Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

I don't get why Mark Judge has the caveat that he'll cooperate IF the interview is confidential. He's a published author, he's written books and been interviewed by reporters with regards to the exact period of time that is under review. He's told the world he drank frequently and to excess.
What exactly needs to be confidential?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. I saw this claim here too. This is one of the negative aspect of Twitter.
This is exactly why I am skeptical of so many of the claims out there.

Mainstream media reporters and commentators appeared to be much too zealous in spreading a false story on social media Friday that was very damaging to Brett Kavanaugh, the president’s nominee to the Supreme Court.

“I should not have RTed this.”

The story was contained in just one tweet, and it had no link, just a claim that the content came from the Wall Street Journal.

Despite the dubious sourcing, various reporters retweeted it over and over for hours, apparently in hope that the damaging story was true.

The tweet came from an account named “Alan Covington,” and it said that Republicans pulled a prosecutor who was questioning Brett Kavanaugh during his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee because she had determined he had lied.

“Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her,” the tweet read.

“That WSJ story doesn’t appear to exist”

But the story was completely false, and they soon began to delete their tweets and undo their retweets.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/09/28/journalists-made-a-damaging-kavanaugh-story-go-viral-but-it-was-too-good-to-be-true

And, the problem is these #FakeNews tweets get retweeted hundreds of thousands of times, but the corrections barely see the light of day. The damage is done. The negative stuff is out there and is believed by many, even if it is not true.

Sometimes I think Twitter was invented by an enemy country in order to bring our country down.

I agree - and would say the same about DCUM. Anonymous posters can put out any ugly rumor they please, and those who refuse to use their critical thinking skills take it as gospel. It's too bad Kavanaugh (and others) can't sue anonymous people for the libel they spew.

He can, all he has to do is resign his judgeship and become a private citizen.

[Anonymous]

Yes they do. See above on the Duke lacrosse players. One went on to Wharton, another to brown, and another to Deutsche Bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s people like you who are glibly ignorant of the damage trump has done to America both domestically and on the world stage. You also obviously give zero sh*ts about the environment, net neutrality, Gay marriage, and other issues. Pay attentio. Learn more. Read more. Understand why so much of the world and our country is outraged. This is it.

+a million
It’s sad watching how GOPers will trade their rights and freedom - and ours - for some mythical pwn of someone.

So interesting... I thought "rights and freedom" included the right to due process. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But apparently, if you're a conservative, those rights go out the window. Democrats have made a mockery of this entire procedure. Own it.

Y’all didn’t want a due process!

I really wish they would bring civics classes back. A person only has a right to due process when they are being denied a right to something, that is when the government is taking something from a person. Judge Kavanaugh does not have a right to be appointed to a life time position on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just a Judge Garland did not have a right to have a vote on his nomination.

Wrong. He is being denied the right to the presumption of innocence - by you and people like you who insist that he's guilty without a shred of evidence. Of course he doesn't have the "right" to a SC appointment. But he most certainly has the right to innocent until proven guilty, even in the court of public opinion. Many of you seem unable to grasp that concept.

And are you the PP who will not quit with the Merrick Garland references? Incredible whataboutism. Start your own thread.

[Anonymous]

For those who doubt Dr. Blasey's account because she doesn't remember all the details, here's an interesting NPR article on how memories are encoded during traumatic events. One notable passage:

Take, for example, a clerk at convenience store who gets robbed at gunpoint, says McNally. "The person may often encode the features of the weapon, the gun pointed at him, but not recall whether or not the person was wearing glasses, because their attention is focused on the most central features of the experience."

McNally says this would explain why Ford says she remembers what happened during the alleged assault but she can't remember the date of the party or its location.

"They were forgotten because they were never encoded," says McNally. "When somebody has an experience such as this, they're not necessarily saying, 'I better get down the address.' They're preoccupied with trying to escape this terrifying experience."

Also, "people in general are not good about dating events, whether they're traumatic events or nontraumatic events," he adds. Unless there are other clues to the date, most people tend to forget when something happened.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/09/28/652524372/how-trauma-affects-memory-scientists-weigh-in-on-the-kavanaugh-hearing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leland Keyser can be problematic for this whole thing, if she sheds some light on why this story got concocted.

