Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

wejo wrote:

check everything wrote:

Disappointing for him. Do a search for #3, Portland, and the company Webtrends. I'd post the link to a news article if LRC didn't say it was spam.

send me the link if you can't post something

wejo@letsrun.com

I just emailed it....

Untrue wrote:

30% wrote:

The ABA does not approve of Kavanaugh.

.

www .google .com

Not so fast bro wrote:

cannotkeepup wrote:

What's all happened on this thread?

People are arguing about a moot point, that is, whether Ford's testimony is true.

It's not important anymore. After watching Kavanaugh's response, we could all see he is not Supreme Court Justice material. He's a foaming at the mouth, angry partisan hack who still believes in some conspiracy about the Clintons and hates Democrats with a passion. There's no way the man we saw on Thursday should be given a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.

It's irritating to me as well. An accusation that cannot be proven either way has become the deciding issue rather than the fact that he would be as neutral as Ann Coulter.

Ok catching up on posts.

Letsrun Prep wrote:

The problem with Letsrun is, it is basically a "eastcoast prep" culture here. (Even the founders). I swear, no one give an S about "heps" but the board will spend weeks discussing it.

So naturally you want to defend one of your own. you've got drunk, you've forced the issue, So it's not just Kavanaugh, you feel like you're being attacked.

These thing didn't come up with Gorsuch (even though it was stolen seat), didn't come up with Alito or Roberts. These things don't randomly come up.

I'm from Texas. Definitely not east coast. Went to a prep middle school and high school and Yale.

I'm really offended that you imply however that all East coast prep school people got drunk and forced the issue with women. Is that mentality any different than being a racist?

#4 I disagree with. Saying he was sloppy drunk isn't directly in opposition to what he said. He just minimized any details in his answer "I liked beer." #1 and #2 are the most troubling for me.

Borked again? wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

....

It would be a rare person who graduated from Yale AND then Yale Law School who is not exceptionally intelligent.

The Yale thing and parallels to Bork are fascinating. Perhaps one of the brojos could chime in, didn't one of them attend Yale as a non-liberal? Do non-liberal get treated poorly there, labeled drunks? Just a question, don't know.

I went to Yale.

Non-liberals aren't considered drunks but I think many of them keep their views quite as they don't square with the orthodoxy.

True story, my TA stopped a class right before the 1992 presidential election my freshman year (shows how old I am) and got really angry and asked if any of us were going to vote for George Bush (the older on, #41). She was pissed and said something like we'd have to explain it. But the impressions given by her was no rational person could vote for Bush #41.

I was planning on voting for him, but was a timid freshman and remembering thinking "I'd better not raise my hand or my grade is going down the tubes." I was sitting near the front and turned back and looked and saw a few hands go up, one from a black classmate (which totally defied the stereotype and must have thrown her for a loop). I remember being impressed they had the courage to stand up to this bully. It's been so long I can't remember if I then had the courage to raise my hand or not.

But after the semester I wrote the head professor and told her how unprofessional this was and didn't get a response.

Now I wonder what she's feel about her vote for Clinton in light of the #meToo movement, but #41 has been accused of being a butt grabber.

I disagree .... wrote:

Didn't one of the LRC founders go to Yale?

So that's not saying that much. It certainly doesn't prove that someone is intelligent.

The same for passing the bar exam, which many people could have done who never even went to law school.

Becoming a judge is due to appointment, i.e. what rich people you will cover up for, not how intelligent you are.

He is what he is, a serial abuser rapist of women, a compulsive liar, a circle jerk buddy, and a person of low intelligence.

He has demonstrated in this hearing how stupid he is.

I thought there were definitely some people at Yale not that "smart" but come on let's not pretend they really are of low intelligence. Yale law school is even harder to get into. No doubt, super intelligent people there.

I don't have a lot of respect for people who say they know he is a "serial abuser rapist of women." It's totally unproven.

70% wrote:

30% wrote:

Looks bleak for your side; the angry white, sexist, racist male.

wejo wrote:

Ok catching up on posts.

Letsrun Prep wrote:

The problem with Letsrun is, it is basically a "eastcoast prep" culture here. (Even the founders). I swear, no one give an S about "heps" but the board will spend weeks discussing it.

So naturally you want to defend one of your own. you've got drunk, you've forced the issue, So it's not just Kavanaugh, you feel like you're being attacked.

These thing didn't come up with Gorsuch (even though it was stolen seat), didn't come up with Alito or Roberts. These things don't randomly come up.

I'm from Texas. Definitely not east coast. Went to a prep middle school and high school and Yale.

I'm really offended that you imply however that all East coast prep school people got drunk and forced the issue with women. Is that mentality any different than being a racist?

Quite different, wejo. Racism is built on people in power wanting to remain in power. The prep school culture is the "feeder system" that teaches their young how to maintain that position of power. I know you are trying not to say "not all" prep kids, and using yourself as the exception, but keep in mind the types of people who dominate the prep school halls: mostly the children of people who have been taught for generations that they have earned their power just by having the good fortune to be born in a time and place where paler skin and patriarchal society rules. Please don't let your personal bias cloud you so much, wejo; you are trying, though, and I see that. Keep asking.

wejo wrote:

Damn I'm 25 pages behind on this thread.

I just told my fiancee I don't think he was telling the truth about the yearbook.

My opinion is that yearbooks typically have dirty comments as a joke. The yearbook comments are just youthful bragging, trying to be cool. Someone writes a dirty comment in your book, you write something dirty back.

He very well may have been a virgin. Nonetheless he's under oath. Request to go to closed session, "These were immature jokes."

