Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

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.

They certainly did. For this moderate/independent, the entire disgusting circus was all I needed to know which way I'll be voting this fall.

[Anonymous]

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.

Your "values"?? There's an oxymoron, if ever there was one. Sure, let's drag an innocent man and his family through the mud! Let's scream at anyone who disagrees with us and get up in their faces! Oh, and let's accuse them of racism and being "afraid of America's changing demographics" when all else fails to stick!

Yeah, you're really making a winning case for Democrats.

[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.

That anyone could possibly consider interrogation about his high school yearbook, relevant testimony, is absurd. Sen. Whitehouse looked like the biggest ass there (which is no easy feat) with his insistence on grilling Kavanaugh about it. And you may not know any men who refer to women in "disgusting ways," but you certainly knew high school boys - which he was - who did. And that's the point - he was being judged on his behavior as a teen - not on his sterling reputation in the years since. I honestly do not care what he said or did as a teen, because I can guarantee that I did the same things or worse. I care about what he did once he graduated from college and began his career. And by ALL accounts, he is no "shitty guy." He has had hundreds of friends and employees come forward to attest to that fact.

So perhaps it's you who should just shut up. Go sit in the corner and sulk. It's what you do, after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Her family member's responses were quite telling.

+2
Her father had the strangest statement about her. It was as if he was saying, we love her, but please leave us out of this. Very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Kavanagh said he'd never blacked out from drinking in HS.

"My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone."

He did not attend Yale in HS.

But beyond that, reasonable people can disagree what blacking out is like. I had college friends who would swear they'd never blacked out from over consumption of alcohol, while I would argue they had. If we testified to our opinions in court, none of us would be perjuring ourselves.

[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.

+1,000,000
Honestly, I hope karma comes back to bite some of these posters. Wouldn't it be ironic if the situation you hypothesize winds up happening to them.

[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:

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.

DP. Who cares who PP voted for? This thread is not about HRC or Trump. And voting for HRC is not a litmus test of who is worthy and who is not. You, and people who think like you, need to get over that and grow up.

[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.

THIS. I don't blame him a bit for his anger during the hearing. I would actually have been astounded if he had remained calm. I like seeing a human being react, and he was very much a human being reacting to the worst thing that ever happened to him.

[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.

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?

Difference is, I have never never sexually assaulted someone.

[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.

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?

+1
I only wish this would happen to the PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Difference is, I have never never sexually assaulted someone.

That makes no difference at all. We could still say you did. And that would be that.
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Difference is, I have never never sexually assaulted someone.

Oh, but someone is saying you did. And that person convincingly sobbed as the travesty of what you did was shared. It's that person's "truth." And your potential employer just might believe the person's version of what occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Difference is, I have never never sexually assaulted someone.

That makes no difference at all. We could still say you did. And that would be that.
-DP

+1 And if the PP denies it vehemently, the potential employer might think about emotional instability on the part of the applicant. Oh, well. Just. a. job. interview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Difference is, I have never never sexually assaulted someone.

That makes no difference at all. We could still say you did. And that would be that.
-DP

+1 And if the PP denies it vehemently, the potential employer might think about emotional instability on the part of the applicant. Oh, well. Just. a. job. interview.

DP. You all conveniently forget that Dr. Ford had corroborating evidence and she passed a polygraph test. And her witnesses did not deny what happened, they just said they didn't remember. Kavanaugh is in no way exonerated and the way the GOP conducted the sham investigation, it looks like they're covering up for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Difference is, I have never never sexually assaulted someone.

That makes no difference at all. We could still say you did. And that would be that.
-DP

+1 And if the PP denies it vehemently, the potential employer might think about emotional instability on the part of the applicant. Oh, well. Just. a. job. interview.

DP. You all conveniently forget that Dr. Ford had corroborating evidence and she passed a polygraph test. And her witnesses did not deny what happened, they just said they didn't remember. Kavanaugh is in no way exonerated and the way the GOP conducted the sham investigation, it looks like they're covering up for him.

I haven't forgotten anything. Do you mean that she repeated her story over and over to her husband and therapist? Are you referring to a polygraph test with two questions that was administered privately? Are you agreeing that no witness remembers anything? Talk about a sham..