"Justice" a new documentary on Kavanaugh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirmation hearings. If proved that he lied during these hearings, then he can be impeached. Fat chance, I know but it will be a lot more than a ripple.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-documentary-sundance-1235495305/amp/

And, if Ford lied can she be prosecuted? Because I believe that is much more likely.

Ford clearly lied. I watched her testimony and she showed all signs of lying.

Are you a forensic psychiatrist? If so I’d love to hear more. If not then you are a fool for posting this.

Cute.

No, I'm not a "forensic psychiatrist" but someone trained in a much more relevant discipline.

Ford was clearly lying. She was making things up about her lie-detector test -- it was obvious.

+1

She looked insane and hysterical while testifying. Supposedly she is doctor? No way in hell she is a real doctor. It's unbelievable that some people who claim to be critical thinkers believed her. I've come to the conclusion that anyone who is ideological is incapable of being objective.

New question: Was Brett Kavanaugh really a virgin until he was 26+?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a recovering rape victim myself, this guy and his disgusting face leave me shaking with rage.

You bought into Ford's performance.
Even her best friend (who Ford claimed was present) and her own parents don't believe her.

There is ZERO evidence that Kavanaugh even knew Ford.

They knew each other. Just not as well as she claimed.

Citation needed for that.

Ford said she dated Squee. It's in the record. Squee, not Judge, was Kavanaugh's best friend. They went to Mater Dei together and were both good athletes.

No, we need a citation.... an actual source that states that Kavanaugh knew Ford. Like a photo of the two of them.
From what I have read - he doesn't remember her - doesn't remember meeting her.

Because we know what Ford said isn't credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a recovering rape victim myself, this guy and his disgusting face leave me shaking with rage.

You bought into Ford's performance.
Even her best friend (who Ford claimed was present) and her own parents don't believe her.

There is ZERO evidence that Kavanaugh even knew Ford.

They knew each other. Just not as well as she claimed.

Citation needed for that.

Ford said she dated Squee. It's in the record. Squee, not Judge, was Kavanaugh's best friend. They went to Mater Dei together and were both good athletes.

No, we need a citation.... an actual source that states that Kavanaugh knew Ford. Like a photo of the two of them.
From what I have read - he doesn't remember her - doesn't remember meeting her.

Because we know what Ford said isn't credible.

This is why it would have been great if the FBI hadn’t cheerfully spiked the investigation.

You actually have no credibility, FTR.

[Anonymous]

We should be able to find better than abusers to sit on our highest court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a recovering rape victim myself, this guy and his disgusting face leave me shaking with rage.

You bought into Ford's performance.
Even her best friend (who Ford claimed was present) and her own parents don't believe her.

There is ZERO evidence that Kavanaugh even knew Ford.

They knew each other. Just not as well as she claimed.

Citation needed for that.

Ford said she dated Squee. It's in the record. Squee, not Judge, was Kavanaugh's best friend. They went to Mater Dei together and were both good athletes.

No, we need a citation.... an actual source that states that Kavanaugh knew Ford. Like a photo of the two of them.
From what I have read - he doesn't remember her - doesn't remember meeting her.

Because we know what Ford said isn't credible.

This is why it would have been great if the FBI hadn’t cheerfully spiked the investigation.

You actually have no credibility, FTR.

They did an investigation. Several, in fact.

Not one thing was discovered that lends any credibility to CBF or any of the Democrats' claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a recovering rape victim myself, this guy and his disgusting face leave me shaking with rage.

You bought into Ford's performance.
Even her best friend (who Ford claimed was present) and her own parents don't believe her.

There is ZERO evidence that Kavanaugh even knew Ford.

They knew each other. Just not as well as she claimed.

Citation needed for that.

Ford said she dated Squee. It's in the record. Squee, not Judge, was Kavanaugh's best friend. They went to Mater Dei together and were both good athletes.

No, we need a citation.... an actual source that states that Kavanaugh knew Ford. Like a photo of the two of them.
From what I have read - he doesn't remember her - doesn't remember meeting her.

Because we know what Ford said isn't credible.

This is why it would have been great if the FBI hadn’t cheerfully spiked the investigation.

You actually have no credibility, FTR.

They did an investigation. Several, in fact.

Not one thing was discovered that lends any credibility to CBF or any of the Democrats' claims.

We should be able to do better for our highest court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a recovering rape victim myself, this guy and his disgusting face leave me shaking with rage.

You bought into Ford's performance.
Even her best friend (who Ford claimed was present) and her own parents don't believe her.

There is ZERO evidence that Kavanaugh even knew Ford.

They knew each other. Just not as well as she claimed.

Citation needed for that.

Ford said she dated Squee. It's in the record. Squee, not Judge, was Kavanaugh's best friend. They went to Mater Dei together and were both good athletes.

