Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI should have questioned the GP football player who lived 4 blocks from Columbia Country Club.

There are over 40 people who *should* have been interviewed, but weren't. And somehow there are people here who think that is acceptable.

Yep they questioned less than 10 people. That isn't an "investigation", it's a joke. Of course they didn't find what they needed, they didn't talk to the people who were involved.

Didn't Ford say there were a total of 4 people, other than her, at the party? Isn't the investigation regarding Ford's allegation? Why 40 people, if the investigation is regarding Ford's allegation and the number of possible witnesses is significantly fewer than 10, much less 40?

The 40+ people include the members of the public who have come forward to offer sworn statements as it relates to all three allegations.

I think I can get more that number of the public to come forward and offer sworn statements that the earth is flat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

It's not possible that a term used by some for one thing can be different from a term used by others for another thing? Or that people could use a phrase to describe different things?

When my son was 12, he and his friends were joking about "4:20". I asked him what "4:20" meant, and he told me it was when his group of friends did their homework. He wasn't going to tell me they were making a pot reference. Amusingly, they do use it as both, even years later. Is he lying, if he testifies under oath that 4:20 means you're supposed to be doing your homework?

Don't be stupid. Kavanaugh is lying about Devil's Triangle. Do you deny this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

It's not possible that a term used by some for one thing can be different from a term used by others for another thing? Or that people could use a phrase to describe different things?

When my son was 12, he and his friends were joking about "4:20". I asked him what "4:20" meant, and he told me it was when his group of friends did their homework. He wasn't going to tell me they were making a pot reference. Amusingly, they do use it as both, even years later. Is he lying, if he testifies under oath that 4:20 means you're supposed to be doing your homework?

For us, Devil's Triangle was a term for a woman with an STD

[Anonymous]

Summary of some of the folks who were not interviewed by the FBI

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/04/heres-a-list-of-people-the-fbi-did-not-interview-okay-with-this-flake-and-collins/

Sham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

It's not possible that a term used by some for one thing can be different from a term used by others for another thing? Or that people could use a phrase to describe different things?

When my son was 12, he and his friends were joking about "4:20". I asked him what "4:20" meant, and he told me it was when his group of friends did their homework. He wasn't going to tell me they were making a pot reference. Amusingly, they do use it as both, even years later. Is he lying, if he testifies under oath that 4:20 means you're supposed to be doing your homework?

Would you like a pretzel to model your arguments after?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

Agree. That and the elaborate lie he concocted about FFFF - kind of disturbingly pathological if you think about it. If you don't think that type of behavior casts serious doubt on his character and fitness to sit on our SUPREME court...I don't know what to tell you

The FFFFFF thing is the one term I think he did not lie about because there are multiple references and captions in the yearbook to it that don't seem to align with what some people think it means. But boofing, devils triangle, and Renate Alumnus he lied about. The whole conversation about ralphing was totally laughable as well (re: spicy food and sensitive stomach).

He didn't lie about it. It's been corroborated by several of his friends/classmates that the boy who started "FFFFF" said it with a stutter. Liberals are (surprise, surprise!) trying to make it into something it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI should have questioned the GP football player who lived 4 blocks from Columbia Country Club.

There are over 40 people who *should* have been interviewed, but weren't. And somehow there are people here who think that is acceptable.

You clearly don't understand what the FBI is tasked to do in these "investigations" (not just Kavanaugh's).

You realize the FBI wanted to interview all of these people and were barred from doing so, right?

And once these 40 people were interviewed, the Democrats would open the clown car door and 40 more would come out wanting to be interviewed too. Enough already.

Has the FBI even interviewed Ford or Kavanaugh yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem here. I'm on the fence about whether I hope Kavanaugh isn't confirmed which means Republicans are energized and Dems lose (polls now pointing at this plus Repubs historically vote in higher numbers than Dems in midterms) or he is confirmed, energizing Dems for midterms even though we get stuck with decades of this temperamentally unfit alcoholic abuser on the SCOTUS. Given his behavior he shouldn't but it's d@mned if you do and if you don't.

