Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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Anonymous wrote:Should we do an over/under on whether the nomination is withdrawn today?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?

His speech was live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No. There have to be credible accounts and hopefully some corroboration. It does not help if your partner in drunken thuggery is hiding out in a beach house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of these out of the woodwork accusers NOT messed (deleted stuff) with their online presence in the last couple of months? Or have they all been doing a little scrubbing here and there?

Sorry but it is only self preservation to remove your social media presence if you are going to hit the national press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There are three accusers now. What do you think about that?

[Anonymous]

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

Ask literally any high school and college basketball, football, hockey and lacrosse team. Sexual trains are frighteningly commonplace. Most coeds are willing and eager. As John Mayer said, fathers be good to your daughters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You are way, way, WAY behind. Read the sworn statement by the latest accuser, who has a huge amount of credibility. So much that she will lose her security clearances and could be put in jail for lying if her statement is not true. He was part of a group of people who were drugging and gang raping women.

[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

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

Gaithersburg in the 1980s was as far from the prep world as you can get. It was the sticks. What a 22 year old would be driving to high school parties is baffling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have any of these out of the woodwork accusers NOT messed (deleted stuff) with their online presence in the last couple of months? Or have they all been doing a little scrubbing here and there?

Sorry but it is only self preservation to remove your social media presence if you are going to hit the national press.

Where are the thousands and thousands of pages of his written presence? Dont seem to be available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What's wrong with you. Lets us go with your argument. Based on statements by multiple people Kavanaugh there are possibility that

1. Kavanaugh is totally innocent
2. Kavanaugh is complicit to gang-rape, sexual assault and attempted rape, if not rapist worse.

There is no harm in denying the SCJ position to Kavanaugh, even if 1 is true, because as a country we have denied many eminent judges the same position for various reasons. The country does not owe him/Trump/GOP a SC position.

However, if there is any truth to 2, it would do enormous damage to the SC, along with enromous damage every girl (and boy) who might be feeling scared to report horrible incidences against powerful people.

There is a middle ground too, if the party in power is willing. If they want to they can open a FBI investigation to get to the borrom of these allegations by forcing everyone named in news report, testimony and statements to provide interview under oath. That way we do not sit a very tainted person on SC and yet do not refuse him a SC seat based on "mere" allegations.

This is a frightening thought - that there is “no harm” in denying this person a SCOTUS seat if he is innocent.
So, we are OK with any accusation - with no real evidence - to cause any person to lose an opportunity to which that person is eminently qualified?
You are ok with mere accusations to ruin a person’s life? Because, that is exactly what is happening here.

The truth is.... if these people were REALLY interested in FBI investigations, they could have gone about doing so in the proper way. They could have brought their claims forward, when this nominee was announced, presented their claims to the committee and had the FBI investigate as part of their background investigation. But, that was not the goal here. The goal was to present allegations, after the hearings were done, to delay and attempt to derail this process.
I can predict what would happen with an FBI investigation - they would find no evidence to support or deny the claims made. Because there is none. They would collect statements, present them to the committee, and we would be exactly where we are now. Except months down the road because the DEMOCRATS have chosen to play games and not follow regular procedure.

It's not. Every judge even nominated is "qualified," yet not every judge deserves to be appointed. This is the process. From where I sit, he is found to be lacking. Not necessarily criminal, but lacking the judgment which one would like to see in a SCJ. Thomas was also a terrible mistake, and not because of his politics, but for a lack of character. I want the guy who doesn't go along, who stands up for the victims and the vulnerable. Not the guy who's BFF bragged about how many "gongs" he banged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Congrats on being women.
Three different accusers have come forward, two with established corroboration and the third claiming she has multiple witnesses who can corroborate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You are way, way, WAY behind. Read the sworn statement by the latest accuser, who has a huge amount of credibility. So much that she will lose her security clearances and could be put in jail for lying if her statement is not true. He was part of a group of people who were drugging and gang raping women.

PP here. You do recall that initially Kavanaugh was being condemned based on Ford's accusation alone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

His speech was live.

Can someone summarize? I can't watch tv/video right now.

[Anonymous]

Full on smear campaign. Full speed ahead, folks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is a sexual "train" automatically assumed to be rape?

I was a first-person witness to sex trains in college. The women were typically sober and thought it was thrilling, I guess.

Websites like Barstool sports and TFM have sorority girls posting college bucket lists and one of the items on the list is typically some form of group sex or having sex with a few athletes at once.

If her drink is spiked with roofies, and she’s passed out, it ain’t consensual.

[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:

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.

But I thought it was the timing you had an issue with? The timing is the same. Regardless, refuting a rape accusation made 24 hours earlier is much more surmountable than reviewing 56,000 documents in the same time frame.

But go ahead and reply with some snarky baseless insult. That's your "logic."

No, you’re the one who tried to draw a parallel with the timing. Just re-read your nonsense post. Actually you can’t refute this dumb allegation because it’s designed to be vague and unverifiable. There was nothing preventing that allegation from being voiced earlier. By contrast someone does have to go through and collect the documents and prepare them for release which does frequently happen late in the context of hearings. Btw Literally no one who prepares for congressional hearings reads all the damn documents disclosed.

They had plenty of time to prepare the documents for release. If they needed more people to prepare them faster, then they should have hired more people. If it's still impossible to prepare them, then someone else more confirmable should have been nominated. It's no excuse to just ram through some mystery dark horse candidate. And you can bet that all the damn documents disclosed would have been read for this particular hearing.