Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitchell report

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

Solid job. Of course, she still is most likely telling the truth.

Why? In her therapy notes she claimed she was assaulted in her late teens, not 15. In her investigation she claims she doesn't remember how she got to the party or inexplicably how she got home. How in an era before cell phones did she run out of the house and get back to her home 7 miles away and have no memory of it. If she could give the name of the person who drove her home immediately after the attempted rape, that would help the investigation immensely, but she somehow has no memory of it.

Yes, and here's another thought: Surely the person who drove her home would have remembered an upset, likely crying, traumatized girl. Why hasn't he stepped up? Plus, she would have had to remain in the house, using a landline phone to call for a pickup. The other two people can't remember that she came down the stairs, after being with the two boys, and immediately called to be taken home?

Nope. I believe she was assaulted at some point, but it was in the later 80s when she was an older teen. Why did the polygraph cross out "early" and leave 80s? Why can't we see her therapist notes?

This is an outrage. She has convinced herself that it was Kavanaugh - I've seen in this forum that liberals can convince themselves of anything in reaction to their hatred of the opposite party - and he is understandably enraged by the Democrats' takedown, using Ford as a pawn.

Well that's a very charitable assessment of her motivations.

Motives? Even if one were to assume that there was a partial political motive, a go fund me motive, or whatever, why would that mean she’s not telling the truth? She seems fragile but quite credible. She said she was 100 percent certain about the identification.

Worth quoting this post from yesterday:

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."

That quote from Dr. Loftus continues: "We can’t reliably distinguish true memories from false memories. We need independent corroboration."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitchell report

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

Solid job. Of course, she still is most likely telling the truth.

Why? In her therapy notes she claimed she was assaulted in her late teens, not 15. In her investigation she claims she doesn't remember how she got to the party or inexplicably how she got home. How in an era before cell phones did she run out of the house and get back to her home 7 miles away and have no memory of it. If she could give the name of the person who drove her home immediately after the attempted rape, that would help the investigation immensely, but she somehow has no memory of it.

Yes, and here's another thought: Surely the person who drove her home would have remembered an upset, likely crying, traumatized girl. Why hasn't he stepped up? Plus, she would have had to remain in the house, using a landline phone to call for a pickup. The other two people can't remember that she came down the stairs, after being with the two boys, and immediately called to be taken home?

Nope. I believe she was assaulted at some point, but it was in the later 80s when she was an older teen. Why did the polygraph cross out "early" and leave 80s? Why can't we see her therapist notes?

This is an outrage. She has convinced herself that it was Kavanaugh - I've seen in this forum that liberals can convince themselves of anything in reaction to their hatred of the opposite party - and he is understandably enraged by the Democrats' takedown, using Ford as a pawn.

Well that's a very charitable assessment of her motivations.

Motives? Even if one were to assume that there was a partial political motive, a go fund me motive, or whatever, why would that mean she’s not telling the truth? She seems fragile but quite credible.She said she was 100 percent certain about the identification.

Did you read the memo listed a few pages ago? She is coming across as less and less credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty amazing to me how and why GOP is going on the mat for this heavily tainted nominee. There are so many other conservative justices who could take his place without the baggage. To me, it seems like the GOP has gone full Trump, which means it’s always about “winning” not necessarily what’s best for the country.

Also, having Don McGhan, Kavanaugh’s primary promoter, be directing the FBI investigation seems like a bad idea.

How is he heavily tainted? Because he was a big drinker in high school? Let's take a look at all the congress critters who are in their 60s and 70s. I bet a good number of them were stoned half the time in high school.

No, because he's a liar. And a political hack who showed unabashed bias (despite his waxing on about the importance of judges not being partisan) and threatened the opposition with retaliation and showed himself completely unfit to be a SCJ. That's how.

Read the Current Affairs article for the myriad ways Kavanaugh has clearly been deceptive, at a minimum, and outright dishonest and conspiratorial at the worst.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

I scanned the article. It is so incredibly biased, I could not finish it. He makes huge assumptions. Nathan J Robinson was against the Kavanaugh nomination from the beginning. He is not going to write anything in support of him. And, he fails to outline inconsistencies in HER testimony and public statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty amazing to me how and why GOP is going on the mat for this heavily tainted nominee. There are so many other conservative justices who could take his place without the baggage. To me, it seems like the GOP has gone full Trump, which means it’s always about “winning” not necessarily what’s best for the country.

Also, having Don McGhan, Kavanaugh’s primary promoter, be directing the FBI investigation seems like a bad idea.

How is he heavily tainted? Because he was a big drinker in high school? Let's take a look at all the congress critters who are in their 60s and 70s. I bet a good number of them were stoned half the time in high school.

No, because he's a liar. And a political hack who showed unabashed bias (despite his waxing on about the importance of judges not being partisan) and threatened the opposition with retaliation and showed himself completely unfit to be a SCJ. That's how.

Read the Current Affairs article for the myriad ways Kavanaugh has clearly been deceptive, at a minimum, and outright dishonest and conspiratorial at the worst.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

I scanned the article. It is so incredibly biased, I could not finish it. He makes huge assumptions. Nathan J Robinson was against the Kavanaugh nomination from the beginning. He is not going to write anything in support of him. And, he fails to outline inconsistencies in HER testimony and public statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. This would never go to trial. We don't want the guy on scotus if we believe her.

If you believe him this is an outrage

So are you telling me that if a Dem wins the presidential election and nominates a liberal justice, all it will take is for someone to say he assaulted her and he's done? There's no proof of this at all. Just a lot of inconsistencies in her story.

The Dems will very likely nominate a female justice. While it is possible she will have sexually assaulted someone and have no memory of it, that would be very difficult to convince many folks of were it to be false.

