Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem Playbook:

Throw out unsubstantiated allegations of gang rape, attempted rape, and attempted murder

Make sure every media source repeats those allegations as fact

Make sure that any he said/she said is in front of the public

Attack the character of the accused when he dares himself

Make fun of the accused when he gets emotional when speaking of his wife and kids

Use the media to make fun of the accused

Continued.......

Ensure your witness has appropriate representation by referring her to an activist attorney

Call, repeatedly, and loudly, for an FBI investigation

Convince a Republican Senator that an FBI investigation is needed

Once the FBI investigation is ongoing, call it a “sham"

If they aren't going to talk to Judge, Squi, the Yale classmates, Safeway or any of Ford's coroburators, then yes it is a sham.

+1 They should pull every available record for each of them going back to 1980, and neither should be able to withhold mental health records.

To include substance abuse treatment.

PP here. Yes, absolutely, for both of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

BINGO.
And, once again - the 4 people SHE gave as people who could corroborate her story were unable to do that.

We get it. You think he is a lovely sweet man. Got it.

One does not need to be pro-Kavanaugh to be appalled by the use of totally uncorroborated allegations against a nominee.

This is inaccurate. And you know it. Cosby, Sandusky, Nassar, they all went down from testimony and sworn statements. She had that. She also has medical records that are considered evidence in all 50 states.

There was a ton of corroborating evidence in each of those cases.

And, because it evidently needs to be stated again..... NO corroborating evidence in this case. NONE.

Remember, Cosby, Sandusky and Nassar were all being charged CRIMINALLY. They were not hoping for appointment to the Supreme Court.

The standard of evidence required to find someone guilty of sexual abuse or rape is and should be much higher than that which is required to fail to give a judge a promotion.

I get that many of you liberals think any woman should be able to accuse a man of egregious behavior---with no corroboration or witnesses who can support her or any accountability for her behaviors or mental health status--while stating it's not a criminal charge. As a woman, it is absolutely incredible and shocking to me that you could think that way. And then point to his reaction to a detailed, highly descriptive account of a near rape and suffocation as inappropriate. I don't care if the accused is a Democrat, Republican, or anywhere in between, I think that's wrong.

I agree. Thank you.

I have heard many people here say, he doesn’t get a “presumption of innocent until proven guilty” because this is not a court of law.
Well, if you are not presuming him innocent, the only alternative is that you are presuming him guilty. Which, I have a difficult time understanding because she has no corroborating evidence as any kind of proof. Even though other people, according to her, were present at this gathering.
How can he be presumed guilty with nothing to back that up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A couple of Kavanaugh friends (women) have been on TV. The come off as total snobs "We only associate with Catholic Schools"

Just stop. Your bias is showing.

[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:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

BINGO.
And, once again - the 4 people SHE gave as people who could corroborate her story were unable to do that.

We get it. You think he is a lovely sweet man. Got it.

One does not need to be pro-Kavanaugh to be appalled by the use of totally uncorroborated allegations against a nominee.

This is inaccurate. And you know it. Cosby, Sandusky, Nassar, they all went down from testimony and sworn statements. She had that. She also has medical records that are considered evidence in all 50 states.

There was a ton of corroborating evidence in each of those cases.

And, because it evidently needs to be stated again..... NO corroborating evidence in this case. NONE.

Remember, Cosby, Sandusky and Nassar were all being charged CRIMINALLY. They were not hoping for appointment to the Supreme Court.

The standard of evidence required to find someone guilty of sexual abuse or rape is and should be much higher than that which is required to fail to give a judge a promotion.

I get that many of you liberals think any woman should be able to accuse a man of egregious behavior---with no corroboration or witnesses who can support her or any accountability for her behaviors or mental health status--while stating it's not a criminal charge. As a woman, it is absolutely incredible and shocking to me that you could think that way. And then point to his reaction to a detailed, highly descriptive account of a near rape and suffocation as inappropriate. I don't care if the accused is a Democrat, Republican, or anywhere in between, I think that's wrong.

