Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this near the end of thread 3. I’m curious what Kavanaugh supporters think, particularly of the last paragraph.

“I honestly don’t know who is telling the truth. I don’t believe her blindly, but I also don’t think she’s involved in some big conspiracy (even if one is happening around her.) And certainly some people screwed the pooch procedurally here.

All that said, his behavior on Thursday was absolutely horrific and completely unbecoming of a Supreme Court Justice. He is hot tempered and blatantly partisan. Yes, lots of people in the room were being partisan, but he was the only one trying to become a Supreme Court Justice.”

As I’ve said before, if he had been polite and answered the questions cordially and directly, this would all be over. He has humiliated himself and shown he can’t remain calm and impartial in tense situations.”

He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “threat” and also publicly and proudly announced, “I believe her” before any testimony.
He is an innocent man who was vehemently defending his name, his reputation, his integrity, and his livelihood. This was not a “tense situation.” It was a lynching. It was disgusting.

If you wish to see how he handles himself in tense situations, consider his behavior and demeanor during his 12 years as an appellate judge. There were NO COMPLAINTS.

This is all I need to know.

Well, I think you should also take into consideration that 50 out of 100 Senators do not agree with you (Pence could have broken the tie), or they would have voted on Saturday as planed. And keep in mind that in mind that 50 of the Senators are registered as Republicans.

The fact that he's had "no complaints" is meaningless. No one who has worked hard enough to make it to clerk for a federal judge is going to turn around and file a complaint about their boss. It's suicidal.

Women suck these things up and move on in order to maintain and progress in their careers. Eventually, if they wind up with millions of dollars and a degree of power they may turn around and try to bring him down (ex. Weinstein). Failing that, these men go on without consequence.

That's a pretty unflattering thing to say about women.

You're basically alleging they only care about money and their own success, and anything they have to tolerate to achieve both is worth the price.

Gee, how many of Kozinski's clerks came forward? Men or women?

Answer: Zero. None of them did. (This includes Kavanaugh, btw. He did not come forward then and has not admitted any knowledge of any of Kozinski's problems even now.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People say there is no need to be a feminist now. This is exactly why.

What I meant is:
People say there is no need to be a feminist now. This is exactly why we cannot stop.

[Anonymous]

Dr. Ford is very credible. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I referred to this article on the previous thread. It’s illuminating - all of the assertions Kavanaugh presented in his testimony dissected. And what does it reveal? It reveals his obfuscation and in several cases, lies.

Of course, Kavanaugh defenders are willing to ignore this but it should trouble all of us. We deserve a SCJ who is not just unbiased (Kavanaugh showed he is anything but) but who stands for the truth.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

It was very obvious during his testimony when he was telling the truth and when he was lying. His emotions about his kids, wife, parents, etc. were very real. His statements about his drinking and sexual innuendo in his year book were obvious lies. I think he does not remember if he jumped on CBF. I think he can honestly (in his mind) state that he never sexually assaulted anyone - because he doesn't think of what happened with CBF or the penis-in-the-face waving as sexual assault. He thinks of sexual assaulters as guy who wait in the bushes in the dark to ambush innocent ladies walking home. Bret Kavanaughs (in his mind) are good people, they love their mom and got into Yale, tutor kids in Rockville and work in soup kitchens.

I think he does remember what happened with Professor Ford.

[Anonymous]

Is it common to fail a polygraph when a person is telling the truth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this near the end of thread 3. I’m curious what Kavanaugh supporters think, particularly of the last paragraph.

“I honestly don’t know who is telling the truth. I don’t believe her blindly, but I also don’t think she’s involved in some big conspiracy (even if one is happening around her.) And certainly some people screwed the pooch procedurally here.

All that said, his behavior on Thursday was absolutely horrific and completely unbecoming of a Supreme Court Justice. He is hot tempered and blatantly partisan. Yes, lots of people in the room were being partisan, but he was the only one trying to become a Supreme Court Justice.”

As I’ve said before, if he had been polite and answered the questions cordially and directly, this would all be over. He has humiliated himself and shown he can’t remain calm and impartial in tense situations.”

He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “threat” and also publicly and proudly announced, “I believe her” before any testimony.
He is an innocent man who was vehemently defending his name, his reputation, his integrity, and his livelihood. This was not a “tense situation.” It was a lynching. It was disgusting.

If you wish to see how he handles himself in tense situations, consider his behavior and demeanor during his 12 years as an appellate judge. There were NO COMPLAINTS.

This is all I need to know.

Well, I think you should also take into consideration that 50 out of 100 Senators do not agree with you (Pence could have broken the tie), or they would have voted on Saturday as planed. And keep in mind that in mind that 50 of the Senators are registered as Republicans.