She has said she believes Dr. Ford.

And, she also says she never met Brett Kavanaugh--and does not remember the party. She doesn't want to call her lifelong friend a liar.

I have a lifelong friend - grade school through college, including study abroad. We often notice that we don't remember the same things about our experiences, or sometimes one remembers and the other has no recollection. My memory is generally better, but still there are some things that I don't recall. We laugh about it, but never do we think the other is lying.

Pretty sure I would recall the gathering where my female friend (the ONLY other female at the house) had flown down the stairs, fled the party without saying a word and left me by myself in a house with four drunk boys---two of whom had just physically assaulted her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For everyone who thinks K’s life is ruined, I remind you of the Duke Lacrosse case. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/duke-lacrosse-case-fantastic-lies-documentary

The moral of the story is that if you went to Landon and the person you abused was Black and poor, you can get a top lawyer, get away with it and be paid millions. If you were stupid enough to end up with a corpse in your hands, as in the UVA case, then you went to jail.

The Duke lacrosse players have fabulous careers, doting wives, etc. ten years on. Maybe they will be coaching basketball for their daughters someday in Chevy Chase, too.

Ummm. Yes, because it was proven that these accusations were false. And now it is a generally accepted belief that these men were wrongly accused to begin with. If this truth had never emerged, they would be ruined for life. Just as Kavanaugh will be if he is not able to prove that he didn't do this. See the difference???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These three loooooong Brett Kavanaugh threads are all about male privilege and men wanting to hang onto their power. Sure touched a pent up well of anger in women and a backlash from men who want to maintain the status quo. Brave brave Christine Ford for bringing it all to the surface.

I highly doubt there are many men on these threads. You do realize that many women are defending Kavanaugh's presumption of innocence, right? Many of us don't rush to malign the characters of those who have not been proven guilty of anything. You're not one of those people, apparently.

-a woman

[Anonymous]

A a parent, I'd try to ensure my kids didn't interact too much with Kavanaugh; any sleepovers should be at my home, and I wouldn't let my kids drive with him
There's way too much alcohol in all these stories for me to be comfortable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s people like you who are glibly ignorant of the damage trump has done to America both domestically and on the world stage. You also obviously give zero sh*ts about the environment, net neutrality, Gay marriage, and other issues. Pay attentio. Learn more. Read more. Understand why so much of the world and our country is outraged. This is it.

+a million
It’s sad watching how GOPers will trade their rights and freedom - and ours - for some mythical pwn of someone.

So interesting... I thought "rights and freedom" included the right to due process. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But apparently, if you're a conservative, those rights go out the window. Democrats have made a mockery of this entire procedure. Own it.

Y’all didn’t want a due process!

I really wish they would bring civics classes back. A person only has a right to due process when they are being denied a right to something, that is when the government is taking something from a person. Judge Kavanaugh does not have a right to be appointed to a life time position on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Just a Judge Garland did not have a right to have a vote on his nomination.

Wrong. He is being denied the right to the presumption of innocence - by you and people like you who insist that he's guilty without a shred of evidence. Of course he doesn't have the "right" to a SC appointment. But he most certainly has the right to innocent until proven guilty, even in the court of public opinion. Many of you seem unable to grasp that concept.

And are you the PP who will not quit with the Merrick Garland references? Incredible whataboutism. Start your own thread.

he had a presumption of innocence in terms of criminal actions.
He did not have a presumption of confirmation.

This was a job interview and he showed he was unfit for the role, after were questions were raised about his character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For everyone who thinks K’s life is ruined, I remind you of the Duke Lacrosse case. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/duke-lacrosse-case-fantastic-lies-documentary

The moral of the story is that if you went to Landon and the person you abused was Black and poor, you can get a top lawyer, get away with it and be paid millions. If you were stupid enough to end up with a corpse in your hands, as in the UVA case, then you went to jail.

The Duke lacrosse players have fabulous careers, doting wives, etc. ten years on. Maybe they will be coaching basketball for their daughters someday in Chevy Chase, too.

Ummm. Yes, because it was proven that these accusations were false. And now it is a generally accepted belief that these men were wrongly accused to begin with. If this truth had never emerged, they would be ruined for life. Just as Kavanaugh will be if he is not able to prove that he didn't do this. See the difference???