I agree. He was mad the yearbooks were brought up, yet they were easily and possibly truthfully dismissed. "They were immature jokes, guys boasting" for every yearbook question. Instead, we had a literal explanation of the terms.

House of cards wrote:

This is interesting. Read this thread. It’s a long one, but worth it. Mark Judge’s book, her timeline, the Safeway encounter, the missing two year gap between high school and college in the therapists notes....

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1046219137285070848

Not totally following the thread, and wish they had turned over her notes. Don't like Feinstein sat on this.

But I still expect Kavanaugh to answer truthfully.

A poster above was trying to post this link and couldn't so they emailed me https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2018/09/julie_swetnick_one_of_kavanaug.html

Blasey Ford was a drunk, loose, party girl. Her high school was the equivalent version to "Animal House," except these were all girls. They drank to excess, they made it a contest to see who could have sex with the most guys, they were proud of passing out drunk, etc...

"CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD AND THE DRUNKEN WHITE PRIVILEGED RACIST PLAYGIRLS OF HOLTON-ARMS.

And it would be an accurate headline. That’s why the yearbooks have been scrubbed. They are a testament to the incredible power these girls had over their teachers, parents and the boys of Georgetown Prep, Landon and other schools in the area. In the pages below, you will see multiple photos and references to binge drinking and the accompanying joy of not being able to remember any of it.

These yearbooks are, therefore, relevant to the national investigation now being conducted in the media, in homes, and in the halls of Congress. And they should not have been scrubbed. If Brett Kavanaugh’s yearbooks are fair game, so are these.

And you will wonder while reading them, why the hell did the faculty approve of these yearbooks? Why did the parents take out paid ads in these yearbooks? Animal House had nothing on the infamous “Holton party scene”.

The resistance media has been singularly focused on Brett Kavanaugh’s high school yearbooks, which imply that he got drunk and threw up. There’s no need to imply anything from the Holton-Arms yearbooks. It’s all there in focus, and the written word too. All of the sordid details as approved for publication by a “look the other way” faculty. And now it’s available for historical/evidentiary review.

It is to this wild Holton culture we must look in order to shed light on the last minute accusation by Christine Blasey. And in the official high school chronicles of this era, we find many names of people who can provide relevant evidence...."

https://web.archive.org/web/20180920035448/http://cultofthe1st.blogspot.com/2018/09/why-christine-blasey-fords-high-school_19.html

An intellectual feast? wrote:

My opinion is that yearbooks typically have dirty comments as a joke. The yearbook comments are just youthful bragging, trying to be cool. Someone writes a dirty comment in your book, you write something dirty back.

I agree. He was mad the yearbooks were brought up, yet they were easily and possibly truthfully dismissed. "They were immature jokes, guys boasting" for every yearbook question. Instead, we had a literal explanation of the terms.

You said you were providing your opinion then you you spin it into what definitely happened.

No. "yearbook comments" are NOT "just youthful bragging". They tell you a lot about the person. Kavanaugh claimed in his yearbook he was an underage drinker. He testified that was an underage drinker. Let that sink in.

House of cards wrote:

This is interesting. Read this thread. It’s a long one, but worth it. Mark Judge’s book, her timeline, the Safeway encounter, the missing two year gap between high school and college in the therapists notes....

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1046219137285070848

Not totally following the thread, but wish they had turned over her notes, and think Feinstein not questioning Kavanaugh even private means she was more concerned about a hit than anything else, but I still expect Kavanaugh to answer truthfully. High school terms are most troubling to me.

**

Find it interesting how people even view that Vox article on non answers/evasive answers differently.

And yes she likely wasn't a saint in high school either but that doesn't disprove her claims just as the fact he wasn't a saint either doesn't prove them.

Feasting wrote:

An intellectual feast? wrote:

My opinion is that yearbooks typically have dirty comments as a joke. The yearbook comments are just youthful bragging, trying to be cool. Someone writes a dirty comment in your book, you write something dirty back.

I agree. He was mad the yearbooks were brought up, yet they were easily and possibly truthfully dismissed. "They were immature jokes, guys boasting" for every yearbook question. Instead, we had a literal explanation of the terms.

You said you were providing your opinion then you you spin it into what definitely happened.

No. "yearbook comments" are NOT "just youthful bragging". They tell you a lot about the person. Kavanaugh claimed in his yearbook he was an underage drinker. He testified that was an underage drinker. Let that sink in.

To be fair you ought to read the link above. The meek and credible Surfer Psycologist had a very similar if not worse high school yearbook.

Between the accused and the accuser, the only one who can be proven to either lie or duck from the full truth is Kavanaugh.

Only the accused is attempting to be confirmed for the Supreme Court.

It is far more important that the nominee be shown as completely forthcoming than the accuser, even if the accuser's account of happenings many years ago can not be completely confirmed nor specifically apply to the nominee in the fashion she outlines.

This should eliminate him from consideration and another nominee be brought forth and confirmed.

wejo wrote:

Don't like Feinstein sat on this.

She provided the Blasey Ford letter to the FBI. The FBI was supposed to review it and redact it as they thought appropriate. And then forward it to the White House. The FBI did that. Any delay is the FBI.

The FBI then provided a redacted version of the letter to the White House to distribute to the Senate Committee. The FBI also provided a non-redacted version to the White House. Blasey Ford's name was promptly provided--hours before an article about her was to be published--to Ed Whelan, a republican political operative, a personal friend of Kavanaugh, and a lawyer who was helping Kavanaugh get through the confirmation process. Ed Whelan was caught snooping on Ford when no one was supposed to know who she was, except Ford, Feinstein and the White House. Which of these three set Ed Whelan out after Ford?