Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 2

[Anonymous]

^^ PP. I’ll make this easier for you. It is a job interview. Reasonable doubt is not the standard. Is he a man of honesty and integrity? Does he have the judgment and temperament to lead the highest court in the land? Is he a reasonable and level headed person? Will he be fairminded and fair? Is his judgement so impeccable that we can trust him judging the most important cases in the land.

In my opinion he fails miserably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't like Brett Kavanaugh as a high school student. I know nothing of the man as an adult but since we are talking about what happened when he was a teenager in the early 1980s that is the prism through which I will view him. I also went to an expensive private school in a similar private school world so I recognized the type of guy Brett Kavanaugh clearly was at the time. An arrogant, cocky, asshole, somewhat lewd and in an environment where it was tolerated to make wisecracks and derogatory comments about women.

But does this mean Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of the allegation in question? That is the crux of the matter for me. And the answer is it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And not only that, the allegation is riddled with so many holes and is not supported by the other people named in the allegation, including a close female friend. I am not quite sure how seriously to take the claims that Blasey Ford cannot remember so many simple details. I was badly beaten up by muggers at a similar age. It was traumatizing. And I remember every single detail of what happened, where it happened, the street, who came to my rescue. I simply do not buy the idea that Blasey Ford cannot remember these simple details, especially because it's supposed to be a traumatizing event.

If it is true that a traumatizing event can cause the mind to trick itself into forgetting certain details, then it must also be true that the mind can also trick itself into remembering things differently. So it's entirely plausible to me that this did happen - but not how she told it. It happened, but not with Kavanaugh but with someone else in a different house under different circumstances. That is equally plausible.

Without more concrete evidence I cannot deem Kavanaugh guilty.

I do not want to see Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. But not because of this allegation, which is unsupported and for all the reasons listed above.

It is also readily apparent to me that this allegation has moved far beyond Blasey Ford versus Kavanaugh. So many people are rushing to verdicts based on what they personally want to see and believe. That is why so many readily support and believe Blasey Ford despite all the glaring omissions and holes in her story. And these people are also seeking to penalize Kavanaugh not just for the alleged sexual assault but also for all the other unreported assaults that whole generations had to endure in silence. They are also seeking to punish the Republicans for what they did to Merrick Garland. They are seeing a justice in this, but unfortunately, it is not true justice. It's a rush to vengeance. Which is not the same as justice. And the hatred that comes with vengeance has reared its ugly head in so many posts on here and in the wider media to the point that it's ridiculous and beyond logic.

I don't know what the next proper step is. It's tempting to say to Kavanaugh that he is damaged goods, regardless of whether he may or may not be innocent. Perhaps I can justify it by saying that a Supreme Court justice must be beyond utter reproach, no matter when the allegations may have happened or how true it may or may not be, and because of that we cannot let you be on the court. But if we do this, it will come at a price for the future. What that price will be, who knows. But any "victory" regardless of the victor is likely to be shortlived and the lack of pragmatism, tolerance and forgiveness will not be forgotten.

You should consider that nothing can be based on the friend's statement. She did not write her own statement. Her lawyer did and she texted Ford after it was sent and said, I had my lawyer write a letter, I'm sorry, I wish you well. Apparently the friend is very sick/disabled (the info was shared earlier in the thread) and has to focus on her health. So we have no information directly from the friend. It is a non statement. Judge just said he didn't remember it, which doesn't mean anything either way.

The multiple pieces of evidence - her statement, the therapist records, statement to her husband saying it was kavanaugh who had attacked her years ago, and his calendar with the party dates that show he was going to parties then - they all show her story to be credible.

I wouldn't put him in jail with this evidence (which is the reasonable doubt thing) but Supreme court? Hell no. This guy is a no.

Plus he came across completely off his rocker which is new, and he lied about little things that are not so important. But he was cool with lying about it - under oath! The ralph thing - really? come on. Lies.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think we fundamentally change our character. as we age, however, I can give someone the benefit of the doubt. When this happens, it usually follows a catharsis or reflection. The evangelicals talk about being born again. Some talk about maturing after a trauma (accident, near death experience, or loss), or extreme joy (birth of a child, mentorship, a new opportunity). Part of the process is admitting your mistakes, confessing your sins, apologizing to those you have hurt, asking for forgiveness.