[Anonymous]

How many people are fine with his rising to the Supreme Court even if her story is true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. This would never go to trial. We don't want the guy on scotus if we believe her.

If you believe him this is an outrage

So are you telling me that if a Dem wins the presidential election and nominates a liberal justice, all it will take is for someone to say he assaulted her and he's done? There's no proof of this at all. Just a lot of inconsistencies in her story.

The Dems will very likely nominate a female justice. While it is possible she will have sexually assaulted someone and have no memory of it, that would be very difficult to convince many folks of were it to be false.

So someone could come out and say she sold them some pot at a party in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. This would never go to trial. We don't want the guy on scotus if we believe her.

If you believe him this is an outrage

So are you telling me that if a Dem wins the presidential election and nominates a liberal justice, all it will take is for someone to say he assaulted her and he's done? There's no proof of this at all. Just a lot of inconsistencies in her story.

The Dems will very likely nominate a female justice. While it is possible she will have sexually assaulted someone and have no memory of it, that would be very difficult to convince many folks of were it to be false.

So someone could come out and say she sold them some pot at a party in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How[b] many people are fine [b]with his rising to the Supreme Court even if her story is true?

They're not. It's just their base, who have to reject truth and common sense and decency on a daily basis in order to remain faithful Trumpers. The rest of us, we think he's damaged goods and should step down for the sake of the country, even if he's innocent. He's not worth what it will cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. This would never go to trial. We don't want the guy on scotus if we believe her.

If you believe him this is an outrage

So are you telling me that if a Dem wins the presidential election and nominates a liberal justice, all it will take is for someone to say he assaulted her and he's done? There's no proof of this at all. Just a lot of inconsistencies in her story.

The Dems will very likely nominate a female justice. While it is possible she will have sexually assaulted someone and have no memory of it, that would be very difficult to convince many folks of were it to be false.

So someone could come out and say she sold them some pot at a party in high school.

Ok. Find 4 other people at the party, a polygraph, med notes from separate therapists and a convincing witness and not some political oeprative and you convince some people it is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many people are fine with his rising to the Supreme Court even if her story is true?

Only one element of her entire story, if true, would take it beyond the pale - hand over mouth. Otherwise, a drunk high school boy jumping on top of a girl and grinding into her is quite common. Happened to me. I was relieved he let me go and nothing more happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitchell report

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/

Solid job. Of course, she still is most likely telling the truth.

Why? In her therapy notes she claimed she was assaulted in her late teens, not 15. In her investigation she claims she doesn't remember how she got to the party or inexplicably how she got home. How in an era before cell phones did she run out of the house and get back to her home 7 miles away and have no memory of it. If she could give the name of the person who drove her home immediately after the attempted rape, that would help the investigation immensely, but she somehow has no memory of it.

Yes, and here's another thought: Surely the person who drove her home would have remembered an upset, likely crying, traumatized girl. Why hasn't he stepped up? Plus, she would have had to remain in the house, using a landline phone to call for a pickup. The other two people can't remember that she came down the stairs, after being with the two boys, and immediately called to be taken home?

Nope. I believe she was assaulted at some point, but it was in the later 80s when she was an older teen. Why did the polygraph cross out "early" and leave 80s? Why can't we see her therapist notes?

This is an outrage. She has convinced herself that it was Kavanaugh - I've seen in this forum that liberals can convince themselves of anything in reaction to their hatred of the opposite party - and he is understandably enraged by the Democrats' takedown, using Ford as a pawn.

Well that's a very charitable assessment of her motivations.

Motives? Even if one were to assume that there was a partial political motive, a go fund me motive, or whatever, why would that mean she’s not telling the truth? She seems fragile but quite credible.She said she was 100 percent certain about the identification.

Did you read the memo listed a few pages ago? She is coming across as less and less credible.

No, not to those of us with critical thinking skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many people are fine with his rising to the Supreme Court even if her story is true?

Only one element of her entire story, if true, would take it beyond the pale - hand over mouth. Otherwise, a drunk high school boy jumping on top of a girl and grinding into her is quite common. Happened to me. I was relieved he let me go and nothing more happened.

Well the hand over the mouth is totally not ok and very damning. It was that act that forced her to come forward at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again. This would never go to trial. We don't want the guy on scotus if we believe her.

If you believe him this is an outrage

So are you telling me that if a Dem wins the presidential election and nominates a liberal justice, all it will take is for someone to say he assaulted her and he's done? There's no proof of this at all. Just a lot of inconsistencies in her story.

The Dems will very likely nominate a female justice. While it is possible she will have sexually assaulted someone and have no memory of it, that would be very difficult to convince many folks of were it to be false.

So someone could come out and say she sold them some pot at a party in high school.

Ok. Find 4 other people at the party, a polygraph, med notes from separate therapists and a convincing witness and not some political oeprative and you convince some people it is true.

OK. I named the four other people and the party and they say they don't remember it all. One says she never even met the her. The polygraph had a key fact - the timeframe - crossed out. I refuse to release the therapist's notes. My attorney is an activist against the woman, and who was recommended to me by the opposing political party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How[b] many people are fine [b]with his rising to the Supreme Court even if her story is true?

They're not. It's just their base, who have to reject truth and common sense and decency on a daily basis in order to remain faithful Trumpers. The rest of us, we think he's damaged goods and should step down for the sake of the country, even if he's innocent. He's not worth what it will cost.

This response makes me laugh.
“Reject truth and common sense?” Are you kidding me? You have an allegation with no corroboration and no evidence and you are accusing those who don’t believe it as lacking common sense?

It will be a sad day in this country when an allegation that is not supported by ANYTHING can bring down a highly qualified nominee. This is a frightening thought.