Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

They have already proved she is lying (the travel thing). Will be interesting to see what other holes they find after the break.

Switching back and forth from the senators to the prosecutor makes no sense. Ford is clearly an extremely detail-oriented person who is punctilious about saying exactly what she means and correcting anything that may be off. You add that to the emotion of describing what for her was a shattering episode and that will be it for Kavanaugh. Trump won't find it difficult to simply nominate another Federalist Society-validated judge who worked for the Bush administration and probably for Kenneth Starr as well; the question will just be whether they can ram that nomination through in October or during the lame duck session, and I'd think they'd be motivated to do so in case the Democrats are able to take back the Senate against long odds.

Avocado's Number wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Confused individual. How about her hypothalamus description of her trauma? Boy was that weird.

I don't know whether you and jamin are being completely forthcoming about your perceptions of this proceeding thus far, but I certainly think that it's possible. It's always fascinating to me to see how people interpret information in ways that comport with their pre-existing dispositions. I recognize that my own concerns about Kavanaugh as a justice might make me more receptive to Ford's testimony, but that's also been mitigated, at the very least, by my longstanding concerns about these kinds of claims. In this case, I've gone back and forth on the various allegations against Kavanaugh, and Ford's allegations in particular sounded fairly weak, but I find her testimony this morning to be extremely compelling.

The fact she believes the allegation is 100% true is not supported by facts. So it comes down to a personal impression and for me she seems to live in her head.

joedirt wrote:

They have already proved she is lying (the travel thing). Will be interesting to see what other holes they find after the break.

So the biggest contradiction in her testimony is that she claims to have a fear of flying yet has flown to tropical vacations? First, that isn't a contraction: one can be afraid of flying yet still fly when necessary or to a vacation in Hawaii. Second, fear of flying fits in with her testimony that her experience with Kavanaugh left her with claustrophobia (why she got the second front door installed).

joedirt wrote:

They have already proved she is lying (the travel thing). Will be interesting to see what other holes they find after the break.

If that’s your best argument BK is toast.

Avocado's Number has been on the Letsrun Supreme Court since at least 2008. Let's nominate him for SCOTUS!

Avocado's Number wrote:

I don't know whether you and jamin are being completely forthcoming about your perceptions of this proceeding thus far, but I certainly think that it's possible. It's always fascinating to me to see how people interpret information in ways that comport with their pre-existing dispositions. I recognize that my own concerns about Kavanaugh as a justice might make me more receptive to Ford's testimony, but that's also been mitigated, at the very least, by my longstanding concerns about these kinds of claims. In this case, I've gone back and forth on the various allegations against Kavanaugh, and Ford's allegations in particular sounded fairly weak, but I find her testimony this morning to be extremely compelling.

I'm fairly neutral on the testimony so far. I expected her to be emotional and very well prepared. I've seen enough people tell the truth while looking like liars and vice versa to put very little faith in demeanor. I've also seen people say things in depositions that they said they were positive of--really important things that they should have remembered correctly, which they wouldn't have lied about because it was possible to subsequently verify--only for incontrovertible evidence to later show that they were wrong. I think the prosecutor has done an excellent job of asking specific factual questions that reveal how imperfect her memory is.

And aside from anything being said today, I have other serious concerns about her allegations. She cannot remember the year it happened, which I find inconceivable. An indictment for sexual assault during "the early 1980s" would probably be insufficiently specific to satisfy rule 7. The potential witnesses she has offered have denied any memory of such a party, and one witness said she'd never even been present at a party with Kavanaugh. If this goes according to script, I don't see how Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed. I realize that this isn't a criminal proceeding, but I still think the presumption of innocence applies. The burden of proof isn't necessarily beyond a reasonable doubt, but it has to be more than "concerns have been raised."

Anyway, I'll admit I'm far from neutral, though for personal reasons more than political ones.

440dude wrote:

joedirt wrote:

They have already proved she is lying (the travel thing). Will be interesting to see what other holes they find after the break.

If that’s your best argument BK is toast.

yeah boy if some rando on the internet doesn't know the ins and outs of what 51 republicans are about to do this sure looks horrible for BK

Avocado's Number wrote:

Let's just confine it to alumni of Harvard Law School.

+1

Good analysis and a position I've held since this all came to light. Way too much of this is nebulous to be proven fact unless someone comes up with some miracle evidence at the last second. My further concern is that this is exactly the kind of victory Republicans will want going into midterms. It will remind their base that "Democrats are evil and will do anything to stop us so get out and vote." This was a risky political double down by the Democrats.