Kavanaugh does none of this reflection. Instead he wants us to believe that he just played sports and studied, “never went to a party like ‘that’ one,” and we are all mistaken about what the terminology in his yearbook might mean. Even though he liked beer then, and likes beer now. Did he have an alcohol problem? He drank in excess, but not really?

A person of character would be able to admit that he had a drinking problem and was a complete jerk in high school and that his poor judgement in high school continues to hurt others today. His family, his supporter Renate who has since turned on him, after realizing she was a running joke with Kavanaugh and his friends. Actions have consequences and no amount of privilege makes that go away.

This is what a person of character and integrity would do. Admit your mistakes, apologize to the people you have hurt. These are the values that his Dad would have wanted him to follow.

I saw and see none of that reflection in his statements or behavior. He is just not credible.

[Anonymous]

How is Ford "credible" without one iota of evidence?
BTW, her allegations are NOT evidence.

[Anonymous]

Be real. If he admitted to anything, gave an inch at all, he would have been insta-Borked by the Democrats. Politics have become too polarized for any sort of reflective nuance.

Compare how men who have apologized have been treated to men who dug in and admitted nothing. The former have mostly been ostracized, while the latter is the current president of the United States.

[Anonymous]

This is a job interview we are judging his character. He has too much “past,” and is very defensive about this past. If I was on a hiring panel for a firm I wouldn’t hire him. He is too much of a liability and does not have self-awareness.

He certainly doesn’t meet the standard for the highest court in the land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is Ford "credible" without one iota of evidence?
BTW, her allegations are NOT evidence.

Her written statements ARE evidence.
Her testimony IS evidence.

Ask Cosby, Joe Paterno, Larry Nassar, they can explain how this works to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Be real. If he admitted to anything, gave an inch at all, he would have been insta-Borked by the Democrats. Politics have become too polarized for any sort of reflective nuance.

Compare how men who have apologized have been treated to men who dug in and admitted nothing. The former have mostly been ostracized, while the latter is the current president of the United States.

So he had to perjure himself?

Why didn't he just ask for a FBI investigation? To clear his good name... better than having a federal judge perjure himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the very last lines uttered by Kavanaugh were so hesitant and tortured. He was asked a series of very simple and very direct questions and used so many qualifiers. Did he do it before God as his witness. The honest response of an innocent man would have been “no.” I don’t understand what he was trying to piece together, but he couldn’t just say “no.” The response was worse about the other accusers. He said if it had happened the whole campus would’ve known. This is a non-response.

The tears for Dad at the beginning come from Kavanaugh’s personal shame. His Dad warned him about his debauchery, lewd, and criminal behavior in high school and college. A question like “what would his Dad think of him and these accusations,” would have gotten to the truth. Probably also would have left him in a puddle of tears.

The yearbook is extraordinarily damaging and demonstrates exceedingly poor judgment. I was in high school around this time and remember how many friends interested in public office would steer clear of anything remotely damaging. Pre-social media we talked about things being on “your permanent record.” These included photos with alcohol or drunk people, and damaging information in the Yearbook.

Keep in mind your Yearbook is how you wanted people to remember you at a time where there would be almost no other record of what you had done as a young person. It was edited by peers and faculty. Bragging about sexual conquests, smearing the reputation of a woman named Renate, and bragging about drinking were the things Kavanaugh wanted to have memorialized in a Yearbook, in the DC area no less. His priorities and values are and were very clear.

Like many people who lie, he overstated. In the opening statement he said he had never been at a party like the one described. We are to believe he never went to a party in high school where young people were drinking?! It is literally all over his yearbook. He bragged about it. Kavanaugh is simply not credible.

I’m sorry, but the more I think about this, the more I feel that it is bizarre that we are seriously considering someone’s high school yearbook while deciding on confirming a Supreme Court Justice. It’s not 17-year-old Kavanaugh being confirmed. It’s mid-fifties Kavanaugh.

