Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting water cooler talk in my office today. 4 co-workers. All DMV professionals. Aged 30-45. 2 white women, 1 white male, one AA male. One grew up in the DMV and went through FCPS. One from the South. One from the Midwest. some public HS, some private. Ect.

We all believe Ford, because we all knew the Bart O’Kavanaughs in our HS classes. The members of the football/basketball teams who hosted the keggers and did whatever it took to get under the cheerleaders’ skirts. They drank underage, and drove underage. In fact, one of the Bart’s in my high school was driving drunk and killed a cheerleader in an car accident my freshman year. He ended up in jail. And usually didn’t let little things like lack of consent stop them if they found themselves alone in a car with a girl. Three of us went to colleges where bad things happened at DKE parties. At my college, they were kicked off campus a couple years after I graduated.

The point is that we now literally have 700 pages of discussion about this for a reason. Yes, SCOTUS is important. And yes, this has become the train wreck you can’t look away from. But for many of us, what Ford is saying just rings true. We saw it happen in our high schools. We heard the whispers about the girls Monday mornings. We know girls who were date raped and became the talk of the school. We know that, for the most part, the boys went on to have pretty wives and nice UMC lives, occasionally punctuated by rehab stints. Then again, it is not uncommon for them to cheat on those women.

So now, you have two groups of people. Those who never thought it was fair that the Bart O’Kavanughs of the world were so untouchable and could get way with anything. And women especially are angry that took advantage of us, and then made jokes about the xxx alumni in the high school yearbook. We want Kavanugh voted down because we want it to be clear that what happened to us was not okay, and as a country we have come to realize that. We know that if Kavanaugh is seated, it says to the 2018 high school aged Bart O’Kavanaughs that they can take advantage of our daughters.

And I would imagine that it is dawning on all the Bart O’Kavanaughs out there that #MeToo could be coming for them.

This is so not about who did what to whom in the 1980s in Bethesda. Or a bar fights or what a Devils Triangle is. Or even liberals and conservatives. It’s about power. The power of the wealthy and men to get what they want at the expense of others. The power of women to have an equal say. In sex, in politics, at home, and in high school.

I am so over Ford and Brett and Sqi and PJ and why was the music already on. But I care 700 pages of DCUM about this because I want the Bart O’Kavanaugh of my DD’s high school to think twice before he touching my DD without her consent.

What you're effectively saying that despite believing Ford it also doesn't really matter whether or not Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her or not. What truly and seriously matters here is that *someone* of the typecast mold of Brett Kavanaugh circa the early 1980s is punished for all the other attacks and assaults that happened to all the other women.

Your post is a perfect example of why this has blown way beyond a simple he/she said story and why people continue to conveniently ignore the so many holes in Ford's story and testimony or that it could be reinterpreted so differently using the same basic information. You have simply swapped Ford for the other women you knew who were sexually assaulted and you are seeking Kavanaugh to be punished, not for what he allegedly did to Ford, but for those other victims. The truth of what happened that night doesn't matter here (if we were sincerely seeking the truth, the reaction to Ford would be very different). You say you believed Ford, but it's not because of her testimony, it's because you heard of similar sexual assaults happening elsewhere at the time and which went unreported or unresolved. You are simply seeking vengeance and Brett Kavanaugh must be the sacrificial victim.

Of course I knew assholes like Brett Kavanaugh when he was a teenager. I didn't like them. I especially did not like them. I'm very well aware that there have been scores of attacks of varying degrees on women and which were hushed up and hidden away. But I draw the line at punishing Brett Kavanaugh as a sacrificial victim for things he did not do. For that's not right. Two wrongs don't make a right. I view this matter solely as the situation between him and Ford and unfortunately it's too inconclusive and too weak to convincingly side with Ford. I don't wish to see Kavanaugh on the court, but I cannot also justify declaring him guilty based on what Ford told us and what we know of the circumstances.

THIS, precisely. ^^^ Those condemning Kavanaugh aren't at all interested in whether he actually is guilty of assault. They just want him to go down, to set an example. And that's what is frightening. Someone must pay for the sins of other men (apparently), and they've decided Brett Kavanaugh is it.

[Anonymous]

The White House isn't on immediate damage control, so perhaps the report doesn't have anything new.

