Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In other words, women should never tell when they've been violated because no one will believe them anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand. At the end of this, he will be a Supreme Court justice or he will remain in his current, extremely prestigious position as a circuit court judge. It's a job interview.

And the standard for judges is much much higher than "not criminally convicted". It's avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

[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.

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.

And yet, she works for someone who has publicly been alleged to have sexually abused at least 19 women, so my heart doesn't bleed for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

[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: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.

Why is it so hard for you to understand? Either she is wrong or he is wrong. You can either throw your hands up and said you refuse to say which one is wrong. Or you can choose to believe one of them. You yourself choose to go with the guy who lied about several little things under oath and who has a certifiable past as a hard partier. Fine for you. Others of us choose to believe a woman whose story echoed experiences we also had. Why is that hard for you to understand that we choose to believe her because of that? Is it because you've never been raped or assaulted? Is it because you've never experienced being so frightened and ashamed of something that happened when you were a teenager? Is it because you've never experienced people telling you they don't believe you when you tell them something horrible?

If you are going to tell me that you were falsely accused of rape and that's why you believe him, then I would say fine, I understand. But I don't understand that you get so hot and bothered that those of us for whom her story comes too close to our own choose to believe her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In other words, women should never tell when they've been violated because no one will believe them anyway.

Ford was completely believable. She has no reason to lie. This has been stated over and over again. Even POTUS said she was credible.

Kavanaugh was a terrible witness. He argued with his questioners, he was loud and confrontational, he evaded and refused to answer direct questions, and he lied outright. He has every reason to lie. He wants the job, he wants the job, he wants the job. His lies alone disqualify him, regardless of the merit or lack thereof of the accusations against him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

Please. He's a judge. If anyone behaved towards him in his courtroom the way he behaved toward Klobuchar, they'd be in big trouble.

He behaved badly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

Obviously, you'd be a terrible witness. If I were your lawyer, I'd never put you on the stand. You'd look like a violent liar with something to hide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

Amazing how the Republicans can appeal to their paranoia and persecution complex to justify immorality.

Guess what, you're not being persecuted. You are in power. With power comes responsibility. If you drag these institutions down in the mud, what do you think is going to save you? You're on the precipice of a huge demographic shift in the US. Would it not make sense for you to channel that fear of being hunted and unfairly accused into strengthening the institutions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I wouldn’t be. I’ve had two federal background checks— one for a federal clerkship. I have an extensive history of MH Tx. I was never asked, either in the interview or the questionnaire. In many cases you don’t have to disclose unless it was inpatient or involuntary. And even that aged out after a certain amount of time (7 years?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You people need to put down the Kool aid. Are you willfully stupid or outright crazy? Or just a garden variety troll? As soon as you start talking about "liberals" as though they are a monolith, you lose all credibility. There are crazy posts on these Kavanaugh threads, to be sure, but so is yours. You "know" he's innocent. There are a limited set of people who "know" that, and you ain't one of em.

LOL! Kool aid? Go watch the opening of the first hearing on Kavanaugh. Almost choreographed and staged. Ridiculous, unprofessional performance by Dems.

Then, go listen to Feinstein the afternoon of K's last hearing--all the attacks. All the stupid questions about high school yearbooks. Personal attacks. Kavanaugh has had years on the bench and yet high school is the best they have? And, the assault accusations. Look at how Ford was handled by her lawyers--either she is lying or they deceived her.

No. It's not Kool Aid. The spiked punch came from Feinstein, et.al--not Kavanaugh.

And then watch this and try to convince me that this guy is owed a Supreme Court seat.

Not sure if I’m missing something, but that seems pretty uneventful.

Well, I guess you missed all the LIES the guy who wants to be on the SCOTUS said. Boofing means using drugs/alcohol anally, Devil’s Triangle is a threesome, Kav refused to admit that ralphing referred to puking when drunk, etc.
Review the tape and you’ll find more. Oh, and he claimed the ralphing had to do with his “weak stomach.”

All these stupid small lies were completely unnecessary. He could have said the things in his yearbook were sensational exaggerations typical of a teenager, and that he’sd put them in for the benefit of his friends because he wanted to look cool. Instead, he lied, which is far more suspicious. If he’s lying about small things, he’s surely lying about big things.

OMG. I guess you have never known any teenage boys. They exaggerate, brag and dissemble about this kind of stuff all the time. Are you taking all this literally???

These were teen kids who pretended to act tough, talk tough but I would be extremely surprised if any of them actually did any of these things. Not sure how he "lied" about it.

