Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[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 He should have honorably withdrawn his name a week ago.

He is not the one dragging this on. He didn't ask for a delay in the hearings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He provided a blanket denial, air-tight without knowing the details. He has already denied it.

Something tells me Ford will provide additional details that were not in the letter to the Senate.

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]

He provided a blanket denial, air-tight without knowing the details. He has already denied it.

Something tells me Ford will provide additional details that were not in the letter to the Senate.

[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? 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.

Not that poster, but no. I would tell the truth from the beginning. I would acknowledge that I ran with a fast crowd, and that there were a lot of parties and in those days, underage drinking and carrying on, but that I never, ever touched someone against their will. Later I would probably have to clarify that I never exposed myself to anyone either. Instead of saying, "I was a 25 year old virgin", I might get indignant and explicitly state that no one but my mom and my doctor saw or touched my junk until I met my spouse or whomever was first. But I wouldn't play good little Catholic and then try to deny that I was a part of that party group. Remember Judge's book and his reference to "Bart" O Kavanaugh passing out drunk? Don't tell me you weren't a partier.

Makes you look like a liar, obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He provided a blanket denial, air-tight without knowing the details. He has already denied it.

Something tells me Ford will provide additional details that were not in the letter to the Senate.

I’m still not convinced this hearing will happen.

[Anonymous]

Well, all right. I guess I also don't want a Supreme Court Justice who volunteers details about his virginity on national television just as a by-the-by. That's maybe even creepier than thinking virginity has some relation to whether a person did or didn't commit sexual assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely, Avenatti will deliver.

Why not just drop it now? Why the game?

God I hope he doesn’t deliver although I really don’t want this guy confirmed. Avenatti is a grandstander who is sometimes right - whatever. I hope that he is making stuff up here. The stuff he alleges is so awful - frankly I don’t believe it.

Believe it.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/09/kavanaugh-judge-prep-school-parties.html

[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? 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.

Kav is damaged goods. Gorsuch passed, so why can't you find another Gorsuch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And that's why she hasn't. If someone were to accuse me of attacking them in August 1976 (last summer in high school). I could tell them I was out West on a three week-vacation with my parents, and then I was dropped off at a friend's house in Phoenix for the last week before school started. I have plenty of evidence, including my own parents, my Phoenix friend, and her sister. (Her parents would remember too, but they are dead now.) I also have photos of myself at Yosemite and Grand Canyon, with the date stamped on.

But if he accused me of attacking him at some unspecified time and at an unspecified place, I have no defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, all right. I guess I also don't want a Supreme Court Justice who volunteers details about his virginity on national television just as a by-the-by. That's maybe even creepier than thinking virginity has some relation to whether a person did or didn't commit sexual assault.

It is a defense in advance of a possible chain sex allegation.

[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? 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.

Kav is damaged goods. Gorsuch passed, so why can't you find another Gorsuch?

He's damaged goods because liberals are launching unfounded accusations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, all right. I guess I also don't want a Supreme Court Justice who volunteers details about his virginity on national television just as a by-the-by. That's maybe even creepier than thinking virginity has some relation to whether a person did or didn't commit sexual assault.

It is a defense in advance of a possible chain sex allegation.

+1. He knows what’s coming from Avenatti.

[Anonymous]

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

Perhaps. BUT more importantly, he is protecting himself from the gang rape allegation that he anticipates will come tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if this has been discussed before, but does anyone else think kavanaugh has some psychopathic tendencies

He refused to answer if he boofed a girl as a freshman in college or if he aided in drunk-training an underclassman in high school. He may have refused to answer those in moot at the white house, but he will have to answer those questions on Thursday.

Not necessarily. The Republicans are likely to rule a lot of those questions out of order. PP above, who thinks he may have psychopathic tendencies. I'm not even sure he'd fail a polygraph. Don't psychopaths have the opposite reaction to stress? - their heart rate stays remarkable constant when they lie?

I did read the article. It said he grew frustrated and angry when asked about his drinking and sexual proclivities. Declaring he was a virgin the entire time is a totally new reaction to the past week. It would have come up earlier and WH staff would have mentioned that he was virginal during high school when they commented.

How can you rule a question that goes to the direct allegations, out of order?

I’m a court of law or an FBI investigation, he couldn’t unless taking the Fifth. But this isn’t a court of law. The Republicans control the committee. Grassley and the Republucan majority on the committee make that determination. Of all of them, it’s only Flake who might waiver. Therefore, they can restrict the line of questioning. I’m actually glad she is going first for this reason. I would totally expect if she were to go last that they’d only allow softball questions at him and then tear her apart second.

It may not even matter. If Avenatti has a client and corroborating witnesses to gang rape, esp. if some of those witnesses are men, I don’t think Ford will even need to testify. I think he does, I think they’ll file criminal charges, and I have suspicions on who a potential male witness might be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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? 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.

Kav is damaged goods. Gorsuch passed, so why can't you find another Gorsuch?

He's damaged goods because liberals are launching unfounded accusations.

Nope. McConnell knew he would be a tough sell from the beginning. And he was, before Dr. Ford ever wrote her letter or it was leaked.