Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post a copy of the Rachel Mitchell memo that was released last night?

You can read it at this link.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/evidence-doesn-t-support-claims-against-kavanaugh-judiciary-committee-prosecutor-n915236

No prosecutor would actually write or release this report. And it has holes itself in that it is not complete with respect to Kavanaugh. The goal of these hearings are suitability for a supreme court seat, not to prosecute anyone. It isn't that hard to understand.

It is easy to understand. She wrote a report about suitability for prosecution, not suitability for scotus.

[Anonymous]

I referred to this article on the previous thread. It’s illuminating - all of the assertions Kavanaugh presented in his testimony dissected. And what does it reveal? It reveals his obfuscation and in several cases, lies.

Of course, Kavanaugh defenders are willing to ignore this but it should trouble all of us. We deserve a SCJ who is not just unbiased (Kavanaugh showed he is anything but) but who stands for the truth.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the Mitchell memo. No one is asking for charges to be brought. No one is contending that she met the reasonable doubt standard.

The report just makes me more sympathetic to Ford. She is being criticized and torn apart and now a prosecutor has torn through and prepared a report for nothing. And there is no report on Kavanaugh. And we all saw his performance and know where the inconsistencies are. Not to mention his conduct.

How bizarre.

She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility.

After the bright lights of the hearing have faded away people are questioning substance of Ford's story as not passing the common sense test:

In the alleged assault, Ford says in her oral testimony she went upstairs to use the bathroom and her assailants came up from “behind her” and pushed her into a bedroom where “there was music playing in the bedroom”. Who turned on the music? If the assailants came in from behind her, it would not have been the assailants who turned the music on. Who leaves music playing in a bedroom that is empty?

Ford says in her testimony that there was no music or TV playing in the first floor living room where the main gathering was taking place and where everybody was drinking beer. How many teenage summer parties have you been to where there is NO music playing (esp in the 80's)?

Yeah, the specific room where music was playing is the key to all of this. I’m sure of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ok prediction time: one week out, Brett Kavanaugh will or won’t be confirmed?

I take my cue from election betting odds. Now at 68% for confirmation.

68% is right about where Hillary’s odds were on the eve of the election.

I am anti-Kavanaugh and not hopeful. I think his confirmation is virtually guaranteed if nothing new drops. (Just more of the same, “I don’t recall...”)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted this near the end of thread 3. I’m curious what Kavanaugh supporters think, particularly of the last paragraph.

“I honestly don’t know who is telling the truth. I don’t believe her blindly, but I also don’t think she’s involved in some big conspiracy (even if one is happening around her.) And certainly some people screwed the pooch procedurally here.

All that said, his behavior on Thursday was absolutely horrific and completely unbecoming of a Supreme Court Justice. He is hot tempered and blatantly partisan. Yes, lots of people in the room were being partisan, but he was the only one trying to become a Supreme Court Justice.”

As I’ve said before, if he had been polite and answered the questions cordially and directly, this would all be over. He has humiliated himself and shown he can’t remain calm and impartial in tense situations.”

He was facing people who had called him “evil” and a “threat” and also publicly and proudly announced, “I believe her” before any testimony.
He is an innocent man who was vehemently defending his name, his reputation, his integrity, and his livelihood. This was not a “tense situation.” It was a lynching. It was disgusting.

If you wish to see how he handles himself in tense situations, consider his behavior and demeanor during his 12 years as an appellate judge. There were NO COMPLAINTS.

This is all I need to know.

It was a "lynching?" Obviously you have no idea what a lynching is. Brett has not been hung from a tree with a rope around his neck after being grabbed and beaten and in some cases stripped naked and mutilated. As far as I can tell his eyes are not bulging out of his head, his tongue is not swollen and hanging from his mouth. He is alive and breathing on this earth. What I really find disgusting or morally repugnant is comparing that hearing to a lynching.

Here is a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Thomas_Shipp_and_Abram_Smith to the a description and photo of the lynching of Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith that inspired the poem Bitter Fruit later renamed Strange Fruit and sung by Billie Holiday. Whatever you want to label Thursday's hearing, it was decidedly NOT a lynching and it is repugnant for you to suggest that it was.

