Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[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.

The smarminess came from Kavanaugh in his answers and eye rolling and smirks. It was very clear that you can take the boy out of the frat house but you can't take the frat house out of the boy. Had some horrible flashbacks to ugly encounters of my own with the sort of obnoxious college age drunk he seems to have been.

[Anonymous]

For everybody claiming there is no evidence, I would say there is:
1. Her testimony, believable, credible, and consistent
2. His testimony, full of lies and evasions

There is plenty of evidence he did it, even if it’s not on a blue dress, you just don’t want to accept it.

Also, again: if you’re going to make up a rape story, why make HIS best friend your key witness? Why include a witness at all? Surely Soros, if he could pay one woman to lie, could’ve found a second willing to say “yeah I was there too!” If you’re going to smear a nominee to end his career you go hard, you don’t half ass it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For everyone who thinks K’s life is ruined, I remind you of the Duke Lacrosse case. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/duke-lacrosse-case-fantastic-lies-documentary

The moral of the story is that if you went to Landon and the person you abused was Black and poor, you can get a top lawyer, get away with it and be paid millions. If you were stupid enough to end up with a corpse in your hands, as in the UVA case, then you went to jail.

The Duke lacrosse players have fabulous careers, doting wives, etc. ten years on. Maybe they will be coaching basketball for their daughters someday in Chevy Chase, too.

Ummm. Yes, because it was proven that these accusations were false. And now it is a generally accepted belief that these men were wrongly accused to begin with. If this truth had never emerged, they would be ruined for life. Just as Kavanaugh will be if he is not able to prove that he didn't do this. See the difference???

Actually, no. I don’t. None. That is why I mention it.

Mmmmkay. I'll attempt to spell it out for you. But honestly I don't know if that will work because I can't account for lack of intelligence or critical thinking here.

Duke Lacrosse Case: Accused boys were presumed guilty due to an accusation. After months of everyone thinking they were absolute monsters, but after players were allowed to present evidence to refute their accusers claim (which was actually possible to do since the date, time, location, and witnesses at the party were all "known" variables in the accusation), the case was dropped against them because no evidence could support the claim. It is now widely believed that the Duke Lacrosse players did not commit rape against this woman as she claimed they did. (Though they're behavior and overall character was deplorable that night...100% IMO)

Kavanaugh Case: Accused judge is presumed guilty due to an accusation. He is assumed to be a monster because "I believe her" is all that is required for society to forever place this label on him. He will have no recourse or avenue by which to refute her claim because there is no time/place/witnesses/evidence named that would allow him to offer any evidence (if he had any, 36 years later!) to counter in a "prove your own innocence"-type fashion that we apparently now require as a society.

This is how the two cases are different. And why his future is ruined and will forever be marked as a sexual predator, whereas theirs was not and they will not. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Applause. Thank you for spelling all of this out for the obtuse PP. I'm incredulous that anyone would claim there is no difference in these scenarios. Kavanaugh will never get to clear his name, simply because too much time has passed to present any hard evidence exonerating him. You are so right that now we're in a "prove your own innocence" time. It's frightening, to put it mildly.

Honest question: if you were Ford and this actually did happen, would you just shut up and not come forward? If so, why?

I'm the one who wrote the above about the diff between the two cases. And your question is a good one. One that I would have seriously given huge consideration to if I were Dr. Ford. And I don't think there is a "right" answer here, but I were her and I knew this to be true, I think I would have told myself that I have no other option but to provide the information that I had in order to clear my conscience.

I do not blame her for coming forward. At all. THough I agree with the other poster who implied that it is very very unfortunate that she did not come forward much sooner than 36 years later. (And I think personally for me I would have weighed what happened on that night back then with what the climate was at the time, what his state of mind was, his age, my age and state of mind, and how he has conducted himself as an adult before I took the step to blow up his life. Because this is about the SCOTUS but it is also about a man who is, by all accounts, a decent person and human being insofar as he has lived his life in adulthood.) Not saying she SHOULD have done that. It's not really her responsibility to see how he turned out, etc. BUt since you asked what *I* would have done in her shoes, that would probably have played a role for me. But maybe that makes me not as "brave" or at least not as much of a risk-taker--given that this could have backfired on her tremendously.

What I do not like is that people have pounced on her allegation as infallible truth when they have NO WAY OF KNOWING, PROVING, oR VALIDATING this accusation. (And he has no way of disproving it!) And I think that is a dangerous and sad place for us to find ourselves in as a society.

THIS. I agree with you completely.

[Anonymous]

It’s telling, and damning, that the Kav supporters are such dead-Enders that he’ll jusitdy any and all of his despicable behavior. I’d have more respect for them, and they’d have more credibility, if they admit “yeah he acted like an asshole at the hearing,” and “yeah he sounds like he was a drunken shithead in HS and college,” and “yeah, he told some small lies at the hearing about things like boofing and Ralphing.” They can them try to make the case hat his drunken belligerence and asshole behavior is not a true reflection of who he is now, but rather who he was then.