I am not pro Kavanaugh or pro his accusers, just trying to use a little common sense. I agree with whoever said this is like the Salem witch trials.

This.

And I could totally see them making up alternative meanings to these words that were code for something they would actually experience. The boys in my junior high did exactly this when they learned what 69 meant. Doesn't mean they were getting any, not by a long shot.

Exactly! This has all been blown so far out of proportion. I kept a journal in high school and had little codes I used. If someone were to ask me about it today, I would have no idea what I had been thinking at the time. The leaps of illogical thinking that are happening here are down right scary.

+100
I'm still incredulous that Sen. Whitehouse somehow thinks asking smarmy questions about Kavanaugh's high school yearbook, and its obvious inside jokes, has anything to do with the allegation. That was quite a grandstanding moment on Whitehouse's part, to actually inquire as to what those terms meant. My jaw actually hit the floor when he started asking about "boofing, etc." Who the hell cares? I can't imagine trying to explain all the off-color jokes in my own high school yearbook (in fact, I've hidden it away so that my kids don't see it). I was a good kid and never did anything wrong, but you'd never know that by reading the comments in my yearbook. It doesn't mean I actually ever *did* any of those things.

[Anonymous]

Kavanaugh did himself no favors. He should have answered the questions calmly and politely, no matter how insulted he was. I think if he had, he’d be confirmed. (And I don’t want him to be.) He misplayed this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You people need to put down the Kool aid. Are you willfully stupid or outright crazy? Or just a garden variety troll? As soon as you start talking about "liberals" as though they are a monolith, you lose all credibility. There are crazy posts on these Kavanaugh threads, to be sure, but so is yours. You "know" he's innocent. There are a limited set of people who "know" that, and you ain't one of em.

LOL! Kool aid? Go watch the opening of the first hearing on Kavanaugh. Almost choreographed and staged. Ridiculous, unprofessional performance by Dems.

Then, go listen to Feinstein the afternoon of K's last hearing--all the attacks. All the stupid questions about high school yearbooks. Personal attacks. Kavanaugh has had years on the bench and yet high school is the best they have? And, the assault accusations. Look at how Ford was handled by her lawyers--either she is lying or they deceived her.

No. It's not Kool Aid. The spiked punch came from Feinstein, et.al--not Kavanaugh.

And then watch this and try to convince me that this guy is owed a Supreme Court seat.

Not sure if I’m missing something, but that seems pretty uneventful.

Well, I guess you missed all the LIES the guy who wants to be on the SCOTUS said. Boofing means using drugs/alcohol anally, Devil’s Triangle is a threesome, Kav refused to admit that ralphing referred to puking when drunk, etc.
Review the tape and you’ll find more. Oh, and he claimed the ralphing had to do with his “weak stomach.”

All these stupid small lies were completely unnecessary. He could have said the things in his yearbook were sensational exaggerations typical of a teenager, and that he’sd put them in for the benefit of his friends because he wanted to look cool. Instead, he lied, which is far more suspicious. If he’s lying about small things, he’s surely lying about big things.

OMG. I guess you have never known any teenage boys. They exaggerate, brag and dissemble about this kind of stuff all the time. Are you taking all this literally???

These were teen kids who pretended to act tough, talk tough but I would be extremely surprised if any of them actually did any of these things. Not sure how he "lied" about it.

I am not pro Kavanaugh or pro his accusers, just trying to use a little common sense. I agree with whoever said this is like the Salem witch trials.

This.

And I could totally see them making up alternative meanings to these words that were code for something they would actually experience. The boys in my junior high did exactly this when they learned what 69 meant. Doesn't mean they were getting any, not by a long shot.

Exactly! This has all been blown so far out of proportion. I kept a journal in high school and had little codes I used. If someone were to ask me about it today, I would have no idea what I had been thinking at the time. The leaps of illogical thinking that are happening here are down right scary.

+100
I'm still incredulous that Sen. Whitehouse somehow thinks asking smarmy questions about Kavanaugh's high school yearbook, and its obvious inside jokes, has anything to do with the allegation. That was quite a grandstanding moment on Whitehouse's part, to actually inquire as to what those terms meant. My jaw actually hit the floor when he started asking about "boofing, etc." Who the hell cares? I can't imagine trying to explain all the off-color jokes in my own high school yearbook (in fact, I've hidden it away so that my kids don't see it). I was a good kid and never did anything wrong, but you'd never know that by reading the comments in my yearbook. It doesn't mean I actually ever *did* any of those things.

