Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post EDITORIAL BOARD - which is CONSERVATIVE and has not opposed a Supreme Court nominee since Bork (PRO Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, etc.) - comes out AGAINST JUSTICE BRETT https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/23495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.ee08885fa601

Conservative? What planet do you live on?

+1 Ha ha ha!!!

OP is correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt

Um, no. #1:He is the editorial page editor, not the entirety of the editorial board, and NOT conservative. #2: Name one Republican they’ve endorsed for a high office recently.

Um like OP said, they have endorsed every SCOTUS nominee after Bork, including Alito, Clarence Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch. That's.Not.Liberal.

Please share a link to just one WAPO editorial board opinion piece that you view as conservative. I'd love to read it.

Cuomo getting roasted on CNN right now

DP. The editorial board is pretty conservative. In the old-fashioned sense of the word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catching up on the day just now. So it's a given that he's going to be confirmed? Reading the last page it seems like folks are resigned to the outcome

It was a given during that Roman circus of a hearing—the original one where Kamala came off as a blabbering idiot and Cory booker had his spongebob squarepants moment. All the heat lightning since then has just illuminated how crazed for power the left is. And it’s probably set back sexual assault victim advocacy by about 70 years.

Seriously, a 36 year old sexual assault allegation from a high school party? Ridiculous. Shame on Dianne Feinstein for letting the anarchists in her party drag that enfeebled misrememberer in front of a senate committee. Something happened to her perhaps, but it wasn’t Justice Kavanaugh.

Nope, it certainly wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post EDITORIAL BOARD - which is CONSERVATIVE and has not opposed a Supreme Court nominee since Bork (PRO Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, etc.) - comes out AGAINST JUSTICE BRETT https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/23495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.ee08885fa601

Conservative? What planet do you live on?

+1 Ha ha ha!!!

OP is correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt

Um, no. #1:He is the editorial page editor, not the entirety of the editorial board, and NOT conservative. #2: Name one Republican they’ve endorsed for a high office recently.

Um like OP said, they have endorsed every SCOTUS nominee after Bork, including Alito, Clarence Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch. That's.Not.Liberal.

Please share a link to just one WAPO editorial board opinion piece that you view as conservative. I'd love to read it.

DP. The editorial board is pretty conservative. In the old-fashioned sense of the word.

Cuomo getting roasted on CNN right now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catching up on the day just now. So it's a given that he's going to be confirmed? Reading the last page it seems like folks are resigned to the outcome

It was a given during that Roman circus of a hearing—the original one where Kamala came off as a blabbering idiot and Cory booker had his spongebob squarepants moment. All the heat lightning since then has just illuminated how crazed for power the left is. And it’s probably set back sexual assault victim advocacy by about 70 years.

Seriously, a 36 year old sexual assault allegation from a high school party? Ridiculous. Shame on Dianne Feinstein for letting the anarchists in her party drag that enfeebled misrememberer in front of a senate committee. Something happened to her perhaps, but it wasn’t Justice Kavanaugh.

You’re a few hundred pages behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rape in private, boys, and you'll be just fine.

Even though the number of false accusations by women is microscopic compared to the number of sexual assaults committed by men, Kavanaugh enthusiasts are exclusively focused on the very small problem and give no indication of giving a shit about the very big problem.

Look at the number of posts we've seen that claim there is "no corroboration." And, let's be clear, they don't say "Ford's claim has not been corroborated to my satisfaction." They are emphatic that it's *no* corroboration.

"The testimony of a witness is said to be corroborated when it is shown to correspond with the representation of some other witnesses, or to comport with some facts otherwise known or established."

Corroborating evidence includes:
- Ford’s description of Kavanaugh’s drinking buddies,

- Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry that describes his plans to go to “Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie and … Squi,”

-Mark Judge’s memoir outlining his and “Bart O’Kavanaugh’s” drinking habits,

-Kavanaugh’s Beach Week letter discussing “prolific pukers.” There is a slew of other evidence corroborating Ford’s claims. (Seth Abramson wrote a detailed Twitter thread about all the corroborating evidence; it is worth reading.)

-The fact that Brett’s claims that he was a virgin who never drank to excess are belied by his own statements about how much he likes beer, and the statements of his high school and college pals that he was frequently drunk and bragged about his sexual prowess. Evidence that lessens Kavanaugh’s credibility and enhances Ford’s credibility is corroborating evidence.

There is corroboration. Repeatedly and falsely claiming that there is none (rather than arguing that the corroboration is insufficiently convincing) will serve to discourage any woman who doesn't get raped or sexually harassed in front of witnesses who are friendly to her.

Sigh. Beautifully written, but nobody wants to dispassionate examen the facts we have. We have become a nation where we don't even know how to look for the truth.

+1
The people claiming there’s no proof are being willfully blind and it’s incredibly frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It is NOT on his calendar. The July 1 party at Timmy’s was in Rockville—11 miles from CCC. This has been established. Her boyfriend at the time was also there. How does that fly??

Well, according to you crazies , he was the rapist.