Much like the gratuitous Twitter mobbing, the Alt-Right will being digging through the high school backgrounds of prominent liberals and allies and begin hoisting them by their own petards. Suddenly, they’ll start changing their tune and refusing to “give in” to the mob, just like they did with Sarah Jeong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a job interview we are judging his character. He has too much “past,” and is very defensive about this past. If I was on a hiring panel for a firm I wouldn’t hire him. He is too much of a liability and does not have self-awareness.

He certainly doesn’t meet the standard for the highest court in the land.

It wasn’t a job interview. That already happened weeks ago. This was a hearing for the express purposes of investigating accusations of sexual assault. I’ve never heard of a “job interview” where they bring people in to publicly accuse you of rape and being a drunk on national television.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Be real. If he admitted to anything, gave an inch at all, he would have been insta-Borked by the Democrats. Politics have become too polarized for any sort of reflective nuance.

Compare how men who have apologized have been treated to men who dug in and admitted nothing. The former have mostly been ostracized, while the latter is the current president of the United States.

Trump is Teflon because he is an entertainer. Bush (W) admitted his character flaws as a young man and was elected. So have others.

Kavanaugh actually bothers me because his fundamental character is in question. It seems he would do or say anything at this point to become a Supreme Court Justice which is precisely why he doesn’t have the character to hold the job.

Who is he? Why is he putting on different personalities that are politically expedient? Can’t he just admit he was a jerk in highschool?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a job interview we are judging his character. He has too much “past,” and is very defensive about this past. If I was on a hiring panel for a firm I wouldn’t hire him. He is too much of a liability and does not have self-awareness.

He certainly doesn’t meet the standard for the highest court in the land.

It wasn’t a job interview. That already happened weeks ago. This was a hearing for the express purposes of investigating accusations of sexual assault. I’ve never heard of a “job interview” where they bring people in to publicly accuse you of rape and being a drunk on national television.

Have you watched any confirmation hearings in the past? They are ALL part of a giant job interview. And the attention paid to SC nominees is intense. Usually nominees decline if there is any whiff of scandal. Thomas didn't and there was a big hearing like this one. Some of the same senators were there!

[Anonymous]

People who lie have an answer or non-answer for everything. That’s Kavanaugh. He had a made-up, not credible answer for everything in his yearbook, continually talked about studying, weight lifting and sports and tried to turn the questions back around to the senators. He thoroughly prepared his lies and his performance was just that- a performance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a job interview we are judging his character. He has too much “past,” and is very defensive about this past. If I was on a hiring panel for a firm I wouldn’t hire him. He is too much of a liability and does not have self-awareness.

He certainly doesn’t meet the standard for the highest court in the land.

It wasn’t a job interview. That already happened weeks ago. This was a hearing for the express purposes of investigating accusations of sexual assault. I’ve never heard of a “job interview” where they bring people in to publicly accuse you of rape and being a drunk on national television.

Clearly you have never been interviewed by investigators researching candidates for federal government positions.

For those generic GS jobs there are a whole host of questions about sexual misconduct and sexual conduct. The purpose is to see and evaluate if prior behavior can be used against the candidate for the purposes of blackmail. I think these are Guidelines D, E, and J. It is really cringe worthy stuff. The questions are far more explicit than what we heard in the hearing. Integrity standards for federal positions are a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be real. If he admitted to anything, gave an inch at all, he would have been insta-Borked by the Democrats. Politics have become too polarized for any sort of reflective nuance.

Compare how men who have apologized have been treated to men who dug in and admitted nothing. The former have mostly been ostracized, while the latter is the current president of the United States.

Trump is Teflon because he is an entertainer. Bush (W) admitted his character flaws as a young man and was elected. So have others.

Kavanaugh actually bothers me because his fundamental character is in question. It seems he would do or say anything at this point to become a Supreme Court Justice which is precisely why he doesn’t have the character to hold the job.

Who is he? Why is he putting on different personalities that are politically expedient? Can’t he just admit he was a jerk in highschool?

No. He can’t. If he did, he would be rejected.