on other post) in the past proves she is a Hillary supporter. I can say I am Trump supporter multiple time on posts while questioning all kind of crap policies by his administration here. That would not make me a Trump supporter, rather would make me a fake to buy in Trump supporters trust. Please respond. And thanks for what you do!

I'm not going to dissect the poster's entire past. Regardless of what she once was, she is now a Jordan Peterson fan who supports #walkaway.

[Anonymous]

What is so magical about BK that the Rs want him so much? Seriously they couldn’t find a clean pro life judge? I understand the time crunch now but this could have all been avoided by nominating a supernerd who never left the library.

[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.

Exactly. Especially when this seemed like normal behavior for boys. If it seems all the boys are doing this, why would it be viewed as abnormal? I hung around a ton of kids who did drugs. I never joined it but I did feel like it was just normal behavior. Now I am appalled!

[Anonymous]

The Orange Trantrump tweets:

Avenatti is a third rate lawyer who is good at making false accusations, like he did on me and like he is now doing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He is just looking for attention and doesn’t want people to look at his past record and relationships - a total low-life!

What a sociopathic liar! If anything, everyone know what Avenatti said about Trump was all TRUE. Avenatti has sworn testimony and everything on that testimony must be formally investigated.

[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:

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.

I'm seeing how hypocrisy and evasion works for you.

Let me speak slowly. Reporting a vague gang rape conspiracy the day before testimony is not the same as releasing one portion of a huge body of background documents the day before a hearing.

Depends on what’s in the documents.

[Anonymous]

Judge needs to be pulled out from hiding and come forward with what he knows.

[Anonymous]

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.

Jeff, has she only claimed to be a Hillary supporter in the past or her behaviors (original posting supporting Hillary, defending Hillary/praising Hillary on other post) in the past proves she is a Hillary supporter. I can say I am Trump supporter multiple time on posts while questioning all kind of crap policies by his administration here. That would not make me a Trump supporter, rather would make me a fake to buy in Trump supporters trust. Please respond. And thanks for what you do!

I super love that you are so thoroughly floored that I did indeed support Hillary. What is seriously wrong with you that you cannot fathom disagreement in your own party? I don’t know how far back Jeff can look at posts but I posted a LOT on here in favor of Hillary during the campaign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is so magical about BK that the Rs want him so much? Seriously they couldn’t find a clean pro life judge? I understand the time crunch now but this could have all been avoided by nominating a supernerd who never left the library.

I do think a lot of senators were concerned that having BK withdraw would open them up to all sorts of incidents from the past, to both true and false allegations.

With Swetnick's affidavit, though, this would seem to lay those concerns to rest (unless senators also have as-of-yet-undisclosed-trains in their past).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of y'all's victim-blaming is starting to sound like the Taliban. Under Shari'a law, the testimony of the woman about her rape is not enough. What she needs is the corroborating eye-witness testimony of 4 males to accuse her rapist. Is that what you'd like to see in America?

Um, no. We have (1) rape kits, (2) ability to report rape contemporaneously, and (3) what’s more, even if reporting late, the ability to do that not on the time table of Democratics who are trying to gin up enthusiasm for midterms.

But we lack people to process the rape kits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is almost too outrageous to even be believable. It’s like someone said “let’s come up with a shady sexual allegation to make him go away.” And that didn’t work so then they said “let’s try again just to bolster the first one.” Then when that didn’t work they said “screw it, let’s go for broke. Let’s say he’s actually a serial gang rapist.” I mean, this is like every liberal dystopian fantasy come to life

And yet, for someone who grew up in the area, in the prep school bubble, it's entirely believable. Because it has happened many times. Because I've seen it happen. Because I know so many smarmy lawyers just like Kav who have done the same.

OP here- on the other hand, if this is true then the GOP made the most tragically comical pick for SC. Of all the choices, they pick a gang rapist?!? I’m a conservative and this is dang frustrating! And no I’m not saying the allegations are “comical” so crazies relax

I'm relieved that you, as a conservative, can separate your political preferences from your disappointment at the nomination a Republican Supreme Court Judge who is palpably unfit.
I, as someone who leans left, who be equally disgusted if the nominee was a Democrat and was accused of similar acts. I do not want any abusive person, male or female, Democrat or Republican, on the Supreme Court.
It seems a no-brainer to me to attach credence to the accusers, who are so brave to come forward despite humiliations and threats.

Humans before politics!

[Anonymous]

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?

She said she was the victim of a rape at one of these parties--and, yet she continued to attend them.......

She also does not accuse Kavanaugh of rape. She implies it, but does not accuse him.

And, Gaithersburg was considered pretty rural in those days.

[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:

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.

I'm seeing how hypocrisy and evasion works for you.

Let me speak slowly. Reporting a vague gang rape conspiracy the day before testimony is not the same as releasing one portion of a huge body of background documents the day before a hearing.

Depends on what’s in the documents.

Uh huh. Well apparently nothing was in them because they’ve moved on the character assassination based on this teenage crap. Great job, Dems!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of y'all's victim-blaming is starting to sound like the Taliban. Under Shari'a law, the testimony of the woman about her rape is not enough. What she needs is the corroborating eye-witness testimony of 4 males to accuse her rapist. Is that what you'd like to see in America?

Um, no. We have (1) rape kits, (2) ability to report rape contemporaneously, and (3) what’s more, even if reporting late, the ability to do that not on the time table of Democratics who are trying to gin up enthusiasm for midterms.

But we lack people to process the rape kits.

And did you know that in the past, evidence from these kits have been largely mishandled by investigators?