Sigh. I hope Collins, Murkowski, and Heitkamp see their way through this. Flake will probably be a yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I do not agree. Giving in to this type of terrorism from the left only breeds more.

DP. I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with the idea. But you picked a dud. He blew it. That wasn't the Dems' fault. Just his.

Bullsh*t. Democrats launched an absolute smear campaign and you know that which is why you disagree with the idea. I'm glad he behaved the way he did. I wish he had gone full-nuclear, frankly. They deserved it full-stop.

You will do the same to the next one. And the next. And the next. It's what the left has devolved into. It's amoral and reprehensible.

And if the next one is accused of impropriety and manages to keep their composure when dealing with it, the will be promptly seated.

For the legal community, it isn’t about the harassment charge. It’s about his behavior at the hearing.

Please, you don’t speak for the “legal community,” whatever that actually might mean. There is no monolithic legal community. I am a practicing attorney in multiple states and a member of several professional associations (how many legal communities does that mean I belong to?) and I was thrilled that he told off the hypocrite Democrats in the SJC who never, not even for 2 minutes, had any intention of voting to confirm him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Having conveniently developed amnesia that not too long ago, they supported a candidate who didn't pay his taxes, had multiple allegations of sexual assault against him and who insulted heads of state around the world in a way that embarassed our great nation.

I’m a republican, and DJT embarrasses me. I’m glad that a career politician is not in office, but I’m sad it’s he. And that is one of the differences between DJT and many other accused, both R and D, is that he was not an elected official at the time, but exactly as he lived his life as a wealthy playboy. I have not seen any sexual allegations or affairs which he has currently engaged since he has become president.

As it stands, one of the reasons I voted for him is exactly this issue: SCOTUS appointments. He has done an excellent job. Judge Kavanaugh has a 12 year record of being an outstanding judge and an exceptional, world class legal scholar - all his opinions are available for public inspection.

The last minute allegations come across exactly as Kavanaugh characterized them: a political hit job. On that principle alone he should be confirmed, and the confirmation process re-examined. Otherwise, get ready when any nominee of the majority is nominated to see more slimy tactics. I’m assuming that the D’s will be majority this next election cycle.

The R’s now look classy as to how they handled Merrick Garland. Even though it was manipulative to instigate procedural delays, they not destroy his character. This is beyond the pale.

+1,000
Garland got off easy. At least he wasn't given a hearing in which his entire character was assassinated.

[Anonymous]

It’s not hypocritical to vote no based solely on Leahy’s experience - now proven by emails - with Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Having conveniently developed amnesia that not too long ago, they supported a candidate who didn't pay his taxes, had multiple allegations of sexual assault against him and who insulted heads of state around the world in a way that embarassed our great nation.

I’m a republican, and DJT embarrasses me. I’m glad that a career politician is not in office, but I’m sad it’s he. And that is one of the differences between DJT and many other accused, both R and D, is that he was not an elected official at the time, but exactly as he lived his life as a wealthy playboy. I have not seen any sexual allegations or affairs which he has currently engaged since he has become president.

As it stands, one of the reasons I voted for him is exactly this issue: SCOTUS appointments. He has done an excellent job. Judge Kavanaugh has a 12 year record of being an outstanding judge and an exceptional, world class legal scholar - all his opinions are available for public inspection.

The last minute allegations come across exactly as Kavanaugh characterized them: a political hit job. On that principle alone he should be confirmed, and the confirmation process re-examined. Otherwise, get ready when any nominee of the majority is nominated to see more slimy tactics. I’m assuming that the D’s will be majority this next election cycle.

The R’s now look classy as to how they handled Merrick Garland. Even though it was manipulative to instigate procedural delays, they not destroy his character. This is beyond the pale.

So it doesn’t matter if the allegations are true. It doesn’t matter if he perjured and greatly misrepresented himself. It doesn’t matter that his judicial behavior has been questionable (and called out by multiple groups).

The ONLY thing that matters to you is getting back at the Ds for the TIMING of the allegations (not the content).

Got it. Spiteful to the end.

DP. That you can pretend the TIMING of the allegations was perfectly acceptable, only makes you look stupid. These allegations could have (and should have) been brought decades ago. If there was any truth to them, they would have already been investigated, for better or worse. To wait until literally the last minute is unconscionable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope he is rejected . It is better for republicans for mid terms. Will invigorate voters after seeing how Democrats destroyed this man for politics

Be like the health care law. It was better that Obamacare was not overturned

Same thing here , best thing that can happen for republicans is that report shows nothing and Kavanaugh withdraws

Amen

I don't think they have the votes. It will end the same way Harvard did. He really upset the legal community. He will get counseling from his team, then the announcement will follow.