You will be lucky to have a very qualified justice on SCOTUS.

I stated days ago, after the FBI investigation was started, that there would be nothing in this report that would be a game changer. The only sad thing about the investigation is that it won’t exonerate Kavanaugh. It can’t. When someone brings charges that are 36 years old, had no date or place of the alleged crime, and all the named individuals allegedly there have no knowledge of either the party of the allegations, how can you expect this report to be any game changer? I still cannot believe that people are actually believing the crap that has been alleged.
Think about it - NOTHING has corroborated her story.

Liberals know that. That's why they've pivoted to the fact that he got angry about being accused of a heinous crime as part of a political smear campaign.

And all this focus on high school yearbooks and teen boys' slang terms for farting is ridicluous. Normal people see it.

I agree with both of you. I never imagined we'd see something so wholly absurd as this confirmation process. And the people calling him an "alcoholic" - obviously he is not. He's had SIX prior FBI investigations, and all of them were clean as a whistle. He is a highly respected judge. His behavior as a teenager has nothing to do with his decades of experience on the bench and good works as a citizen. The whole thing is truly disgusting.

I agree with you that behavior during one's teens may not matter much in the grand scheme. What matters in this case is that he seems to have lied about it while under oath. If he lied about silly minutiae, like what different terms mean in his yearbook, what else might he lie about? It calls one's character in question when they are shown to be liars, per several of his former classmates/roommates.

Do we have evidence that he lied?

I mean, if HRC is an evil lizard person, she certainly should never be elected President. We can make all sorts of conjectures about ifs. What about evidence? Facts? Truth?

PP here. I have not commented much in politics, but I'll say this. I will grant that none of us can say with 100% certainty that either Dr. Blasey or Judge Kavanaugh were lying. But given the evidence that has come out from his contemporaries at GT Prep, former classmates, roomates, etc., I think it's reasonable to say that that there is a high likelihood that he did not tell the complete truth about everything.

I'm also a Ph.D.-trained research scientist. We're trained to never say with 100% certainty that we believe the data, but we talk in terms of likelihoods. I would say that in this case, based on the evidence, that there is a high likelihood that he is lying about at least some minor details.

Of course he didn't tell the complete truth about everything. Neither did Ford. That's a function of being human.

But if we're going to use his testimony to demonstrate that he assaulted a woman, it stands to reason we should actually have to present the parts of his testimony that demonstrate that. Not "I don't like the guy." Or "he drank too much." But actually "he said [X], and over here we have proof that he currently knows the truth to be [Y]." As far as I can tell, we don't have that. We just have people who don't like him criticizing him for past behavior, and saying that boys and men like him are the sorts of people who commit assault, therefore he must have done it.

If he seems to have lied, what did he seem to lie about? What is the evidence that is being used to show it is likely a lie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Wow. But I guess it's perfectly ok for Kavanaugh's wife, kids, parents, friends, and colleagues to read all kinds of salacious information about his private life and for DCUM loonies, like yourself, to pick it all apart online, for all to see? Just a thought.. idiot, indeed.

Hey genius bar - he wrote that stuff in his yearbook.

My DH was on the swim team at an all male high school in California. In the yearbook swim team photo, most of the boys have erections. The comments throughout the book were trashy. It’s what hs boys do to show their immaturity.

Just because your DH was a DB in HS doesn't mean that all men were.

And just because many women truthfully report their sexual assaults, doesn't mean that all women do.
-not the PP

Yes, I agree. Most sexual assault victims do not report their assults. Because women don't want to face the barrage of insults and accusations about themselves that you see being leveled against Ford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Multiple posters have said (paraphrasing bc the endless requotes are making us dizzy):

1. Ford "publicly" accused K of attempted rape
2. Feinstein is to blame for holding the letter to blow up his appointment

One answer for both points. Ford told Feinstein and her lawyers that she did not want this to be a public scandal. She hoped that it would be investigated privately among SCJ to determine if K would be removed from consideration.

