Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

The Republicans have managed to redefine or establish the meaning of "corroborating evidence" to include *only* eyewitness testimony or a confession—a definition "corroborating evidence" has never had in the history of the American criminal justice system.

[Anonymous]

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

Citation please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When was the allegation that he lied at his 2006 confirmation hearings first made?

[Anonymous]

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.

But Brett certainly was.

Renate alumnius.

[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?

Yes, he would be lying. When you take an oath to tell the truth, you take an oath to tell the full truth, not just select portions of the truth that support your case. Your son knows the expression has two meanings, and further that those two meanings aren't unrelated -- the innocent meaning arose out of trying to cover for the not-so-innocent meaning. If, when asked what it means, he shares only one of them, he is lying by omission.

It is troubling to me that this is something that needs to be explained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Was there an agreement that the investigation was to cover multiple allegations? My understanding was that the investigation was to investigate Ford's allegation, which is the one the Senate deemed credible enough to have testimony regarding?

Well they interviewed Ramirez and yet refused to speak with people who socialized with Kavanaugh and Ford at YLS. People that desperately wanted to speak to the FBI.

And you are assuming that this is because they are being prevented from speaking to all of these people, not because they don't find it material to their investigation? (I'm guessing, since you didn't come out and say it.)
If my guess is correct, can you provide evidence that backs up your assumption? "The didn't talk to everyone who wants to talk to them" doesn't mean the White House is preventing them from talking to people they want to talk to. I'd like evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When was the allegation that he lied at his 2006 confirmation hearings first made?

I don’t know but Feingold is walking through those lies here, well before last Thursday’s hearings.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff/amp

[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.

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?

Yes, he would be lying. When you take an oath to tell the truth, you take an oath to tell the full truth, not just select portions of the truth that support your case. Your son knows the expression has two meanings, and further that those two meanings aren't unrelated -- the innocent meaning arose out of trying to cover for the not-so-innocent meaning. If, when asked what it means, he shares only one of them, he is lying by omission.

It is troubling to me that this is something that needs to be explained.

Very well stated.

[Anonymous]

The absolute perversion of language - which only works around commonalities and broadly accepted usage - is stunningly illustrated in this thread. The diligent, paid for- my guess - trolls or bush-league GOP staffers here and elsewhere online insist that slang isn’t slang, that one “Ralphs” during flu season and not after getting drunk, that sex slang means quarters when quarters-based drinking games are called quarters. And so on.

Why? Aren’t there any arguments beneath you?

[Anonymous]

If it were a good report, why isn't it being made public?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that Ford made an allegation without any support to corroborate what she said. Her version was full of holes.

The Democrats realized this and switched the attack to his year book, his drinking in college and his anger when he testified the second time.

The Democrats have nothing to rely on when it comes to the Ford allegation which is what started the whole thing after the hearings so they can only fall back on other accusations unrelated to the alleged sexual assault on Ford.

The yearbook corroborates her story, as does the calendar. It isn't that they changed tactics, the fact patterns warrant more scrutiny - scrutiny that the White house has shielded Kavanaugh from.

If her story was that Kavanaugh was a crude young man who drank, then yes, the yearbook and calendar corroborates her story. The most important part of her story is the sexual assault. The yearbook does not corroborate that, and we're waiting to see what the investigation turned up to see if the calendar could have helped corroborate that. Although, at best, it would help, not completely corroborate.

Just because someone was a crude young man who drank does not mean he engaged in sexual assault. Yes, many crude young men who drink engaged in sexual assault. Many did not.
If the calendar can place him where she places him, with the people she placed him with, and interviews with or statements from the potential witnesses also suggest at the least there was such a gathering, her claim will have some corroboration. The most helpful would of course be a witness who saw the assault.

But 1) there appears to have been a conscious decision to prevent the FBI from attempting to corroborate her claims, since they weren't even allowed to interview her, much less review any additional information she had

2) if Kavanaugh is lying about whether he was a crude hard drinking teen -- which most people agree he is-- then it is perfectly fair to wonder whether he is lying whether he can reliably remember not assaulting her.