He reacted like a lying, privileged alcoholic

PP here. That's your opinion. It doesn't change the FACT that she was allowed to share her detailed, uncorroborated accusation; and many liberals are saying it should stand as fact on her word alone. Really?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem Playbook:

Throw out unsubstantiated allegations of gang rape, attempted rape, and attempted murder

Make sure every media source repeats those allegations as fact

Make sure that any he said/she said is in front of the public

Attack the character of the accused when he dares himself

Make fun of the accused when he gets emotional when speaking of his wife and kids

Use the media to make fun of the accused

Continued.......

Ensure your witness has appropriate representation by referring her to an activist attorney

Call, repeatedly, and loudly, for an FBI investigation

Convince a Republican Senator that an FBI investigation is needed

Once the FBI investigation is ongoing, call it a “sham"

If they aren't going to talk to Judge, Squi, the Yale classmates, Safeway or any of Ford's coroburators, then yes it is a sham.

+1 They should pull every available record for each of them going back to 1980, and neither should be able to withhold mental health records.

To include substance abuse treatment.

PP here. Yes, absolutely, for both of them.

I am fine with that because..... Since Kavanaugh has been through 6 background investigations, I am certain all this has been looked into. Mental health AND substance abuse.

[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:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

BINGO.
And, once again - the 4 people SHE gave as people who could corroborate her story were unable to do that.

We get it. You think he is a lovely sweet man. Got it.

One does not need to be pro-Kavanaugh to be appalled by the use of totally uncorroborated allegations against a nominee.

This is inaccurate. And you know it. Cosby, Sandusky, Nassar, they all went down from testimony and sworn statements. She had that. She also has medical records that are considered evidence in all 50 states.

There was a ton of corroborating evidence in each of those cases.

And, because it evidently needs to be stated again..... NO corroborating evidence in this case. NONE.

Remember, Cosby, Sandusky and Nassar were all being charged CRIMINALLY. They were not hoping for appointment to the Supreme Court.

The standard of evidence required to find someone guilty of sexual abuse or rape is and should be much higher than that which is required to fail to give a judge a promotion.

I get that many of you liberals think any woman should be able to accuse a man of egregious behavior---with no corroboration or witnesses who can support her or any accountability for her behaviors or mental health status--while stating it's not a criminal charge. As a woman, it is absolutely incredible and shocking to me that you could think that way. And then point to his reaction to a detailed, highly descriptive account of a near rape and suffocation as inappropriate. I don't care if the accused is a Democrat, Republican, or anywhere in between, I think that's wrong.

I agree. Thank you.

I have heard many people here say, he doesn’t get a “presumption of innocent until proven guilty” because this is not a court of law.
Well, if you are not presuming him innocent, the only alternative is that you are presuming him guilty. Which, I have a difficult time understanding because she has no corroborating evidence as any kind of proof. Even though other people, according to her, were present at this gathering.
How can he be presumed guilty with nothing to back that up?

This exactly. Anyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^There are many more people who say they had never seen Kavanaugh out of control when consuming alcohol.
I don’t give that statement much validity.

If 5 people said that the same person raped them and the rest of the population said they had never been raped by that person, would you therefore not believe the statement of the 5?

If those 5 people had ZERO evidence and an agenda, yes.
Allegations are not proof.

"Agenda" is the republican mot du jour. Along with "activist." Oooh so scary.

I have no proof that someone groped me. But I know he did it. So go ahead and call me a liar. And I'll know that you are wrong.

[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:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

BINGO.
And, once again - the 4 people SHE gave as people who could corroborate her story were unable to do that.

We get it. You think he is a lovely sweet man. Got it.

One does not need to be pro-Kavanaugh to be appalled by the use of totally uncorroborated allegations against a nominee.

This is inaccurate. And you know it. Cosby, Sandusky, Nassar, they all went down from testimony and sworn statements. She had that. She also has medical records that are considered evidence in all 50 states.

There was a ton of corroborating evidence in each of those cases.

And, because it evidently needs to be stated again..... NO corroborating evidence in this case. NONE.