But when they try to deny all the obviously ridiculous things he’s done and said, they lose any credibility to defend him.

[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.)

So, you are determining his guilt and holding him responsible for YOUR experience. Lovely.
And, your claim that he is lying is ridiculous. Who are YOU to know what these terms meant to him and his friends?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I assume that you're trolling. If not, look up Kavanaugh's approval numbers.

[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.

What if it was by a woman. Woukd you believe her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This.

I can believe that, if this were a Democratic nominee, the Republicans might mobilize fake harassment victims to try to bring the Democratic nominee down. I don't want to give the Republicans a precedent they can use to block Democratic nominees with poorly documented accusations, even if the accusations sounded persuasive, and even if I would make every effort to treat the accusers as victims of crimes.

But I wouldn't exepct Republicans, or Democrats, to accept a Democratic Supreme Court nominee who sounded like a bad guy character out of a 1980s frat party.

[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.

Did I say that? No.
Gather evidence. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s telling, and damning, that the Kav supporters are such dead-Enders that he’ll jusitdy any and all of his despicable behavior. I’d have more respect for them, and they’d have more credibility, if they admit “yeah he acted like an asshole at the hearing,” and “yeah he sounds like he was a drunken shithead in HS and college,” and “yeah, he told some small lies at the hearing about things like boofing and Ralphing.” They can them try to make the case hat his drunken belligerence and asshole behavior is not a true reflection of who he is now, but rather who he was then.

But when they try to deny all the obviously ridiculous things he’s done and said, they lose any credibility to defend him.

Would you expect any different from the same people who support and defend Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did I say that? No.
Gather evidence. Period.

Glad you support the FBI investigation.

[Anonymous]

Also, don't wait 36 years to report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A a parent, I'd try to ensure my kids didn't interact too much with Kavanaugh; any sleepovers should be at my home, and I wouldn't let my kids drive with him
There's way too much alcohol in all these stories for me to be comfortable

And already, his life has been permanently altered. Nice.

Nothing has happened to his life. This will all be old news in a couple of weeks and he will be on the SCOTUS.

B.S. Whether he is or isn't confirmed, his life will never be the same. Thanks in large part to people like you.

I’m sorry but so what? Statistically speaking, she’s probably telling the damn truth.

But you don't know that she is. No one knows who's telling the truth. And I certainly care about an innocent man being treated as if he's guilty. You claim to also, but of course, only if we're talking about a POC. Right?

It doesn't matter. If you have a hint of scandal = NO SUPREME COURT

He was a wild guy in high school and partied a lot. Those are the breaks.

Funny that didn't come out until so late in the process. Really funny.

or during all the years of his adult life in which no one has every come forward with anything of this nature

People - women - don't come forward with this type of allegation because they fear the very criticism and speculation Ford's allegations brought to her.

That backlash against the accuser can be as painful as the initial assault. Sure, innocent until proven guilty, but accusers have the right to come forward without being painted as angry/crazy/unstable/loose/embittered (fill in the blank) harpies who were out to ruin Brett's very fine and upstanding career. Which is exactly how conservatives have painted Ford.

Conservatives just want these women to shut up. Unless of course they are making accusations against a Democrat and then conservatives are so very concerned about women (Franken).

DP here. Wow, do you have things twisted. No one has painted Ford as any of the above. On the contrary, she is now a folk "hero" for the left. We all saw how Democratic senators were bending over backwards to thank her for coming forward - even *before* they had heard her testimony. Well, of course they're happy she came forward! They're thrilled! Gosh, I wonder why?? Had the nominee been a Democrat, there is no way they would be quite as delighted with a woman bringing up 36 yr. old allegations against him. Imagine if that had been the case and the woman wasn't a PhD, but rather a waitress, or a hairstylist - a profession that doesn't quite garner the salivating worship from liberals that a PhD does. I'm certain we'd be seeing a much different reaction from those senators who apparently believe every word out of Ford's mouth, unquestioning, even with zero corroboration. She is very useful to them. No wonder they're fawning all over her, celebrating her "bravery." Please.

As for Franken, it was DEMOCRATIC senators - led by Gillibrand - who took him down. Many Republicans didn't think the accusations made against him were nearly serious enough for an ouster. So you can thank your friendly neighborhood, overreacting, virtue-signaling Democrats for forcing Franken out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, don't wait 36 years to report.

EXACTLY. On what planet does one wait an entire lifetime to report? This could all have been investigated decades ago, had Ford come forward then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, don't wait 36 years to report.

EXACTLY. On what planet does one wait an entire lifetime to report? This could all have been investigated decades ago, had Ford come forward then.

Yes. Brett’s Mother was sure to take these charges very seriously. Adults now claim what he did is no big deal. Do you think that would have been seriously, at all?