Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Surely a SCJ nominee is smart enough to avoid falling into a "perjury trap." It should be a requirement for the position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would have been better for Ford herself if she had not spoke out. She knows this, she's still getting death threats. Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out. It takes enormous courage for someone to do this.

The FBI had their hands tied and were not able to do a proper investigation. I they had been, this whole situation at least could have been clearer.

Moral of the whole story: report your sexual assault now, before the assaultor becomes famous. Keep notes and pictures, gather evidence, no matter how painful. Yes, you will probably be villified for reporting, whether you are male or female.

Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out

She did this to tarnish his reputation. Look. There aren't a myriad of options when reporting crimes. You are either trying to get the person to be charged and put in jail or you are trying to tarnish their reputation regardless of the outcome. She achieved her mission.

Yes of course if you are going to come forward 36 years after the fact you need to be sure you have proof if you want the person to be found guilty. Where is all the common sense? It makes no difference how famous the person is. It makes a difference how much proof you have after 36 years. Having the FBI investigate is above and beyond what most people get in a sexual assault case especially one that long ago.

In a sense, you're right, it was about tarnishing his reputation, but not in the way you're trying to spin it, that it was done for some nefarious purpose, a baseless smear to get revenge or something. When a person is up for a position that requires the utmost character and integrity and you have information that you believe bears on that person's character and integrity that isn't going to come out otherwise, there is a public value in you bringing that information forward, even if it's too late to do anything else with it. Kavanaugh was nominated to a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court. Ford believed that determination shouldn't be made without the Senate being able to consider the full scope of his character and integrity, including the fact that he sexually assaulted her. Kavanaugh didn't already have a reputation for sexual assault, so natural coming forward with this would "tarnish his reputation." After so many years, a criminal charge obviously wasn't going to happen, but that doesn't mean the assault had no bearing on his fitness for this appointment.

I didn't say it was to get revenge somehow. I think she's beyond that and wanted to use her words to take down the republican party and his appointment at this point. I don't actually believe she's still hurt by him if it ever happened at all. If she was still seeking actual revenge for the crime, she would have pressed charges through law enforcement. she didn't because her motive was entirely to harm his reputation knowing she had no proof. She also understood that there was no way her words were going to have any effect on the nomination unless they went public. I think the real reason she spoke anonymously from the beginning was to see if she had enough democrats to rally around her to make the story public and go somewhere. It had nothing to do with the republican party at all. She was just doing a grassroots campaign first to get liberals on board.

You are doing a lot of speculating here but haven't provided any foundation for it. If you can point to any evidence to support this conclusion, I'm happy to discuss that.

Sure. There is the proof that she contacted the Washington post. That meant she wanted the story public somehow from the beginning. There is also the proof that she contacted her senator and that the senator was interested in the story. That shows that she wanted people voting for Kavanaugh to listen to her information when determining their voting decision. There is also proof that she was active in politics. Knowing this, she should have been able to understand that without some tarnish to his reputation through her words leaking out, she would have understood that republicans had the majority and he would have been confirmed. We recently had another supreme court justice confirmed the same way by a majority vote. There is also proof that she decided not to press charges through Montgomery County police. One speculation I have not confirmed is that she already contacted her friend about the incident at least sometime over the past 35 years and knew her friend wouldn't remember the event. I can't believe that wasn't known before she contacted Feinstein. She also would have known that Judge and Kavanaugh wouldn't support her story. And she knew she had no other proof because she didn't tell her parents or anyone during that time and had no recollection of the house or even the date.

From this I can gather that she realized she didn't have enough information for a criminal investigation. I can also gather that she did want to come forward to tarnish his name somehow because she knew she didn't want to press charges. However she understood she was accusing someone of a crime that could lead to an investigation if she wanted it. If she wanted the republicans to get on board right away and get the best possible investigation she would have been more public from the beginning. Because she and Feinstein waited, it tells me she and Feinstein wanted to rally their own party and/or wanted to make the biggest bang before the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Swetnick? The 20 year old Jewish woman who went to Gaithersburg High School hanging out at 10 Prep HS parties full of 17 year old Catholic school kids drinking out of spiked punch bowls?

I went to Prep. We would never hang out with somebody like her. Never. Anybody who thinks that Swetnick would ever be at a Prep party full of people much younger than her doesn't understand the private school weekend party culture.

Even though they mostly hang out with Landon a Holton class of '84 girl could conceivably find herself at the same party as Prep '83 guys. Hell, I took a Holten girl to Junior prom. There is some Prep-Holton crossover. A Gaithersburg '80 woman would never be accepted at a party of Prep '83 guys.