The fact that he's had "no complaints" is meaningless. No one who has worked hard enough to make it to clerk for a federal judge is going to turn around and file a complaint about their boss. It's suicidal.

Women suck these things up and move on in order to maintain and progress in their careers. Eventually, if they wind up with millions of dollars and a degree of power they may turn around and try to bring him down (ex. Weinstein). Failing that, these men go on without consequence.

That's a pretty unflattering thing to say about women.

You're basically alleging they only care about money and their own success, and anything they have to tolerate to achieve both is worth the price.

Gee, how many of Kozinski's clerks came forward? Men or women?

Answer: Zero. None of them did. (This includes Kavanaugh, btw. He did not come forward then and has not admitted any knowledge of any of Kozinski's problems even now.)

The answer is not zero, several clerks came forward, starting with the one who wrote about Kozinski’s harassment in the New York Times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the Mitchell memo. No one is asking for charges to be brought. No one is contending that she met the reasonable doubt standard.

The report just makes me more sympathetic to Ford. She is being criticized and torn apart and now a prosecutor has torn through and prepared a report for nothing. And there is no report on Kavanaugh. And we all saw his performance and know where the inconsistencies are. Not to mention his conduct.

How bizarre.

She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility.

Words have meaning, bub.

How many dozen women ON THIS SITE have said that something very similar to what Dr Ford describes happened to them? So it doesn’t stretch all plausibility in the slightest. You’re just determined not to believe her.

It stretches plausibility that she ran out of the house, somehow got home seven miles away, but conveniently doesn't remember how she got home. It stretches plausibility that she didn't have a conversation with her lifelong best friend who was supposedly at the party with her as to why she suddenly left early and how she managed to get home.

Consider yourself lucky that is it stretches credulity for you. Know what that tells me? It has never happened to you. The other 1/4 of us know and understand exactly. Listen when people talk to you.

So no one remembers driving a girl who would have been extremely upset and shaken, seven miles back to her house? Christine and her BFF didn't discuss why she suddenly left the party or how she got home? How is it plausible that her friend didn't ask her how she got home when she couldn't drive, and she would have had to find another way home than how she would presumably have gotten there?

I was sexually assaulted while swimming in a lake as a teenager, with my best friend not 10 feet away from me as it happened. I got away from the boy who was doing it without drawing any attention to what happened, then or ever. I didn’t tell my friend what happened out of fear of the incident blowing up, people finding out, and finding myself in the middle of an unforgiving rumor mill that NEVER was a good thing for a girl in the 80s. I have absolutely no recollection of anything else from that day 30 years ago. No car rides, nothing. Maybe my friend thought it was weird at the time that I chose what seemed like a random moment to stop hanging out and having fun in the lake, but that kind of mundane incident (me getting out of the lake while everyone was having fun) is not typically something that sticks with people for 30 years. She might have no memory at all of that day at the lake, and that would in no way be weird or abnormal.

I know the person who did it to me, by name. THAT is something that you don’t forget. I have no interest in drawing the incident to anyone’s attention and it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t even remember it. But if he were a SCOTUS pick I would definitely consider coming forward. And my friend would probably honestly say that she didn’t remember that specific day in the lake; I wouldn’t want her to lie about that. It doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen or that I would be wrong to come forward.

This is the stupidest of all arguments, this confirmation has been rushed from the start, with tens of thousands of documents withheld for no good reasons.

It is very difficult to conclude that something happened without some corroboration. If your friend remembered being at the lake with all people present that would certainly help. Without that, it becomes one person's word against another. Unfortunately, the Duke case and the UVA case have taught us that not all claims are true. Your last line is correct but how should people act on it without any other corroboration?

I don't like Kavanaugh as a justice. I don't think he is a good pick. I don't know if what Ford says actually happened or not. I do wish that Feinstein had not sat on the allegations until the end of the process. There is no excuse for it. Ford reached out when he was being considered. He would have been dropped at the beginning of the process. That is what is so frustrating to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it common to fail a polygraph when a person is telling the truth?

It happens, but if you're taking one for a security clearance, the government trusts your polygraph more than your words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it common to fail a polygraph when a person is telling the truth?

Not according to Kavanaugh, when he ruled on polygraphs from his seat on the bench.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just believe the woman. She had no motive to come out.

No motive?

Pfffffft, she'll have a multimillion dollar book deal within a year, highly paid speaking engagements, constant buzz about her, be a highly sought-after guest commentator, etc, plus whatever turns up in the GoFundMe, which was up to $600,000 last week.

Nah, no motive at all. None. Zero.

