Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
-1
What a load of BS. Talk about a partisan lens. The fact that you equate the Kavanaugh hearings with the easily refuted lies about Obama completely discredits you. There is no comparison. Some people just can't face that he's a shitty guy, because they are too desperate to push through their agenda.

Wrong. I would feel the same way about the Kavanaugh hearings regardless of political party (and, fyi, I'm an independent). This man was judged guilty in the court of public opinion, and by all the Democratic senators, with the world watching - and ZERO corroborating evidence. The way he and his family were treated was a travesty. You, and people like you, have completely pissed on the entire concept of innocent until proven guilty. YOU should be ashamed.

Ridiculous, and untrue. This was not a criminal trial, but a job interview. He told multiple untruths (not least about his filthy yearbook page--I suppose I am fortunate not to have known men who refer to women in such disgusting ways), and revealed himself, incontrovertibly, to be a conspiracy-spouting partisan who lacks anything approaching reasonably impartial judicial temperament. Which is why the Jesuits, largest Christian Church organization, and the ABA also believed he should not be confirmed. And since the FBI was compelled to limit the investigation, and were not permitted to speak to either his accusers or the list of corroborating witnesses they provided, you really should just shut up.

So, if you are up for a job--and a competitor doesn't like you--all you have to do is make an accusation against you. Good to know.

This was not just a "job interview." It was a public hearing. The accuser was questioned--and, if you read the transcript and the comments by her questioner (a woman who prosecutes sex offenders--not victims) you would know that her accusation was flimsy at best. And, in all likelihood, was very badly mistaken. Even her "facts" changed. The year, the place, the people present, etc. Even her age at the time.

Kavanaugh had 6 background checks--intense ones--before the 7th one requested as a result of the accusation. These are not just your friends who are asked about you, these were intense questions of many people.

It's not just our court system that operates on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. And, when we drop that premise, we have lost much.

[Anonymous]

So, if you are up for a job--and a competitor doesn't like you--all you have to do is make an accusation against you. Good to know.

This was not just a "job interview." It was a public hearing. The accuser was questioned--and, if you read the transcript and the comments by her questioner (a woman who prosecutes sex offenders--not victims) you would know that her accusation was flimsy at best. And, in all likelihood, was very badly mistaken. Even her "facts" changed. The year, the place, the people present, etc. Even her age at the time.

Kavanaugh had 6 background checks--intense ones--before the 7th one requested as a result of the accusation. These are not just your friends who are asked about you, these were intense questions of many people.

It's not just our court system that operates on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. And, when we drop that premise, we have lost much.

Can’t stand the formatting error above......

Totally agree. The old “this was a job interview” line has gotten old and stale. The job interview was what occurred weeks prior - during the confirmation hearings.
This was Kavanaugh defending himself and his family from false allegations. It is shameful it came to this point, thanks to Feinstein and whoever leaked the letter.

And, I threw out this question weeks ago in regard to the presumption of innocence......

If your employer received a complaint from an employee regarding an EEO complaint against you, wouldn’t you want your employer to presume innocent until proven guilty? Or, are you ok with your employer firing you over an allegation with no evidence? You know, not having any presumption of innocence?
You see, it doesn’t just apply to our courts. It is a basic tenet of our society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So, if you are up for a job--and a competitor doesn't like you--all you have to do is make an accusation against you. Good to know.

This was not just a "job interview." It was a public hearing. The accuser was questioned--and, if you read the transcript and the comments by her questioner (a woman who prosecutes sex offenders--not victims) you would know that her accusation was flimsy at best. And, in all likelihood, was very badly mistaken. Even her "facts" changed. The year, the place, the people present, etc. Even her age at the time.

Kavanaugh had 6 background checks--intense ones--before the 7th one requested as a result of the accusation. These are not just your friends who are asked about you, these were intense questions of many people.

It's not just our court system that operates on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. And, when we drop that premise, we have lost much.

Can’t stand the formatting error above......

Totally agree. The old “this was a job interview” line has gotten old and stale. The job interview was what occurred weeks prior - during the confirmation hearings.
This was Kavanaugh defending himself and his family from false allegations. It is shameful it came to this point, thanks to Feinstein and whoever leaked the letter.

And, I threw out this question weeks ago in regard to the presumption of innocence......

