Kavanaugh vote postponed. Judiciary Committee hearing on Sexual Assault complain Monday.

[Anonymous]

The right leaning Washington Times rebuts the false narrative that Bret Kavanaugh's mother foreclosed on the accuser's parents house.
No, Brett Kavanaugh’s mother didn’t foreclose on his accuser’s parents' house
by Becket Adams
September 17, 2018 04:12 P

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/no-brett-kavanaughs-mother-didnt-foreclose-on-his-accusers-parents

The opening paragraph reads, “It looks like Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Judge Martha Kavanaugh, ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accuses Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Court documents show the losing party in a foreclosure case Martha Kavanaugh heard to be Ralph and Paula Blasey of Potomac, Maryland. They appear to be Christine Blasey Ford’s parents. … There now seems to be a motive, beyond partisan politics, for Ford to make up or significantly embellish her story so long after the ‘fact.’”

The story concludes with these lines, “It seems more likely that Ms. Ford has invented or substantially embellished this story — out of political bias, animus towards the family because of the court case, or both.”

The problem with these supposed “Ah-ha!” defenses of Kavanaugh is that they rely on a misreading of the actual court documents.

A review of the filings shows that Judge Kavanaugh signed an order in 1997 dismissing the foreclosure after the Blaseys refinanced their home. The 10th item on the court docket reads, “ORDER OF COURT (KAVANAUGH, J./RICE, M.) THAT THE VOLUNTARY MOTION TO DISMISS IS HEREBY GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE AND THAT THE BOND FILED BY HARRY J. KELLY AS TRUSTEE SHALL BE RELEASED AND RETURNED FILED.”

The records show Martha Kavanaugh was one of several judges involved in the case. The records show she made no ruling pertaining to a seizure of the Blasleys’ home. The records also show that her involvement in the case was minimal. Basically, she dismissed it, and that's it.

[Anonymous]

The women of Holton Arms rally behind Kavanaugh’s accuser, with over 200 signing a letter supporting her.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/education/2018/09/17/high-school-attended-by-kavanaughs-accuser-comes-out-support-her/

[Anonymous]

Oh, TV people, it’s BLAH-zee, BLAH-zee, BLAH-zee!

[Anonymous]

Apparently, some of her psychological research is on repressed memories and false memories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, TV people, it’s BLAH-zee, BLAH-zee, BLAH-zee!

What's BLAH-zee?

[Anonymous]

While concerned about the allegations that Kavanaugh attacked Ford, it’s not these accusations - at this point anyway - that convince me Kavanaugh is not fit for the SCOTUS.

This man is a political hack. He has shown himself to be willing to do the bidding of a particular party and its agenda, placing that above all else, including our Constitution. Read some of the documents from his time as an attorney. Do you have any doubt this guy will fal in line with a Trump pardon? Or even greater executive powers making Trump essentially a king? Conservative or liberal, Rebuplican, Democrat, Independent - all of us should be concerned about having a man who is so clearly a political operative in the SCOTUS.

And then there’s his financial situation. A man who makes a decent living by DC standards and who came from privilege and who nonetheless lives well above his means, mounts up enormous credit card debt, and then, “poof!”, the credit card debt disappears and we can’t get a straight story about what the debt was about (suggesting this is a man who not only makes poor financial decisions but who could find himself in dire financial straits) but then also manages to pay off this debt in odd and shady ways.

No thank you. He’s second rate and not worthy of the SCOTUS. Try again, Donnie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

So in your mind, women (and men) who defend the accuser’s right to be heard and not summarily dismissed and/or savaged and discredited equates to people who are jealous and hate men?

Okie dokie.

NOPE. Not what I said. I'm saying that I don't think the accused should be "savaged and discredited" either. And, yes, there have been a lot of DCUM posts on Kavanaugh threads that describe men--and Kavanaugh, in particular-- in an incredibly vile and negative way.

This may be news to you, but putting aside the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh has consistently treated women as second class citizens in his opinions. Most women don’t appreciate that. Shocking, I know.

PP here. A person's reputation, which can vary depending on the political, religious, cultural, etc. perspective of others, shouldn't be the determining factor re turning an accusation into a conviction by public opinion.

He is not getting convicted of anything. His suitability for a lifetime appointment to one of the most important jobs in the country is being determined. Character and perception counts. But even if he is found unworthy, he still has his current prestigious lifetime appointment and his girls' basketball team. Not a bad consolation prize for what could have been a life-changing mistake for him.

So you think he's innocent? No, you don't. You've convicted him of being guilty and not worthy of the appointment.