"Strange Fruit"

Southern trees bear a strange fruit
Blood on the leaves and blood at the root
Black bodies swinging in the Southern breeze
Strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees

Pastoral scene of the gallant South
The bulging eyes and the twisted mouth
Scent of magnolias sweet and fresh
Then the sudden smell of burning flesh

Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck
For the sun to rot, for the tree to drop
Here is a strange and bitter crop

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I referred to this article on the previous thread. It’s illuminating - all of the assertions Kavanaugh presented in his testimony dissected. And what does it reveal? It reveals his obfuscation and in several cases, lies.

Of course, Kavanaugh defenders are willing to ignore this but it should trouble all of us. We deserve a SCJ who is not just unbiased (Kavanaugh showed he is anything but) but who stands for the truth.

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

Dissected? No. The guy who wrote this article was never a Kavanaugh supporter. He makes assumptions and presents an extremely biased argument based on his own opinions.
It’s sad that this is what passes for “journalism” these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the Mitchell memo. No one is asking for charges to be brought. No one is contending that she met the reasonable doubt standard.

The report just makes me more sympathetic to Ford. She is being criticized and torn apart and now a prosecutor has torn through and prepared a report for nothing. And there is no report on Kavanaugh. And we all saw his performance and know where the inconsistencies are. Not to mention his conduct.

How bizarre.

She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility.

After the bright lights of the hearing have faded away people are questioning substance of Ford's story as not passing the common sense test:

In the alleged assault, Ford says in her oral testimony she went upstairs to use the bathroom and her assailants came up from “behind her” and pushed her into a bedroom where “there was music playing in the bedroom”. Who turned on the music? If the assailants came in from behind her, it would not have been the assailants who turned the music on. Who leaves music playing in a bedroom that is empty?

Ford says in her testimony that there was no music or TV playing in the first floor living room where the main gathering was taking place and where everybody was drinking beer. How many teenage summer parties have you been to where there is NO music playing (esp in the 80's)?

It wasn’t a party. It was 6 people.

Good point. And Ford’s friend, Leland, has stated she does not know Kavanaugh. This, in itself, makes her claim questionable.
A gathering of 6 people. And, she doesn’t know Kavanaugh. It makes no sense.

Make a list of every gathering you went to as a teenager and include the name of every friend of a friend and acquaintance who was there. We’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I referred to this article on the previous thread. It’s illuminating - all of the assertions Kavanaugh presented in his testimony dissected. And what does it reveal? It reveals his obfuscation and in several cases, lies.

Of course, Kavanaugh defenders are willing to ignore this but it should trouble all of us. We deserve a SCJ who is not just unbiased (Kavanaugh showed he is anything but) but who stands for the truth.

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

Dissected? No. The guy who wrote this article was never a Kavanaugh supporter. He makes assumptions and presents an extremely biased argument based on his own opinions.
It’s sad that this is what passes for “journalism” these days.

The bias is in the mirror, hun. These are very common terms and conditions and it was clear to all but the most partisan that Kavanaugh was lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the Mitchell memo. No one is asking for charges to be brought. No one is contending that she met the reasonable doubt standard.

The report just makes me more sympathetic to Ford. She is being criticized and torn apart and now a prosecutor has torn through and prepared a report for nothing. And there is no report on Kavanaugh. And we all saw his performance and know where the inconsistencies are. Not to mention his conduct.

How bizarre.

She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility.

After the bright lights of the hearing have faded away people are questioning substance of Ford's story as not passing the common sense test:

In the alleged assault, Ford says in her oral testimony she went upstairs to use the bathroom and her assailants came up from “behind her” and pushed her into a bedroom where “there was music playing in the bedroom”. Who turned on the music? If the assailants came in from behind her, it would not have been the assailants who turned the music on. Who leaves music playing in a bedroom that is empty?

Ford says in her testimony that there was no music or TV playing in the first floor living room where the main gathering was taking place and where everybody was drinking beer. How many teenage summer parties have you been to where there is NO music playing (esp in the 80's)?

