Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he lied so much bevasiser he does remember.

I also think that this was a huge mistake for him. Basically a red flag being waived in front of journalists. There is going to be a book and they will turn over every ugly detail. He will be the matt lauer of politics.

He has an impeccable memory. Ford? Not so much.

Funny, he couldn't remember so many things from 6 months earlier, like who paid his credit card debt. And he couldn't remember so much from 10 years ago, like what spying meant as it related to emails he received. Ya, a genius mind.

It's funny how no one cares where that money came from. After he's confirmed give it less than a year before he gets a dui.

[Anonymous]

Especially when a lot of awful stuff was in his prepared remarks!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, the "what happens at georgtown prep, stays at georgetown prep" football teammates directly contradict the contents of their friend and teammate Mark Judge, who referred to Quarters and Quarters in his book, and referred to devils triangle as what it is. These guys are all liars.

These guys are terrified of the law catching up to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of this publication, but I agree with this article....

We are now in a time of chronic national convulsions, and the latest, over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, has resulted in the wrenching public and private testimony of women who have been sexually assaulted and who have never before spoken about it. Of course, this outpouring has a hashtag: #BelieveSurvivors. Women who tell their stories should have the support, and belief, of loved ones, friends, and a therapeutic community.

But when a woman, in telling her story, makes an allegation against a specific man, a different set of obligations kick in.

Even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity, we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully, and recognize the potential lifetime consequences that such an allegation can bring. If believing the woman is the beginning and the end of a search for the truth, then we have left the realm of justice for religion.

Whether an investigation takes place at a school, at a workplace, or in the criminal-justice system, neutral fact-finding must apply, regardless of how disturbing we find the offense, the group identity of the accused, or the political leanings of those involved. History demonstrates that ascribing honesty or dishonesty, criminality or righteousness solely on the basis of gender or race doesn’t increase the amount of equity in the world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-and-problem-believesurvivors/572083/

That is right. Blindly believing an accuser because of the nature of the crime is bias. It is not justice. Do all accusers deserve to be treated with respect and dignity? Of course. But facts must be pursued dispassionately and without prejudice. I'm sorry about whatever happened to Christine Ford, but she has no real case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Just a coincidence that she knew exactly who he was partying with that summer? Only to closed minds.


Omg, what the hell does that prove?

Proves that Kavanaugh and Ford knew each other. Kavanaugh said he didn't know Ford, yet Ford was dating one of his closest friends. That was never brought up in the hearing.

Citation?

For the claim that Kavanaugh said he didn't know Ford I mean.

DP. It’s in the transcript from the hearing. He said he didn’t know her, they didn’t run in the same social circles, maybe he met her at some point but he didn’t remember it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, the "what happens at georgtown prep, stays at georgetown prep" football teammates directly contradict the contents of their friend and teammate Mark Judge, who referred to Quarters and Quarters in his book, and referred to devils triangle as what it is. These guys are all liars.

These guys are terrified of the law catching up to them.

I can't wait to hear their explanations for "Killer Qs" and "151"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Note that he doesn’t apologize for insulting Dem senators and doesn’t take back his Clinton conspiracy claims or his “what goes around comes around.” Only that he may have been “too emotional” at times because other people make him do it.

Again, total lack of accountability for his own behavior. He wants it so he deserves it and no one had better take it from him.

This is why judges recuse themselves in cases in which they have a conflict. THEY ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BE DISPASSIONATE AND DISINTERESTED.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of this publication, but I agree with this article....

We are now in a time of chronic national convulsions, and the latest, over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, has resulted in the wrenching public and private testimony of women who have been sexually assaulted and who have never before spoken about it. Of course, this outpouring has a hashtag: #BelieveSurvivors. Women who tell their stories should have the support, and belief, of loved ones, friends, and a therapeutic community.

But when a woman, in telling her story, makes an allegation against a specific man, a different set of obligations kick in.

Even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity, we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully, and recognize the potential lifetime consequences that such an allegation can bring. If believing the woman is the beginning and the end of a search for the truth, then we have left the realm of justice for religion.

Whether an investigation takes place at a school, at a workplace, or in the criminal-justice system, neutral fact-finding must apply, regardless of how disturbing we find the offense, the group identity of the accused, or the political leanings of those involved. History demonstrates that ascribing honesty or dishonesty, criminality or righteousness solely on the basis of gender or race doesn’t increase the amount of equity in the world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-and-problem-believesurvivors/572083/

That is right. Blindly believing an accuser because of the nature of the crime is bias. It is not justice. Do all accusers deserve to be treated with respect and dignity? Of course. But facts must be pursued dispassionately and without prejudice. I'm sorry about whatever happened to Christine Ford, but she has no real case.

