Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:

True but I wouldn’t keep him from having a job based on a he said she said

He has a job.

Thisthreadisridiculous wrote:

True but I wouldn’t keep him from having a job based on a he said she said

Sure. He can still get a job. Just not on the Supreme Court.

I tuned in when they asked the airplane question but not much elese. Is there any verification of her naming Kavanaugh as her attacker before July 2018 yet? She says it's in the therapist notes. Is she going to release them?

Squirming wrote:

Gordon Gekko wrote:

What a testimony.

Brett Kavanaugh is done and his wife will divorce him soon.

Kavanaugh was squirming. His body-language says he is very uncomfortable sitting there, and he is hiding something, and not being untruthful.

Regardless of anything else. Any SCOTUS nominee who is obviously untruthful is a no-go.

Lmao you pulled a Donald Trump there. Way to go, moran.

Oh this one is GREAT:

"Under questioning from Mitchell, Ford said the area of the party was probably about a 20 minute drive from her parents’ home. She said someone probably drove her there, but she can’t remember who it was.

“Has anyone come forward to say to you, 'hey, remember, I was one who drove you home?” Mitchell asked.

“No,” Ford replied."

Another obvious detail that she cannot remember.

So no one remembers the party, no one can provide any corroboration at all, she couldn't hear them talking afterward but she could hear them talking afterward... and now she doesn't remember how she got home, 20 minutes way.

Oh yes, so very credible.

Squirming wrote:

Gordon Gekko wrote:

What a testimony.

Brett Kavanaugh is done and his wife will divorce him soon.

Kavanaugh was squirming. His body-language says he is very uncomfortable sitting there, and he is hiding something, and not being untruthful.

Regardless of anything else. Any SCOTUS nominee who is obviously untruthful is a no-go.

I don't think is proof of anything. Speaking in front of the Senate, with millions watching on TV, is as stressful as it gets. Whether someone is lying or telling the truth, not everyone is going to be as cool as a cucumber.

Hardloper wrote:

I tuned in when they asked the airplane question but not much elese. Is there any verification of her naming Kavanaugh as her attacker before July 2018 yet? She says it's in the therapist notes. Is she going to release them?

Maybe after you release your therapy notes. While you're at it, provide a list of the all of the temporary names you have used to post on LRC in the last month.

Your turn.

Big cracks wrote:

Oh this one is GREAT:

"Under questioning from Mitchell, Ford said the area of the party was probably about a 20 minute drive from her parents’ home. She said someone probably drove her there, but she can’t remember who it was.

“Has anyone come forward to say to you, 'hey, remember, I was one who drove you home?” Mitchell asked.

“No,” Ford replied."

Another obvious detail that she cannot remember.

So no one remembers the party, no one can provide any corroboration at all, she couldn't hear them talking afterward but she could hear them talking afterward... and now she doesn't remember how she got home, 20 minutes way.

Oh yes, so very credible.

This pretty much sums up what matters at this point:

"In her opening statement, Ford said she remembers "four boys" being at the party, including one "whose name I cannot recall." The people she did name -- Kavanaugh and his classmates Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth -- have denied under penalty of felony knowing anything about the alleged episode.

Ford also named a girl, "my friend Leland Ingham," as also being in attendance. Ingham, in a previously released statement, has also denied knowing Kavanaugh or having information about the alleged assault."

Big cracks wrote:

Oh yes, so very credible.

Christine Ford provided testimony regarding seeing Mark Judge working at a food store several weeks after the rape attempt. Well, people who have read the book about Judge's and O'Kavanaugh's inebriated teen years have noted that Judge wrote when he worked at food store. So, now Judge has inadvertently helped narrow down the occurrence time for Ford. And it turns out that a possible date is identified in Kavanaugh's HS diary.

---------

“I did see Mark Judge once at the Potomac Village Safeway after the time of the attack ... it looked like he was working there and arranging the shopping carts,” she Ford in Senate testimony. She did not recall the date.

“How long did this occur after the incident?” Durbin asked.

“I would estimate six to eight weeks,” Ford replied.

---------

From Judge's book, “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk.”

It was the summer before senior year, and by now, even though I wasn’t drinking every day, I was completely hooked. Going a week without getting drunk was unthinkable. I was spending between four and seven nights with the gang, either at a party or at O’Rourke’s.

t was the summer before senior year, and by now, even though I wasn’t drinking every day, I was completely hooked. Going a week without getting drunk was unthinkable. I was spending between four and seven nights with the gang, either at a party or at O’Rourke’s.