It wasn’t a party. It was 6 people.

Good point. And Ford’s friend, Leland, has stated she does not know Kavanaugh. This, in itself, makes her claim questionable.
A gathering of 6 people. And, she doesn’t know Kavanaugh. It makes no sense.

Well, from the pictures, I don't think he was that memorable. Yuck. I could not name all the people I met in high school or college, particularly if they went to other schools. We could have been at small get togethers and I would not remember I knew them now.
Do you remember EVERY SINGLE PERSON you have ever hung out with in a small group? I sure don't.

I was thinking the other day about this. I know there are many events I don't remember, but I do remember a small get together at a friend's apartment in college. I remember her and her roommate, and I was there with my roommate. There were guys there who were friends and who were neighbor's of my friend's, and I could not tell you their names or what they look like now. One of them told a story about how the swedish exchange students who live in the complex had stripped down to their undies and jumped in the pool the day before. I remember some guy's story about that, but I can't remember him at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

So you are literally attacking a rape victim by how she dresses and does her hair for something that is going to be televised all over the world? I usually wear jeans with paint on them, tshirts so faded you can't even read them, and only wear makeup when I have a meeting or a party (so maybe once a month) - if I were in this position I would not show to the senate judiciary hearing looking like I usually do.

Way to attack the victim there. Pat yourself on the back.

As Diane Feinstein should as well, she is the one who brought her out of the darkness against her wishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

So you are literally attacking a rape victim by how she dresses and does her hair for something that is going to be televised all over the world? I usually wear jeans with paint on them, tshirts so faded you can't even read them, and only wear makeup when I have a meeting or a party (so maybe once a month) - if I were in this position I would not show to the senate judiciary hearing looking like I usually do.

Way to attack the victim there. Pat yourself on the back.

She's not a rape victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

So you are literally attacking a rape victim by how she dresses and does her hair for something that is going to be televised all over the world? I usually wear jeans with paint on them, tshirts so faded you can't even read them, and only wear makeup when I have a meeting or a party (so maybe once a month) - if I were in this position I would not show to the senate judiciary hearing looking like I usually do.

Way to attack the victim there. Pat yourself on the back.

Why do you dress like that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

So you are literally attacking a rape victim by how she dresses and does her hair for something that is going to be televised all over the world? I usually wear jeans with paint on them, tshirts so faded you can't even read them, and only wear makeup when I have a meeting or a party (so maybe once a month) - if I were in this position I would not show to the senate judiciary hearing looking like I usually do.

Way to attack the victim there. Pat yourself on the back.

She's not a rape victim.

She was sexually assaulted and thought she was going to be killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

So you are literally attacking a rape victim by how she dresses and does her hair for something that is going to be televised all over the world? I usually wear jeans with paint on them, tshirts so faded you can't even read them, and only wear makeup when I have a meeting or a party (so maybe once a month) - if I were in this position I would not show to the senate judiciary hearing looking like I usually do.

Way to attack the victim there. Pat yourself on the back.

No I am not attacking the "alleged" victim. You don't get what I am saying. They had her dress and have her hair done in a certain way to make her look like disheveled, like someone who had just been attacked -- it was very intentional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

Ignore the Haters; you nailed this PP.

I’m really upset about the Georgetown Prep alumni who put out a call for alumni to betray their class even worse than Blasey Ford did. These guys, freshmen when Brett was a senior, now want Georgetown Prep people to snitch on Brett, “even if speaking out comes at some personal cost.”

Yeah. “at some personal cost.” Ya think, “Fikri” and “Barbot”? I’m supposed to jeopardize my clients’ leverage in the DC Circuit and even at the Supreme Court, bearing “personal cost”. I’m supposed to make myself a social pariah to support this woman.

Look, if you guys got stuffed in a locker, I’m sorry. Maybe you’re not worried about your job as “Research Analyst II”, or your work between punk rock gigs

But that’s no reason to turn on your fellow Little Hoya. You got your 15 minutes. But you’re not worthy of shaking Brett’s hand. So focus on your own problems.