No, we need a citation.... an actual source that states that Kavanaugh knew Ford. Like a photo of the two of them.
From what I have read - he doesn't remember her - doesn't remember meeting her.

Because we know what Ford said isn't credible.

This is why it would have been great if the FBI hadn’t cheerfully spiked the investigation.

You actually have no credibility, FTR.

They did an investigation. Several, in fact.

[…]

No. They didn’t. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/14/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-documents

Bonus, all 4500 tips received about Bretty were funneled directly to the White House. Let’s say 4,497 were bogus tips but two corroborated Ford’s story and one was a rape victim of Brett Kavanaugh. It would probably be good to know that.

[Anonymous]

She never opened a case with Maryland, she had vague facts even she couldn't recall, her own stupid story about the doors was researched to be fake, it was done as a democratic stunt, and she did it years later at the time of an interview and not all the other interviews he had in his life. Frankly I don't care whether it was true or not. She was fine living with this information till this big appointment and never actually opening up a criminal investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She never opened a case with Maryland, she had vague facts even she couldn't recall, her own stupid story about the doors was researched to be fake, it was done as a democratic stunt, and she did it years later at the time of an interview and not all the other interviews he had in his life. Frankly I don't care whether it was true or not. She was fine living with this information till this big appointment and never actually opening up a criminal investigation.

Just like 70% of sexual assault victims, you mean. Or do you not know or care how prevalent sexual assault is.

I see you’ve moved on from pretending that this case was adequately investigated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She never opened a case with Maryland, she had vague facts even she couldn't recall, her own stupid story about the doors was researched to be fake, it was done as a democratic stunt, and she did it years later at the time of an interview and not all the other interviews he had in his life. Frankly I don't care whether it was true or not. She was fine living with this information till this big appointment and never actually opening up a criminal investigation.

Just like 70% of sexual assault victims, you mean. Or do you not know or care how prevalent sexual assault is.

I see you’ve moved on from pretending that this case was adequately investigated.

I was a victim of sexual assault myself and told someone right away when it happened. That said, even if I didn't, I don't think the first time I would tell someone would be at the time of someone's interview for a very powerful position. I would want to be taken seriously and I would fear and rightly so that it would be viewed as a political stunt. Also I would want it to be seen as a crime to me, not somehow related to the greater good of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She never opened a case with Maryland, she had vague facts even she couldn't recall, her own stupid story about the doors was researched to be fake, it was done as a democratic stunt, and she did it years later at the time of an interview and not all the other interviews he had in his life. Frankly I don't care whether it was true or not. She was fine living with this information till this big appointment and never actually opening up a criminal investigation.

Just like 70% of sexual assault victims, you mean. Or do you not know or care how prevalent sexual assault is.

I see you’ve moved on from pretending that this case was adequately investigated.

I was a victim of sexual assault myself and told someone right away when it happened. That said, even if I didn't, I don't think the first time I would tell someone would be at the time of someone's interview for a very powerful position. I would want to be taken seriously and I would fear and rightly so that it would be viewed as a political stunt. Also I would want it to be seen as a crime to me, not somehow related to the greater good of society.

And to add on, lying about other things such as that stupid door fear or contacting a political party is not how credibility is achieved. I think most people who actually were sexually assaulted are actually angry about this case because it makes their cases seem less believable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She never opened a case with Maryland, she had vague facts even she couldn't recall, her own stupid story about the doors was researched to be fake, it was done as a democratic stunt, and she did it years later at the time of an interview and not all the other interviews he had in his life. Frankly I don't care whether it was true or not. She was fine living with this information till this big appointment and never actually opening up a criminal investigation.

Just like 70% of sexual assault victims, you mean. Or do you not know or care how prevalent sexual assault is.

I see you’ve moved on from pretending that this case was adequately investigated.

I was a victim of sexual assault myself and told someone right away when it happened. That said, even if I didn't, I don't think the first time I would tell someone would be at the time of someone's interview for a very powerful position. I would want to be taken seriously and I would fear and rightly so that it would be viewed as a political stunt. Also I would want it to be seen as a crime to me, not somehow related to the greater good of society.

And to add on, lying about other things such as that stupid door fear or contacting a political party is not how credibility is achieved. I think most people who actually were sexually assaulted are actually angry about this case because it makes their cases seem less believable.

The other thing I remember about this case is that she flirted with his friend (who I really feel was the person she actually liked and had some interaction with at the party) at the Giant a few days after and no one who was assaulted would do this. They wouldn't go near someone who their assaulter was friends with. There was so much wrong with this case, it's too much to even recall. But as a sex assault survivor, I am angry about this case and feel she manipulated our experiences for her gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe that someone could watch both testimonies and walk away from that thinking that Kavanaugh was fit to be on the Supreme Court. All he needed to do was the calmly say something like how he didn’t believe that he was possible of doing that, that he did have a drinking problem when he was a teenager and that he’s spent the rest of his life trying to be a supporter of women by hiring a greater percentage of female clerks than the vast majority of judges. People who would be willing to say that people can change from their 18-year old selves. Instead he lied about his drinking, he lied about his behaviors in high school and college and he went completely unhinged about the Clintons and how he hates all Democrats. Frankly we should only have justices who can rise above partisanship- instead was have an immoral, unhinged, extreme partisan on the court. Just what we need.