I think we've heard enough to say that he isn't a suitable candidate for a Supreme Court judge. Period. Not only are character and perception important for this position, as PP said. But there's a reason why we look for candidates that don't have skeletons in their closet. The integrity of our institutions hangs on whether this person can be blackmailed.

I mean, look at Trump. Does Putin have something on him? I don't know, but that scene in Helsinki was mighty odd if he doesn't.

He’s a great and suitable candidate. One 35 year old allegation full of holes doesn’t change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn't even tell his name to the therapist.

This story just does not ring true.

Would you believe it if there were pics? No, I didn't think so. Because you think women are dirt.

Also why you're so eager to confirm a man hell-bent on repealing women's reproductive rights.

DP. You sound truly unhinged. If I told you your husband did something similar to me when I was 15 and he was 17, would you believe me? Without any evidence at all, just my word against his? Didn't think so.

Here's the thing. You assume that others are just as blindly partisan as you, and act accordingly. Well, some of us are not.

Here's the thing. I'm a moderate - or an independent, take your pick. I actually don't care if Kavanaugh is confirmed or not. What I *do* care about are people being accused of something without any evidence to back up the accusation. I do care about innocent men being accused of assault without any proof - just one person's accusation. I have no idea if Kavanaugh is innocent or guilty - and neither do you. I just want to make sure that people can't be indicted based on one person's word, and nothing else. Otherwise, be prepared to one day be accused of something and have absolutely no recourse, even if the accusation is false.

DP. I agree with this but will add, perhaps inarticulately, that what makes situations like this harder is that the situation is different to different people. Ford may truly believe whatever happened (if anything) was "sexual assault" or "attempted rape." Someone else may have thought it was a drunk grope in the dark. Yes, I know that means that men and boys should always ask permission and follow the rules and be respectful. But human, physical, hormonally charged, interactions (that often involve alcohol) aren't so black and white.

Seriously? Seriously? Putting your hand over her mouth while she's writhing and screaming is a drunken grope?

Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.

I don’t know why people continue to post this argument. Frat boy Kavanaugh says he never was at a party with her, he can’t also claim it was just a hook up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

So in your mind, women (and men) who defend the accuser’s right to be heard and not summarily dismissed and/or savaged and discredited equates to people who are jealous and hate men?

Okie dokie.

NOPE. Not what I said. I'm saying that I don't think the accused should be "savaged and discredited" either. And, yes, there have been a lot of DCUM posts on Kavanaugh threads that describe men--and Kavanaugh, in particular-- in an incredibly vile and negative way.

This may be news to you, but putting aside the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh has consistently treated women as second class citizens in his opinions. Most women don’t appreciate that. Shocking, I know.

PP here. A person's reputation, which can vary depending on the political, religious, cultural, etc. perspective of others, shouldn't be the determining factor re turning an accusation into a conviction by public opinion.

He is not getting convicted of anything. His suitability for a lifetime appointment to one of the most important jobs in the country is being determined. Character and perception counts. But even if he is found unworthy, he still has his current prestigious lifetime appointment and his girls' basketball team. Not a bad consolation prize for what could have been a life-changing mistake for him.

So you think he's innocent? No, you don't. You've convicted him of being guilty and not worthy of the appointment.

I think we've heard enough to say that he isn't a suitable candidate for a Supreme Court judge. Period. Not only are character and perception important for this position, as PP said. But there's a reason why we look for candidates that don't have skeletons in their closet. The integrity of our institutions hangs on whether this person can be blackmailed.

I mean, look at Trump. Does Putin have something on him? I don't know, but that scene in Helsinki was mighty odd if he doesn't.

He’s a great and suitable candidate. One 35 year old allegation full of holes doesn’t change that.

The fact that one or more conservative posters or bots spent the overnight posting this nonsense just proves how strong Ford’s allegations are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ya, I am always happy that my boyfriend was a member of Tits&Clits in college. So proud to have that association on the resume.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ha, ha, these were funny. Totally irrelevant and if this is his defense, he definitely did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh was the republican hack for years, now he wants to be a boy scout, playing the "I don't know that woman" game?

Why god is laughing at Brett Kavanaugh

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/17/kavanaugh-supreme-court-ford-sexual-assault-219983

Democratic motive on full display in that article.

Exactly what I was going to say.

So? The republicans blocked Obama's nominee for a year.

I see. The point of your statement is that it's ok to completely lie and destroy a man's reputation and potentially his family because....revenge.

I don't believe Ford is lying. Even the White House dares not call her a liar. Who the F are you to call her a liar?