Could Feinstein have been at odds to protect Ford's request and privacy? Do you think she made the decision to secretly hold letter until she deemed the right time to blow it up, without consent from Ford or her lawyers? She is part of a committee of what is supposed to be a non partisan supreme court of law. Why would she risk her own position, lifelong reputation and the trust of the American people that Ford represents?

The following is purely conjecture.
I believe, with no evidence to support the belief, that Feinstein leaked the letter. She did so because it was the lesser of two evils, in her mind. She could honor Ford's request, but that would mean K gets confirmed. Feinstein could not deal with having someone like that on the court, so she violated Ford's privacy in order to do her best to get rid of K. I think she also hoped that delaying until the last minute would make it less likely another nomination could go through before midterms, when she hopes the Democrats will retake the Senate, and then they can hold the seat open until the next Presidential election using the Biden Rule. And the hope is that a Democrat is elected. I think this is purely a case of the ends justified the means, and while I also believe Feinstein did not deliberately want to cause harm to Ford, I think she has no problem with sacrificing a few people for what she views as the greater good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Multiple posters have said (paraphrasing bc the endless requotes are making us dizzy):

1. Ford "publicly" accused K of attempted rape
2. Feinstein is to blame for holding the letter to blow up his appointment

One answer for both points. Ford told Feinstein and her lawyers that she did not want this to be a public scandal. She hoped that it would be investigated privately among SCJ to determine if K would be removed from consideration.

Could Feinstein have been at odds to protect Ford's request and privacy? Do you think she made the decision to secretly hold letter until she deemed the right time to blow it up, without consent from Ford or her lawyers? She is part of a committee of what is supposed to be a non partisan supreme court of law. Why would she risk her own position, lifelong reputation and the trust of the American people that Ford represents?

Well, now, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. But your naïveté is charming.

[Anonymous]

He lied about Ralph Club referencing his weak stomach. Little lies are evidence of bigger lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

Agree. That and the elaborate lie he concocted about FFFF - kind of disturbingly pathological if you think about it. If you don't think that type of behavior casts serious doubt on his character and fitness to sit on our SUPREME court...I don't know what to tell you

The FFFFFF thing is the one term I think he did not lie about because there are multiple references and captions in the yearbook to it that don't seem to align with what some people think it means. But boofing, devils triangle, and Renate Alumnus he lied about. The whole conversation about ralphing was totally laughable as well (re: spicy food and sensitive stomach).

He didn't lie about it. It's been corroborated by several of his friends/classmates that the boy who started "FFFFF" said it with a stutter. Liberals are (surprise, surprise!) trying to make it into something it's not.

So he signed the beach week letter by ridiculing a friend with a speech impediment? “FFFFF, Bart.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford came forward, good for her but it is unfair and wrong that she gets a free pass on any probing questions, just maybe she is lying (although there seems to be no motivation for that, but still). No one can deny that her claim about being afraid to fly is BS. And her boyfriend of 6 years claims she stolen from him and other transgressions - his exact dates he did recall from 30 years ago match up with the dates Ford's friend took polygraph- how would he know that unless it was true? It is unfair she gets a pass - sorry but it just is and I am a woman. I don't have a problem with the questioning of Kavanaugh, hey he signed up for it. TS that his family gets hurt, he brought them into it. I would like to hear why Ford will not release her polygraph notes, because otherwise I form my own conclusion. I wish BOTH sides would be investigated and the vote not to be for a few weeks to have more thorough questioning. But let's be clear, under a microscope she has blemishes too..

+1
I see no reason why Ford shouldn't be thoroughly investigated as well. Polygraph, therapist notes, etc. Why should only the accused be subject to humiliating investigations?

He's the job candidate, not "the accused." Using that term makes it sound like a criminal process where a loss of liberty is at stake.

If someone makes a more or less credible claim of sexual assault against a potential babysitter, I'm going to look into it to see if the accusation is plausible. If it's plausible, I'm just going to go elsewhere for a babysitter. I'm not going to do a deep dive into the accuser's background. On the other hand, if I'm a judge, jury, or lawyer in a case where someone is on trial for sexual assault, it's very fair game to do a deep dive on the accuser.

