Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's take a step back here. What a sickening display going on here. What an embarrassment for our country. The Supreme Court will never be the same again. Neither will Congress and it's integrity. And, after our President's press conference yesterday, it is clear Trump is setting the tone that has fueled the discourse. As an American I'm wholly mortified by our political system today. People, the world is watching us and I'm thinking they are not "laughing with us" but laughing at us. Seriously, I'm afraid for all of us.

Conservative here and I agree with much of this. For the sanctity of the SC it’s prob best to just find someone else at this point. If the allegations are true then it’s unacceptable. If they are false and he gets confirmed it’s just a huge cloud hanging over the court. Doesn’t seem worth it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I’m agreeing with Megyn Kelly. That’s a first.

What is she saying?

She basically said she believes CBF. That she’d have to be a hell of an actress.

Right. Do you know how hard it would be to tell a fake story, over and over, and have these questions asked, over and over, that are designed to trip you up? She'd have to be some evil genius.

It’s not that hard. This is not a very complex story at all. You guys don’t know enough liars.

But WHY? There is no plausible reason why.

I believe she has been traumatized by something. Do you know mentally ill people? She says she didn’t want attention but she seems to be enjoying herself to me. I don’t know what dysfunction was in her family. People latch on to and project all sorts of memories onto people. The fact that she’s a professional person with a lot of education says nothing about her mental stability.

You questioning her mental stability with no evidence is pathetic, does not reflect well on you or your "side" and is pulled right out of your ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I’m agreeing with Megyn Kelly. That’s a first.

What is she saying?

She basically said she believes CBF. That she’d have to be a hell of an actress.

Right. Do you know how hard it would be to tell a fake story, over and over, and have these questions asked, over and over, that are designed to trip you up? She'd have to be some evil genius.

It’s not that hard. This is not a very complex story at all. You guys don’t know enough liars.

This is not regular life lying. This is lying that's being picked apart by a prosecutor. If you can't recognize that, you're insane.

Lying is lying, my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I’m agreeing with Megyn Kelly. That’s a first.

What is she saying?

She basically said she believes CBF. That she’d have to be a hell of an actress.

Right. Do you know how hard it would be to tell a fake story, over and over, and have these questions asked, over and over, that are designed to trip you up? She'd have to be some evil genius.

Not to mention she nuked her own life. Why would she do that with a made up story??

Her parents nor other family members have been supporting her. That is very telling. I would say she's been nuking her own life for years. I don't think she's mentally well.

Perhaps consider that she didn't feel comfortable telling her parents what happened to her at that party 30+ years ago. Ask yourself if that sounds like a loving and supportive family.

[Anonymous]

Her testimony is STILL her word. There is no one backing it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I’m agreeing with Megyn Kelly. That’s a first.

What is she saying?

She basically said she believes CBF. That she’d have to be a hell of an actress.

Right. Do you know how hard it would be to tell a fake story, over and over, and have these questions asked, over and over, that are designed to trip you up? She'd have to be some evil genius.

It’s not that hard. This is not a very complex story at all. You guys don’t know enough liars.

But WHY? There is no plausible reason why.

I believe she has been traumatized by something. Do you know mentally ill people? She says she didn’t want attention but she seems to be enjoying herself to me. I don’t know what dysfunction was in her family. People latch on to and project all sorts of memories onto people. The fact that she’s a professional person with a lot of education says nothing about her mental stability.

You questioning her mental stability with no evidence is pathetic, does not reflect well on you or your "side" and is pulled right out of your ass.

Okay, whatever. You believe her with no evidence so I guess we’re even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said hello to her attacker? Not "Mom, that boy sexually assaulted me"?

She did not want her parents to know what happened. She would have been in a world of trouble for drinking with boys in a house with no adults present. She wanted to pretend that it never happened. She detailed all of this

So she greets him? I'm sorry but I would not say "hello how are you to my attacker"

She was a kid, she didn’t want anyone to know what happened, and she had a long road ahead of being in the same social circle as those boys. She wanted to move forward as if nothing had happened, so saying hi really is not that odd.

I'm sorry but that is total BS.

WHY?! Women stay with physically abusive men EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. They live with them, sleep with them, raise children with them. But she can't say hi to her attacker to avoid the shame and scrutiny of questions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I’m agreeing with Megyn Kelly. That’s a first.

What is she saying?

She basically said she believes CBF. That she’d have to be a hell of an actress.

Right. Do you know how hard it would be to tell a fake story, over and over, and have these questions asked, over and over, that are designed to trip you up? She'd have to be some evil genius.

Not to mention she nuked her own life. Why would she do that with a made up story??

Her parents nor other family members have been supporting her. That is very telling. I would say she's been nuking her own life for years. I don't think she's mentally well.

Perhaps consider that she didn't feel comfortable telling her parents what happened to her at that party 30+ years ago. Ask yourself if that sounds like a loving and supportive family.

Then go to someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow. I’m agreeing with Megyn Kelly. That’s a first.

What is she saying?

She basically said she believes CBF. That she’d have to be a hell of an actress.

Right. Do you know how hard it would be to tell a fake story, over and over, and have these questions asked, over and over, that are designed to trip you up? She'd have to be some evil genius.

It’s not that hard. This is not a very complex story at all. You guys don’t know enough liars.

Firstly, maybe you need to get with a more honest social group. Secondly, it is a complex story in the details when getting retold over and over. She could no doubt tell it backward. You know why? An extremely high likelihood that it happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her testimony is STILL her word. There is no one backing it up.

Gee, maybe we should have a FBI INVESTIGATION!!!

The only one scared of that is Kavanaugh

[Anonymous]

Her recall of the laughing (Kav and Judge) makes her story sound very credible. Hearing individuals laugh while committing an assault could only have intensified the fear and humiliation that she must have felt. I find it highly implausible that one would just make up a detail like that. It was almost more shocking than the other details that she shared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her testimony is STILL her word. There is no one backing it up.

Because the Republicans didn't want any other witnesses including Mark Judge who has been named in more than one accusation.

[Anonymous]

How do we know her family doesn’t support her? I haven’t seen anything like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said hello to her attacker? Not "Mom, that boy sexually assaulted me"?

She did not want her parents to know what happened. She would have been in a world of trouble for drinking with boys in a house with no adults present. She wanted to pretend that it never happened. She detailed all of this

So she greets him? I'm sorry but I would not say "hello how are you to my attacker"

I did. For two long years.

I did too--in group settings for 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Can't read these 43 pages but can somebody explain why, on one side, we have the traditional senators asking predictable questions and on the other side, we have a prosecutor building a case?

Has this been done before?

Doesn't it seem...lopsided? Wrong, out of order, or something?