Amen. For all the Devils Triangles and spiked punch talk, what he did in the 80s is irrelevant. Because his behavior at the hearing was absolutely disqualifying. The rudeness, the contempt of members of Congress, his inability to keep his cool, the Cliton conspiracy crap— all of it. And maybe you have to be a member of the legal community to understand it. But if you are going to be a federal judge, you agree to certain guidelines. One is to have a judicial temperament— to be the calmest person in the room, to be the one who diffuses tense situations and reigns people in, and not lose your temper. Another is to avoid even the appearance of partiality or impropriety.

I have seen people say they would be upset too. So would I. But if you can’t hold it together, you are not qualified to be a judge. It’s like being a therapist and not being empathetic. Being a judge is a job the requires certain personality traits.

I have never heard that K has the reputation for being a hot head. So his temper tantrum was shocking. And stupid. I have seen it reported that McGann cleared the room after Fords testimony and told him he had to come out swinging. If true it was terrible advice and complete amateur hour. And it sank the nomination. He would have been hearing cases this week if he had kept his cool.

I work with lawyers from the Federalist society to Berniefan club. And everyone agrees that seating him would seriously damage the legitimacy of the Court and that he should withdraw.

To say the legal community is really upset is an understatement.

You are right. I should have taken the time to write a proper post. It would be the most profound mistake to confirm him. I cannot see how it cold be allowed. The damage would be profound and irreversible. Kavanaugh would continue to be a problem on the Court.

I do not agree. Giving in to this type of terrorism from the left only breeds more.

Two wrongs do not make it right. Nomination of clean conservative judge is not giving in to the left. It's standing by the rule of law.

Clean conservative judge? LOLOL. Where are they in the left's mind? There are none. The only clean conservative judge to a liberal is a liberal judge.

Well said.

Nope. Roberts was clean. Alito was clean. Gorsuch was clean. Thomas— not so much. Most federal judges I know are squeaky clean. Liberal and conservative. The only one I personally know who isn’t was married when he was caught banging his married female law clerk in the Courthoise. And he was appointed by a Democrat.

We have a reality show presidency and Congress in a race to the bottom between the two parties. SCOTUS does not need to be entertaining or enraging or an episode of Judge Judy. Now, more than ever, we need it to work. And that will mean a conservative 5th Justice. Either Kav, or an appointment pushed through by a lame duck Senate. I really hope it’s the later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I do not agree. Giving in to this type of terrorism from the left only breeds more.

DP. I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with the idea. But you picked a dud. He blew it. That wasn't the Dems' fault. Just his.

Bullsh*t. Democrats launched an absolute smear campaign and you know that which is why you disagree with the idea. I'm glad he behaved the way he did. I wish he had gone full-nuclear, frankly. They deserved it full-stop.

You will do the same to the next one. And the next. And the next. It's what the left has devolved into. It's amoral and reprehensible.

And if the next one is accused of impropriety and manages to keep their composure when dealing with it, the will be promptly seated.

For the legal community, it isn’t about the harassment charge. It’s about his behavior at the hearing.

Please, you don’t speak for the “legal community,” whatever that actually might mean. There is no monolithic legal community. I am a practicing attorney in multiple states and a member of several professional associations (how many legal communities does that mean I belong to?) and I was thrilled that he told off the hypocrite Democrats in the SJC who never, not even for 2 minutes, had any intention of voting to confirm him.

PI work or divorces?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I do not agree. Giving in to this type of terrorism from the left only breeds more.

DP. I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with the idea. But you picked a dud. He blew it. That wasn't the Dems' fault. Just his.

Bullsh*t. Democrats launched an absolute smear campaign and you know that which is why you disagree with the idea. I'm glad he behaved the way he did. I wish he had gone full-nuclear, frankly. They deserved it full-stop.

You will do the same to the next one. And the next. And the next. It's what the left has devolved into. It's amoral and reprehensible.

And if the next one is accused of impropriety and manages to keep their composure when dealing with it, the will be promptly seated.