If your employer received a complaint from an employee regarding an EEO complaint against you, wouldn’t you want your employer to presume innocent until proven guilty? Or, are you ok with your employer firing you over an allegation with no evidence? You know, not having any presumption of innocence?
You see, it doesn’t just apply to our courts. It is a basic tenet of our society.

What l learned for the first time is that FBI background checks for political appointees can be shaped by the WH. So it is entirely possible that the 6 prior background checks were not as thorough as they could have been. BK is a political creature who spent much of his career working in a political capacity and it would not surprise me if the Bush WH might not have done a very thorough background check on their colleague and fellow partisan (his work for Ken Starr went way beyond the bounds of professionalism)
We also know that concerns about his judicial temperament and impartiality did come up when he came up for the DC Appeals Court
Also are we just supposed to ignore his belligerent and highly partisan performance during his last appearance before the judiciary committee? Finally as many people have repeatedly pointed out he lied repeatedly about little things (like his drinking habits) and big things (like his involvement in the Bush era torture policies). He is unfit for the highest court in the land

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testimony = evidence

And, when Ford’s testimony is weighed against the contradictory testimony of 4 others, it is not credible.

We will never really know because it was never really investigated.

Ford could report it to the police and start a criminal investigation. The police have welcomed her report, should she choose to make it.

A couple of things at issue. Montgomery County police have already responded saying the alleged victim must file a complaint. However, the complaint would not be acted upon because the complaint has to follow the law based on the date of the incident. In this case, the statute of limitations was 1 year.

That said, there was no assault. Ford's story is most likely a lie as numerous posters have listed a number of falsehoods in her story. The most basic of which is her attorney's couldn't convince a single family member or friend to lie and say they drove her home or interacted with her back then. No one was willing to perjure themselves on such an idiotic story.

The Montgomery County Police have said they would investigate if Ford chose to report.
I imagine they would leave it up to the prosecutor to determine if any crimes were committed, and if so, if any charges can be filed in present day. In any case, Ford could request an investigation, and findings could be released. It would certainly help her case to have something, anything about her story substantiated in some way.

I agree that the witness statements make it likely there was no assault.
I also think if Ford believed absolutely there was an assault and Kavanaugh perpetuated it, she would file a police report, since Feinstein already exposed her to the public. I wonder if her friend not being able to corroborate her story cast enough doubts for her to not want to file a police report.

[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:Wow.

If Bart were innocent I am sure you would not be so defensive.

Sad to be you.

Wait. So when you think someone is being smeared by lies you just walk away, oh well? Or do you correct people who are spreading lies?

Do you feel the same way about people who say Warren used her claims of NA heritage to get jobs? Hey, people can say whatever they want, right? No worries. They can cast Warren as a lying jerk who did whatever she needed to do in order to get the best job she could get. That Warren, what a liar, am I right?!

And Obama and his followers. Geez. Give it up. Stop trying to pretend he was born in the US. I mean really. He was accused of being born outside the country. That's enough. All those people defending him? Clearly proof that he was really a foreigner. So sad that people felt compelled to defend him like that.

I understand now. Because the GOP took a smear campaign and ran with it for years - even elected the clown who pushed the smear most publicly of all - you think that that’s what the Democrats are doing. Much like how Bretty was a troll to the Clintons, so too does he see trolls everywhere.

As a party, you need to understand that some of us have morals and your projection says volumes about you, not us.

If you insist on seeing everything through a thick lens of partisanship, that's on you.

The smear campaign against Kavanaugh is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.
The smear campaign against Warren is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.
The smear campaign against Obama is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.

I think any reasonable human being is going to tell people when they're mistaken, and perhaps be more forceful when someone is outright lying.

That you, apparently, would only be interested in correcting lies or mistakes when they hurt "your side" says everything about you, and nothing about anyone else.

I agree.

+2
Well said.

-1
What a load of BS. Talk about a partisan lens. The fact that you equate the Kavanaugh hearings with the easily refuted lies about Obama completely discredits you. There is no comparison. Some people just can't face that he's a shitty guy, because they are too desperate to push through their agenda.

Wrong. I would feel the same way about the Kavanaugh hearings regardless of political party (and, fyi, I'm an independent). This man was judged guilty in the court of public opinion, and by all the Democratic senators, with the world watching - and ZERO corroborating evidence. The way he and his family were treated was a travesty. You, and people like you, have completely pissed on the entire concept of innocent until proven guilty. YOU should be ashamed.

+1 very true

+ 2 and the voters saw it.

Which voters? The ones who just want a less racist reason they support Trump? Those ones? "Oh, I just have to support him because Hillary's emails and the way Kav was treated! Not because I'm a disgusting person afraid of America's changing demographics."

Same voters, they are lost anyway. No need to chase them down by giving up our values.

More of a partisan lens.
I did not vote for Trump and would not vote for Trump.
I believe Kavanaugh was treated terribly.
I also think Warren didn't use her family lore to get a job.
I also believe Obama's a natural born US citizen.
I also think Garland should have gotten a vote.
As someone who is required to follow regulations for protected material, I think it's unreasonable to treat politicians exposing sensitive information differently from how I would be treated. So the whole "but her emails" thing has annoyed me from the beginning because it trivializes the issue on both sides.

Some of us don't engage in the one-dimensional my-team-right-or-wrong that some of the rest of you are engaged in. You might want to try it.

And, yet, you tacitly support him.

No, I don't.

Pointing out when people lie or are mistaken is not supporting anyone or anything but the truth. In my world, supporting the truth isn't offering support for anyone in particular. My analysis of Kavanaugh isn't support for Trump. My analysis of Warren isn't support for Warren. My analysis of Obama isn't support for Obama. In each case, it's support for fact-finding and truth.

If you find it offensive when people support the truth, that's on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
-1
What a load of BS. Talk about a partisan lens. The fact that you equate the Kavanaugh hearings with the easily refuted lies about Obama completely discredits you. There is no comparison. Some people just can't face that he's a shitty guy, because they are too desperate to push through their agenda.

Wrong. I would feel the same way about the Kavanaugh hearings regardless of political party (and, fyi, I'm an independent). This man was judged guilty in the court of public opinion, and by all the Democratic senators, with the world watching - and ZERO corroborating evidence. The way he and his family were treated was a travesty. You, and people like you, have completely pissed on the entire concept of innocent until proven guilty. YOU should be ashamed.

Ridiculous, and untrue. This was not a criminal trial, but a job interview. He told multiple untruths (not least about his filthy yearbook page--I suppose I am fortunate not to have known men who refer to women in such disgusting ways), and revealed himself, incontrovertibly, to be a conspiracy-spouting partisan who lacks anything approaching reasonably impartial judicial temperament. Which is why the Jesuits, largest Christian Church organization, and the ABA also believed he should not be confirmed. And since the FBI was compelled to limit the investigation, and were not permitted to speak to either his accusers or the list of corroborating witnesses they provided, you really should just shut up.

The "lies" you think he told about his yearbook page have been supported by other students-at-the-time. Perhaps you should reconsider your own filthy mind.

The FBI conducted a background investigation, a perfectly normal background investigation. Wray testified to that fact. The FBI interviewed Ramirez, who was one of the people who accused Kavanaugh of inappropriate behavior. They also interviewed Judge, who was one of the people Ford named as witness. Or hey, how about you read for yourself, and learn how wrong you are? https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-investigation-witnesses-fbi-interview-1151507

If Ford or Swetnick are interested in a criminal investigation, the police are waiting for them to report a crime.

[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:Wow.

If Bart were innocent I am sure you would not be so defensive.

Sad to be you.

Wait. So when you think someone is being smeared by lies you just walk away, oh well? Or do you correct people who are spreading lies?

Do you feel the same way about people who say Warren used her claims of NA heritage to get jobs? Hey, people can say whatever they want, right? No worries. They can cast Warren as a lying jerk who did whatever she needed to do in order to get the best job she could get. That Warren, what a liar, am I right?!

And Obama and his followers. Geez. Give it up. Stop trying to pretend he was born in the US. I mean really. He was accused of being born outside the country. That's enough. All those people defending him? Clearly proof that he was really a foreigner. So sad that people felt compelled to defend him like that.

I understand now. Because the GOP took a smear campaign and ran with it for years - even elected the clown who pushed the smear most publicly of all - you think that that’s what the Democrats are doing. Much like how Bretty was a troll to the Clintons, so too does he see trolls everywhere.

As a party, you need to understand that some of us have morals and your projection says volumes about you, not us.

If you insist on seeing everything through a thick lens of partisanship, that's on you.

The smear campaign against Kavanaugh is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.
The smear campaign against Warren is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.
The smear campaign against Obama is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.

I think any reasonable human being is going to tell people when they're mistaken, and perhaps be more forceful when someone is outright lying.

That you, apparently, would only be interested in correcting lies or mistakes when they hurt "your side" says everything about you, and nothing about anyone else.

I agree.

+2
Well said.

-1
What a load of BS. Talk about a partisan lens. The fact that you equate the Kavanaugh hearings with the easily refuted lies about Obama completely discredits you. There is no comparison. Some people just can't face that he's a shitty guy, because they are too desperate to push through their agenda.

Wrong. I would feel the same way about the Kavanaugh hearings regardless of political party (and, fyi, I'm an independent). This man was judged guilty in the court of public opinion, and by all the Democratic senators, with the world watching - and ZERO corroborating evidence. The way he and his family were treated was a travesty. You, and people like you, have completely pissed on the entire concept of innocent until proven guilty. YOU should be ashamed.

+1 very true

+ 2 and the voters saw it.

Which voters? The ones who just want a less racist reason they support Trump? Those ones? "Oh, I just have to support him because Hillary's emails and the way Kav was treated! Not because I'm a disgusting person afraid of America's changing demographics."

Same voters, they are lost anyway. No need to chase them down by giving up our values.

More of a partisan lens.
I did not vote for Trump and would not vote for Trump.
I believe Kavanaugh was treated terribly.
I also think Warren didn't use her family lore to get a job.
I also believe Obama's a natural born US citizen.
I also think Garland should have gotten a vote.
As someone who is required to follow regulations for protected material, I think it's unreasonable to treat politicians exposing sensitive information differently from how I would be treated. So the whole "but her emails" thing has annoyed me from the beginning because it trivializes the issue on both sides.

Some of us don't engage in the one-dimensional my-team-right-or-wrong that some of the rest of you are engaged in. You might want to try it.

And, yet, you tacitly support him.

No, I don't.

Pointing out when people lie or are mistaken is not supporting anyone or anything but the truth. In my world, supporting the truth isn't offering support for anyone in particular. My analysis of Kavanaugh isn't support for Trump. My analysis of Warren isn't support for Warren. My analysis of Obama isn't support for Obama. In each case, it's support for fact-finding and truth.

If you find it offensive when people support the truth, that's on you.

Oh ok. So you did vote for HRC. I misread your earlier post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, if you are up for a job--and a competitor doesn't like you--all you have to do is make an accusation against you. Good to know.

This was not just a "job interview." It was a public hearing. The accuser was questioned--and, if you read the transcript and the comments by her questioner (a woman who prosecutes sex offenders--not victims) you would know that her accusation was flimsy at best. And, in all likelihood, was very badly mistaken. Even her "facts" changed. The year, the place, the people present, etc. Even her age at the time.

Kavanaugh had 6 background checks--intense ones--before the 7th one requested as a result of the accusation. These are not just your friends who are asked about you, these were intense questions of many people.

It's not just our court system that operates on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. And, when we drop that premise, we have lost much.

Can’t stand the formatting error above......

Totally agree. The old “this was a job interview” line has gotten old and stale. The job interview was what occurred weeks prior - during the confirmation hearings.
This was Kavanaugh defending himself and his family from false allegations. It is shameful it came to this point, thanks to Feinstein and whoever leaked the letter.

And, I threw out this question weeks ago in regard to the presumption of innocence......

If your employer received a complaint from an employee regarding an EEO complaint against you, wouldn’t you want your employer to presume innocent until proven guilty? Or, are you ok with your employer firing you over an allegation with no evidence? You know, not having any presumption of innocence?
You see, it doesn’t just apply to our courts. It is a basic tenet of our society.

What l learned for the first time is that FBI background checks for political appointees can be shaped by the WH. So it is entirely possible that the 6 prior background checks were not as thorough as they could have been. BK is a political creature who spent much of his career working in a political capacity and it would not surprise me if the Bush WH might not have done a very thorough background check on their colleague and fellow partisan (his work for Ken Starr went way beyond the bounds of professionalism)
We also know that concerns about his judicial temperament and impartiality did come up when he came up for the DC Appeals Court
Also are we just supposed to ignore his belligerent and highly partisan performance during his last appearance before the judiciary committee? Finally as many people have repeatedly pointed out he lied repeatedly about little things (like his drinking habits) and big things (like his involvement in the Bush era torture policies). He is unfit for the highest court in the land

Why are you lying about what Kavanaugh said about his drinking habits?
There is no indication he lied repeatedly about them, and it's such a trivial thing to check. Why do you keep including it? It displays your bias and ignorance.

His work for Ken Starr was gross, but the man they were questioning was a disgusting creeper, and unfortunately that's how it was.

By all accounts, his work on the DC Appeals Court was fine.

If he perjured himself, why is no one following up? Crickets.

No, don't ignore his frustration and anger in his testimony. Also don't ignore the context. The lies that are still being told about him - that his yearbook section was filled with disgusting sexual innuendo, and the like? Lies. The Devils Triangle is a drinking game. FFFF is an in-joke with friends. How should the man react when he is dragged through the mud, with no evidence to support any allegations, yet each allegation is treated as truth? To the extent that people apparently think the Georgetown Prep kids were arranging and hosting gang rape parties where they drugged women and then raped them while they were too incapacitated to protest?
In a perfect world, he would have been calm and collected when he responded to such horrible accusations. In a perfect world, such horrible accusations wouldn't have been made publicly and treated as absolute truth without being followed up on. In a perfect world, Ford's request for confidentiality would have been honored and the Senators could have hashed out these issues behind closed doors.

This isn't a perfect world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

More of a partisan lens.
I did not vote for Trump and would not vote for Trump.
I believe Kavanaugh was treated terribly.
I also think Warren didn't use her family lore to get a job.
I also believe Obama's a natural born US citizen.
I also think Garland should have gotten a vote.
As someone who is required to follow regulations for protected material, I think it's unreasonable to treat politicians exposing sensitive information differently from how I would be treated. So the whole "but her emails" thing has annoyed me from the beginning because it trivializes the issue on both sides.

Some of us don't engage in the one-dimensional my-team-right-or-wrong that some of the rest of you are engaged in. You might want to try it.

WELL SAID!!

And if I might add, walking away from the partisanship goose step and into a more, dare I use the term, fair and balanced, approach will help our nation immensely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, if you are up for a job--and a competitor doesn't like you--all you have to do is make an accusation against you. Good to know.

This was not just a "job interview." It was a public hearing. The accuser was questioned--and, if you read the transcript and the comments by her questioner (a woman who prosecutes sex offenders--not victims) you would know that her accusation was flimsy at best. And, in all likelihood, was very badly mistaken. Even her "facts" changed. The year, the place, the people present, etc. Even her age at the time.

Kavanaugh had 6 background checks--intense ones--before the 7th one requested as a result of the accusation. These are not just your friends who are asked about you, these were intense questions of many people.

It's not just our court system that operates on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. And, when we drop that premise, we have lost much.

Can’t stand the formatting error above......

Totally agree. The old “this was a job interview” line has gotten old and stale. The job interview was what occurred weeks prior - during the confirmation hearings.
This was Kavanaugh defending himself and his family from false allegations. It is shameful it came to this point, thanks to Feinstein and whoever leaked the letter.

And, I threw out this question weeks ago in regard to the presumption of innocence......

If your employer received a complaint from an employee regarding an EEO complaint against you, wouldn’t you want your employer to presume innocent until proven guilty? Or, are you ok with your employer firing you over an allegation with no evidence? You know, not having any presumption of innocence?
You see, it doesn’t just apply to our courts. It is a basic tenet of our society.

What l learned for the first time is that FBI background checks for political appointees can be shaped by the WH. So it is entirely possible that the 6 prior background checks were not as thorough as they could have been. BK is a political creature who spent much of his career working in a political capacity and it would not surprise me if the Bush WH might not have done a very thorough background check on their colleague and fellow partisan (his work for Ken Starr went way beyond the bounds of professionalism)
We also know that concerns about his judicial temperament and impartiality did come up when he came up for the DC Appeals Court
Also are we just supposed to ignore his belligerent and highly partisan performance during his last appearance before the judiciary committee? Finally as many people have repeatedly pointed out he lied repeatedly about little things (like his drinking habits) and big things (like his involvement in the Bush era torture policies). He is unfit for the highest court in the land

Why are you lying about what Kavanaugh said about his drinking habits?
There is no indication he lied repeatedly about them, and it's such a trivial thing to check. Why do you keep including it? It displays your bias and ignorance.

His work for Ken Starr was gross, but the man they were questioning was a disgusting creeper, and unfortunately that's how it was.

By all accounts, his work on the DC Appeals Court was fine.

If he perjured himself, why is no one following up? Crickets.

No, don't ignore his frustration and anger in his testimony. Also don't ignore the context. The lies that are still being told about him - that his yearbook section was filled with disgusting sexual innuendo, and the like? Lies. The Devils Triangle is a drinking game. FFFF is an in-joke with friends. How should the man react when he is dragged through the mud, with no evidence to support any allegations, yet each allegation is treated as truth? To the extent that people apparently think the Georgetown Prep kids were arranging and hosting gang rape parties where they drugged women and then raped them while they were too incapacitated to protest?
In a perfect world, he would have been calm and collected when he responded to such horrible accusations. In a perfect world, such horrible accusations wouldn't have been made publicly and treated as absolute truth without being followed up on. In a perfect world, Ford's request for confidentiality would have been honored and the Senators could have hashed out these issues behind closed doors.

This isn't a perfect world.

Several of his Yale classmates and even a roommate came forward after hearing him testify to say he had lied under oath
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies/amp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So, if you are up for a job--and a competitor doesn't like you--all you have to do is make an accusation against you. Good to know.

This was not just a "job interview." It was a public hearing. The accuser was questioned--and, if you read the transcript and the comments by her questioner (a woman who prosecutes sex offenders--not victims) you would know that her accusation was flimsy at best. And, in all likelihood, was very badly mistaken. Even her "facts" changed. The year, the place, the people present, etc. Even her age at the time.

Kavanaugh had 6 background checks--intense ones--before the 7th one requested as a result of the accusation. These are not just your friends who are asked about you, these were intense questions of many people.

It's not just our court system that operates on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. And, when we drop that premise, we have lost much.

Can’t stand the formatting error above......

Totally agree. The old “this was a job interview” line has gotten old and stale. The job interview was what occurred weeks prior - during the confirmation hearings.
This was Kavanaugh defending himself and his family from false allegations. It is shameful it came to this point, thanks to Feinstein and whoever leaked the letter.

And, I threw out this question weeks ago in regard to the presumption of innocence......

If your employer received a complaint from an employee regarding an EEO complaint against you, wouldn’t you want your employer to presume innocent until proven guilty? Or, are you ok with your employer firing you over an allegation with no evidence? You know, not having any presumption of innocence?
You see, it doesn’t just apply to our courts. It is a basic tenet of our society.

He. didn’t. have. the. job. yet. So. it. was. a. job. interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Several of his Yale classmates and even a roommate came forward after hearing him testify to say he had lied under oath
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies/amp

If you took the time to read the actual statements then compared it to Kavanaugh's statements you will see that not one gave anything beyond what Kavanaugh admitted to. Even the past associate who hollered about his lying about blackouts was only quoted as speculating that in his opinion based on the amount he drank he must have blacked out.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/yale-kavanaugh-drinking/index.html

FWIW, I haven't been drunk in decades but I got pretty wasted at times back in my early 20's. Had some sick moments, wished someone would shoot me, but I never blacked out.

[Anonymous]

"black out"means to not remember.

I have many many things people told me I did drunk in college I didn't remember at the time. It does not mean you are passed out cold, necessarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So, if you are up for a job--and a competitor doesn't like you--all you have to do is make an accusation against you. Good to know.

This was not just a "job interview." It was a public hearing. The accuser was questioned--and, if you read the transcript and the comments by her questioner (a woman who prosecutes sex offenders--not victims) you would know that her accusation was flimsy at best. And, in all likelihood, was very badly mistaken. Even her "facts" changed. The year, the place, the people present, etc. Even her age at the time.

Kavanaugh had 6 background checks--intense ones--before the 7th one requested as a result of the accusation. These are not just your friends who are asked about you, these were intense questions of many people.

It's not just our court system that operates on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. And, when we drop that premise, we have lost much.

Can’t stand the formatting error above......

Totally agree. The old “this was a job interview” line has gotten old and stale. The job interview was what occurred weeks prior - during the confirmation hearings.
This was Kavanaugh defending himself and his family from false allegations. It is shameful it came to this point, thanks to Feinstein and whoever leaked the letter.

And, I threw out this question weeks ago in regard to the presumption of innocence......

If your employer received a complaint from an employee regarding an EEO complaint against you, wouldn’t you want your employer to presume innocent until proven guilty? Or, are you ok with your employer firing you over an allegation with no evidence? You know, not having any presumption of innocence?
You see, it doesn’t just apply to our courts. It is a basic tenet of our society.

He. didn’t. have. the. job. yet. So. it. was. a. job. interview.

So, when you go for your next job interview, you won't mind if someone goes to your potential boss and sobs out a story of the time you sexually assaulted him/her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

If Bart were innocent I am sure you would not be so defensive.

Sad to be you.

Wait. So when you think someone is being smeared by lies you just walk away, oh well? Or do you correct people who are spreading lies?

Do you feel the same way about people who say Warren used her claims of NA heritage to get jobs? Hey, people can say whatever they want, right? No worries. They can cast Warren as a lying jerk who did whatever she needed to do in order to get the best job she could get. That Warren, what a liar, am I right?!

And Obama and his followers. Geez. Give it up. Stop trying to pretend he was born in the US. I mean really. He was accused of being born outside the country. That's enough. All those people defending him? Clearly proof that he was really a foreigner. So sad that people felt compelled to defend him like that.

I understand now. Because the GOP took a smear campaign and ran with it for years - even elected the clown who pushed the smear most publicly of all - you think that that’s what the Democrats are doing. Much like how Bretty was a troll to the Clintons, so too does he see trolls everywhere.

As a party, you need to understand that some of us have morals and your projection says volumes about you, not us.

If you insist on seeing everything through a thick lens of partisanship, that's on you.

The smear campaign against Kavanaugh is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.
The smear campaign against Warren is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.
The smear campaign against Obama is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.

I think any reasonable human being is going to tell people when they're mistaken, and perhaps be more forceful when someone is outright lying.

That you, apparently, would only be interested in correcting lies or mistakes when they hurt "your side" says everything about you, and nothing about anyone else.

I agree.

+2
Well said.

-1
What a load of BS. Talk about a partisan lens. The fact that you equate the Kavanaugh hearings with the easily refuted lies about Obama completely discredits you. There is no comparison. Some people just can't face that he's a shitty guy, because they are too desperate to push through their agenda.

Wrong. I would feel the same way about the Kavanaugh hearings regardless of political party (and, fyi, I'm an independent). This man was judged guilty in the court of public opinion, and by all the Democratic senators, with the world watching - and ZERO corroborating evidence. The way he and his family were treated was a travesty. You, and people like you, have completely pissed on the entire concept of innocent until proven guilty. YOU should be ashamed.

You are incorrect. I have nothing to be ashamed of. I never said he was guilty of anything other than being a shitty guy. All you needed to do was listen to his testimony before the Senate, and I'm not just talking in relation to the Ford allegations, to figure that out. Talk about assuming. Remember, anonymous forum with lots of PPs.

And what about the travesty of how the Ford has been treated by the conservative public?? Don't care about that do you? Women who step forward to seek justice for sexual assault have been treated like shit for centuries. You want a travesty????? That is an effing travesty.

YOU should be ashamed for getting all worked up about the wrong thing. Kavanaugh is now a Justice (there's another travesty). His rich family will be fine. Maybe worry about all the actual victims out there that don't have all the rich Republican Senators supporting them.

The fact that you think he's a "shitty guy," based entirely on his completely human reaction to being wrongly accused, just shows you have zero empathy. Interesting that you've got "empathy" for a woman who decides to dredge up a 36 yr. old allegation, with no substantiation, when she could have come forward with it ANY TIME in the past 36 yrs, but strangely chose this particular summer to do so. She could have had the entire thing investigated years ago - quietly, with zero fanfare - and remained anonymous throughout. But for some reason, she chose to come forward now, surely knowing she was never going to remain anonymous what with the Kavanaugh nomination already moving forward.

You say it's a "travesty" that Kavanaugh is now a justice. I say it's a reminder that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty. If you don't agree with that concept, there are any number of countries you could move to in which they'd be happy to throw you in jail, no evidence required.

All Ford did was make women look silly, yet again, by assuming it's perfectly fine to come forward decades after an assault (or alleged assault, in this case). It's not ok. People who are assaulted need to come forward immediately. I could say you broke into my house 36 yrs. ago and assaulted me. Can you prove you didn't? No? Ok, then you did it.