Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[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.

Ford had zero corroborating evidence. Stop claiming, ad nauseum, that she did. She had four "witnesses" and none of them remembered any part of her account. That may not be denying it, but it certainly isn't corroborating it either. Polygraph results are not considered infallible or conclusive - which is why they're not permitted in courts of law. And if you're calling the GOP investigation a "sham," then surely you're also calling the fact that the Democrats sat on this allegation until the last possible minute a sham as well, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ford had zero corroborating evidence. Stop claiming, ad nauseum, that she did. She had four "witnesses" and none of them remembered any part of her account. That may not be denying it, but it certainly isn't corroborating it either. Polygraph results are not considered infallible or conclusive - which is why they're not permitted in courts of law. And if you're calling the GOP investigation a "sham," then surely you're also calling the fact that the Democrats sat on this allegation until the last possible minute a sham as well, right?

Ford did have corroborating evidence. Stop claiming, ad nauseum, that she didn't. And I know you like it when a woman's voice gets stifled with a hand over her mouth, but stop telling me to stop claiming that she did. There's no rule that says when sexual assault allegations are supposed to be raised, so the timing is not a sham.

Look, someday, when you get your vicious, lawless, republican post apocalyptic paradise, men will be free to rape all the women they want without consequence, corroborating evidence be damned. We're not there yet, although we are a step closer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ford had zero corroborating evidence. Stop claiming, ad nauseum, that she did. She had four "witnesses" and none of them remembered any part of her account. That may not be denying it, but it certainly isn't corroborating it either. Polygraph results are not considered infallible or conclusive - which is why they're not permitted in courts of law. And if you're calling the GOP investigation a "sham," then surely you're also calling the fact that the Democrats sat on this allegation until the last possible minute a sham as well, right?

Ford did have corroborating evidence. Stop claiming, ad nauseum, that she didn't. And I know you like it when a woman's voice gets stifled with a hand over her mouth, but stop telling me to stop claiming that she did. There's no rule that says when sexual assault allegations are supposed to be raised, so the timing is not a sham.

Look, someday, when you get your vicious, lawless, republican post apocalyptic paradise, men will be free to rape all the women they want without consequence, corroborating evidence be damned. We're not there yet, although we are a step closer.

Okay. What is the corroborating evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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.

But the individual ASSUMED that based on how much Kavanaugh drank he blacked out. No proof, just an assumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ford did have corroborating evidence. Stop claiming, ad nauseum, that she didn't. And I know you like it when a woman's voice gets stifled with a hand over her mouth, but stop telling me to stop claiming that she did. There's no rule that says when sexual assault allegations are supposed to be raised, so the timing is not a sham.

Look, someday, when you get your vicious, lawless, republican post apocalyptic paradise, men will be free to rape all the women they want without consequence, corroborating evidence be damned. We're not there yet, although we are a step closer.

DP

Yep...but only to what she told people about 30 years after the alleged event.

[Anonymous]

Liver or kidney disease will take care if the problem. He won't be on the court for long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liver or kidney disease will take care if the problem. He won't be on the court for long.

*of not if

[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.

No, she did not have corroborating evidence. Not a single one of the witnesses she named could even attest there was such a gathering, much less that she was sexually assaulted.
Not a single one. Not her very close friend. Not even that there was a gathering sort of similar that maybe ... but no, nothing.

Tell us more about the polygraph test she passed. Read her statement. Read what she changed before asserting its accuracy, consider why she might have changed the date to a greater span of time. She was confident about the names, in the statement. Given the ages, the incident had to have happened in the early 80's if Kavanaugh was involved. But she scratched that out.
Then, please explain to us why polygraphs are a problem and why they aren't considered the gold standard and a fail-safe for arriving at truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ford had zero corroborating evidence. Stop claiming, ad nauseum, that she did. She had four "witnesses" and none of them remembered any part of her account. That may not be denying it, but it certainly isn't corroborating it either. Polygraph results are not considered infallible or conclusive - which is why they're not permitted in courts of law. And if you're calling the GOP investigation a "sham," then surely you're also calling the fact that the Democrats sat on this allegation until the last possible minute a sham as well, right?

Ford did have corroborating evidence. Stop claiming, ad nauseum, that she didn't. And I know you like it when a woman's voice gets stifled with a hand over her mouth, but stop telling me to stop claiming that she did. There's no rule that says when sexual assault allegations are supposed to be raised, so the timing is not a sham.

Look, someday, when you get your vicious, lawless, republican post apocalyptic paradise, men will be free to rape all the women they want without consequence, corroborating evidence be damned. We're not there yet, although we are a step closer.

Ford's corroborating evidence was that she told a therapist and her spouse something happened, decades later.
Kavanaugh's corroborating evidence - against a charge he didn't even know existed - is that none of Ford's named witnesses can even say there was a party similar to the one she described.

When weighing evidence, the named witnesses who are corroborating the account of someone who didn't even know he needed to defend against something are much stronger than Ford telling a therapist and husband an account of something that happened several decades ago.

If you want to hold on to the idea that Ford had corroborating evidence, then you can't discount Kavanaugh's corroborating evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ford had zero corroborating evidence. Stop claiming, ad nauseum, that she did. She had four "witnesses" and none of them remembered any part of her account. That may not be denying it, but it certainly isn't corroborating it either. Polygraph results are not considered infallible or conclusive - which is why they're not permitted in courts of law. And if you're calling the GOP investigation a "sham," then surely you're also calling the fact that the Democrats sat on this allegation until the last possible minute a sham as well, right?

Ford did have corroborating evidence. Stop claiming, ad nauseum, that she didn't. And I know you like it when a woman's voice gets stifled with a hand over her mouth, but stop telling me to stop claiming that she did. There's no rule that says when sexual assault allegations are supposed to be raised, so the timing is not a sham.

Look, someday, when you get your vicious, lawless, republican post apocalyptic paradise, men will be free to rape all the women they want without consequence, corroborating evidence be damned. We're not there yet, although we are a step closer.

Ford's corroborating evidence was that she told a therapist and her spouse something happened, decades later.
Kavanaugh's corroborating evidence - against a charge he didn't even know existed - is that none of Ford's named witnesses can even say there was a party similar to the one she described.

When weighing evidence, the named witnesses who are corroborating the account of someone who didn't even know he needed to defend against something are much stronger than Ford telling a therapist and husband an account of something that happened several decades ago.

If you want to hold on to the idea that Ford had corroborating evidence, then you can't discount Kavanaugh's corroborating evidence.

There is Kavanaugh's own calendar, that shows a party with the people she named on 11 July. It is corroborating, if weakly corraborating.

[jsteele]

Since posts from five threads ago are not being rehashed, maybe it's time to move on to another topic.