Swetnick and Avenatti's imbecilic story about a prep-school serial gang-rape ring did nothing to help the Democrat cause or the cause of actual victims and it just diluted the credibility of Ford's allegations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Swetnick? The 20 year old Jewish woman who went to Gaithersburg High School hanging out at 10 Prep HS parties full of 17 year old Catholic school kids drinking out of spiked punch bowls?

I went to Prep. We would never hang out with somebody like her. Never. Anybody who thinks that Swetnick would ever be at a Prep party full of people much younger than her doesn't understand the private school weekend party culture.

Even though they mostly hang out with Landon a Holton class of '84 girl could conceivably find herself at the same party as Prep '83 guys. Hell, I took a Holten girl to Junior prom. There is some Prep-Holton crossover. A Gaithersburg '80 woman would never be accepted at a party of Prep '83 guys.

Swetnick and Avenatti's imbecilic story about a prep-school serial gang-rape ring did nothing to help the Democrat cause or the cause of actual victims and it just diluted the credibility of Ford's allegations.

This exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Swetnick? The 20 year old Jewish woman who went to Gaithersburg High School hanging out at 10 Prep HS parties full of 17 year old Catholic school kids drinking out of spiked punch bowls?

I went to Prep. We would never hang out with somebody like her. Never. Anybody who thinks that Swetnick would ever be at a Prep party full of people much younger than her doesn't understand the private school weekend party culture.

Even though they mostly hang out with Landon a Holton class of '84 girl could conceivably find herself at the same party as Prep '83 guys. Hell, I took a Holten girl to Junior prom. There is some Prep-Holton crossover. A Gaithersburg '80 woman would never be accepted at a party of Prep '83 guys.

Swetnick and Avenatti's imbecilic story about a prep-school serial gang-rape ring did nothing to help the Democrat cause or the cause of actual victims and it just diluted the credibility of Ford's allegations.

Lovely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Swetnick? The 20 year old Jewish woman who went to Gaithersburg High School hanging out at 10 Prep HS parties full of 17 year old Catholic school kids drinking out of spiked punch bowls?

I went to Prep. We would never hang out with somebody like her. Never. Anybody who thinks that Swetnick would ever be at a Prep party full of people much younger than her doesn't understand the private school weekend party culture.

Even though they mostly hang out with Landon a Holton class of '84 girl could conceivably find herself at the same party as Prep '83 guys. Hell, I took a Holten girl to Junior prom. There is some Prep-Holton crossover. A Gaithersburg '80 woman would never be accepted at a party of Prep '83 guys.

Swetnick and Avenatti's imbecilic story about a prep-school serial gang-rape ring did nothing to help the Democrat cause or the cause of actual victims and it just diluted the credibility of Ford's allegations.

My favorite part about the story was that she seemed to think nothing of herself continuing to attend parties where there were date rapes happening. And somehow years later we were supposed to care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Swetnick? The 20 year old Jewish woman who went to Gaithersburg High School hanging out at 10 Prep HS parties full of 17 year old Catholic school kids drinking out of spiked punch bowls?

I went to Prep. We would never hang out with somebody like her. Never. Anybody who thinks that Swetnick would ever be at a Prep party full of people much younger than her doesn't understand the private school weekend party culture.

Even though they mostly hang out with Landon a Holton class of '84 girl could conceivably find herself at the same party as Prep '83 guys. Hell, I took a Holten girl to Junior prom. There is some Prep-Holton crossover. A Gaithersburg '80 woman would never be accepted at a party of Prep '83 guys.

Swetnick and Avenatti's imbecilic story about a prep-school serial gang-rape ring did nothing to help the Democrat cause or the cause of actual victims and it just diluted the credibility of Ford's allegations.

The Prep guy cracks me up. He’s the perfect caricature of an entitled prick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I came across this article about Mark Judge, which I thought was really well written and thought-provoking:

https://www.thenation.com/article/i-went-to-georgetown-prep-and-knew-mark-judge-and-i-believe-christine-blasey-ford/

Thanks for linking to this article.

Before I read it I had already thought that Ford's story was believable because there was no good reason for her to name Judge as being in the room if it all didn't happen. He was Brett's best friend, why would she think he wouldn't back Brett's version? Why would she provide an extra witness who she knew would likely only be on Brett's side and back whatever Brett said? The only reason she would place Judge on the scene is if he was actually there and actually witnessed what happened.

She just thought, erroneously, that Mark Judge might actually tell the truth. Maybe the Mark Judge she remembered from high school would have.

But Brett and Mark could not possibly admit to this event if it might mean it cost Brett the appointment to the supreme court. So they didn't.