Lifetime appointment to a Supreme Court seat is a helluva a lot more significant than a babysitting job.

Regarding the bolded - of course he's the accused. He has been accused of sexual assault. While this isn't a criminal trial, and he doesn't face jail time, he most certainly is now seen as an accused, or alleged, sexual assaulter. No matter the outcome of the investigation, he will never get his reputation back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem here. I'm on the fence about whether I hope Kavanaugh isn't confirmed which means Republicans are energized and Dems lose (polls now pointing at this plus Repubs historically vote in higher numbers than Dems in midterms) or he is confirmed, energizing Dems for midterms even though we get stuck with decades of this temperamentally unfit alcoholic abuser on the SCOTUS. Given his behavior he shouldn't but it's d@mned if you do and if you don't.

You will be lucky to have a very qualified justice on SCOTUS.

I stated days ago, after the FBI investigation was started, that there would be nothing in this report that would be a game changer. The only sad thing about the investigation is that it won’t exonerate Kavanaugh. It can’t. When someone brings charges that are 36 years old, had no date or place of the alleged crime, and all the named individuals allegedly there have no knowledge of either the party of the allegations, how can you expect this report to be any game changer? I still cannot believe that people are actually believing the crap that has been alleged.
Think about it - NOTHING has corroborated her story.

Liberals know that. That's why they've pivoted to the fact that he got angry about being accused of a heinous crime as part of a political smear campaign.

And all this focus on high school yearbooks and teen boys' slang terms for farting is ridicluous. Normal people see it.

I agree with both of you. I never imagined we'd see something so wholly absurd as this confirmation process. And the people calling him an "alcoholic" - obviously he is not. He's had SIX prior FBI investigations, and all of them were clean as a whistle. He is a highly respected judge. His behavior as a teenager has nothing to do with his decades of experience on the bench and good works as a citizen. The whole thing is truly disgusting.

I agree with you that behavior during one's teens may not matter much in the grand scheme. What matters in this case is that he seems to have lied about it while under oath. If he lied about silly minutiae, like what different terms mean in his yearbook, what else might he lie about? It calls one's character in question when they are shown to be liars, per several of his former classmates/roommates.

Do we have evidence that he lied?

I mean, if HRC is an evil lizard person, she certainly should never be elected President. We can make all sorts of conjectures about ifs. What about evidence? Facts? Truth?

PP here. I have not commented much in politics, but I'll say this. I will grant that none of us can say with 100% certainty that either Dr. Blasey or Judge Kavanaugh were lying. But given the evidence that has come out from his contemporaries at GT Prep, former classmates, roomates, etc., I think it's reasonable to say that that there is a high likelihood that he did not tell the complete truth about everything.

I'm also a Ph.D.-trained research scientist. We're trained to never say with 100% certainty that we believe the data, but we talk in terms of likelihoods. I would say that in this case, based on the evidence, that there is a high likelihood that he is lying about at least some minor details.

Of course he didn't tell the complete truth about everything. Neither did Ford. That's a function of being human.

But if we're going to use his testimony to demonstrate that he assaulted a woman, it stands to reason we should actually have to present the parts of his testimony that demonstrate that. Not "I don't like the guy." Or "he drank too much." But actually "he said [X], and over here we have proof that he currently knows the truth to be [Y]." As far as I can tell, we don't have that. We just have people who don't like him criticizing him for past behavior, and saying that boys and men like him are the sorts of people who commit assault, therefore he must have done it.

If he seems to have lied, what did he seem to lie about? What is the evidence that is being used to show it is likely a lie?

He lied at his 2006 confirmation hearings about knowingly receiving illegally acquired emails in 2002 that were stolen from the Democrats in a partisan attempt to thwart the Democrats' questioning of judicial nominees.

That in and of itself is disqualifying. The man is either a liar (he lied about knowingly receiving stolen information) or he has terrible judgment (he couldn't tell that the information he was being fed was illegally acquired). Looks bad either way, though if he is as smart as conservatives are saying then it's more likely the 1st scenario - he lied -- is accurate.