Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 He should have honorably withdrawn his name a week ago.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

He knew it would be a tough sell for purely political reasons, not for reasons of alleged sexual misconduct 35 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if this has been discussed before, but does anyone else think kavanaugh has some psychopathic tendencies? Not the stereotypical psychopathic killer, but the lying, lack of empathy, ability to use a social situation, seems charming to get what he wants or get ahead?

Why the hell lie about that being a virgin until his mid-20s? I was relatively late. There's no shame, but nobody believes that for a moment. WaPo said he refused to answer sexual proclivity and drinking questions during his practice debate. So being virginal is the only way to push those questions off?

You are disgusting. Truly.
Psychopath? Are you f’ing kidding me?
You are also accusing him of lying about a very personal choice he made. How in the hell do you know what he is lying about?

And, had you read the WaPo thoroughly,.... you would have seen that he refused to answer questions THAT WENT OVER THE LINE. As the questioners expected him to do.

You are insufferable.

You are obviously an apologist. Have you read the questions Kavanaugh wrote to have asked during the Clinton investigation? READ THE KAVANAUGH MEMO HERE:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/178-kavanaugh-clinton-monica-lewin/9b9a46ab055ee2458fd5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

He wanted to ask in a PUBLIC forum, whether or not Clinton had "using your finger, stimulated Miss Lewinsky to orgasm".

Yes, he is a squirrelly perv, a potentially psychopathic person with no remorse or empathy. He has hidden in plain sight for decades, and now he is being exposed. He'll say ANYTHING to save his skin--even if it drags his family down into the gutter with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

A possibility is that Congress/McConnell will vote, he will lose, and then Trump will pull him. Congress cannot pull his nomination, only the president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if this has been discussed before, but does anyone else think kavanaugh has some psychopathic tendencies? Not the stereotypical psychopathic killer, but the lying, lack of empathy, ability to use a social situation, seems charming to get what he wants or get ahead?

Why the hell lie about that being a virgin until his mid-20s? I was relatively late. There's no shame, but nobody believes that for a moment. WaPo said he refused to answer sexual proclivity and drinking questions during his practice debate. So being virginal is the only way to push those questions off?

You are disgusting. Truly.
Psychopath? Are you f’ing kidding me?
You are also accusing him of lying about a very personal choice he made. How in the hell do you know what he is lying about?

And, had you read the WaPo thoroughly,.... you would have seen that he refused to answer questions THAT WENT OVER THE LINE. As the questioners expected him to do.

You are insufferable.

You are obviously an apologist. Have you read the questions Kavanaugh wrote to have asked during the Clinton investigation? READ THE KAVANAUGH MEMO HERE:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/178-kavanaugh-clinton-monica-lewin/9b9a46ab055ee2458fd5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

He wanted to ask in a PUBLIC forum, whether or not Clinton had "using your finger, stimulated Miss Lewinsky to orgasm".

Yes, he is a squirrelly perv, a potentially psychopathic person with no remorse or empathy. He has hidden in plain sight for decades, and now he is being exposed. He'll say ANYTHING to save his skin--even if it drags his family down into the gutter with him.

Well put. I forgot all about those gross questions he formulated. If he gets on the court it will forever be tainted.

[Anonymous]

IRT the article about the yearbook entries.... interesting with the Times omitted......

New York Times article scrutinizing inside jokes in the 1983 yearbook of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Preparatory School hid multiple problems with its claims, including that it was sourced to a rabidly anti-Trump politician in Maryland and his associate.

The article reveals inside jokes about a friend of Kavanaugh and his classmates named Renate Schroeder Dolphin. The classmates are featured in a picture with a caption “Renate Alumnius,” which the Times’ named and anonymous sources argue is bragging about sex. The classmates strenuously insist that the reference was nothing of the kind and that none of the men had sexual relations with the friend. They say that they attended each other’s dances and prep school functions and maintained the friendship throughout the next several decades.


The original article published online on Monday night was quickly scrubbed of a reference to a “Mr. Madaleno.” The Times uses full names on first references to sources and titles on second references, though it was the first time his name was mentioned in the article. The claim of sexual braggadocio is sourced earlier in the article to one named and one anonymous individual who claims to fear retribution. NewsDiffs, a site that tracks changes to articles at the New York Times, caught the rapid deletion of his name. Reporters Kate Kelly and David Enrich did not explain why it was removed.

Richard S. Madaleno Jr., a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Prep, is a state senator in Maryland who recently lost a bid for the Democratic nomination for governor. He garnered headlines for a campaign ad that featured him kissing his male spouse as a rebuke of Trump. The 30-second spot has him telling viewers he seeks to “deliver progressive results and stand up to Donald Trump” before listing things he’s done “that already infuriate” Trump.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/new-york-times-hid-multiple-key-facts-in-kavanaugh-yearbook-hit/#.W6orkpO7Atc.twitter

[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.

Oh, please. This has nothing to do with his interview. You do not want him, you never wanted him, and you would not vote for him under any circumstances. You don't care that accusations against him may not be true--in fact, it appears likely that they are not true.

Listen to what Maisie Hirono said: translation--basically, she doesn't believe him because of the way he has ruled. In other words, she disagrees with him so he is a liar.

Is this really what we have come to?

This is going to do great damage to the #metoo movement.