1) Do you have the FBI report? I don't, so I can't say who the FBI interviewed or what details they followed up on.

2) I don't care about your claims about what "most people agree." I care about facts. Please show me the quotes where he lied. My recollection of his testimony was that he admitted to drinking when he was a teen. I can't recall off the top of my head if he was asked if he was crude. I'm sure you can provide the supporting quotes, if your claim is factual.

ng
I don't have the FBI report but I have seen the letter Dr Ford's lawyers wrote to the FBI saying they were having problems contactig the SAIC and saying no one had interviewed them.

There is plenty of evidence he lied about his behavior in HS but just to take one he claimed that the Renate alumni club was a way of paying tribute to a friend. I can't believe anyone over the age of 10 believes that.

Don't you think Ford's lawyers have a vested interest in presenting information in a particular way? And why do you think the FBI should interview her lawyers? And finally, without having the report, how do we know who was ultimately interviewed or what claims were followed up on?

Please provide evidence for him lying about the Renate Alumni club.

[Anonymous]

Wow, the GOP is purposely evading the main problem with BK: the lying. Not one word about it.

[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.

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?

I have no evidence that he is lying about Devil's Triangle. Do you?

Yes. His college freshman roommate says he lied under oath about that and other things.

But I can say that he lied under oath. He claimed that he occasionally drank too much but never enough to forget details of the night before, never enough to “black out.” He did, regularly. He said that “boofing” was farting and the “Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game. “Boofing” and “Devil’s Triangle” are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.

I can’t imagine that anyone in the Senate wants to confirm an individual to a lifetime appointment on the United States Supreme Court who has demonstrated a willingness to be untruthful under oath about easily verified information.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-jamie-roche.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her allegation was unsupported.
She was sympathetic in her testimony.
When you read the testimony--especially Mitchell's paper--it is clear that her testimony was seriously flawed, especially compared to her earlier statements. She couldn't remember what she told WAPO two months ago--how can you trust what she says happened 30+ (that is one of the issues) years ago. Particularly, when she initially said her "late teens" and changed it to"15."

If you look at the facts, the only reason anyone believes her is because they want to do so. The Dems mostly came out saying that they "believed her" even before we heard from her.

If this is what the Democrats represent, and, if they get the power, then we are in very serious trouble.

+1

They believe her because, well, they believe her. There has not been a single piece of hard evidence that corroborates her story. There have been a mountain of inconsistencies in her ever changing accounts surrounding this case. 1) Did she coach anyone for polygraph; 2) Did she take a polygraph on the same day of her grandmother's funeral 3) Did she share notes with the Post 4) Did she put in a second door for google interns or herself 5) Did she live in a 500 sq ft studio 6) Was she afraid of flying 7) Did she know who paid for her poly 8) Did she know her lawyers work for free 9) Did she know senate staffers were willing to come to her 10) 4 boys, or 2 boys; late teens, early 1980s, mid 1980s, 1980s, or 1982.

Honestly I don't know why Dr. Ford is not investigated for perjury.

Your nonstop attacking of Dr Ford does not change the fact that Brett Kavanaugh is not the right person for the job.
Sorry if you thought it would help. Or are you just a crazy misogynist fool? Or both perhaps..

Fact: Ford could not put together a comprehensive enough story with enough verifiable fact. She accused a man publicly of attempted rape, which resulted in absolute crucification in the media. He then had to come out and not only defend himself, but protect his family from the fallout. And he did just that. I would say he's not the right man for the job had he NOT come out swinging.

+1,000,000
I was ambivalent until I saw him defend himself. Finally, someone who's not going to back down when wrongly accused.

+2,000,000

Are all these +(pluses) o response like 1 red state vote = to 1000 blue state votes in our election? Conservatives really have weird sense of their support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it were a good report, why isn't it being made public?

I believe Feinstein also requested that it be kept confidential.

It is raw unfiltered information that could be damaging to people who were interviewed.