Was at Timmy's grandmothers house that was empty...3333 Tenneyson Street, NW, about a mile from the club.

That was Mark Judge’s grandmother’s house. 1 mile from Columbia, older colonial that definitely could have had the narrow staircase, bathroom bedroom at top of stairs.

But the calendar says Timmy's.....

I know. Doesn’t mean they didn’t sneak into grandma’s house for further ski’s a different night. July 7, Columbia. We’ll never know bc Trump didn’t let the FBI investigate this stuff.

+1. I swear, you can tell who had absolutely no life in high school. OMG, you mean there might have been an impromptu get-together? Or that plans for an evening might have changed?

*pearls clutched*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everything you need to know about Brett Kavanaugh in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsuutbTgeuM

You all probably know this is him rebuffing a Parkland parent's efforts to shake his hand. The way he does it shows what type of person he is - great with people in his circle or people he needs in his circle, and the rest can FOAD.

That's why he can treat Dem senators the way he did.
Why he can go after outskirts girls the way he did.
Why he can get be a mean drunk but a kind friend.
& Etc.

Justice Kavanaugh will be a protector of His Kind, and those who happen to benefit from same.
Woe to the rest of us.
Would rather have nine Thomases.

I was just thinking this. First we have a POTUS who makes Bush II look good. Now we have a SJC who makes Thomas look like a Women’s Right’s Activist. Jeez.

[Anonymous]

This is the part where he shows up with flowers and swears he’ll never do it again.

Again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shit men get away with. If I lost my cool during a job interview and then crawled back invoking my position as mom, daughter, wife...forget it.

I actually had a critical job interview once while my child was fighting for his life in the ICU. I cried in the bathroom before and after, away from view, as women have been trained to do for centuries. Suck it up, Brett.

Has anyone ever accused you of being a gang rapist at a job interview?

You must be missing 99% of your neurons. Your child in critical condition in the ICU is may more stressful than any sexual assault allegation.

To first PP, I hope your child recovered as painlessly as possible and that you got the job. I feel for you!

Me, too. “Gang rapist” PP is worthless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny, the part of the testimony Kavanaugh is apologizing (but not apologizing) for were his prepared remarks. I mean, I guess he thinks we are that stupid?

Can you imagine a woman saying, in the context of a contentious Senate hearing, “I am sorry I got emotional and lost my temper and said things I shouldn’t have. I was thinking about my children, my husband, and my parents”?

Also, his editorial doesn’t say he didn’t mean what he said. Just that he shouldn’t have said what he did. Most of the most partisan and outrageous conspiracy theorizing was in his prepared remarks!

Has anyone ever accused you of leading a rape gang at a job interview? Have actions of an interviewer ever caused a national uproar that resulted in death and rape threats against your children and spouse? No? Then STFU.

If you say it one more time does Candyman appear?

No, I think it’s Bloody Mary in this case.

But for Bloody Mary you only have to say it three times, Candyman is five. We have to be up to at least four by now.

[Anonymous]

Gardner has officially moved from a Yes to an undecided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything you need to know about Brett Kavanaugh in this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsuutbTgeuM

You all probably know this is him rebuffing a Parkland parent's efforts to shake his hand. The way he does it shows what type of person he is - great with people in his circle or people he needs in his circle, and the rest can FOAD.

That's why he can treat Dem senators the way he did.
Why he can go after outskirts girls the way he did.
Why he can get be a mean drunk but a kind friend.
& Etc.

Justice Kavanaugh will be a protector of His Kind, and those who happen to benefit from same.
Woe to the rest of us.
Would rather have nine Thomases.

I was just thinking this. First we have a POTUS who makes Bush II look good. Now we have a SJC who makes Thomas look like a Women’s Right’s Activist. Jeez.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gardner has officially moved from a Yes to an undecided.

yay!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catching up on the day just now. So it's a given that he's going to be confirmed? Reading the last page it seems like folks are resigned to the outcome

It was a given during that Roman circus of a hearing—the original one where Kamala came off as a blabbering idiot and Cory booker had his spongebob squarepants moment. All the heat lightning since then has just illuminated how crazed for power the left is. And it’s probably set back sexual assault victim advocacy by about 70 years.

They didn't have the votes then. They don't have them now.

Partially correct. They didn’t have them then. They do now, especially after the fbi —was that Justice Kavanaughs seventh FBI investigation—turned up the same thing his first six did.
Nada.
Zip.
Zilch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catching up on the day just now. So it's a given that he's going to be confirmed? Reading the last page it seems like folks are resigned to the outcome

It was a given during that Roman circus of a hearing—the original one where Kamala came off as a blabbering idiot and Cory booker had his spongebob squarepants moment. All the heat lightning since then has just illuminated how crazed for power the left is. And it’s probably set back sexual assault victim advocacy by about 70 years.

Seriously, a 36 year old sexual assault allegation from a high school party? Ridiculous. Shame on Dianne Feinstein for letting the anarchists in her party drag that enfeebled misrememberer in front of a senate committee. Something happened to her perhaps, but it wasn’t Justice Kavanaugh.

He lied about Renate. He's an asshole.