"Justice" a new documentary on Kavanaugh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She made it political. From start to finish to the entire reason for the testimony, it was politically based and not criminally based.

[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.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She wrote a letter to her own Congresswoman, who was not a Senator and not on the committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She wrote a letter to her own Congresswoman, who was not a Senator and not on the committee.

And implied to this democratic person that her testimony could get him dismissed. The whole thing makes no sense from the start. He was already a judge. It was already likely he was going to be approved. If we really are to consider it an issue against him, it would have to be criminal against him like they are doing with Trump now. She dropped it after his confirmation too. If it really was criminal, why not go through Maryland?

[Anonymous]

Do the PPs seriously forget that Kavanaugh claimed to still have his journals from the 1980s and offered them as proof that he didn’t rape anyone? Did that not trigger as just the slightest bit ridiculous and uncredible? Or the teary rant about liking beer? Or his prurient and obsessive interest in the Clinton investigation?

Ford wasn’t the one person that claimed that Kavanaugh was sick. You can call them all liars, but at some point you have to acknowledge that an upstanding man just doesn’t generate these kinds of rumors and accusations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the PPs seriously forget that Kavanaugh claimed to still have his journals from the 1980s and offered them as proof that he didn’t rape anyone? Did that not trigger as just the slightest bit ridiculous and uncredible? Or the teary rant about liking beer? Or his prurient and obsessive interest in the Clinton investigation?

Ford wasn’t the one person that claimed that Kavanaugh was sick. You can call them all liars, but at some point you have to acknowledge that an upstanding man just doesn’t generate these kinds of rumors and accusations.

? LOL. Everyone seeking power generates these kinds of rumors.

[Anonymous]

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.

I didn't think that at all. Quite the opposite. Bart was the one who appeared deceptive to me.

Me too. Most of us older than gen z understand exactly what he is and have seen that same old same old many times. Maybe the gen z frat bros will shape up...maybe not. kavanaugh's behavior is so so familiar. Lots of pissed off people out here that he has power over important decisions affecting us and our kids.

[Anonymous]

Do the PPs seriously forget that Kavanaugh claimed to still have his journals from the 1980s and offered them as proof that he didn’t rape anyone? Did that not trigger as just the slightest bit ridiculous and uncredible?

No it didn't. It wasn't proving rape, it was proving where he was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the PPs seriously forget that Kavanaugh claimed to still have his journals from the 1980s and offered them as proof that he didn’t rape anyone? Did that not trigger as just the slightest bit ridiculous and uncredible? Or the teary rant about liking beer? Or his prurient and obsessive interest in the Clinton investigation?

Ford wasn’t the one person that claimed that Kavanaugh was sick. You can call them all liars, but at some point you have to acknowledge that an upstanding man just doesn’t generate these kinds of rumors and accusations.

? LOL. Everyone seeking power generates these kinds of rumors.

The PP who pointed out the lack of such rumors about Gorsuch - and a meaner, sniveling lawyer stereotype I’ve never seen - proves your point false. If crazies came forward about him, they were just that. Ford’s story was plausible and honest, to everyone but the “boys will be boys” stepford wives and MRA goons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the PPs seriously forget that Kavanaugh claimed to still have his journals from the 1980s and offered them as proof that he didn’t rape anyone? Did that not trigger as just the slightest bit ridiculous and uncredible? Or the teary rant about liking beer? Or his prurient and obsessive interest in the Clinton investigation?

Ford wasn’t the one person that claimed that Kavanaugh was sick. You can call them all liars, but at some point you have to acknowledge that an upstanding man just doesn’t generate these kinds of rumors and accusations.

? LOL. Everyone seeking power generates these kinds of rumors.

The PP who pointed out the lack of such rumors about Gorsuch - and a meaner, sniveling lawyer stereotype I’ve never seen - proves your point false. If crazies came forward about him, they were just that. Ford’s story was plausible and honest, to everyone but the “boys will be boys” stepford wives and MRA goons.

Sure the story that someone was raped that way was plausible. The way she went about it and the actual details of the incident were not.

[Anonymous]

Every conviction has to have actual data to support it. There are actual court hearings. Even in religions. 30 plus years later people reveal their trauma for their own healing if they reveal it for the first time. They don't call up their congresswoman with no actual data other than their own words.

[Anonymous]

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.

I didn't think that at all. Quite the opposite. Bart was the one who appeared deceptive to me.

Me too. Most of us older than gen z understand exactly what he is and have seen that same old same old many times. Maybe the gen z frat bros will shape up...maybe not. kavanaugh's behavior is so so familiar. Lots of pissed off people out here that he has power over important decisions affecting us and our kids.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the PPs seriously forget that Kavanaugh claimed to still have his journals from the 1980s and offered them as proof that he didn’t rape anyone? Did that not trigger as just the slightest bit ridiculous and uncredible?

No it didn't. It wasn't proving rape, it was proving where he was.

Suggesting the journals were fake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the PPs seriously forget that Kavanaugh claimed to still have his journals from the 1980s and offered them as proof that he didn’t rape anyone? Did that not trigger as just the slightest bit ridiculous and uncredible? Or the teary rant about liking beer? Or his prurient and obsessive interest in the Clinton investigation?

Ford wasn’t the one person that claimed that Kavanaugh was sick. You can call them all liars, but at some point you have to acknowledge that an upstanding man just doesn’t generate these kinds of rumors and accusations.

Make accusation about Kavanaugh, stop his appointment to the Supreme Court. Powerful incentive for someone to make something up.
See Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick.