Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think Republicans are idiots for not convincing someone to pull this or straight up taking a vote to fail out and move on. They don't have too much time left before Jan 3. If they'd cut ties last week they'd already have a new nom and they'd have ACB or Hardiman well on their way to confirmation.

Instead they will crash and burn on this over the next week only to have trump stew and wallow before making another selection... who knows it could be mid October before they even have a new nominee! Senators will have to be in DC voting on a SCJ instead of campaigning against the betos of the country giving up key time.

It just seems incredibly stupid and shortsighted for people given the gift of an unexpected second court nominee.

Perhaps, but why would they let an innocent man (because we *are* innocent until proven guilty, right?) take the fall? That's more important right now. He should have a chance to be heard, and not just withdraw with his tail between his legs. I think this is an important precedent for anyone accused - with no evidence to support the accusation. There must be a fair hearing. Otherwise, I could point my finger at anyone I wanted and claim they assaulted me.

Go for it. Point your fingers and accuse.

The truth is that supreme court nominees have been rejected for far less. ALL OF THEM WHO HAVE BEEN REJECTED IN THE PAST WERE REJECTED FOR LESS!

Gang rape? Seriously. Supreme court nominees MUST BE without question, without doubts. Do we expect they have the same politics as the president who nominates them? YES. Do we expect them to have open and honest financial records (K. does not)? YES. He was a crappy nominee before this, honestly. No one DESERVES a seat on the supreme court. NO ONE DESERVES IT.

Wow, simmer down. He has not been alleged to have taken part in any rapes, gang or otherwise, so you can shut that down right now. These are all allegations against him - with no corroborating witnesses. You can't simply expect people to make claims like that, 30+ years later, and be taken seriously. If you do, then you need your head examined.

He absolutely has been alleged to have taken part in a gang rape. Don't you read the news?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I knew so many Kavanaughs in prep school and college.

Ever-present chip on shoulder.
Unfriendly to most guys except own bro' bunch.
Mean toward most girls, except when drunk and then became touchey-feeley, hopey-gropey, hokey-pokey, drapey-rapey.
Super friendly to girls of high status with rich parents and country club peerage.

Moms and dads -- look in the mirror -- in your quest for that Lax scholarship and Ivy League admit, are you raising the next Brett Kavanaugh??????

Is his wife from a wealthy background?

No he married "down," probably due to his insecurity and unconfident nature around women when sober....and due to his alcohol and gambling addictions.....

The speculation and wishful thinking here is hysterical. Do you people write crummy novels too?

Here's a plot for great fiction.....(all denied by classmates, friends, and acquaintances)

I only had one beer.
I was a virgin in high school and college.
Mark Judge is not my friend.
I have never been blackout drunk.
I kissed Renate once.
My fraternity at Yale was a band of upstanding brothers.
I didn't receive stolen emails.
I don't recall.......
I don't remember.......
I never sexually assaulted a girl on a bed in a house in a room near a country club in Maryland in a year of a month on a day that's not noted on my calendar.......

Don't forget "even if it happened it's not disqualifying!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex crimes prosecutor (former head of NY Special Victims Unit) is on TV and notes that one of the marks of credibility of Ford's story is that she puts Mark Judge in the room. Why would she name a second person who could instantly discredit her story if it were lying? It's a shame that the GOP Senators don't want to hear the truth.

Brett Kavanaugh has steadily risen through the ranks of the judiciary over years of hard work. He's had six FBI investigations, none of which turned up anything. If these women had something to bring forward concerning him, why didn't they do so years ago? It's been asked before and none of you have an answer, just more B.S. All of a sudden, when it looks like he will be confirmed, these women come out of the woodwork. Very, very suspicious.

I mean yeah. No one would bring up anything before because he wasn’t going for SCOTUS.

And reminder: Gorusch had nothing like this because he was clean. This guy isn’t. So it’s not suspicious if you take that into consideration.

Also: FBI doesn’t investigate sex crimes unless someone reports them. Any schmuck would know that.

The point is, why didn't any of these women report their allegations as soon as Kavanaugh was nominated? And Ford's anonymous letter doesn't count. She could have come forward but chose not to. And the other women, dredging up their fuzzy, unclear memories NOW, of all times? Give us all a break. If they had true allegations against him, they could easily have reported them and had them investigated over the summer. They chose not to. Moving on...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think Republicans are idiots for not convincing someone to pull this or straight up taking a vote to fail out and move on. They don't have too much time left before Jan 3. If they'd cut ties last week they'd already have a new nom and they'd have ACB or Hardiman well on their way to confirmation.

Instead they will crash and burn on this over the next week only to have trump stew and wallow before making another selection... who knows it could be mid October before they even have a new nominee! Senators will have to be in DC voting on a SCJ instead of campaigning against the betos of the country giving up key time.

It just seems incredibly stupid and shortsighted for people given the gift of an unexpected second court nominee.

Perhaps, but why would they let an innocent man (because we *are* innocent until proven guilty, right?) take the fall? That's more important right now. He should have a chance to be heard, and not just withdraw with his tail between his legs. I think this is an important precedent for anyone accused - with no evidence to support the accusation. There must be a fair hearing. Otherwise, I could point my finger at anyone I wanted and claim they assaulted me.

Go for it. Point your fingers and accuse.

The truth is that supreme court nominees have been rejected for far less. ALL OF THEM WHO HAVE BEEN REJECTED IN THE PAST WERE REJECTED FOR LESS!

Gang rape? Seriously. Supreme court nominees MUST BE without question, without doubts. Do we expect they have the same politics as the president who nominates them? YES. Do we expect them to have open and honest financial records (K. does not)? YES. He was a crappy nominee before this, honestly. No one DESERVES a seat on the supreme court. NO ONE DESERVES IT.

Wow, simmer down. He has not been alleged to have taken part in any rapes, gang or otherwise, so you can shut that down right now. These are all allegations against him - with no corroborating witnesses. You can't simply expect people to make claims like that, 30+ years later, and be taken seriously. If you do, then you need your head examined.

He absolutely has been alleged to have taken part in a gang rape. Don't you read the news?

Mark Judge's ex-girlfriend is a corroborating witness. Not an eye-witness, but a corroborating witness nonetheless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex crimes prosecutor (former head of NY Special Victims Unit) is on TV and notes that one of the marks of credibility of Ford's story is that she puts Mark Judge in the room. Why would she name a second person who could instantly discredit her story if it were lying? It's a shame that the GOP Senators don't want to hear the truth.

Brett Kavanaugh has steadily risen through the ranks of the judiciary over years of hard work. He's had six FBI investigations, none of which turned up anything. If these women had something to bring forward concerning him, why didn't they do so years ago? It's been asked before and none of you have an answer, just more B.S. All of a sudden, when it looks like he will be confirmed, these women come out of the woodwork. Very, very suspicious.

I mean yeah. No one would bring up anything before because he wasn’t going for SCOTUS.

And reminder: Gorusch had nothing like this because he was clean. This guy isn’t. So it’s not suspicious if you take that into consideration.

Also: FBI doesn’t investigate sex crimes unless someone reports them. Any schmuck would know that.

The point is, why didn't any of these women report their allegations as soon as Kavanaugh was nominated? And Ford's anonymous letter doesn't count. She could have come forward but chose not to. And the other women, dredging up their fuzzy, unclear memories NOW, of all times? Give us all a break. If they had true allegations against him, they could easily have reported them and had them investigated over the summer. They chose not to. Moving on...

Because they suspected they would be treated abusively if they came forward.

And they were right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex crimes prosecutor (former head of NY Special Victims Unit) is on TV and notes that one of the marks of credibility of Ford's story is that she puts Mark Judge in the room. Why would she name a second person who could instantly discredit her story if it were lying? It's a shame that the GOP Senators don't want to hear the truth.

It's obvious why they don't want to get to the truth.

It's a disgrace. She says she expects the female prosecutor the GOP hired because they were too cowardly to question Ford was going to ask hundreds of questions about Ford's memories of that night to make her look unreliable, when all research shows that it's typical to have gaps in memory about traumatic events.

Oh, for God's sake. If they had allowed a group of male senators to question her, all hell would have broken out. Then you'd claim how unfair it is to have her questioned by all men. They were trying to do the right thing by having a female question her. Is there nothing you people won't pick apart?

[Anonymous]

Kavie isn't being accused in a court of law. He's being judged in the court of public opinion. Is he a person of integrity?


ummmmmm. Sure doesn't look like he is through and through a person of integrity. He seems to have a pretty solid distant and not-so-distant past (and present) as an entitled prick and a political hack and liar.