+1 The people who support Bretty after that mess are blinded by partisanship. They’re the same people who pretend not to see the political violence their party has caused, who look away from the open fraud and corruption in their party and who will support corruption and judicial activism from the bench. They’re a lost cause.

But for the sane people who don’t know what to think, go back and rewatch both testimonies. Sit with the fact that Kennedy had already hired his clerks before suddenly retiring, and that his son worked at Deutschebank where Donald owed millions. That Kavanaugh owed huge sums that were mysteriously paid off. Think about how, in normal non-corrupt judgeships, even the appearance of possible impropriety isn’t done. That the FBI did not investigate a single tip received about Kavanaugh, that no investigation was done at all, that all tips were funneled to… the White House.

Literally nothing about Kavanaugh bespeaks for the bench, especially not his partisan targeting of the Clintons’ private lives and then his moaning about people looking into his.

But it's not about supporting him when talking about her. No one ever even got to really talk about his record because this lie became the central conversation to him being appointed. I didn't like him at all, I don't have a vote, and I didn't get to hear much about him because it became all about this fake story and not his record. You can actually not like him for other reasons and not like her. It's not a one or the other. This scenario is just something the democrat committee and her made up as the actual issue of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cannot believe that someone could watch both testimonies and walk away from that thinking that Kavanaugh was fit to be on the Supreme Court. All he needed to do was the calmly say something like how he didn’t believe that he was possible of doing that, that he did have a drinking problem when he was a teenager and that he’s spent the rest of his life trying to be a supporter of women by hiring a greater percentage of female clerks than the vast majority of judges. People who would be willing to say that people can change from their 18-year old selves. Instead he lied about his drinking, he lied about his behaviors in high school and college and he went completely unhinged about the Clintons and how he hates all Democrats. Frankly we should only have justices who can rise above partisanship- instead was have an immoral, unhinged, extreme partisan on the court. Just what we need.

+1 The people who support Bretty after that mess are blinded by partisanship. They’re the same people who pretend not to see the political violence their party has caused, who look away from the open fraud and corruption in their party and who will support corruption and judicial activism from the bench. They’re a lost cause.

But for the sane people who don’t know what to think, go back and rewatch both testimonies. Sit with the fact that Kennedy had already hired his clerks before suddenly retiring, and that his son worked at Deutschebank where Donald owed millions. That Kavanaugh owed huge sums that were mysteriously paid off. Think about how, in normal non-corrupt judgeships, even the appearance of possible impropriety isn’t done. That the FBI did not investigate a single tip received about Kavanaugh, that no investigation was done at all, that all tips were funneled to… the White House.

Literally nothing about Kavanaugh bespeaks for the bench, especially not his partisan targeting of the Clintons’ private lives and then his moaning about people looking into his.

But it's not about supporting him when talking about her. No one ever even got to really talk about his record because this lie became the central conversation to him being appointed. I didn't like him at all, I don't have a vote, and I didn't get to hear much about him because it became all about this fake story and not his record. You can actually not like him for other reasons and not like her. It's not a one or the other. This scenario is just something the democrat committee and her made up as the actual issue of the day.

Miss me with your misogyny.

His “record.” He’s a GOP foot soldier, a participant in the GOP’s 2000 end run on democracy. There were thousands of pieces discussing his record and what it meant. If you were unable to do any research of your own and you just read headlines, that’s your failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She never opened a case with Maryland, she had vague facts even she couldn't recall, her own stupid story about the doors was researched to be fake, it was done as a democratic stunt, and she did it years later at the time of an interview and not all the other interviews he had in his life. Frankly I don't care whether it was true or not. She was fine living with this information till this big appointment and never actually opening up a criminal investigation.

Just like 70% of sexual assault victims, you mean. Or do you not know or care how prevalent sexual assault is.

I see you’ve moved on from pretending that this case was adequately investigated.

I was a victim of sexual assault myself and told someone right away when it happened. That said, even if I didn't, I don't think the first time I would tell someone would be at the time of someone's interview for a very powerful position. I would want to be taken seriously and I would fear and rightly so that it would be viewed as a political stunt. Also I would want it to be seen as a crime to me, not somehow related to the greater good of society.

If you had actually watched or read her testimony, you’d know she covered everything you’re saying.

That said, not everyone tells. For someone who seems eager to own the entire spectrum of how people respond to sexual assault, one would think you’d have done a little research. Or did you not immediately go to the police? I feel like by your rules I should shame you for such a failure.