For the legal community, it isn’t about the harassment charge. It’s about his behavior at the hearing.

Please, you don’t speak for the “legal community,” whatever that actually might mean. There is no monolithic legal community. I am a practicing attorney in multiple states and a member of several professional associations (how many legal communities does that mean I belong to?) and I was thrilled that he told off the hypocrite Democrats in the SJC who never, not even for 2 minutes, had any intention of voting to confirm him.

PI work or divorces?

Definitely an ambulance chaser

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I do not agree. Giving in to this type of terrorism from the left only breeds more.

DP. I understand what you're saying and don't disagree with the idea. But you picked a dud. He blew it. That wasn't the Dems' fault. Just his.

Bullsh*t. Democrats launched an absolute smear campaign and you know that which is why you disagree with the idea. I'm glad he behaved the way he did. I wish he had gone full-nuclear, frankly. They deserved it full-stop.

You will do the same to the next one. And the next. And the next. It's what the left has devolved into. It's amoral and reprehensible.

And if the next one is accused of impropriety and manages to keep their composure when dealing with it, the will be promptly seated.

For the legal community, it isn’t about the harassment charge. It’s about his behavior at the hearing.

Please, you don’t speak for the “legal community,” whatever that actually might mean. There is no monolithic legal community. I am a practicing attorney in multiple states and a member of several professional associations (how many legal communities does that mean I belong to?) and I was thrilled that he told off the hypocrite Democrats in the SJC who never, not even for 2 minutes, had any intention of voting to confirm him.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The White House isn't on immediate damage control, so perhaps the report doesn't have anything new.

Sigh. I hope Collins, Murkowski, and Heitkamp see their way through this. Flake will probably be a yes.

The three undecided Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) — were critical of the comments Trump made at the Mississippi rally.

Collins referred to them as “just plain wrong,” Flake as “kind of appalling” and Murkowski as “wholly inappropriate” and “unacceptable."

There was even criticism from some figures more closely allied with Trump and Kavanaugh.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has been one of Kavanaugh’s staunchest defenders, said during an appearance Wednesday at a conference organized by The Atlantic, that he would tell Trump to “knock it off — it’s not helpful.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope he is rejected . It is better for republicans for mid terms. Will invigorate voters after seeing how Democrats destroyed this man for politics

Be like the health care law. It was better that Obamacare was not overturned

Same thing here , best thing that can happen for republicans is that report shows nothing and Kavanaugh withdraws

Amen

I don't think they have the votes. It will end the same way Harvard did. He really upset the legal community. He will get counseling from his team, then the announcement will follow.

Amen. For all the Devils Triangles and spiked punch talk, what he did in the 80s is irrelevant. Because his behavior at the hearing was absolutely disqualifying. The rudeness, the contempt of members of Congress, his inability to keep his cool, the Cliton conspiracy crap— all of it. And maybe you have to be a member of the legal community to understand it. But if you are going to be a federal judge, you agree to certain guidelines. One is to have a judicial temperament— to be the calmest person in the room, to be the one who diffuses tense situations and reigns people in, and not lose your temper. Another is to avoid even the appearance of partiality or impropriety.

I have seen people say they would be upset too. So would I. But if you can’t hold it together, you are not qualified to be a judge. It’s like being a therapist and not being empathetic. Being a judge is a job the requires certain personality traits.

I have never heard that K has the reputation for being a hot head. So his temper tantrum was shocking. And stupid. I have seen it reported that McGann cleared the room after Fords testimony and told him he had to come out swinging. If true it was terrible advice and complete amateur hour. And it sank the nomination. He would have been hearing cases this week if he had kept his cool.

I work with lawyers from the Federalist society to Berniefan club. And everyone agrees that seating him would seriously damage the legitimacy of the Court and that he should withdraw.

To say the legal community is really upset is an understatement.

This cracks me up. Attack a man by accusing him of attempted rape. Have activists make his family's life a living hell. The say he doesn't have the temperament for a judge because he came in swinging to protect himself and his family.

When an innocent man is wrongly accused, that's usually how they react. Ask any police officer as it's one of the things they look for in a suspect when someone is murdered. Guilty people tend to act more like Ford did, i.e. story changes all the time, can't pin down details, say someone can vouch and they can't, etc.

