Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend this creep are gross. And yes, I'm consistent... When Bill Clinton lied under oath I thought it was right to impeach him. Here Bart/Brett lied multiple times and treated a coequal branch of government like s*it on his shoe. But oh well, Republicans overlook it because he's part of their tribe and because apparently sexual assault is no biggie if you're a drunk teen. Hypocrites.

+1 what do you expect from a bunch of old guys who keep giving Trump mulligans on all his moral failings. Most probably don't think sexually assaulting a women is a big deal anyways.

This. Many republican women don't care about the alledged assault, the drinking or the lying either.

My Republican evangelical friends who I know were assaulted in college (one had an abortion, as the result of a drunken date rape) are all announcing they are getting off social media for a few weeks. I bet they are. They know all their old friends know and will hopefully not say one word.

I think those people have this quaint notion rape is when a stranger wielding a knife or gun jumps out and violently drags a woman off. But if it's "just" a drunk boy who puts his weenie in a drunk woman (a la Brock the rapist) then it's not actually rape. Or if a giddy frat boy goes and grabs a woman by her crotch and then tries to pull her shirt off, no big deal! It's just vestiges of caveman interaction, ha ha, lighten up! And really, if it's an upper class white guy, especially if he's a Republican, then of course it's not assault if he pushes her down and tries to penetrate her. You should feel complimented a guy wants to grind on you!!

No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

+1. Also don’t like how this man is being strung up as the scapegoat for the women’s movement.

The "women's movement" - I can hear your scorn in there, careful. From where I stand, sexual assault is a human problem.

And pp, you say you don't like drunks. I call bs on that. You don't care that BK was a falling down drunk in high school and college because he still got As and you think boys will be boys. There are literally dozens of people who will swear to the FBI that they knew him as a belligerent drunk. But you don't give a damn because YALE.

You know who is the target of mocking? And by your dear president no less? The woman who reluctantly came forward to tell her story of being assaulted as a 15 year old. And you think that's just fine. I bet you laughed out loud when you saw him do it.

And give me a break, feeling so sorry for elected officials being "accosted" by "mobs" - that's what they signed up for. To listen to the people. If a politician can't take facing his critics (hint hint, your dear leader) then maybe he's in the wrong profession.

I would bet my house that if there was a video of Ford's assault both of you would say it was all just jokey jokey and not a big deal and she should just get over it.

[Anonymous]

Has this happened before?

https://mobile.twitter.com/ABC/status/1047975440974065664

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

One credible one would suffice. We have not seen that.

You haven’t seen Dr. Christine Blasey Ford? I envy you the tropical island you found to hide on these last few weeks.

[Anonymous]

Whip count as a couple of hours ago

.@ChuckGrassley's whip count, as relayed to me, @eschor and @LACaldwellDC on a noisy Senate train:

"I know that we don’t have a chance to get Heitkamp now and I thought we did. Maybe one or two Democrats got a chance? And I haven’t heard from four Republicans."

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1047946944302202880

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

One credible one would suffice. We have not seen that.

You haven’t seen Dr. Christine Blasey Ford? I envy you the tropical island you found to hide on these last few weeks.

Emotional testimony does not equal credible. A 36-year old allegation with no corroborating evidence presented is not credible. The people she claims were present all having no knowledge of the event is not credible. Her best friend stating she doesn’t know Kavanaugh is not credible. Not knowing where, when, how she got there and how she got home is not credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

One credible one would suffice. We have not seen that.

p

The rest of us have, you have your eyes and ears closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend this creep are gross. And yes, I'm consistent... When Bill Clinton lied under oath I thought it was right to impeach him. Here Bart/Brett lied multiple times and treated a coequal branch of government like s*it on his shoe. But oh well, Republicans overlook it because he's part of their tribe and because apparently sexual assault is no biggie if you're a drunk teen. Hypocrites.

+1 what do you expect from a bunch of old guys who keep giving Trump mulligans on all his moral failings. Most probably don't think sexually assaulting a women is a big deal anyways.

This. Many republican women don't care about the alledged assault, the drinking or the lying either.

My Republican evangelical friends who I know were assaulted in college (one had an abortion, as the result of a drunken date rape) are all announcing they are getting off social media for a few weeks. I bet they are. They know all their old friends know and will hopefully not say one word.

I think those people have this quaint notion rape is when a stranger wielding a knife or gun jumps out and violently drags a woman off. But if it's "just" a drunk boy who puts his weenie in a drunk woman (a la Brock the rapist) then it's not actually rape. Or if a giddy frat boy goes and grabs a woman by her crotch and then tries to pull her shirt off, no big deal! It's just vestiges of caveman interaction, ha ha, lighten up! And really, if it's an upper class white guy, especially if he's a Republican, then of course it's not assault if he pushes her down and tries to penetrate her. You should feel complimented a guy wants to grind on you!!

No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

If only Ford had whipped out her camera all those years ago, then you would be satisfied? Somehow it would be too blurry, or it would be doctored, or she violated his rights for privacy during a sexual assault.

Yet it's okay for the United States president to mock a private citizen and rally an auditorium to laugh at her - because THEY think he has larger 1st Amendment rights?