Of course, alcoholics also get into all kinds of trouble because of their drinking. ... This was never more evident to me than when, to raise money for football camp, I spent a few weeks working as a bag boy at the local supermarket.

----------

Football camp started Aug. 22, 1982. Judge worked for a grocery store for several weeks before that camp, meaning that he probably worked there for a period between July to mid-August.

----------

From Kavanaugh's diary-calendar:

July 1, 1982: “Go to Timmy’s for Skis [brewskis] w/ Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.”

----------

So, Judge's book narrows down the date of the attempted rape. And Kavanaugh's diary identifies the six males, three who Ford named plus one she does not recall, who went drinking beers (they were underage) that falls within the timeline. Maybe Ford can recall who Tom, Bernie and Squi were, and if one one them was guy #4.

Peonies wrote:

I thought this was a running board. It is stunning how arbitrary and capricious the moderators are here. ZERO credibility.

The non-running threads are far more interesting.

Your notes wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

I tuned in when they asked the airplane question but not much elese. Is there any verification of her naming Kavanaugh as her attacker before July 2018 yet? She says it's in the therapist notes. Is she going to release them?

Maybe after you release your therapy notes. While you're at it, provide a list of the all of the temporary names you have used to post on LRC in the last month.

Your turn.

Typical deflection from today's TDS-infected Leftist.

To answer his question, "no, there's been nothing exposed today that we didn't know yesterday."

There has been zero witnesses to corroborate the story, including 3 boys and 1 girl that were in attendance according to Ford. The girl doesn't remember the party.

Ford doesn't remember how she even got home, which was about 20 minutes away. Hmmm.

And it gets better. Fox is now spinning Kavanaugh into oblivion. Expect Trump cease-fire and withdraw Kavanaugh.

"I think Dr. Ford is exceptionally credible," Fox's top legal analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, said.

"The president cannot be happy with this," Napolitano said during one of the breaks in the testimony.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/27/media/christine-blasey-ford-fox-news/index.html

This one is the best yet- ZERO WITNESSES BACK HER STORY, including the other female present according to Ford, even vouch for knowing about this party. No one remembers who drove her home (including herself!!). This is ridiculous at this point.

Squirming wrote:

Gordon Gekko wrote:

What a testimony.

Brett Kavanaugh is done and his wife will divorce him soon.

Kavanaugh was squirming. His body-language says he is very uncomfortable sitting there, and he is hiding something, and not being untruthful.

Regardless of anything else. Any SCOTUS nominee who is obviously untruthful is a no-go.

Suppose that Kavanaugh is 100% innocent. Wouldn't he still be very uncomfortable in this scenario? An assumption that his being uncomfortable means that he is hiding something and being untruthful seems like you're reading into the situation what you want to read into it.

This is just silly wrote:

This one is the best yet- ZERO WITNESSES BACK HER STORY, including the other female present according to Ford, even vouch for knowing about this party. No one remembers who drove her home (including herself!!). This is ridiculous at this point.

According to Ford's testimony, the only witness to the assault was Mark Judge. That the other people at the house don't recall a gathering where they didn't witness anything unusual 35 years ago isn't surprising. What is certain is that either Ford or Mark Judge gave false testimony.

1) Redemption can only happen after admission of guilt and punishment for the offense.

2) If Kavanaugh is guilty of the things he has been accused of, then no way are more than 80% of the people on this thread more dirty than him.

3) You are not scrutinized because you are not trying to get a seat on the Supreme Court. How is that not evident to you?

4) Um...someone who sits on the Supreme Court SHOULD be judged to a higher standard than most people. If YOU did something as bad or worse than Kanvanaugh has been accused of, then you should be in jail. He is accused of sexual assault and by Avenatti's client, rape.

What an odd opinion you have...it's wrong too.

Hardloper wrote:

I tuned in when they asked the airplane question but not much elese. Is there any verification of her naming Kavanaugh as her attacker before July 2018 yet? She says it's in the therapist notes. Is she going to release them?

She's already said the therapist notes don't name Kavanaugh. She won't release them. For those of you who've said she shouldn't have to because they're private, she can't have it both ways. They can't provide corroborating evidence for the Senate Judiciary Committee if they aren't provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

If the Republicans on the committee are so sure she's lying, why don't they have the FBI look into this? They control everything, right? They could put this away by simply having the FBI investigate.

Why not?

typical flagpole going for the low hanging fruit