Great, so you will call your Senator and request the FBI to a proper investigation of this matter and not the sham the White house conducted this week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he lied so much bevasiser he does remember.

I also think that this was a huge mistake for him. Basically a red flag being waived in front of journalists. There is going to be a book and they will turn over every ugly detail. He will be the matt lauer of politics.

He has an impeccable memory. Ford? Not so much.

Funny, he couldn't remember so many things from 6 months earlier, like who paid his credit card debt. And he couldn't remember so much from 10 years ago, like what spying meant as it related to emails he received. Ya, a genius mind.

Makes you wonder if he's continued to drink, that he couldn't remember those things! He apparently still likes beer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statement from Kavanaugh via an editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822?mod=hp_opin_pos1

It’s a crazy, unprecedented Hail Mary attempt, but I don’t think it will work. You don’t get to show your true colors, blame Hillary Clinton and Democrats as a whole, then say, “oops sorry!”

That's right! I've heard this crap before when he apologized to the Senator from MN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a nominee can’t get through confirmation without lapses in emotional regulation so severe they require damage control op-eds, they are unfit.

But it is nice he is expressing his lack of fitness.

Again, judges recuse themselves from cases in which there is a conflict of self interest because everyone knows it is impossible to be dispassionate in those situations. Why is this such a tough concept? Oh yeah. Grasping at anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statement from Kavanaugh via an editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822?mod=hp_opin_pos1

He’s not even making a pretense that he’s not campaigning like a politician.

Also, they don’t have the votes to confirm or they’d never let him put himself out there like this. This is a Hail Mary.

This whole thing is just so freaking bizarre. When has this ever happened before? My nerves are fried, I’ll be so glad when it over even if its not my preferred outcome as I suspect it will not be.

Equally freaking bizarre is the circumstances under which we got here. Kennedy had selected his clerks. He went to the White House, he announced his retirement. His son was Trump’s banker at Deutsche Bank. None, none, none of this even gives the appearance of appropriate or normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brett Kavanaugh in today's Wall Street Journal. Food for thought.

"I was very emotional last Thursday, crying and sniveling and making weird wrinkled-nose faces like a little bitch-man. I might have been too emotional at times, but that's me, a bitchy little pansy. I know that my tone was douchey, and unfortunately I said a few things that show the type of person I really am. I hope everyone can understand that I really, really want to be on the Supreme Court. It would be so awesome and I totally promise to do all of Trump's bidding and make sure he can operate outside the law. Seriously, whatever you want, I'll do it. Anyway, I testified with five people foremost in my mind: Squi, Judge, TK, Bernie, and Tobin. p.s. I never bagged Renate, cos I was virgin 'til I was 26, but I wanted all the guys to think I did."

Your reaction to a man who you loathe is to equate him to a woman? A negative, insulting word to use to describe a woman? You are one mixed up feminist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a nominee can’t get through confirmation without lapses in emotional regulation so severe they require damage control op-eds, they are unfit.

But it is nice he is expressing his lack of fitness.

Again, judges recuse themselves from cases in which there is a conflict of self interest because everyone knows it is impossible to be dispassionate in those situations. Why is this such a tough concept? Oh yeah. Grasping at anything.

So he is supposed to recuse himself from anything having to do with conservative or liberal causes, or having to do with Trump/Muller. But he has already said he won't do that, so...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of this publication, but I agree with this article....

We are now in a time of chronic national convulsions, and the latest, over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, has resulted in the wrenching public and private testimony of women who have been sexually assaulted and who have never before spoken about it. Of course, this outpouring has a hashtag: #BelieveSurvivors. Women who tell their stories should have the support, and belief, of loved ones, friends, and a therapeutic community.

But when a woman, in telling her story, makes an allegation against a specific man, a different set of obligations kick in.

Even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity, we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully, and recognize the potential lifetime consequences that such an allegation can bring. If believing the woman is the beginning and the end of a search for the truth, then we have left the realm of justice for religion.

Whether an investigation takes place at a school, at a workplace, or in the criminal-justice system, neutral fact-finding must apply, regardless of how disturbing we find the offense, the group identity of the accused, or the political leanings of those involved. History demonstrates that ascribing honesty or dishonesty, criminality or righteousness solely on the basis of gender or race doesn’t increase the amount of equity in the world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-and-problem-believesurvivors/572083/

That is right. Blindly believing an accuser because of the nature of the crime is bias. It is not justice. Do all accusers deserve to be treated with respect and dignity? Of course. But facts must be pursued dispassionately and without prejudice. I'm sorry about whatever happened to Christine Ford, but she has no real case.

Great, so you will call your Senator and request the FBI to a proper investigation of this matter and not the sham the White house conducted this week?

The FBI has investigated Kavanaugh seven times and interviewed everyone Ford claims was there. Get some new talking points.