+100
Well stated.
Last Thursday, Kavanaugh was NOT there in his role as a judge. If he were, there would not have been so many questions about his HS parties, his yearbook, and the terms referenced in his yearbook. He was there as a human being wrongly accused. I cannot blame him for showing anger and righteous indignation.

Double dumb. Of course he was there in his role as a Judge. A Judge who wanted a promotion in fact. But more broadly, being a judge isn’t a role you play. It’s a life you leave. You can’t punch out at six and then go do whatever the f-ck you want. At 7am in line at Starbucks on Saturday with your kid on the way to a soccer game, you are still a Judge, and are expected to behave as such.

Before the SJC? Yep. You are a Judge. (Hint: it’s the J that gives it away).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6:39: Desperation.
You seriously think that this is something posted by someone who, at the time, was serving as an appellate judge?

What I have discovered from this whole sorry story is just how gullible and desperate some of you are and how you make connections to events and terms where no connection exists.

Yes. Yes, I do believe it was posted by a sitting appellate judge. Hopefully an FBI agent can trace its origin. Why are you so sure it isn't? The name is the same. The sex act described is the very sex act that Kavanaugh describes in his yearbook. Or are you so gullible that you think he was telling the truth that "BOOFING" was farting?



Drinking alcohol from another person's anus is apparently a thing. He did this. He enshrined the activity in his yearbook. Yearbook reference+the xoxohth post+the name "Bart O'Kavanaugh=coincidence? And I'm gullible?

ok.

I hope the FBI investigates it. Because, they will find it was posted by some teenager in his mom’s basement. And then we can all mock those of you who are grasping at anything. And, it was probably entered recently - the site was manipulated to make it appear as if it was entered in 2012
But, I doubt they will because it is a ridiculous thought.
Think about this..........Why would he use a screen name that could be so easily traced back to him if he did do it (which he didn’t). Use some critical reasoning.

+1
I would love for the FBI to trace those postings to their source - a DCUM malcontent, determined to set Kavanaugh up using "whatever means necessary." Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

[Anonymous]

Given the Dem staffer arrested used to work with Jackson-Lee, it seriously makes me wonder what was in that envelope she was caught handing to Ford's lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Having conveniently developed amnesia that not too long ago, they supported a candidate who didn't pay his taxes, had multiple allegations of sexual assault against him and who insulted heads of state around the world in a way that embarassed our great nation.

I’m a republican, and DJT embarrasses me. I’m glad that a career politician is not in office, but I’m sad it’s he. And that is one of the differences between DJT and many other accused, both R and D, is that he was not an elected official at the time, but exactly as he lived his life as a wealthy playboy. I have not seen any sexual allegations or affairs which he has currently engaged since he has become president.

As it stands, one of the reasons I voted for him is exactly this issue: SCOTUS appointments. He has done an excellent job. Judge Kavanaugh has a 12 year record of being an outstanding judge and an exceptional, world class legal scholar - all his opinions are available for public inspection.

The last minute allegations come across exactly as Kavanaugh characterized them: a political hit job. On that principle alone he should be confirmed, and the confirmation process re-examined. Otherwise, get ready when any nominee of the majority is nominated to see more slimy tactics. I’m assuming that the D’s will be majority this next election cycle.

The R’s now look classy as to how they handled Merrick Garland. Even though it was manipulative to instigate procedural delays, they not destroy his character. This is beyond the pale.

So it doesn’t matter if the allegations are true. It doesn’t matter if he perjured and greatly misrepresented himself. It doesn’t matter that his judicial behavior has been questionable (and called out by multiple groups).

The ONLY thing that matters to you is getting back at the Ds for the TIMING of the allegations (not the content).

Got it. Spiteful to the end.

You are twisting my words.

First, I don’t believe the allegations, and I don’t believe in coincidences. I would have to believe accidentally the letter was leaked almost 6 weeks after Democrats had it and after having already extensively interviewed Kavanaugh, privately interviewed Kavanaugh, where Dr. Ford’s wishes for anonymity might have been honored. Do you believe in that coincidence?

Secondly, I never said I wanted to ‘get back at D’s.’ You said that. I said this process should be re-examined and defined, no matter who is in power, R or D. Do you think it should stand as it is? I am suggesting if it is not reformed, it could be another circus, when D’s may have a nominee. I am explaining that the process is flawed. What is wrong with you?

+100