"Justice" a new documentary on Kavanaugh

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.

Crime? Be serious. A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime. The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS. SCOTUS should have better.

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude. I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.

MOST people, appointees or otherwise, DO NOT get random accusations.

Most committees don't pay attention to random accusations. Unless, they are Feinstein, Whitehouse, etc.

Ford's accusations were orchestrated from the very beginning. With the help of her "beach" friend.
Just look at Whitehouse and what he "found."

Are we really going to let these types of accusations with no foundation stand?

You realize you are saying that a woman who was assaulted saying under oath that she was assaulted has "no foundation" for telling what happened to her. So if there isn't video or a witness you are willing to believe, then it didn't happen?

Sure, if it happened to her. There is no evidence that it did--except for what she said. People were interviewed and no one she said was present remembered. Only one person came forward and said she heard about it at --except sch She couool was not in session and she later admitted to lying.
She couldn't remember how she got home. She couldn't remember where it was. The stairs changed from 'short" to "narrow" or vice versa.

NO one corroborated her story. She said she knew nothing about lie detector tests--yet a former boyfriend said she had coached the "beach friend" when she took one for the FBI.
The timeline didn't fit, either.

And, please do not forget--she said there were four then two. And, while a threat of assault is scary--she never said she was raped.

The story was rolled out by Feinstein's staff very slowly. They had the story months before and waited until they were ready to vote to bring it forward. It was orche4strated. Period.

It happened. Period.

Agree. It happened, and she told people about it, years and years before Trump, years and years before Kavanaugh was nominated.

She said it shortly after news articles came out about Kavanaugh being on a Romney shortlist.
Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist.

Also, who believed CBF when she stated that she was unaware that the Judiciary committee would have met with her in private? That she was afraid to fly? That she had a second door installed on her house because she was so traumatized by BK? That all seems pretty out there to me. Couple that with the Feinstein sitting on the allegations all through the hearings, the women harassing Leland Keyser to change her story (or they would out her as a drug addict), the crazy and clearly BS stories of gang rapes and drugs asserted by (no convicted felon) Michael Avenatti, demonstrates a concerted effort to take out BK.

You left out the "discovery" that Sheldon Whitehouse made about an assault on a sailboat that turned out to be bogus.

+1
Sheldon Whitehouse and his asinine "Investigation by High School Yearbook" should have been enough to dismiss this nonsense. He made such a fool of himself, along with his fellow Democrats.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.

Crime? Be serious. A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime. The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS. SCOTUS should have better.

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude. I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.

MOST people, appointees or otherwise, DO NOT get random accusations.

Most committees don't pay attention to random accusations. Unless, they are Feinstein, Whitehouse, etc.

Ford's accusations were orchestrated from the very beginning. With the help of her "beach" friend.
Just look at Whitehouse and what he "found."

Are we really going to let these types of accusations with no foundation stand?

You realize you are saying that a woman who was assaulted saying under oath that she was assaulted has "no foundation" for telling what happened to her. So if there isn't video or a witness you are willing to believe, then it didn't happen?

That’s pretty much the playbook of Republicans. I mean you can see from their forced birther politics that they truly don’t consider women to be people, they’re property, and as such, whatever a guy wants to do to a girl is acceptable and irreproachable. Either it didn’t happen or it’s her fault/she should have stopped it/what was she wearing or she wanted it but now she feels guilty so she’s lying about it.

The thing is that Bretty’s cheering squad wants to put this alleged incident over there on its own pedestal, stripped of the context within with the GOP treats women, women’s bodies and sexual assault. They think we won’t notice that they treat every alleged victim at least this badly, if not worse, especially those women who are brave enough to try and get the law involved to stop a rapist.

Those among the Bretty cheering squad who have experienced sexual assault, both male and female, know full well the truth of what she’s saying. They just don’t like it, they don’t like admitting that what happened to them was not their fault, but they are tribal and they are going to double down. There’s a discomfort for these people, an uncomfortable emotional friction and I wish they’d sit with that and go where it leads them. Because Brett showed himself, an angry, small man who has shown no emotional growth since the alleged incident as a teen and not since his years obsessed with the Clintons’ sex life and not since he helped install W. He is unfit.

This is what I mean by the entire purpose of this was to make this about the entire party and future elections and not just this one instance. I noticed the person who was on the licensing board who responded and was called out had nothing to actually say about their own licensing and how they would treat an accusation like this. Can you imagine every doctor having to hear about some random person who didn't go through court having someone just show up and talk about something that happened to you 30 years ago with no proof and no criminality attached to it and completely unrelated to your job as a heart surgeon or something?

What if it was that "Bretty" stole $10k in stuff from the family and they had no record of this but it was just words? What if it was that they tried to poison someone way back when 30 years ago? What difference does it make? If criminally you cannot go back that far, then it doesn't matter at the supreme court level. It was a political stunt and nothing more.

