"Justice" a new documentary on Kavanaugh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This issue took center stage. That is what I meant. Sure there were other issues that I had with him, but none of them really were debated because the nation had to spend so much time on this. All the other issues got swept under because the democrat committee decided none of them would be strong enough and so went with this issue instead.

[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.

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.

I went to my parents. I was a child.
I would not make a political issue of my assault. I just wouldn't.

[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.

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.

Also she had zero credibility to what she said. Zero. This was already discussed here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This issue took center stage. That is what I meant. Sure there were other issues that I had with him, but none of them really were debated because the nation had to spend so much time on this. All the other issues got swept under because the democrat committee decided none of them would be strong enough and so went with this issue instead.

The “democrat committee” was majority Republican.

Kavanaugh’s record as a partisan hack was well known and is why it took him years to get confirmed to the federal bench in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Also she had zero credibility to what she said. Zero. This was already discussed here.

The discussion included how credible she is.

[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.

Her lies would have been exposed if a certain right wing writer had stayed silent until the hearing. He suggested that Squee was the real culprit, because the floor plan of his house matched the description. Ford saw this and changed her story. At the hearing she talked about drawing up a floor plan, but everyone had moved on from this. The writer apologized for making such an accusation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This issue took center stage. That is what I meant. Sure there were other issues that I had with him, but none of them really were debated because the nation had to spend so much time on this. All the other issues got swept under because the democrat committee decided none of them would be strong enough and so went with this issue instead.

The “democrat committee” was majority Republican.

Kavanaugh’s record as a partisan hack was well known and is why it took him years to get confirmed to the federal bench in the first place.

? She called the democratic committee people in California I believe. It’s been a long time but it all started when she called them to get things moving against him through the democratic committee. There was no criminal investigation in Maryland or even contact through Maryland where it supposedly happened.

[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.

Her lies would have been exposed if a certain right wing writer had stayed silent until the hearing. He suggested that Squee was the real culprit, because the floor plan of his house matched the description. Ford saw this and changed her story. At the hearing she talked about drawing up a floor plan, but everyone had moved on from this. The writer apologized for making such an accusation.

Probably. I can believe that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

You have the details wrong. She said something about seeing him, I think it was at a Safeway, and avoiding him. That particular store is still open.
Also, none of this happened. Instead she or whoever put her up to this read Mark Judge's book and caught the detail about him working at a Safeway.

They put in this story, so they had 'corroboration' from Judge's employment records. Ford even brought up at the hearing, 'are there some records you could look at to see where he worked' as if she didn't know it was in his book.

[Anonymous]

The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

You have the details wrong. She said something about seeing him, I think it was at a Safeway, and avoiding him. That particular store is still open.
Also, none of this happened. Instead she or whoever put her up to this read Mark Judge's book and caught the detail about him working at a Safeway.

They put in this story, so they had 'corroboration' from Judge's employment records. Ford even brought up at the hearing, 'are there some records you could look at to see where he worked' as if she didn't know it was in his book.

I remembered it being that she had a crush on him and went up to say hi and then when he asked about the party she mumbled or something. Either way it doesn’t make any sense and didn’t corroborate anything. It was all so way out of left field from the get go and clearly a political stunt and yes I get angry when people fake crimes for political purposes and individual gain whether as the victim or the police or a political party. It diminishes the actual crimes that happen by placing more doubt on the situations that actually occur.

[Anonymous]

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.

She is very credible.

He should be held down with his mouth covered by some big drunk beer loving frat bro and groped.

+1.

See how he likes it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I went to my parents. I was a child.
I would not make a political issue of my assault. I just wouldn't.

Good for you. I was a child. Molested at a sleepover. Then, because once wasn't enough, by an uncle. I never told anyone. Not my parents. No one.

I would have not had the courage to report the assault as an adult, publicly, and making myself the subject of death threats. I applaud anyone willing to subject themselves to that to do the right thing. Doing so wasn't "making a political issue" of it. It was telling her story and how dare you cast it otherwise. You disgust me.

[Anonymous]

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.

She is very credible.

He should be held down with his mouth covered by some big drunk beer loving frat bro and groped.

+1.

See how he likes it.

X a million. He did it. He knows he did it. His reaction and testimony show he did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

If you believe that, then you are one dumb fuxer.