So she WAITED when he was appointed to a federal judgeship, rolling the dice that he may or may not get nominated to SC, to get the bigger payout???

Remember, the republican senators denied her the option of a confidential FBI investigation. She asked for it OVER AND OVER.

What information is this comment referring to? I haven't read about this. She called the Washington Post from the first day, so I'm not sure I really believe she wanted to be anonymous or confidential. Either way though, can you tell me where you are reading that the republicans stopped some sort of confidential investigation from happening?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the Mitchell memo. No one is asking for charges to be brought. No one is contending that she met the reasonable doubt standard.

The report just makes me more sympathetic to Ford. She is being criticized and torn apart and now a prosecutor has torn through and prepared a report for nothing. And there is no report on Kavanaugh. And we all saw his performance and know where the inconsistencies are. Not to mention his conduct.

How bizarre.

She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility.

Words have meaning, bub.

How many dozen women ON THIS SITE have said that something very similar to what Dr Ford describes happened to them? So it doesn’t stretch all plausibility in the slightest. You’re just determined not to believe her.

It stretches plausibility that she ran out of the house, somehow got home seven miles away, but conveniently doesn't remember how she got home. It stretches plausibility that she didn't have a conversation with her lifelong best friend who was supposedly at the party with her as to why she suddenly left early and how she managed to get home.

Consider yourself lucky that is it stretches credulity for you. Know what that tells me? It has never happened to you. The other 1/4 of us know and understand exactly. Listen when people talk to you.

So no one remembers driving a girl who would have been extremely upset and shaken, seven miles back to her house? Christine and her BFF didn't discuss why she suddenly left the party or how she got home? How is it plausible that her friend didn't ask her how she got home when she couldn't drive, and she would have had to find another way home than how she would presumably have gotten there?

I was sexually assaulted while swimming in a lake as a teenager, with my best friend not 10 feet away from me as it happened. I got away from the boy who was doing it without drawing any attention to what happened, then or ever. I didn’t tell my friend what happened out of fear of the incident blowing up, people finding out, and finding myself in the middle of an unforgiving rumor mill that NEVER was a good thing for a girl in the 80s. I have absolutely no recollection of anything else from that day 30 years ago. No car rides, nothing. Maybe my friend thought it was weird at the time that I chose what seemed like a random moment to stop hanging out and having fun in the lake, but that kind of mundane incident (me getting out of the lake while everyone was having fun) is not typically something that sticks with people for 30 years. She might have no memory at all of that day at the lake, and that would in no way be weird or abnormal.

I know the person who did it to me, by name. THAT is something that you don’t forget. I have no interest in drawing the incident to anyone’s attention and it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t even remember it. But if he were a SCOTUS pick I would definitely consider coming forward. And my friend would probably honestly say that she didn’t remember that specific day in the lake; I wouldn’t want her to lie about that. It doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen or that I would be wrong to come forward.

I'm so sorry PP. I also was sexually assaulted. In 1983 (I just had to look up if it was 83 or 84) on the couch by my ex-boyfriend's roommate after their college graduation party. I can describe the couch in great detail, I can still FEEL the rough, tweedy fabric. I can tell you the guy's name - I just googled and it seems he's a teacher at a Catholic school, of all things. I can tell you what he did to me, what he said, how he told me to be quiet otherwise it would hurt more. I can't tell you much more though. Although he held me down and I didn't want to have sex and I told him to stop, I never called it a "rape." I thought I'd brought it on myself - I was sleeping on the couch instead of driving home because I was drunk and probably was a little flirtatious with the roommate that night to make my ex jealous.

And I told no one about it for decades, until one time I was out with some mommy friends and someone brought up that they'd been date raped. And at that moment I realized I had been too. So, yeah, her story completely rings true to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this near the end of thread 3. I’m curious what Kavanaugh supporters think, particularly of the last paragraph.

“I honestly don’t know who is telling the truth. I don’t believe her blindly, but I also don’t think she’s involved in some big conspiracy (even if one is happening around her.) And certainly some people screwed the pooch procedurally here.

All that said, his behavior on Thursday was absolutely horrific and completely unbecoming of a Supreme Court Justice. He is hot tempered and blatantly partisan. Yes, lots of people in the room were being partisan, but he was the only one trying to become a Supreme Court Justice.”

As I’ve said before, if he had been polite and answered the questions cordially and directly, this would all be over. He has humiliated himself and shown he can’t remain calm and impartial in tense situations.”

He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “threat” and also publicly and proudly announced, “I believe her” before any testimony.
He is an innocent man who was vehemently defending his name, his reputation, his integrity, and his livelihood. This was not a “tense situation.” It was a lynching. It was disgusting.