Christine Blasey Ford’s sole reason for coming forward to keep an unfit man off the highest bench. You’ve clearly spent too much time in the right wing dumb-o-sphere where conspiracy = fact, but your weird leaps in logic don’t wash here.

There is nothing a licensing or appointing board can do other than hear accusational information out and make a decision with that information if the person isn't willing to go through the court system for their infringement of rights. There is nothing factual about her testimony other than her opinion. It was just a smear campaign.

Nothing factual about this post. She was very credible.

DP. Sorry, what? The above post is completely factual. Her testimony was merely her opinion, nothing more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uggggg. How are we stuck with this guy that would abuse a teen girl on SCOTUS?

We aren't.
There was no abuse of any girl or woman by any member of SCOTUS.

Many of us out here know better. His rulings are an insult to our daughters. Can't wait til he is gone.

This is it right here. If you are a liberal you can do whatever you want to women and other liberals won't care. It is why feminists invented a 'one free grope' rule when Kathleen Willey talked about what Clinton did to her.

It’s usual for people’s posts to actually respond to what they’re quoting. The PP says nothing whatsoever what you wrote.

'His rulings are an insult to our daughters.' Implication is if his rulings were different, then there is no abuse.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist. She told her therapist four boys, all in high society. Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think. Also she had the year wrong. Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.

This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative. They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall. Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court. If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.

Crime? Be serious. A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime. The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS. SCOTUS should have better.

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude. I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.

MOST people, appointees or otherwise, DO NOT get random accusations.

Most committees don't pay attention to random accusations. Unless, they are Feinstein, Whitehouse, etc.

Ford's accusations were orchestrated from the very beginning. With the help of her "beach" friend.
Just look at Whitehouse and what he "found."

Are we really going to let these types of accusations with no foundation stand?

You realize you are saying that a woman who was assaulted saying under oath that she was assaulted has "no foundation" for telling what happened to her. So if there isn't video or a witness you are willing to believe, then it didn't happen?

Sure, if it happened to her. There is no evidence that it did--except for what she said. People were interviewed and no one she said was present remembered. Only one person came forward and said she heard about it at --except sch She couool was not in session and she later admitted to lying.
She couldn't remember how she got home. She couldn't remember where it was. The stairs changed from 'short" to "narrow" or vice versa.

NO one corroborated her story. She said she knew nothing about lie detector tests--yet a former boyfriend said she had coached the "beach friend" when she took one for the FBI.
The timeline didn't fit, either.

And, please do not forget--she said there were four then two. And, while a threat of assault is scary--she never said she was raped.

The story was rolled out by Feinstein's staff very slowly. They had the story months before and waited until they were ready to vote to bring it forward. It was orche4strated. Period.

It happened. Period.

Agree. It happened, and she told people about it, years and years before Trump, years and years before Kavanaugh was nominated.

She said it shortly after news articles came out about Kavanaugh being on a Romney shortlist.
Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist.

Nope, she talked about it to multiple people for example all the way back in 2013, which was YEARS before Kavanaugh was nominated (2019) and named Kavanaugh by name.

That alone shoots the bullshit narrative that she just made some BS up to keep Kavanaugh off of SCOTUS.

I remember it being 2012, which would make it in anticipation of a Romney nomination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirmation hearings. If proved that he lied during these hearings, then he can be impeached. Fat chance, I know but it will be a lot more than a ripple.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-documentary-sundance-1235495305/amp/

And, if Ford lied can she be prosecuted? Because I believe that is much more likely.

Ford clearly lied. I watched her testimony and she showed all signs of lying.

Are you a forensic psychiatrist? If so I’d love to hear more. If not then you are a fool for posting this.

Cute.

No, I'm not a "forensic psychiatrist" but someone trained in a much more relevant discipline.

Ford was clearly lying. She was making things up about her lie-detector test -- it was obvious.

+1

She looked insane and hysterical while testifying. Supposedly she is doctor? No way in hell she is a real doctor. It's unbelievable that some people who claim to be critical thinkers believed her. I've come to the conclusion that anyone who is ideological is incapable of being objective.

Can we get back to the point: was Brett Kavanaugh really a virgin until he was 26+?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirmation hearings. If proved that he lied during these hearings, then he can be impeached. Fat chance, I know but it will be a lot more than a ripple.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-documentary-sundance-1235495305/amp/

And, if Ford lied can she be prosecuted? Because I believe that is much more likely.

Ford clearly lied. I watched her testimony and she showed all signs of lying.

Are you a forensic psychiatrist? If so I’d love to hear more. If not then you are a fool for posting this.

Cute.

No, I'm not a "forensic psychiatrist" but someone trained in a much more relevant discipline.

Ford was clearly lying. She was making things up about her lie-detector test -- it was obvious.