NEXT!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex crimes prosecutor (former head of NY Special Victims Unit) is on TV and notes that one of the marks of credibility of Ford's story is that she puts Mark Judge in the room. Why would she name a second person who could instantly discredit her story if it were lying? It's a shame that the GOP Senators don't want to hear the truth.

Brett Kavanaugh has steadily risen through the ranks of the judiciary over years of hard work. He's had six FBI investigations, none of which turned up anything. If these women had something to bring forward concerning him, why didn't they do so years ago? It's been asked before and none of you have an answer, just more B.S. All of a sudden, when it looks like he will be confirmed, these women come out of the woodwork. Very, very suspicious.

I mean yeah. No one would bring up anything before because he wasn’t going for SCOTUS.

And reminder: Gorusch had nothing like this because he was clean. This guy isn’t. So it’s not suspicious if you take that into consideration.

Also: FBI doesn’t investigate sex crimes unless someone reports them. Any schmuck would know that.

The point is, why didn't any of these women report their allegations as soon as Kavanaugh was nominated? And Ford's anonymous letter doesn't count. She could have come forward but chose not to. And the other women, dredging up their fuzzy, unclear memories NOW, of all times? Give us all a break. If they had true allegations against him, they could easily have reported them and had them investigated over the summer. They chose not to. Moving on...

Because they suspected they would be treated abusively if they came forward.

And they were right.

+1 A trained prosecutor will be doing her best to discredit Ford tomorrow. People have dragged a fine tooth comb through her past. What woman would WANT to do that? It's victimizing her twice.

[Anonymous]

https://amp.slate.com/human-interest/2018/09/kavanaugh-judge-prep-school-parties.html?__twitter_impression=true

The article is not about Kavanaugh. It’s about the culture at the private schools in the DC area at the time, and is worth a read.

I went to a suburban public high school in a different state. There was plenty of drinking to be sure, lots of stupid behavior, and certainly some boys who treated no one (other boys outside their social circle, girls, teachers) with respect. But, I NEVER heard rumors or even whispers about any kind of sexual assault while in high school. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, of course, but I spent lots of time at drunken high school parties and never saw nor heard of anything like what’s described in that article. It makes me think that perhaps the disconnect for some when thinking about the veracity of the accusations against Kavanaugh comes from our differing experiences at that age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I knew so many Kavanaughs in prep school and college.

Ever-present chip on shoulder.
Unfriendly to most guys except own bro' bunch.
Mean toward most girls, except when drunk and then became touchey-feeley, hopey-gropey, hokey-pokey, drapey-rapey.
Super friendly to girls of high status with rich parents and country club peerage.

Moms and dads -- look in the mirror -- in your quest for that Lax scholarship and Ivy League admit, are you raising the next Brett Kavanaugh??????

Is his wife from a wealthy background?

She is from Abilene, Texas and worked for many years for George Bush.

She was George Bush’s personal assistant/secretary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sex crimes prosecutor (former head of NY Special Victims Unit) is on TV and notes that one of the marks of credibility of Ford's story is that she puts Mark Judge in the room. Why would she name a second person who could instantly discredit her story if it were lying? It's a shame that the GOP Senators don't want to hear the truth.

It's obvious why they don't want to get to the truth.

It's a disgrace. She says she expects the female prosecutor the GOP hired because they were too cowardly to question Ford was going to ask hundreds of questions about Ford's memories of that night to make her look unreliable, when all research shows that it's typical to have gaps in memory about traumatic events.

Oh, for God's sake. If they had allowed a group of male senators to question her, all hell would have broken out. Then you'd claim how unfair it is to have her questioned by all men. They were trying to do the right thing by having a female question her. Is there nothing you people won't pick apart?

Whose fault is it that all of the Republicans on the committee are old white men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I knew so many Kavanaughs in prep school and college.

Ever-present chip on shoulder.
Unfriendly to most guys except own bro' bunch.
Mean toward most girls, except when drunk and then became touchey-feeley, hopey-gropey, hokey-pokey, drapey-rapey.
Super friendly to girls of high status with rich parents and country club peerage.

Moms and dads -- look in the mirror -- in your quest for that Lax scholarship and Ivy League admit, are you raising the next Brett Kavanaugh??????

Is his wife from a wealthy background?

She is from Abilene, Texas and worked for many years for George Bush.