Sickening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

Accusations are not enough; before I'd rule out any person who is accused of sexual assault, I'd want some level of corroboration.

#Believe accusers

Are you serious? I not only know of several public cases where people were falsely accused of rape but I have personally known a number of situations where people were falsely accused. That is ridiculous to just blindly say believe all accusers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The letter from the law professors opposing Kavanaugh now has OVER 2,400 SIGNATURES.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

And retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who has changed his mind on Kavanaugh, actually wrote a chapter in his book, praising one of Kavanaugh's decisions.

I hope this helps convince Senators how completely disqualifying Kavanaugh's performance in the hearing was. It shouldn't be this close.

Most of the law professors probably don’t know a courtroom from a restroom.

Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or do you figure if you shout enough insults you'll get your way?

PP is essentially stating a fact; most lawyers that are part of academia are really very mediocre. I have worked with dozens over the years and I can count on one hand those who were exceptional.

So, people like this taught Kavanaugh, right? and all the other practicing lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

One credible one would suffice. We have not seen that.

You haven’t seen Dr. Christine Blasey Ford? I envy you the tropical island you found to hide on these last few weeks.

Emotional testimony does not equal credible. A 36-year old allegation with no corroborating evidence presented is not credible. The people she claims were present all having no knowledge of the event is not credible. Her best friend stating she doesn’t know Kavanaugh is not credible. Not knowing where, when, how she got there and how she got home is not credible.

Several memory/trauma experts have weighed in on this and said that this is actually plausible. Kavanaugh supporters have chosen to ignore or dismiss the opinion of subject matter experts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

Accusations are not enough; before I'd rule out any person who is accused of sexual assault, I'd want some level of corroboration.

After his acrid testimony and the disgusting way he treated a couple of the Democratic Senators, I don't care about the sexual assaults. He should not serve on the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend this creep are gross. And yes, I'm consistent... When Bill Clinton lied under oath I thought it was right to impeach him. Here Bart/Brett lied multiple times and treated a coequal branch of government like s*it on his shoe. But oh well, Republicans overlook it because he's part of their tribe and because apparently sexual assault is no biggie if you're a drunk teen. Hypocrites.

+1 what do you expect from a bunch of old guys who keep giving Trump mulligans on all his moral failings. Most probably don't think sexually assaulting a women is a big deal anyways.

This. Many republican women don't care about the alledged assault, the drinking or the lying either.

My Republican evangelical friends who I know were assaulted in college (one had an abortion, as the result of a drunken date rape) are all announcing they are getting off social media for a few weeks. I bet they are. They know all their old friends know and will hopefully not say one word.

I think those people have this quaint notion rape is when a stranger wielding a knife or gun jumps out and violently drags a woman off. But if it's "just" a drunk boy who puts his weenie in a drunk woman (a la Brock the rapist) then it's not actually rape. Or if a giddy frat boy goes and grabs a woman by her crotch and then tries to pull her shirt off, no big deal! It's just vestiges of caveman interaction, ha ha, lighten up! And really, if it's an upper class white guy, especially if he's a Republican, then of course it's not assault if he pushes her down and tries to penetrate her. You should feel complimented a guy wants to grind on you!!

No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

No, it’s simpler than that—you don’t give a shit about any of this—your gross, unwaivering support of President Pussy Grabber shows that. ALL you care about is living in a world where the white man always wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Murkowski has reportedly spent much of the afternoon in her office meeting privately with Alaskan women who flew to DC to tell her their stories of their sexual assault.

Unless Kavanuagh raped all of these women telling these stories, their stories are irrelevant to this issue. There is no proof he raped anyone, so why is he the scapegoat for every women’s rape or sexual assault?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The letter from the law professors opposing Kavanaugh now has OVER 2,400 SIGNATURES.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

And retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who has changed his mind on Kavanaugh, actually wrote a chapter in his book, praising one of Kavanaugh's decisions.

I hope this helps convince Senators how completely disqualifying Kavanaugh's performance in the hearing was. It shouldn't be this close.

Most of the law professors probably don’t know a courtroom from a restroom.

Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or do you figure if you shout enough insults you'll get your way?

PP is essentially stating a fact; most lawyers that are part of academia are really very mediocre. I have worked with dozens over the years and I can count on one hand those who were exceptional.

So, people like this taught Kavanaugh, right? and all the other practicing lawyers.

Up until a couple days ago, Kavanaugh was a lawyer that was part of academia. Hmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The letter from the law professors opposing Kavanaugh now has OVER 2,400 SIGNATURES.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

And retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who has changed his mind on Kavanaugh, actually wrote a chapter in his book, praising one of Kavanaugh's decisions.

I hope this helps convince Senators how completely disqualifying Kavanaugh's performance in the hearing was. It shouldn't be this close.

Most of the law professors probably don’t know a courtroom from a restroom.

Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or do you figure if you shout enough insults you'll get your way?

PP is essentially stating a fact; most lawyers that are part of academia are really very mediocre. I have worked with dozens over the years and I can count on one hand those who were exceptional.

Well then I guess you’d say they did a shitty job then, wouldn’t you?

So, people like this taught Kavanaugh, right? and all the other practicing lawyers.

Up until a couple days ago, Kavanaugh was a lawyer that was part of academia. Hmm.