XY wrote:

Ghost of jamin wrote:

We know that:

Igloi does not work so he can post whenever he likes during the day.

Jamin has a full time job and posts all day long from work. And seems to be watching the news videos at his desk.

Two polls, one reported by Fox now showing that Ford is creadable after her testimony

58% to 40% and 61% to 37%

I work in my own business. I have the news playing in the background. This event is likely to be of historical significance. Fascinating on many levels yet I am not emotionally invested in the outcome.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

So the biggest contradiction in her testimony is that she claims to have a fear of flying yet has flown to tropical vacations? First, that isn't a contraction: one can be afraid of flying yet still fly when necessary or to a vacation in Hawaii. Second, fear of flying fits in with her testimony that her experience with Kavanaugh left her with claustrophobia (why she got the second front door installed).

When the only thing she has is her credibility, things like that matter a lot.

She may well have a fear of flying, but the testimony revealed that it certainly isn't debilitating and that she can overcome it for things that are important. It makes her explanation for not wanting to come to DC to testify sound silly, and it fits with the narrative that she (or her lawyers) are less interested in getting to the bottom of the issue than they are in delaying the confirmation as long as possible. It's also pretty surprising that she said wasn't aware that the judiciary committee had offered to go to California to interview her. That was widely reported in the news. Maybe her lawyers didn't even inform her, in which case she's just a pawn, or else she was lying.

What The wrote:

Jamin, what the heck are you talking about? Hallucinating much?

He was insisting last night that she would back down and not testify. And he had plenty of company. Conservatives everywhere were gleefully insisting the same thing. I was mocking them on Predictit..."the delicious smell of fear"

Reality has been optional for conservatives for several years now. So I have no idea how anyone can be surprised at the way they are interpreting Ford's testimony...compared to how it is being viewed in the real world. Donald Trump jumpstarted his political career with birtherism, which was so preposterous is should have made him a laughingstock. Yet conservatives were attracted to it. Then Trump told 72-80% lies throughout 2016. Conservatives were attracted and mesmerized by that.

On other sites people are asking if Mitchell is intentionally tanking. That's how ineffective she has been. But when you have a sincere truthful witness there's only so much you can do.

Mark Judge hiding away at a beach house like a coward is the greatest testimony of all, as I posted here last night. There is no doubt this incident happened exactly as Ford has described.

Notice Lindsey Graham desperately ranting and making a fool of himself in response to simple questions today.

Bottom line, conservatives have been relying on lies and fear for so long they can't believe it doesn't work in every situation. The reason there is a gender gap to begin with, and now an exploding one, is that angry white males are susceptible to the lies and fear far beyond women. And young people reject the fear with a laugh.

800 dude wrote:

When the only thing she has is her credibility, things like that matter a lot.

Fox News is stating how credible Ford is.

-- “The court of public opinion, if our [Fox News] colleagues is an adequate sample of it, is that she is extremely credible,” Napolitano said. “And Rachel Mitchell not only is not laying a glove on her, but in my view is actually helping her credibility by the gentility of which these questions are being asked and the open-ended answers that the witness is being permitted to give.”

“The president cannot be happy,” the former judge added.

Trump's head is spinning because of how credible Ford is.

A source close to President Donald Trump told "Vanity Fair" reporter Gabriel Sherman that the president is watching the Senate Judiciary Committee testimony of Christine Blasey Ford — and he’s not liking what he’s seeing so far. Trump is telling people [staff] that Ford “seems credible” in her testimony.

Late July early August she was on the East Coast with her parents and her grandmother’s funeral. She took the polygraph shortly before returning to California.

what can someone tell from how much you've laid forth? how would you feel if bk is confirmed?

Right, credibility is paramount but phobias are inherently irrational and people who are afraid of flying fly all the time. The latter part--the not knowing about the offer--is far more interesting and I don't know where that will lead.

doesn't mean she's wrong but wrote:

Well, we've confirmed her "fear of flying" excuse was a lie.

You learn to manage these things. And there are medications that she could take that would alleviate anxiety. Use your damn head!

jamin wrote:

BOOM!

The prosecutor is ripping this liar to shreds. Christy just made about 5 contradicting statements in the span of 1 minute. She can't get her story straight about when/how she received therapy for the traumatizing incident.

Posts like this are why you can't get laid.