We should believe women--but, allegations need to be taken with an open mind. This happened long, long ago with no contemporaneous evidence. In fact, the memories are quite blurred--even from the accuser. And, even since this became public the rules have changed. Last Tuesday, she did not want to testify and be questioned by Senators. Now, she wants the Senators to do the questioning--one week later? She wished to remain anonymous, but wrote WAPO in July? Hired lawyers who arranged a polygraph test weeks ago? I believe Dr. Ford may very well believe something happened, but, even now, her wishes keep changing. Is she just wishing that her assaulter was Kavanaugh so she can keep him off the Supreme Court?

I don't know. But, right now, Kavanaugh is more believable. Even the Democrats must know that.

The votes were close without this. This is deperate and sad. And, the Dems have now ruined the reputations of two people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, what now? Gang rape? Where is this coming from???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, what now? Gang rape? Where is this coming from???

#CreepyPornLawyer. Who else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, what now? Gang rape? Where is this coming from???

Judge and Avenatti. It's horrible and I really hope that Avenatti is making stuff up with this one.

[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.

Oh, please. This has nothing to do with his interview. You do not want him, you never wanted him, and you would not vote for him under any circumstances. You don't care that accusations against him may not be true--in fact, it appears likely that they are not true.

Listen to what Maisie Hirono said: translation--basically, she doesn't believe him because of the way he has ruled. In other words, she disagrees with him so he is a liar.

Is this really what we have come to?

This is going to do great damage to the #metoo movement.

We should believe women--but, allegations need to be taken with an open mind. This happened long, long ago with no contemporaneous evidence. In fact, the memories are quite blurred--even from the accuser. And, even since this became public the rules have changed. Last Tuesday, she did not want to testify and be questioned by Senators. Now, she wants the Senators to do the questioning--one week later? She wished to remain anonymous, but wrote WAPO in July? Hired lawyers who arranged a polygraph test weeks ago? I believe Dr. Ford may very well believe something happened, but, even now, her wishes keep changing. Is she just wishing that her assaulter was Kavanaugh so she can keep him off the Supreme Court?

I don't know. But, right now, Kavanaugh is more believable. Even the Democrats must know that.

The votes were close without this. This is deperate and sad. And, the Dems have now ruined the reputations of two people.

Time to pull the plug on this fiasco. Each day it goes on, Dems peel away votes from Republican and independent women. Republicans have a stable of like-minded jurists without the all-around smarminess of Kavanaugh. McConnell didn't want him as the nominee and we can all see why. By taking this to the mat, Republicans may win the battle but lose the war.

[Anonymous]

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.

The Renate Alumnius was not in his biography, but facts don’t matter anymore anyway.

[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.

Oh, please. This has nothing to do with his interview. You do not want him, you never wanted him, and you would not vote for him under any circumstances. You don't care that accusations against him may not be true--in fact, it appears likely that they are not true.

Listen to what Maisie Hirono said: translation--basically, she doesn't believe him because of the way he has ruled. In other words, she disagrees with him so he is a liar.

Is this really what we have come to?

This is going to do great damage to the #metoo movement.

We should believe women--but, allegations need to be taken with an open mind. This happened long, long ago with no contemporaneous evidence. In fact, the memories are quite blurred--even from the accuser. And, even since this became public the rules have changed. Last Tuesday, she did not want to testify and be questioned by Senators. Now, she wants the Senators to do the questioning--one week later? She wished to remain anonymous, but wrote WAPO in July? Hired lawyers who arranged a polygraph test weeks ago? I believe Dr. Ford may very well believe something happened, but, even now, her wishes keep changing. Is she just wishing that her assaulter was Kavanaugh so she can keep him off the Supreme Court?

I don't know. But, right now, Kavanaugh is more believable. Even the Democrats must know that.

The votes were close without this. This is deperate and sad. And, the Dems have now ruined the reputations of two people.

That's the thing. He's not. He would deny that the sky is blue if he thought that would be the right answer. That's not believable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He knew it would be a tough sell for purely political reasons, not for reasons of alleged sexual misconduct 35 years ago.

Actually, he knew about these issues. All of them, but he is, from his point, in a win-win. Either Kavanaugh gets confirmed, or the open seat becomes a proxy in the Senate mid-terms

[Anonymous]

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.

The Renate Alumnius was not in his biography, but facts don’t matter anymore anyway.

Yes it was. Right there next to his pic. What do you mean about facts?

[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.

Oh, please. This has nothing to do with his interview. You do not want him, you never wanted him, and you would not vote for him under any circumstances. You don't care that accusations against him may not be true--in fact, it appears likely that they are not true.

Listen to what Maisie Hirono said: translation--basically, she doesn't believe him because of the way he has ruled. In other words, she disagrees with him so he is a liar.

Is this really what we have come to?

This is going to do great damage to the #metoo movement.

We should believe women--but, allegations need to be taken with an open mind. This happened long, long ago with no contemporaneous evidence. In fact, the memories are quite blurred--even from the accuser. And, even since this became public the rules have changed. Last Tuesday, she did not want to testify and be questioned by Senators. Now, she wants the Senators to do the questioning--one week later? She wished to remain anonymous, but wrote WAPO in July? Hired lawyers who arranged a polygraph test weeks ago? I believe Dr. Ford may very well believe something happened, but, even now, her wishes keep changing. Is she just wishing that her assaulter was Kavanaugh so she can keep him off the Supreme Court?

I don't know. But, right now, Kavanaugh is more believable. Even the Democrats must know that.

The votes were close without this. This is deperate and sad. And, the Dems have now ruined the reputations of two people.

Didn’t Kavanuagh say he never heard Judge Kosinski say inappropriate things and never even heard the rumors? Which seems really implausible. The trouble for Kavanugh is that he has told little bit s of untruths leading up to the accusations so people are less inclined to believe him from the start.