I hope none of you have sons and that my daughers don't know them. Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

Obviously, you'd be a terrible witness. If I were your lawyer, I'd never put you on the stand. You'd look like a violent liar with something to hide.

Dems need to see that Republicans feel like he is being hunted like a small sad squirrel. To some it may appear that he is being given a shot at one of the most powerful seats in the country. Fox News viewers and many Republicans feel though that he is literally Joan of Arc. He stands in for all of them, the poor men who must lie cheat and steal just to survive. Any bad behavior is not only given a pass, it is justified. I think many saw that interview and felt that he was lying but that it doesn't matter, because now that's what men like him have to do in this threatening environment to save themselves from being torn apart.

Incidentally, that's why so many poor people voted for Trump despite their own interests. He speaks to their sense of victimization and fighting back. They like that he will do whatever it takes to win, because they feel they need protection and someone who can take back the country from an alien and threatening culture.

Until liberals really grasp how visceral and deep this fear is, they'll need figure out how to manage the situation. At least Republicans understand the nerve they touched with MeToo and the immigrant children. They won't step back on other stuff, but I don't think they want to ignite that fear in the democrat base. They know all too well how powerful it is. Unfortunately I think they may be a bit late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You people need to put down the Kool aid. Are you willfully stupid or outright crazy? Or just a garden variety troll? As soon as you start talking about "liberals" as though they are a monolith, you lose all credibility. There are crazy posts on these Kavanaugh threads, to be sure, but so is yours. You "know" he's innocent. There are a limited set of people who "know" that, and you ain't one of em.

LOL! Kool aid? Go watch the opening of the first hearing on Kavanaugh. Almost choreographed and staged. Ridiculous, unprofessional performance by Dems.

Then, go listen to Feinstein the afternoon of K's last hearing--all the attacks. All the stupid questions about high school yearbooks. Personal attacks. Kavanaugh has had years on the bench and yet high school is the best they have? And, the assault accusations. Look at how Ford was handled by her lawyers--either she is lying or they deceived her.

No. It's not Kool Aid. The spiked punch came from Feinstein, et.al--not Kavanaugh.

And then watch this and try to convince me that this guy is owed a Supreme Court seat.

Not sure if I’m missing something, but that seems pretty uneventful.

Well, I guess you missed all the LIES the guy who wants to be on the SCOTUS said. Boofing means using drugs/alcohol anally, Devil’s Triangle is a threesome, Kav refused to admit that ralphing referred to puking when drunk, etc.
Review the tape and you’ll find more. Oh, and he claimed the ralphing had to do with his “weak stomach.”

All these stupid small lies were completely unnecessary. He could have said the things in his yearbook were sensational exaggerations typical of a teenager, and that he’sd put them in for the benefit of his friends because he wanted to look cool. Instead, he lied, which is far more suspicious. If he’s lying about small things, he’s surely lying about big things.

OMG. I guess you have never known any teenage boys. They exaggerate, brag and dissemble about this kind of stuff all the time. Are you taking all this literally???

These were teen kids who pretended to act tough, talk tough but I would be extremely surprised if any of them actually did any of these things. Not sure how he "lied" about it.

I am not pro Kavanaugh or pro his accusers, just trying to use a little common sense. I agree with whoever said this is like the Salem witch trials.

This.

And I could totally see them making up alternative meanings to these words that were code for something they would actually experience. The boys in my junior high did exactly this when they learned what 69 meant. Doesn't mean they were getting any, not by a long shot.

Exactly! This has all been blown so far out of proportion. I kept a journal in high school and had little codes I used. If someone were to ask me about it today, I would have no idea what I had been thinking at the time. The leaps of illogical thinking that are happening here are down right scary.

+100
I'm still incredulous that Sen. Whitehouse somehow thinks asking smarmy questions about Kavanaugh's high school yearbook, and its obvious inside jokes, has anything to do with the allegation. That was quite a grandstanding moment on Whitehouse's part, to actually inquire as to what those terms meant. My jaw actually hit the floor when he started asking about "boofing, etc." Who the hell cares? I can't imagine trying to explain all the off-color jokes in my own high school yearbook (in fact, I've hidden it away so that my kids don't see it). I was a good kid and never did anything wrong, but you'd never know that by reading the comments in my yearbook. It doesn't mean I actually ever *did* any of those things.

I guess you are either really stupid or you know nothing about how the law works.

Whitehouse was trying to get Kavanaugh on the record under oath lying about things he had no need to lie about. Kavanaugh fell right into that classic prosecutorial trap.