+1

She looked insane and hysterical while testifying. Supposedly she is doctor? No way in hell she is a real doctor. It's unbelievable that some people who claim to be critical thinkers believed her. I've come to the conclusion that anyone who is ideological is incapable of being objective.

Pure as the driven snow until 26.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Confirmation hearings. If proved that he lied during these hearings, then he can be impeached. Fat chance, I know but it will be a lot more than a ripple.

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-documentary-sundance-1235495305/amp/

And, if Ford lied can she be prosecuted? Because I believe that is much more likely.

Ford clearly lied. I watched her testimony and she showed all signs of lying.

Are you a forensic psychiatrist? If so I’d love to hear more. If not then you are a fool for posting this.

Cute.

No, I'm not a "forensic psychiatrist" but someone trained in a much more relevant discipline.

Ford was clearly lying. She was making things up about her lie-detector test -- it was obvious.

+1

She looked insane and hysterical while testifying. Supposedly she is doctor? No way in hell she is a real doctor. It's unbelievable that some people who claim to be critical thinkers believed her. I've come to the conclusion that anyone who is ideological is incapable of being objective.

Can we get back to the point: was Brett Kavanaugh really a virgin until he was 26+?

I enjoy ragging on him as much as the next person, and I assume this is one of the lies he told but about this I do not care. I care that he was credibly accused of multiple sexual assaults, that his wasn’t investigated and that he is likely to be as corrupt as, though in a different way than, Clarence Thomas.

[Anonymous]

Is the documentary streaming anywhere?

[Anonymous]

I enjoy ragging on him as much as the next person, and I assume this is one of the lies he told but about this I do not care. I care that he was credibly accused of multiple sexual assaults, that his wasn’t investigated and that he is likely to be as corrupt as, though in a different way than, Clarence Thomas.

No. None brought forward were credible. Which one do you think was credible?

[Anonymous]

Pulling out his wang at Yale though not clear he assaulted anyone there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I enjoy ragging on him as much as the next person, and I assume this is one of the lies he told but about this I do not care. I care that he was credibly accused of multiple sexual assaults, that his wasn’t investigated and that he is likely to be as corrupt as, though in a different way than, Clarence Thomas.

No. None brought forward were credible. Which one do you think was credible?

How do we know they weren't credible? There was barely even any meaningful investigation into any of it.
It's not particularly compelling or credible to say they weren't credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I enjoy ragging on him as much as the next person, and I assume this is one of the lies he told but about this I do not care. I care that he was credibly accused of multiple sexual assaults, that his wasn’t investigated and that he is likely to be as corrupt as, though in a different way than, Clarence Thomas.

No. None brought forward were credible. Which one do you think was credible?

How do we know they weren't credible? There was barely even any meaningful investigation into any of it.
It's not particularly compelling or credible to say they weren't credible.

There was plenty of investigation.

The Yale thing was denied by others present at the party.
The sailboat thing was quickly debunked. Remember, Whitehouse brought that forward.
the Ford thing was investigated ad infinitum. Nothing she said was corroborated. She lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pulling out his wang at Yale though not clear he assaulted anyone there.

RAINN calls sexual assault “sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim.” And flashing/exposing ones genitals is considered sexual assault. In 5-10% of cases, the sexual assaulter escalates the behavior. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/07/indecent-exposure-flashing-sarah-everard-police-response (This article is worthwhile for the “why didn’t she report it immediately to the police!!?” crowd for the examples within of police officers ignoring sexual assault.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I enjoy ragging on him as much as the next person, and I assume this is one of the lies he told but about this I do not care. I care that he was credibly accused of multiple sexual assaults, that his wasn’t investigated and that he is likely to be as corrupt as, though in a different way than, Clarence Thomas.

No. None brought forward were credible. Which one do you think was credible?

How do we know they weren't credible? There was barely even any meaningful investigation into any of it.
It's not particularly compelling or credible to say they weren't credible.

There was plenty of investigation.

The Yale thing was denied by others present at the party.
The sailboat thing was quickly debunked. Remember, Whitehouse brought that forward.
the Ford thing was investigated ad infinitum. Nothing she said was corroborated. She lied.

Ford told multiple people about the incident many many years prior to Kavanaugh's nomination. Sorry but that isn't going away. Your repeated narrative that it was a lie manufactured to sabotage Kavanaugh's bid to get on SCOTUS is a complete fail for that fact alone. You aren't convincing me, nor are you convincing many other posters here. You are just wasting your time.

[Anonymous]

Kavanaugh is a proven liar. When he was asked about Roe, he said it had the weight of stare decisis, having precedent upon precedent.

Then he threw stare decisis and precedent upon precedent right out the window.

Pay no attention to the Kavanaugh fanboi here, they are only trying to gaslight and mislead.

Kavanaugh does not belong on the Supreme Court.