Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread has gotten ridiculous. Absurd, really.
I seriously worry about the future of this country when it comes to due process and the understanding of “facts” vs. “opinion” and “allegations.”
I just hope that most of you posting here are not attorneys.

Due process is a legal term. It has nothing to do with a hiring decision.

This is not just a “hiring decision.” That occurred over a week ago during the hearings. We are now in a phase that is more like a “trial,” thanks to Feinstein and the Dems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's why the people there won't corroborate it--legal jeopardy. They will be charged if they admit being there. Is that so hard to understand, Bannon?

So, this is your explanation? Ever think they won’t corroborate it because THEY WEREN’T THERE. IT DIDN’T HAPPEN?

They didn't say they weren't there. They said they didn't remember.

No, they said they had no recollection of the alleged party. And, the one girl present - the friend of Ford’s - said she doesn’t even know Kavanaugh.

LOL grasping at straws again--doesn't recollect vs doesn't remember is the saying the same thing. And so what if the other person says she doesn't know kavanaugh personally she doesn't need to KNOW him like that. And she doesn't say she was in the room during the attack, rather that she was AT THE PARTY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Going out on a limb like that and saying you were a virgin until your mid-20s is not only embarrassing to have to disclose to the entire country, but it would be a lie easily exposed. All it would take is one liberal Yale classmate (or GP) to come forward.

It's really, really weird of him to think that being or not being a virgin has anything to do with whether he assaulted women.

This! Do you really want a judge on the Supreme Court that says sexual assault has to be penetration!? What about a child who is fondled by an adult? I guess that’s not sexual assault then in his eyes Really this is a judge you want on our supreme court? He’s not qualified.

+1000

he has never said this.
But, go on with your lies. It’s what this site seems to thrive on.

He implied it. “I was an innocent virgin” therefore I couldn’t have sexually assaulted anyone.

No. He didn’t. You, again, are making $hit up. He said he was not guilty of any kind of sexual assault. He happened to add that he had not even had intercourse until well after college.

Sexual assault need not be intercourse. One could argue boofing the classmate at Yale was sexual assault, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One wonders if he is going down Clinton territory, finely parsing the meaning of "sex".

Yes. Exactly. And this is an old school, patriarchal, lawyerly way of looking at it. Which makes perfect sense for a Catholic grad. - fellow Catholic grad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Going out on a limb like that and saying you were a virgin until your mid-20s is not only embarrassing to have to disclose to the entire country, but it would be a lie easily exposed. All it would take is one liberal Yale classmate (or GP) to come forward.

It's really, really weird of him to think that being or not being a virgin has anything to do with whether he assaulted women.

This! Do you really want a judge on the Supreme Court that says sexual assault has to be penetration!? What about a child who is fondled by an adult? I guess that’s not sexual assault then in his eyes Really this is a judge you want on our supreme court? He’s not qualified.

+1000

he has never said this.
But, go on with your lies. It’s what this site seems to thrive on.

He implied it. “I was an innocent virgin” therefore I couldn’t have sexually assaulted anyone.

No. He didn’t. You, again, are making $hit up. He said he was not guilty of any kind of sexual assault. He happened to add that he had not even had intercourse until well after college.

And why do you think he threw in the little detail? He’s disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Pretty sure Congress is going to ask Trump to pull Kavanaugh. The alternative is that they try to confirm the guy and fail, or succeed and then face the possibility of accusers filling the next two months with evidence of how bad a choice that was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Granted I didn't watch the interview, but it's kinda shitty that he made her appear on national television, judging from people's observations here. It doesn't sound like she is a Kellyanne Conway type, who relishes media appearances.

This reminds me of the Good Wife. But, much, much worse.

I don't feel bad for her-- she had to know what she was marrying. But I do feel terrible for their daughters.

Meh. Not necessarily. Guys like Kavanaugh and his crew know how to be charming, articulate, and put on a good show - it's no doubt part of what was stressed at Georgetown Prep. They know how to keep their hijinks private and in their circle and they crush anyone who dares violate that code.