She went on after graduating from the University of Texas at Austin in 1997 to work for with then-Gov. Bush, who took her to Washington, D.C., after being elected president in 2000 to be his personal secretary.

She now earns $66,000 per year in annual salary as the "town manager" (aka newsletter distributor) for a "village" of 650 persons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because they suspected they would be treated abusively if they came forward.

And they were right.

+1 A trained prosecutor will be doing her best to discredit Ford tomorrow. People have dragged a fine tooth comb through her past. What woman would WANT to do that? It's victimizing her twice.

Because victim blaming and societal shame are enough to deal with privately- but to go through it again publically is horrible and wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think Republicans are idiots for not convincing someone to pull this or straight up taking a vote to fail out and move on. They don't have too much time left before Jan 3. If they'd cut ties last week they'd already have a new nom and they'd have ACB or Hardiman well on their way to confirmation.

Instead they will crash and burn on this over the next week only to have trump stew and wallow before making another selection... who knows it could be mid October before they even have a new nominee! Senators will have to be in DC voting on a SCJ instead of campaigning against the betos of the country giving up key time.

It just seems incredibly stupid and shortsighted for people given the gift of an unexpected second court nominee.

Perhaps, but why would they let an innocent man (because we *are* innocent until proven guilty, right?) take the fall? That's more important right now. He should have a chance to be heard, and not just withdraw with his tail between his legs. I think this is an important precedent for anyone accused - with no evidence to support the accusation. There must be a fair hearing. Otherwise, I could point my finger at anyone I wanted and claim they assaulted me.

Go for it. Point your fingers and accuse.

The truth is that supreme court nominees have been rejected for far less. ALL OF THEM WHO HAVE BEEN REJECTED IN THE PAST WERE REJECTED FOR LESS!

Gang rape? Seriously. Supreme court nominees MUST BE without question, without doubts. Do we expect they have the same politics as the president who nominates them? YES. Do we expect them to have open and honest financial records (K. does not)? YES. He was a crappy nominee before this, honestly. No one DESERVES a seat on the supreme court. NO ONE DESERVES IT.

Wow, simmer down. He has not been alleged to have taken part in any rapes, gang or otherwise, so you can shut that down right now. These are all allegations against him - with no corroborating witnesses. You can't simply expect people to make claims like that, 30+ years later, and be taken seriously. If you do, then you need your head examined.

Of course that is the allegation. I guess you have a low opinion of what it takes to get on the supreme court. Rest of the US does not agree! You rape someone, you don't get to be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really think Republicans are idiots for not convincing someone to pull this or straight up taking a vote to fail out and move on. They don't have too much time left before Jan 3. If they'd cut ties last week they'd already have a new nom and they'd have ACB or Hardiman well on their way to confirmation.

Instead they will crash and burn on this over the next week only to have trump stew and wallow before making another selection... who knows it could be mid October before they even have a new nominee! Senators will have to be in DC voting on a SCJ instead of campaigning against the betos of the country giving up key time.

It just seems incredibly stupid and shortsighted for people given the gift of an unexpected second court nominee.

Perhaps, but why would they let an innocent man (because we *are* innocent until proven guilty, right?) take the fall? That's more important right now. He should have a chance to be heard, and not just withdraw with his tail between his legs. I think this is an important precedent for anyone accused - with no evidence to support the accusation. There must be a fair hearing. Otherwise, I could point my finger at anyone I wanted and claim they assaulted me.

Go for it. Point your fingers and accuse.

The truth is that supreme court nominees have been rejected for far less. ALL OF THEM WHO HAVE BEEN REJECTED IN THE PAST WERE REJECTED FOR LESS!

Gang rape? Seriously. Supreme court nominees MUST BE without question, without doubts. Do we expect they have the same politics as the president who nominates them? YES. Do we expect them to have open and honest financial records (K. does not)? YES. He was a crappy nominee before this, honestly. No one DESERVES a seat on the supreme court. NO ONE DESERVES IT.

Wow, simmer down. He has not been alleged to have taken part in any rapes, gang or otherwise, so you can shut that down right now. These are all allegations against him - with no corroborating witnesses. You can't simply expect people to make claims like that, 30+ years later, and be taken seriously. If you do, then you need your head examined.

He absolutely has been alleged to have taken part in a gang rape. Don't you read the news?

She claims he was "present," not that he actually participated. Don't twist words.