Remember, Cosby, Sandusky and Nassar were all being charged CRIMINALLY. They were not hoping for appointment to the Supreme Court.

The standard of evidence required to find someone guilty of sexual abuse or rape is and should be much higher than that which is required to fail to give a judge a promotion.

I get that many of you liberals think any woman should be able to accuse a man of egregious behavior---with no corroboration or witnesses who can support her or any accountability for her behaviors or mental health status--while stating it's not a criminal charge. As a woman, it is absolutely incredible and shocking to me that you could think that way. And then point to his reaction to a detailed, highly descriptive account of a near rape and suffocation as inappropriate. I don't care if the accused is a Democrat, Republican, or anywhere in between, I think that's wrong.

I agree. Thank you.

I have heard many people here say, he doesn’t get a “presumption of innocent until proven guilty” because this is not a court of law.
Well, if you are not presuming him innocent, the only alternative is that you are presuming him guilty. Which, I have a difficult time understanding because she has no corroborating evidence as any kind of proof. Even though other people, according to her, were present at this gathering.
How can he be presumed guilty with nothing to back that up?

PP here. I agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^There are many more people who say they had never seen Kavanaugh out of control when consuming alcohol.
I don’t give that statement much validity.

If 5 people said that the same person raped them and the rest of the population said they had never been raped by that person, would you therefore not believe the statement of the 5?

If those 5 people had ZERO evidence and an agenda, yes.
Allegations are not proof.

"Agenda" is the republican mot du jour. Along with "activist." Oooh so scary.

I have no proof that someone groped me. But I know he did it. So go ahead and call me a liar. And I'll know that you are wrong.

Try to get someone fired or prosecuted for you claim. Good luck.

[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:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

BINGO.
And, once again - the 4 people SHE gave as people who could corroborate her story were unable to do that.

We get it. You think he is a lovely sweet man. Got it.

One does not need to be pro-Kavanaugh to be appalled by the use of totally uncorroborated allegations against a nominee.

This is inaccurate. And you know it. Cosby, Sandusky, Nassar, they all went down from testimony and sworn statements. She had that. She also has medical records that are considered evidence in all 50 states.

There was a ton of corroborating evidence in each of those cases.

And, because it evidently needs to be stated again..... NO corroborating evidence in this case. NONE.

Remember, Cosby, Sandusky and Nassar were all being charged CRIMINALLY. They were not hoping for appointment to the Supreme Court.

The standard of evidence required to find someone guilty of sexual abuse or rape is and should be much higher than that which is required to fail to give a judge a promotion.

I get that many of you liberals think any woman should be able to accuse a man of egregious behavior---with no corroboration or witnesses who can support her or any accountability for her behaviors or mental health status--while stating it's not a criminal charge. As a woman, it is absolutely incredible and shocking to me that you could think that way. And then point to his reaction to a detailed, highly descriptive account of a near rape and suffocation as inappropriate. I don't care if the accused is a Democrat, Republican, or anywhere in between, I think that's wrong.

He reacted like a lying, privileged alcoholic

PP here. That's your opinion. It doesn't change the FACT that she was allowed to share her detailed, uncorroborated accusation; and many liberals are saying it should stand as fact on her word alone. Really?!

Really. Because it rang true to us because of our own experiences. Whereas we know he lied about several little things. ("Boofing" is not a reference to flatulence. And "Devil's Triangle" is not a quarters drinking game.)

[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:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

BINGO.
And, once again - the 4 people SHE gave as people who could corroborate her story were unable to do that.

We get it. You think he is a lovely sweet man. Got it.

One does not need to be pro-Kavanaugh to be appalled by the use of totally uncorroborated allegations against a nominee.

This is inaccurate. And you know it. Cosby, Sandusky, Nassar, they all went down from testimony and sworn statements. She had that. She also has medical records that are considered evidence in all 50 states.

There was a ton of corroborating evidence in each of those cases.

And, because it evidently needs to be stated again..... NO corroborating evidence in this case. NONE.