It's entirely possible, that Mrs. Kavanaugh really didn't know who she was marrying. No doubt Brett was a charming and dashing beau who seemed to be going places. He kept his past behavior private - as did everyone him. I do feel sorry for her and for their daughters.

+1. She met him long after high school and college. She probably had no idea about this side of him.

Let’s drop the misogyny that lies in blaming the wife and saying she should have known. She shouldn’t be a part of it. He shouldn’t be dragging her in front of cameras. It’s a way of invoking the “how dare you hurt my lovely family” defense. Nor should people be saying she knew and deserves any pain. Kids and wives should be left out of attacks.

You should know that there are many women who would want to be beside their husband to support him, given these terrible unsubstantiated accusations. You don't know that she was forced to be there.

+ 1 Also, the posters here who have already decided he's guilty would have had a field day if his wife did not show up.

She shows up: He forced her to show up.
She doesn't: See....she doesn't believe her own husband.

The guy has been tried, found guilty, and sentenced by you people - and we haven't even heard his accuser speak.

No, I want to hear his explanation under oath for the Renata alum. Even Renata, who signed the letter supporting him, now says the obvious insinuation is hurtful.
You can't reconcile the Renata alum entry in the yearbook with his teetotalling virgin to borrow a phrase from another poster.

Actually I can. The biggest braggers in high school (and college) were overcompensating for their lack of experience.

And if that's the explanation, I want to hear it from Kavanaugh.

This is getting a bit out there.

Have you never heard of locker room talk?

Personally I abhor it but to grill someone on braggadocio statements for an audience of his all male classmates that were made 35 years ago seems ridiculous.

Was listening to the live episode of 538 politics podcast earlier today. At the opening there was an exchange between two of the male hosts (Jody and Nate) that two of them were wearing the same shirt, one of the male hosts then quipped something to the effect that "for men it's okay", which of course generated a reaction, and someone followed up by saying "this is why we edit the show". The hosts then went on to discuss the day's topics, including Kavanaugh's nomination. So we are supposed to ignore this politically incorrect thing that they said, admit to having said other things that were edited out in past shows, yet we are supposed to judge Brett K. on what he wrote in a high school yearbook. The lack of self awareness was sad to observe, a group of people so intelligent yet so blinded by their bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Going out on a limb like that and saying you were a virgin until your mid-20s is not only embarrassing to have to disclose to the entire country, but it would be a lie easily exposed. All it would take is one liberal Yale classmate (or GP) to come forward.

It's really, really weird of him to think that being or not being a virgin has anything to do with whether he assaulted women.

This! Do you really want a judge on the Supreme Court that says sexual assault has to be penetration!? What about a child who is fondled by an adult? I guess that’s not sexual assault then in his eyes Really this is a judge you want on our supreme court? He’s not qualified.

+1000

he has never said this.
But, go on with your lies. It’s what this site seems to thrive on.

He implied it. “I was an innocent virgin” therefore I couldn’t have sexually assaulted anyone.

No. He didn’t. You, again, are making $hit up. He said he was not guilty of any kind of sexual assault. He happened to add that he had not even had intercourse until well after college.

Happened to add? The guy is a lawyer and a potential SCJ who went on national TV and you think a statement he made was just incidental? "HAPPENED TO ADD"????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Going out on a limb like that and saying you were a virgin until your mid-20s is not only embarrassing to have to disclose to the entire country, but it would be a lie easily exposed. All it would take is one liberal Yale classmate (or GP) to come forward.

It's really, really weird of him to think that being or not being a virgin has anything to do with whether he assaulted women.

This! Do you really want a judge on the Supreme Court that says sexual assault has to be penetration!? What about a child who is fondled by an adult? I guess that’s not sexual assault then in his eyes Really this is a judge you want on our supreme court? He’s not qualified.

+1000

he has never said this.
But, go on with your lies. It’s what this site seems to thrive on.