+1

I watched her testimony and my gut reaction as she spoke was that Mark's behavior was indicative of a decent kid trying to stop what was happening. According to the linked author, I was right. And I've never met anyone involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I came across this article about Mark Judge, which I thought was really well written and thought-provoking:

https://www.thenation.com/article/i-went-to-georgetown-prep-and-knew-mark-judge-and-i-believe-christine-blasey-ford/

Thanks for linking to this article.

Before I read it I had already thought that Ford's story was believable because there was no good reason for her to name Judge as being in the room if it all didn't happen. He was Brett's best friend, why would she think he wouldn't back Brett's version? Why would she provide an extra witness who she knew would likely only be on Brett's side and back whatever Brett said? The only reason she would place Judge on the scene is if he was actually there and actually witnessed what happened.

She just thought, erroneously, that Mark Judge might actually tell the truth. Maybe the Mark Judge she remembered from high school would have.

But Brett and Mark could not possibly admit to this event if it might mean it cost Brett the appointment to the supreme court. So they didn't.

+1

I watched her testimony and my gut reaction as she spoke was that Mark's behavior was indicative of a decent kid trying to stop what was happening. According to the linked author, I was right. And I've never met anyone involved.

Correction: you believe what you want to believe and are twisting the story to fit in what you want to believe. There is no proof or fact behind your belief, only speculation. And therein lies the crux of the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Swetnick? The 20 year old Jewish woman who went to Gaithersburg High School hanging out at 10 Prep HS parties full of 17 year old Catholic school kids drinking out of spiked punch bowls?

I went to Prep. We would never hang out with somebody like her. Never. Anybody who thinks that Swetnick would ever be at a Prep party full of people much younger than her doesn't understand the private school weekend party culture.

Even though they mostly hang out with Landon a Holton class of '84 girl could conceivably find herself at the same party as Prep '83 guys. Hell, I took a Holten girl to Junior prom. There is some Prep-Holton crossover. A Gaithersburg '80 woman would never be accepted at a party of Prep '83 guys.

Swetnick and Avenatti's imbecilic story about a prep-school serial gang-rape ring did nothing to help the Democrat cause or the cause of actual victims and it just diluted the credibility of Ford's allegations.

The Prep guy cracks me up. He’s the perfect caricature of an entitled prick.

I know someone personally who's buddies with Kavanaugh and has been peddling this same line to anyone who will listen. Frankly, it makes it easier rather than harder for me to believe Kavanaugh may have done these things. If these guys were going to assault anyone, it's wasn't likely to be a girl from one of the "right" schools, not the sister of a Prep classmate or someone in their inner circle. It was going to be someone from a lesser school, someone they viewed as beneath them, someone who, to them, was totally disposable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I came across this article about Mark Judge, which I thought was really well written and thought-provoking:

https://www.thenation.com/article/i-went-to-georgetown-prep-and-knew-mark-judge-and-i-believe-christine-blasey-ford/

Thanks for linking to this article.

Before I read it I had already thought that Ford's story was believable because there was no good reason for her to name Judge as being in the room if it all didn't happen. He was Brett's best friend, why would she think he wouldn't back Brett's version? Why would she provide an extra witness who she knew would likely only be on Brett's side and back whatever Brett said? The only reason she would place Judge on the scene is if he was actually there and actually witnessed what happened.

She just thought, erroneously, that Mark Judge might actually tell the truth. Maybe the Mark Judge she remembered from high school would have.

But Brett and Mark could not possibly admit to this event if it might mean it cost Brett the appointment to the supreme court. So they didn't.

+1

I watched her testimony and my gut reaction as she spoke was that Mark's behavior was indicative of a decent kid trying to stop what was happening. According to the linked author, I was right. And I've never met anyone involved.

Correction: you believe what you want to believe and are twisting the story to fit in what you want to believe. There is no proof or fact behind your belief, only speculation. And therein lies the crux of the matter.

You cannot have read the linked article in the time you took to respond with YOUR opinion.

Read it, I dare you.

[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:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

Exactly.

Neither does it support Ford. And that none of her witnesses remember such a gathering, or anything similar, does benefit Kavanaugh and hurt Ford.

Exactly. Ford was known as a binge drinker at Holton Arms.

And?

We will never know because it was never investigated. It certainly seens plausible. So they will both live in the shadow of uncertainty.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.

Is your contention the FBI did not question the 4 named witnesses?

Ummm...they skipped the two main witnesses. total nonsense.

They already had their testimony. I would imagine that without corroboration from the 4 named witnesses, there was nothing for them to return to Ford and Kavanaugh regarding. You clearly think there is some reason the FBI should have returned to Ford and Kavanaugh.

Is your contention that the 4 named witnesses, who were interviewed by the FBI, provided information that the FBI should have followed up on and didn't?