If you wish to see how he handles himself in tense situations, consider his behavior and demeanor during his 12 years as an appellate judge. There were NO COMPLAINTS.

This is all I need to know.

There were many complaints about his rigidity and activism as a Court of Appeals judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just believe the woman. She had no motive to come out.

No motive?

Pfffffft, she'll have a multimillion dollar book deal within a year, highly paid speaking engagements, constant buzz about her, be a highly sought-after guest commentator, etc, plus whatever turns up in the GoFundMe, which was up to $600,000 last week.

Nah, no motive at all. None. Zero.

So she WAITED when he was appointed to a federal judgeship, rolling the dice that he may or may not get nominated to SC, to get the bigger payout???

Remember, the republican senators denied her the option of a confidential FBI investigation. She asked for it OVER AND OVER.

And, you know when that FBI investigation should have happened? When Feinstein received the letter. SHE knows that. Everyone knows that.
It would have been confidential. But, here we are because of politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just believe the woman. She had no motive to come out.

One motive. Inability to tolerate this person having power over her and her family.

Could that be because he sexually assaulted her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the Mitchell memo. No one is asking for charges to be brought. No one is contending that she met the reasonable doubt standard.

The report just makes me more sympathetic to Ford. She is being criticized and torn apart and now a prosecutor has torn through and prepared a report for nothing. And there is no report on Kavanaugh. And we all saw his performance and know where the inconsistencies are. Not to mention his conduct.

How bizarre.

She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility.

Words have meaning, bub.

How many dozen women ON THIS SITE have said that something very similar to what Dr Ford describes happened to them? So it doesn’t stretch all plausibility in the slightest. You’re just determined not to believe her.

It stretches plausibility that she ran out of the house, somehow got home seven miles away, but conveniently doesn't remember how she got home. It stretches plausibility that she didn't have a conversation with her lifelong best friend who was supposedly at the party with her as to why she suddenly left early and how she managed to get home.

Consider yourself lucky that is it stretches credulity for you. Know what that tells me? It has never happened to you. The other 1/4 of us know and understand exactly. Listen when people talk to you.

So no one remembers driving a girl who would have been extremely upset and shaken, seven miles back to her house? Christine and her BFF didn't discuss why she suddenly left the party or how she got home? How is it plausible that her friend didn't ask her how she got home when she couldn't drive, and she would have had to find another way home than how she would presumably have gotten there?

I was sexually assaulted while swimming in a lake as a teenager, with my best friend not 10 feet away from me as it happened. I got away from the boy who was doing it without drawing any attention to what happened, then or ever. I didn’t tell my friend what happened out of fear of the incident blowing up, people finding out, and finding myself in the middle of an unforgiving rumor mill that NEVER was a good thing for a girl in the 80s. I have absolutely no recollection of anything else from that day 30 years ago. No car rides, nothing. Maybe my friend thought it was weird at the time that I chose what seemed like a random moment to stop hanging out and having fun in the lake, but that kind of mundane incident (me getting out of the lake while everyone was having fun) is not typically something that sticks with people for 30 years. She might have no memory at all of that day at the lake, and that would in no way be weird or abnormal.

I know the person who did it to me, by name. THAT is something that you don’t forget. I have no interest in drawing the incident to anyone’s attention and it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t even remember it. But if he were a SCOTUS pick I would definitely consider coming forward. And my friend would probably honestly say that she didn’t remember that specific day in the lake; I wouldn’t want her to lie about that. It doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen or that I would be wrong to come forward.

This is the stupidest of all arguments, this confirmation has been rushed from the start, with tens of thousands of documents withheld for no good reasons.

It is very difficult to conclude that something happened without some corroboration. If your friend remembered being at the lake with all people present that would certainly help. Without that, it becomes one person's word against another. Unfortunately, the Duke case and the UVA case have taught us that not all claims are true. Your last line is correct but how should people act on it without any other corroboration?

I don't like Kavanaugh as a justice. I don't think he is a good pick. I don't know if what Ford says actually happened or not. I do wish that Feinstein had not sat on the allegations until the end of the process. There is no excuse for it. Ford reached out when he was being considered. He would have been dropped at the beginning of the process. That is what is so frustrating to me.

Ford reached out and shared that he had attacked her at the beginning, and she wanted it shared with the committee. It is possible that mcconnell knew from the beginning and this was one of the reasons that he didn't want Trump to nominate Kavanaugh.

I don't think this was as much a surprise to the republicans on the committee as you think it was. I think they are surprised that they weren't able to squash it, and that she was so believable in her testimony.