He implied it. “I was an innocent virgin” therefore I couldn’t have sexually assaulted anyone.

No. He didn’t. You, again, are making $hit up. He said he was not guilty of any kind of sexual assault. He happened to add that he had not even had intercourse until well after college.

And why do you think he threw in the little detail? He’s disgusting.

Perhaps if Dr. Ford would provide him with actual FACTS (as she knows them) and DETAILS, he could dispute those.
But, she hasn’t, so he can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread has gotten ridiculous. Absurd, really.
I seriously worry about the future of this country when it comes to due process and the understanding of “facts” vs. “opinion” and “allegations.”
I just hope that most of you posting here are not attorneys.

Due process? I am an attorney. I know who Garland is.

More importantly, I want a respected Supreme Court. The more Judge Kavanaugh drags this on, the worse it is. He should have honorably withdrawn his name a week ago.

So let's say I am running for a Republican position, and someone claims - aided by a liberal activist attorney - that I sexually assaulted him when I was in high school. I know I did not. I should withdraw based on a false accusation, designed to drive me to withdraw? I would dig my heels in more, lest liberals learn that the mere accusation of wrongdoing is enough to get rid of people with whose politics you disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From another Renate alum's page: Michael Walsh, another student at Georgetown Prep, also wrote "Renate Alumnus" on his yearbook page, the Times reports. He also included a short poem, "You need a date / and it's getting late / so don't hesitate / to call Renate."

So they are slut shaming this girl. Call a spade a spade.

Somehow that jingle strikes a nerve in me harder than the sexual assaults. Completely gratuitous cruelty.

Wait. I'm confused. So Kavanaugh didn't write the poem, but another boy did? This seems more a criticism of the culture at GP in general.

Maybe, but he was actively participating in that culture -- throwing the Renate Alumnius item in his yearbook biography. It just makes me really sad that they were talking about this poor girl that way. I can't say it's entirely rational. Objectively, pinning a woman down and covering her mouth while you grope her and shoving your dick in a drunk woman's face are both worse than this Renate thing. And yet the Renate taunting, even if done behind her back (perhaps moreso done behind her back) makes me angrier than hearing about the assaults.

Lots of peer pressure back in high school. Even if he had poor judgment and maturity as a teen, I don't think we should go back that far. People change. We are setting a dangerous precedent by examine obnoxious high school behavior in a nominee 40 years later.

(That's the teasing. If it is proven that he actually assaulted someone, that's different.)

Teasing? The word you are searching for is slut shaming.

If it's slut shaming you are after I am guessing that a lot of women who could be nominated for something who were in high school in the 80's wouldn't pass your litmus test. I am sure many would have classmates who could recall slut shaming remarks the nominee made against another girl. And fat shaming, and LGBT shaming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Going out on a limb like that and saying you were a virgin until your mid-20s is not only embarrassing to have to disclose to the entire country, but it would be a lie easily exposed. All it would take is one liberal Yale classmate (or GP) to come forward.

It's really, really weird of him to think that being or not being a virgin has anything to do with whether he assaulted women.

This! Do you really want a judge on the Supreme Court that says sexual assault has to be penetration!? What about a child who is fondled by an adult? I guess that’s not sexual assault then in his eyes Really this is a judge you want on our supreme court? He’s not qualified.

+1000

he has never said this.
But, go on with your lies. It’s what this site seems to thrive on.

He implied it. “I was an innocent virgin” therefore I couldn’t have sexually assaulted anyone.

No. He didn’t. You, again, are making $hit up. He said he was not guilty of any kind of sexual assault. He happened to add that he had not even had intercourse until well after college.

Happened to add? The guy is a lawyer and a potential SCJ who went on national TV and you think a statement he made was just incidental? "HAPPENED TO ADD"????

+1. The entire interview was heavily scripted to get out precise points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread has gotten ridiculous. Absurd, really.
I seriously worry about the future of this country when it comes to due process and the understanding of “facts” vs. “opinion” and “allegations.”
I just hope that most of you posting here are not attorneys.

