Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

He is the perfect sacrificial lamb for the #metoo movement. I think he’s an entitled buffoon but even I feel sorry for him at this point.

[Anonymous]

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!!

Exactly! If you don’t think of it as a compliment then there’s something wrong with you, like you’re probably ugly and a feminist if you don’t appreciate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Plausible? Maybe. Tell me why nobody has come forward to say they drove her home. Tell me why none of those in attendance have any memory of the event. Tell me why Leland, her best friend at the time, doesn’t know Kavanaugh. Tell me why she could leave Leland alone with 4 boys, two of which allegedly just tried to rape/accidentally kill her. Tell me why she can remember running to the street and thinking how happy she was that she got away but was not bothered enough with thinking about how in the hell she was going to get home. Tell me why Leland and she never discussed this event after she left so abruptly.
There are just way too many holes in her story to make it credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

He is the perfect sacrificial lamb for the #metoo movement. I think he’s an entitled buffoon but even I feel sorry for him at this point.

Why don’t you pick a real rapist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has this happened before?

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

Heard Amy Shumer was arrested. Don't know if true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thank you.

What about his douchebaginess, though?

[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.

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.

Now, you are revealing your REAL issue with this nominee. He was Trump’s pick and he is white.
Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Plausible? Maybe. Tell me why nobody has come forward to say they drove her home. Tell me why none of those in attendance have any memory of the event. Tell me why Leland, her best friend at the time, doesn’t know Kavanaugh. Tell me why she could leave Leland alone with 4 boys, two of which allegedly just tried to rape/accidentally kill her. Tell me why she can remember running to the street and thinking how happy she was that she got away but was not bothered enough with thinking about how in the hell she was going to get home. Tell me why Leland and she never discussed this event after she left so abruptly.
There are just way too many holes in her story to make it credible.

I repeat: not remembering these details is entirely consistent with traumatic events, in which some aspects are remembered and even reexperienced (smells, sensations, etc.) in full detail, and others are forgotten or blocked out. Please read the accounts of experts if you're interested (although I know you won't).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Plausible? Maybe. Tell me why nobody has come forward to say they drove her home. Tell me why none of those in attendance have any memory of the event. Tell me why Leland, her best friend at the time, doesn’t know Kavanaugh. Tell me why she could leave Leland alone with 4 boys, two of which allegedly just tried to rape/accidentally kill her. Tell me why she can remember running to the street and thinking how happy she was that she got away but was not bothered enough with thinking about how in the hell she was going to get home. Tell me why Leland and she never discussed this event after she left so abruptly.
There are just way too many holes in her story to make it credible.

All of this. Please. Somebody answer this. Somebody would remember picking her up in some neighborhood where she was just standing around outside. There were no cell phones. She had to have gone to a pay phone or someone else's house, a situation that would be abnormal to whomever came to get her. If she were my friend and we went there together, I'd be shocked that she left me there and you'd be sure I would have brought it up the next day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has this happened before?

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

Heard Amy Shumer was arrested. Don't know if true.

Check Twitter or FB. I’m sure she live streamed it if she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has this happened before?

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

Heard Amy Shumer was arrested. Don't know if true.

Check Twitter or FB. I’m sure she live streamed it if she did.

What would she get arrested for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Plausible? Maybe. Tell me why nobody has come forward to say they drove her home. Tell me why none of those in attendance have any memory of the event. Tell me why Leland, her best friend at the time, doesn’t know Kavanaugh. Tell me why she could leave Leland alone with 4 boys, two of which allegedly just tried to rape/accidentally kill her. Tell me why she can remember running to the street and thinking how happy she was that she got away but was not bothered enough with thinking about how in the hell she was going to get home. Tell me why Leland and she never discussed this event after she left so abruptly.
There are just way too many holes in her story to make it credible.

Well, it is on Kavanaugh’s calendar. Besides, no one else was almost raped, why would they remember a party three decades ago? You seem not that logical.

[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.

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.

Then, why believe everyone who says they were falsely accused? You cannot know unless you were in the room with them. Some people who say they are falsely accused are innocent and some are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Plausible? Maybe. Tell me why nobody has come forward to say they drove her home. Tell me why none of those in attendance have any memory of the event. Tell me why Leland, her best friend at the time, doesn’t know Kavanaugh. Tell me why she could leave Leland alone with 4 boys, two of which allegedly just tried to rape/accidentally kill her. Tell me why she can remember running to the street and thinking how happy she was that she got away but was not bothered enough with thinking about how in the hell she was going to get home. Tell me why Leland and she never discussed this event after she left so abruptly.
There are just way too many holes in her story to make it credible.

I repeat: not remembering these details is entirely consistent with traumatic events, in which some aspects are remembered and even reexperienced (smells, sensations, etc.) in full detail, and others are forgotten or blocked out. Please read the accounts of experts if you're interested (although I know you won't).

And, some of us are a bit tired of this excuse as a way to rationalize her total lack of evidence and corroboration.
Convenient that she herself has some background about trauma and how the memory fails sometimes, wouldn’t you say?