DP. You've been insinuating that Kavanaugh is a liar. So one might ask, who the F are you?

Two- thirds of the country thinks he is a liar. Maybe leave your conservative bubble more often.

[Anonymous]

I don't think they'll make it to Monday. The republicans don't want to do it---not this close to the elections.

It's not going to be limited to he said/she said. They'll be able to grill him over his wild teenage and college and law school and clerkship drinking and partying. And I bet more people are coming forward with stories about him.

Go read Robert Costa's Twitter.

They will convince him to withdraw by Friday.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

MRA! MRA! MAGA!

How many victims will it take for you to believe, pp?

PP here. I"m female and not a Trump supporter; but I think it's wrong to accuse, condemn, and "convict" anyone of crimes as serious as attempted rape and suffocation (i.e., murder) based on one person's uncorroborated accusation after 30+ years.

Her accusation is corroborated. There are notes from her therapist on 2012, not to mention the polygraph. She also has a successful and very credible professional and personal track record. But it takes 50 women to corroborate accusations against one man, right?

No, it's not. All you say above is stuff her lawyer claimed. You have no idea if she took a polygraph, let alone passed it. You have no idea if there are notes. You are being TOLD those things, but you have not SEEN PROOF of those things.

Pretty sure that the WP reporter was given proof of all of this. It’s called fact-checking, something you may be unfamiliar with because it isn’t practiced by Fox or Breitbart.

Like NYT fact-checked the story about Nikki Hayley and the drapes? That kind of fact-checking?

+1
And let's not forget Rolling Stone's stellar job fact-checking the UVA non-story.

And didn't the NYT writer get a Pulitzer only to be exposed as a fake? Yep, great fact-checking there too.

Why speculate? Email the Post and ask what they saw.

Same poster, I assume you support the democrats request for an FBI investigation of the allegation because of your strong held belief in gathering all the evidence, right?

Bumping for response.

It was already answered, dummy. I stated that the dems had the right to ask and did and were shut down.

Thanks, proved my point that you don’t give two shits about evidence. Good night.

Checkmate. LOL. The Dems asked and were refused because the FBI felt there wasn't enough evidence for investigation. Sleep well.

When the facts don’t suit your argument, just make them up. Favorite tactic of conservatives.

Thr FBI said that the Kavanaugh investigation was closed but it can be reopened by White House request. Donnie and company refuse to do so.

So funny all these claims about evidence, and the same people are terrified of an investigation. Any innocent person would welcome the assistance of the FBI or frankly, any third party investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

So in your mind, women (and men) who defend the accuser’s right to be heard and not summarily dismissed and/or savaged and discredited equates to people who are jealous and hate men?

Okie dokie.

NOPE. Not what I said. I'm saying that I don't think the accused should be "savaged and discredited" either. And, yes, there have been a lot of DCUM posts on Kavanaugh threads that describe men--and Kavanaugh, in particular-- in an incredibly vile and negative way.

This may be news to you, but putting aside the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh has consistently treated women as second class citizens in his opinions. Most women don’t appreciate that. Shocking, I know.

PP here. A person's reputation, which can vary depending on the political, religious, cultural, etc. perspective of others, shouldn't be the determining factor re turning an accusation into a conviction by public opinion.

He is not getting convicted of anything. His suitability for a lifetime appointment to one of the most important jobs in the country is being determined. Character and perception counts. But even if he is found unworthy, he still has his current prestigious lifetime appointment and his girls' basketball team. Not a bad consolation prize for what could have been a life-changing mistake for him.

So you think he's innocent? No, you don't. You've convicted him of being guilty and not worthy of the appointment.

I think we've heard enough to say that he isn't a suitable candidate for a Supreme Court judge. Period. Not only are character and perception important for this position, as PP said. But there's a reason why we look for candidates that don't have skeletons in their closet. The integrity of our institutions hangs on whether this person can be blackmailed.

I mean, look at Trump. Does Putin have something on him? I don't know, but that scene in Helsinki was mighty odd if he doesn't.

He’s a great and suitable candidate. One 35 year old allegation full of holes doesn’t change that.

The fact that one or more conservative posters or bots spent the overnight posting this nonsense just proves how strong Ford’s allegations are.

Another possibility for you to consider: There are those of us who think it's wrong to rush to judgment and publicly vilify someone based on one person's 30 year old recollections and last minute accusations. Even though I'm a woman, I would never automatically assume that an accuser is without motivation. We should wait and hear both sides. She may be truthful, but I want to hear more. Do you honestly think every woman is truthful, and every man is a liar?