I dont have to be an FBI agent to know that I cant imagine being tasked with investigating this incident without personally interviewing those two people. I want to ask the questions I want to ask and I certainly dont want some 5 minute time limit construction imposed on each question. Prepared statements are fine only if I get to follow that up with whatever questions I need to ask.

Director Wray testified today that their investigation was typical....”the usual process was followed.” They had hours - HOURS - of sworn testimony from both Ford and Kavanaugh. The only reason to re-interview them would be to set either up for a “perjury trap.”

Yep. Unfortunately, the only thing a more thorough investigation by the FBI would reveal would be more holes and inconsistencies in Ford's allegation and testimony, which was already becoming apparent in the last few days before the vote. The letter from her previous boyfriend was pretty damning in pointing out behaviors completely out of sync with what Ford claimed to suffer from. An investigation would have only revealed more inconsistencies. I'm surprised that Ford's supporters don't realize that a more thorough investigation would have only damned Ford more.

But as we know, it really doesn't matter. The truth does not and has never mattered here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't say it was to get revenge somehow. I think she's beyond that and wanted to use her words to take down the republican party and his appointment at this point. I don't actually believe she's still hurt by him if it ever happened at all. If she was still seeking actual revenge for the crime, she would have pressed charges through law enforcement. she didn't because her motive was entirely to harm his reputation knowing she had no proof. She also understood that there was no way her words were going to have any effect on the nomination unless they went public. I think the real reason she spoke anonymously from the beginning was to see if she had enough democrats to rally around her to make the story public and go somewhere. It had nothing to do with the republican party at all. She was just doing a grassroots campaign first to get liberals on board.

You are doing a lot of speculating here but haven't provided any foundation for it. If you can point to any evidence to support this conclusion, I'm happy to discuss that.

Sure. There is the proof that she contacted the Washington post. That meant she wanted the story public somehow from the beginning. There is also the proof that she contacted her senator and that the senator was interested in the story. That shows that she wanted people voting for Kavanaugh to listen to her information when determining their voting decision. There is also proof that she was active in politics. Knowing this, she should have been able to understand that without some tarnish to his reputation through her words leaking out, she would have understood that republicans had the majority and he would have been confirmed. We recently had another supreme court justice confirmed the same way by a majority vote. There is also proof that she decided not to press charges through Montgomery County police. One speculation I have not confirmed is that she already contacted her friend about the incident at least sometime over the past 35 years and knew her friend wouldn't remember the event. I can't believe that wasn't known before she contacted Feinstein. She also would have known that Judge and Kavanaugh wouldn't support her story. And she knew she had no other proof because she didn't tell her parents or anyone during that time and had no recollection of the house or even the date.

From this I can gather that she realized she didn't have enough information for a criminal investigation. I can also gather that she did want to come forward to tarnish his name somehow because she knew she didn't want to press charges. However she understood she was accusing someone of a crime that could lead to an investigation if she wanted it. If she wanted the republicans to get on board right away and get the best possible investigation she would have been more public from the beginning. Because she and Feinstein waited, it tells me she and Feinstein wanted to rally their own party and/or wanted to make the biggest bang before the election.

This is, again, a lot of speculation. Yes, she participated in a Womens March and made some small-dollar political donations, but so have millions of other women (myself included) who didn't not make allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Why do you believe she's different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh well ten whole people against the couple dozen who said they had information to offer and were ignored by the FBI at the order of the White House, and the Swetnick charges weren’t investigated at all. Because McGahn knew they’d find something.

Swetnick? The 20 year old Jewish woman who went to Gaithersburg High School hanging out at 10 Prep HS parties full of 17 year old Catholic school kids drinking out of spiked punch bowls?

I went to Prep. We would never hang out with somebody like her. Never. Anybody who thinks that Swetnick would ever be at a Prep party full of people much younger than her doesn't understand the private school weekend party culture.

Even though they mostly hang out with Landon a Holton class of '84 girl could conceivably find herself at the same party as Prep '83 guys. Hell, I took a Holten girl to Junior prom. There is some Prep-Holton crossover. A Gaithersburg '80 woman would never be accepted at a party of Prep '83 guys.

Swetnick and Avenatti's imbecilic story about a prep-school serial gang-rape ring did nothing to help the Democrat cause or the cause of actual victims and it just diluted the credibility of Ford's allegations.

The Prep guy cracks me up. He’s the perfect caricature of an entitled prick.

Wow you are sexist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surely a SCJ nominee is smart enough to avoid falling into a "perjury trap." It should be a requirement for the position.

True. Additionally, too bad there is no clause that if you are found to have committed moral turpitude prior to the confirmation or anytime after, you are removed.