Due process is a legal term. It has nothing to do with a hiring decision.

Well, due process doesn't have anything to do with this hiring decision, but it could in other contexts -- for example, in the context of a claim that a person wasn't hired because of race or because they'd made sexual harassment claims against a prior employer or something. If one of those claims was thrown out of court without a hearing, it might give rise to a due process claim.

But, yes, generally it refers to a right to life, liberty, or property. Kavanaugh isn't being deprived of any of those things -- even if the Senate rejects his nomination because he has a stupid haircut and looks like he ate paste as a kid. That's why Merrick Garland doesn't have a due process claim even though he never received a hearing or process of any sort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Granted I didn't watch the interview, but it's kinda shitty that he made her appear on national television, judging from people's observations here. It doesn't sound like she is a Kellyanne Conway type, who relishes media appearances.

This reminds me of the Good Wife. But, much, much worse.

I don't feel bad for her-- she had to know what she was marrying. But I do feel terrible for their daughters.

Meh. Not necessarily. Guys like Kavanaugh and his crew know how to be charming, articulate, and put on a good show - it's no doubt part of what was stressed at Georgetown Prep. They know how to keep their hijinks private and in their circle and they crush anyone who dares violate that code.

It's entirely possible, that Mrs. Kavanaugh really didn't know who she was marrying. No doubt Brett was a charming and dashing beau who seemed to be going places. He kept his past behavior private - as did everyone him. I do feel sorry for her and for their daughters.

+1. She met him long after high school and college. She probably had no idea about this side of him.

Let’s drop the misogyny that lies in blaming the wife and saying she should have known. She shouldn’t be a part of it. He shouldn’t be dragging her in front of cameras. It’s a way of invoking the “how dare you hurt my lovely family” defense. Nor should people be saying she knew and deserves any pain. Kids and wives should be left out of attacks.

You should know that there are many women who would want to be beside their husband to support him, given these terrible unsubstantiated accusations. You don't know that she was forced to be there.

+ 1 Also, the posters here who have already decided he's guilty would have had a field day if his wife did not show up.

She shows up: He forced her to show up.
She doesn't: See....she doesn't believe her own husband.

The guy has been tried, found guilty, and sentenced by you people - and we haven't even heard his accuser speak.

No, I want to hear his explanation under oath for the Renata alum. Even Renata, who signed the letter supporting him, now says the obvious insinuation is hurtful.
You can't reconcile the Renata alum entry in the yearbook with his teetotalling virgin to borrow a phrase from another poster.

Actually I can. The biggest braggers in high school (and college) were overcompensating for their lack of experience.

And if that's the explanation, I want to hear it from Kavanaugh.

This is getting a bit out there.

Have you never heard of locker room talk?

Personally I abhor it but to grill someone on braggadocio statements for an audience of his all male classmates that were made 35 years ago seems ridiculous.

Was listening to the live episode of 538 politics podcast earlier today. At the opening there was an exchange between two of the male hosts (Jody and Nate) that two of them were wearing the same shirt, one of the male hosts then quipped something to the effect that "for men it's okay", which of course generated a reaction, and someone followed up by saying "this is why we edit the show". The hosts then went on to discuss the day's topics, including Kavanaugh's nomination. So we are supposed to ignore this politically incorrect thing that they said, admit to having said other things that were edited out in past shows, yet we are supposed to judge Brett K. on what he wrote in a high school yearbook. The lack of self awareness was sad to observe, a group of people so intelligent yet so blinded by their bias.

When those guys run for SCJ let us know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread has gotten ridiculous. Absurd, really.
I seriously worry about the future of this country when it comes to due process and the understanding of “facts” vs. “opinion” and “allegations.”
I just hope that most of you posting here are not attorneys.

Due process is a legal term. It has nothing to do with a hiring decision.

This is not just a “hiring decision.” That occurred over a week ago during the hearings. We are now in a phase that is more like a “trial,” thanks to Feinstein and the Dems.

You are deeply confused about this process.