Actually, no. I don’t. None. That is why I mention it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leland Keyser can be problematic for this whole thing, if she sheds some light on why this story got concocted.

She has said she believes Dr. Ford.

And, she also says she never met Brett Kavanaugh--and does not remember the party. She doesn't want to call her lifelong friend a liar.

I have a lifelong friend - grade school through college, including study abroad. We often notice that we don't remember the same things about our experiences, or sometimes one remembers and the other has no recollection. My memory is generally better, but still there are some things that I don't recall. We laugh about it, but never do we think the other is lying.

Pretty sure I would recall the gathering where my female friend (the ONLY other female at the house) had flown down the stairs, fled the party without saying a word and left me by myself in a house with four drunk boys---two of whom had just physically assaulted her?

+1 right? At the very least, would the friend not remember confronting Christine the next time she saw her "hey...what happened the other night? Why did you disappear and leave me alone at X's house?" They were 15! Fifteen. And Leland can't recall that one time when she went to a house with her girlfriend and 4 boys but at the end of the night the girlfriend ran out of the house? Or vanished (if she didn't see her leave)? When I was 15, I would have been very panicked if one of my 15-year-old friends was unaccounted for at the end of the night. Especially if she was the only other girl there with me. It's not like this was a large group of people. Makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leland Keyser can be problematic for this whole thing, if she sheds some light on why this story got concocted.

She has said she believes Dr. Ford.

And, she also says she never met Brett Kavanaugh--and does not remember the party. She doesn't want to call her lifelong friend a liar.

I have a lifelong friend - grade school through college, including study abroad. We often notice that we don't remember the same things about our experiences, or sometimes one remembers and the other has no recollection. My memory is generally better, but still there are some things that I don't recall. We laugh about it, but never do we think the other is lying.

Pretty sure I would recall the gathering where my female friend (the ONLY other female at the house) had flown down the stairs, fled the party without saying a word and left me by myself in a house with four drunk boys---two of whom had just physically assaulted her?

+1 right? At the very least, would the friend not remember confronting Christine the next time she saw her "hey...what happened the other night? Why did you disappear and leave me alone at X's house?" They were 15! Fifteen. And Leland can't recall that one time when she went to a house with her girlfriend and 4 boys but at the end of the night the girlfriend ran out of the house? Or vanished (if she didn't see her leave)? When I was 15, I would have been very panicked if one of my 15-year-old friends was unaccounted for at the end of the night. Especially if she was the only other girl there with me. It's not like this was a large group of people. Makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These three loooooong Brett Kavanaugh threads are all about male privilege and men wanting to hang onto their power. Sure touched a pent up well of anger in women and a backlash from men who want to maintain the status quo. Brave brave Christine Ford for bringing it all to the surface.

Female dominated board. Not sure why you think the posts critquing the ludicrousness of using a yearbook to say a nominee shouldn't be confirmed are from men.

+1,000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, if this has already been asked because I haven’t been able to keep up in these three massive threads.

Is the FBI investigation only looking at the sexual assault? If they find that BK perjured himself will they report on that as well?

The assault is terrible if it happened, but the lying would be significant and disqualifying on its own IMO.

The FBI will start with the allegations and follow the facts.

If, for example, Ford raises the definitions of Boofing and Devils Triangle, the FBI may ask his friends what those meant to them in the context of 1982-1983. The result could lead the FBI to determine there was lying.

Is that in the scope of their investigation? Or just the assault. Hope it’s broad enough to look into most of his statements, not just the assault.

Translation: Oh, please, please let them find SOMETHING because we know nothing will turn up about the allegations of sexual assault.

+1
Now they're trying to nail him on the meaning of slang terms from his yearbook?? What is this, high school all over again? I grew up here during the same time as Kavanaugh and have never even heard of "boofing" or "Devil's Triangle." I can't even imagine the FBI would stoop so low as to investigate something so entirely frivolous.

The gathering at which Ford was attacked is ON HIS CALENDAR!

No - you simply desperately want to believe it is. I'm sure he went to many gatherings with the same groups of friends. Just because one is listed on his calendar means nothing.