Remember, Cosby, Sandusky and Nassar were all being charged CRIMINALLY. They were not hoping for appointment to the Supreme Court.

The standard of evidence required to find someone guilty of sexual abuse or rape is and should be much higher than that which is required to fail to give a judge a promotion.

I get that many of you liberals think any woman should be able to accuse a man of egregious behavior---with no corroboration or witnesses who can support her or any accountability for her behaviors or mental health status--while stating it's not a criminal charge. As a woman, it is absolutely incredible and shocking to me that you could think that way. And then point to his reaction to a detailed, highly descriptive account of a near rape and suffocation as inappropriate. I don't care if the accused is a Democrat, Republican, or anywhere in between, I think that's wrong.

I agree. Thank you.

I have heard many people here say, he doesn’t get a “presumption of innocent until proven guilty” because this is not a court of law.
Well, if you are not presuming him innocent, the only alternative is that you are presuming him guilty. Which, I have a difficult time understanding because she has no corroborating evidence as any kind of proof. Even though other people, according to her, were present at this gathering.
How can he be presumed guilty with nothing to back that up?

This exactly. Anyone?

Kellyanne Conway said today she was the victim of a sexual assault. She gave no evidence or proof for it. But you know what? I believe her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Remember, Cosby, Sandusky and Nassar were all being charged CRIMINALLY. They were not hoping for appointment to the Supreme Court.

The standard of evidence required to find someone guilty of sexual abuse or rape is and should be much higher than that which is required to fail to give a judge a promotion.

This is a dumb take.

NP. Ummm No. it’s an accurate take. The burden of proof is whatever the Senate says it is. But I have yet to see anyone with legal training suggest it is beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s more along the civil BoP. We do in fact deny judges promotions based on a lower standard of proof than a criminal conviction (which beyond a reasonable doubt). Go rewatch Judge Judy. Learn something.

The dumb take is pretending this is just a job interview. Yeah, a job interview that publicly destroys a man's reputation and his family with uncorroborated claims of sexual assault and gang rape involvement.

[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:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

BINGO.
And, once again - the 4 people SHE gave as people who could corroborate her story were unable to do that.

We get it. You think he is a lovely sweet man. Got it.

One does not need to be pro-Kavanaugh to be appalled by the use of totally uncorroborated allegations against a nominee.

This is inaccurate. And you know it. Cosby, Sandusky, Nassar, they all went down from testimony and sworn statements. She had that. She also has medical records that are considered evidence in all 50 states.

There was a ton of corroborating evidence in each of those cases.

And, because it evidently needs to be stated again..... NO corroborating evidence in this case. NONE.

Remember, Cosby, Sandusky and Nassar were all being charged CRIMINALLY. They were not hoping for appointment to the Supreme Court.

The standard of evidence required to find someone guilty of sexual abuse or rape is and should be much higher than that which is required to fail to give a judge a promotion.

I get that many of you liberals think any woman should be able to accuse a man of egregious behavior---with no corroboration or witnesses who can support her or any accountability for her behaviors or mental health status--while stating it's not a criminal charge. As a woman, it is absolutely incredible and shocking to me that you could think that way. And then point to his reaction to a detailed, highly descriptive account of a near rape and suffocation as inappropriate. I don't care if the accused is a Democrat, Republican, or anywhere in between, I think that's wrong.

He reacted like a lying, privileged alcoholic

PP here. That's your opinion. It doesn't change the FACT that she was allowed to share her detailed, uncorroborated accusation; and many liberals are saying it should stand as fact on her word alone. Really?!

Really. Because it rang true to us because of our own experiences. Whereas we know he lied about several little things. ("Boofing" is not a reference to flatulence. And "Devil's Triangle" is not a quarters drinking game.)

That doesn't make it a fact.

[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:This is an interesting Ted talk on memory by a memory researcher who found that some people were going into therapy with one problem (depression, eating disorders, etc) and coming out of therapy false memories of abuse or horrific events that never actually happened to them due to 'repressed memory' psychotherapy.

Go to 8:43 at https://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_loftus_the_fiction_of_memory#t-523210 and watch from there. It's really interesting.

