Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
WaPo front page - Jeff Flake to speak soon.

Very balanced speech, although I feel he believes the accusers.

Nope his speech is not balanced, IMO. He did the "both sides" grandstanding before he folds Friday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

She graduated in a public high school in Gaithersburg in 1980, three years before the judge did. No way she was even in the social circle of the prep boys.

Wow, you have personal knowledge of these people?

It's in her statement. Explain to us how did she join those younger boys' social circle already graduated from a remote public school?

Gaithersburg is totally within the prep world. Moco schools, moco culture.

I knew college kids that showed up to HS parties. ESPECIALLY during the summer/beach week

+1. This is not at al hard for me to believe. When I was a freshman I was at a party where my elementary school babysitter showed up. She sure was surprised to see me. There was not bright line between publics and privates. It's not like it was the greasers and the socs a la The Outsiders.

I’m sure that most college kids do not regularly attend high school parties to the point where they are going to 10. Plus, if you are older and wiser, why would you keep going to these parties if you found them to be so frightening? Something doesn’t add up. The whole account is pretty vague.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should we do an over/under on whether the nomination is withdrawn today? I bet it is. Though I don't feel super confident about it.

Only Trump can withdraw him and he just doubled down on twitter. Kavanaugh can withdraw himself which I think would be wise but he doesn't seem to want to do that.

No one's withdrawing. I predict they will ram this through.

This just gave every red state D and Collins/Murkowski cover to vote no. McConnell might ram through a vote but it will be to get the no vote over with so they can move on to the replacement.

And IMO no way Jeff Flake votes him out of committee.

Jeff Flake already gave his"both-side" "apology" speech today to vote yes.

link? how do people already know what he said?

[Anonymous]

When I was a teenage Catholic virgin I cannot imagine telling my parents I got drunk or roofied at a party and got "trained" by a bunch of boys. I would have been mortified to admit that or to acknowledge the sexual assault. No way I would have told.

If I found out a guy who was a part of that was running for a very high level position, now as an adult in the era of #metoo, I *might* be willing to come forward. I think it would be an obligation to come forward, if I had the courage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Assuming this was true, how were they supposed to know they were picking a gang rapist?

That's what deep background check is about. If they had bothered to talk to people (who are not Kavanaug's buddies), there is highly likely they would have known.

I somehow doubt background checks go as far back as your high school days. What are they supposed to do? Post ads in the Post inviting former classmates to come forward with wild stories about wild parties in 1983?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:]

So it’s ok to rape people who go to a party and get drunk?


No, moron, it’s not “OK.” It’s a different scenario that raises different and more messy issues of consent and complicity. And it’s particularly a silly issue when the allegations are basically that there were guys at these parties and Kavanaugh, you know, was around somewhere and may have like given some girl a drink and his friend Mark Judge is an alcoholic and an idiot.

She says in her testimony that BK himself was spiking drinks with alcohol and drugs, targeting especially loner or shy girls, and repeatedly lining up to perform gang rape. He was not, you know, just around somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if social media existed back then... wow. We'd have a lot more evidence now. I'm afraid for our next generation who have documented every single action and behavior at parties and elsewhere.

It is going to be soooooo hard to be a predator and get away with it.

Yes. Choose party hard or go to ivy. law school, SCOTUS. Cant do both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some are saying that Swetnick graduated from HS in 1980. What was she doing at these HS parties 2 or 3 years later? If that is true, something is fishy.

Well aren't you Inspector Clouseau. Not at all fishy. See other posts.

FWIW, pp. I totally agree with you.
After going to college, I never attended HS parties with kids younger than me. Ever.

Good for you!

Brock Turner’s victim was out of college when she went to a party and he attacked her. It was, of course, witnessed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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

What the Hillary-voting poster says is essentially true and I don't why people are not believing her. Where I differ with the poster is that what she describes is a bad thing. She obviously favors a totally fact-based legalistic approach. I don't think the Republicans in the Senate care about facts and facts would be lost on them. So, while a legalistic approach might be honorable, it would also be a failure. The one way to defeat Kavanaugh it to do so politically. If that means "guilt-by-association" wherein the association is with gang-rape, I am perfectly comfortable with that. If Kavanaugh wants to admit to teenage indiscretions, so be it. But, lying about it makes him unfit for the court.

Well thanks for at least being honest that you support mob justice, Jeff!

Holy CRAP!! I do hope, Jeff, that your sons are never in a bad divorce or a bad relationship. The only thing saving them from such a fate is a woman with the honesty and integrity of the Democratic lawyer above!

[Anonymous]

Who wants to be 2nd or 5th in line? That is nasty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Assuming this was true, how were they supposed to know they were picking a gang rapist?

That's what deep background check is about. If they had bothered to talk to people (who are not Kavanaug's buddies), there is highly likely they would have known.

Ummmm...with a year book like that they definitely should have tried that.

I somehow doubt background checks go as far back as your high school days. What are they supposed to do? Post ads in the Post inviting former classmates to come forward with wild stories about wild parties in 1983?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like Russia my have divided us on gender lines too!

Not quite. I am a woman. And, I have no doubt in Kavanaugh’s innocence.

Really? There's no grey there??

DP here. I'm a woman and totally disgusted by what's being done to him. If he's guilty of the accusations, then he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. If all we have is an uncorroborated accusation with the accuser not recalling the location, how she got there and returned home, or even the year, then he should not be treated in this way. On NPR this morning, I heard a woman say that she believes him because similar assaults occurred to her. Really? That's wall that's required to believe the accuser?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Assuming this was true, how were they supposed to know they were picking a gang rapist?

That's what deep background check is about. If they had bothered to talk to people (who are not Kavanaug's buddies), there is highly likely they would have known.

I somehow doubt background checks go as far back as your high school days. What are they supposed to do? Post ads in the Post inviting former classmates to come forward with wild stories about wild parties in 1983?

They typically go back 10 years. If you are in your 20s, they would cover HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some are saying that Swetnick graduated from HS in 1980. What was she doing at these HS parties 2 or 3 years later? If that is true, something is fishy.

Well aren't you Inspector Clouseau. Not at all fishy. See other posts.

FWIW, pp. I totally agree with you.
After going to college, I never attended HS parties with kids younger than me. Ever.

Summer parties always had a group of older kids who were home from college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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

What the Hillary-voting poster says is essentially true and I don't why people are not believing her. Where I differ with the poster is that what she describes is a bad thing. She obviously favors a totally fact-based legalistic approach. I don't think the Republicans in the Senate care about facts and facts would be lost on them. So, while a legalistic approach might be honorable, it would also be a failure. The one way to defeat Kavanaugh it to do so politically. If that means "guilt-by-association" wherein the association is with gang-rape, I am perfectly comfortable with that. If Kavanaugh wants to admit to teenage indiscretions, so be it. But, lying about it makes him unfit for the court.

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to spike girls' drinks in order for them to gang raped by other boys even if you don't do the raping yourself.

"I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys."

This isn't just "they were at the same parties".

Thanks for posting Jeff. Hard to fathom a hillary voter exists who is says a person is "qualified" for the supreme court when multiple women have decided to turn their lives upside down to come out with their accusations of sexual assault and grooming women for gang rape (as well as being in line for it).

So you are admitting, PP, that your judgement might be off in regards to the Hillary voter lawyer? You made an error? You pre-judged?