Powerful quote from the end of the talk: "If I've learned anything from these decades of working on these problems it's this: just because somebody tells you something and they say it with confidence, just because they say it with lots of detail, just because they express emotion when they say it, it doesn't mean that it really happened."

+ 1,000

BINGO.
And, once again - the 4 people SHE gave as people who could corroborate her story were unable to do that.

We get it. You think he is a lovely sweet man. Got it.

One does not need to be pro-Kavanaugh to be appalled by the use of totally uncorroborated allegations against a nominee.

This is inaccurate. And you know it. Cosby, Sandusky, Nassar, they all went down from testimony and sworn statements. She had that. She also has medical records that are considered evidence in all 50 states.

There was a ton of corroborating evidence in each of those cases.

And, because it evidently needs to be stated again..... NO corroborating evidence in this case. NONE.

Remember, Cosby, Sandusky and Nassar were all being charged CRIMINALLY. They were not hoping for appointment to the Supreme Court.

The standard of evidence required to find someone guilty of sexual abuse or rape is and should be much higher than that which is required to fail to give a judge a promotion.

I get that many of you liberals think any woman should be able to accuse a man of egregious behavior---with no corroboration or witnesses who can support her or any accountability for her behaviors or mental health status--while stating it's not a criminal charge. As a woman, it is absolutely incredible and shocking to me that you could think that way. And then point to his reaction to a detailed, highly descriptive account of a near rape and suffocation as inappropriate. I don't care if the accused is a Democrat, Republican, or anywhere in between, I think that's wrong.

I agree. Thank you.

I have heard many people here say, he doesn’t get a “presumption of innocent until proven guilty” because this is not a court of law.
Well, if you are not presuming him innocent, the only alternative is that you are presuming him guilty. Which, I have a difficult time understanding because she has no corroborating evidence as any kind of proof. Even though other people, according to her, were present at this gathering.
How can he be presumed guilty with nothing to back that up?

PP here. I agree with you.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The judge went the typical lawyer/pol route: giving evasive answers, turning oppositional, and getting as close to lying if not lying on many issues. Standard practice. Except in certain situations. Certainly one of those situations is when you’re interviewing for a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE position. On national TV under oath. That is where you would not do this. Would never work.

Except it might.

Watched his testimony with my teen as a lesson in what lying looks like. Evade, evade, evade....

Watched it with my teens (one DS and One DD) as an example of the fact that even when they are minors (14 and 16), they have reached a point where parents can no longer protect them from bad decisions. And that they have reached the age where the concern is less about what consequences mom and dad impose for screwing up, and more about the consequences life imposes (not getting into the college you want, the naked picture that gets passed around school, the DUI charge, or still dealing with bad decision making 40 year later).

And yes. We talked about how he looked like a liar. And she looked like someone who had experienced a lot of pain because she snuck away to a party and drank underage. And this time last year, they both had pretty great lives. And now, neither of their lives will ever be the same. He will always have the Clarence Thomas asterisks. She will always have conservative trolls trying to ruin her life. No one ultimately wins here.

I was with you 'til your statement about Clarence Thomas and then your one about conservative trolls. You're showing your bias that no one can point out the flaws in her story.

Why? First, I don’t claim not to have a liberal bias. But that does not change the facts on the ground. Clarence Thomas is on the Court with an asterisks. He has never lost the taint of his hearing with Anita Hill. (Of course he is also mute at oral arguments and the least productive jurist on the Court, so that doesn’t help. And that’s not liberal bias— Scalia was brilliant). And Anita Hill has spent a good chunk of her life dealing with the fallout of testifying. Those damage from that hearing did not disappear when he was seated on the Court. It won’t for Kavanaugh and Ford no matter how this plays out.

And I believe her. I don’t think she has the CIA ninja skills to beat a poly, so I think she believes something did happen. I also think he could have blacked out and have no memory of it and believe nothing did.

So hey— don’t sneak out to parties and don’t drink under age and boys and girls, stay out of compromising situations. Be smart.