Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

IndyJ wrote:

I have been to, literally, thousands of such "parties" in my life. It wouldn't be memorable for anybody there ... except for the person who was sexually assaulted. And that typically doesn't take place out in the open.

Then you might be aware of the isolation game some guys play. That is where they get a woman drunk enough to separate her from the pack. Take her to the side, then out back in the dark, and maybe into a car. They get her to another place, continue drinking, and then . . . .

Isolation... wrote:

IndyJ wrote:

I have been to, literally, thousands of such "parties" in my life. It wouldn't be memorable for anybody there ... except for the person who was sexually assaulted. And that typically doesn't take place out in the open.

Then you might be aware of the isolation game some guys play. That is where they get a woman drunk enough to separate her from the pack. Take her to the side, then out back in the dark, and maybe into a car. They get her to another place, continue drinking, and then . . . .

This is why the "no corroboration" defense is such a red herring. Sexual assaults don't exactly take place in a public forum. Of course there is unlikely to be "corroboration."

And understand that I'm a born skeptic, even when it comes to sexual assault allegations. I was the first person I know to raise doubt about the "Rolling Stone" campus rape story. I knew within a couple paragraphs that it was unmitigated b.s.

I thought he was a dud even before the old bad behavior started popping up. Too much of a political animal, not enough of a legal genius to be on the supreme court. That he likely was a bad behaving drunk in HS and college is the icing the on the cake.

But I do love the Republican calculus involved. Do we cram him through? If so, do we lose the Senate in addition to the House?

IndyJ wrote:

Isolation... wrote:

Then you might be aware of the isolation game some guys play. That is where they get a woman drunk enough to separate her from the pack. Take her to the side, then out back in the dark, and maybe into a car. They get her to another place, continue drinking, and then . . . .

This is why the "no corroboration" defense is such a red herring. Sexual assaults don't exactly take place in a public forum. Of course there is unlikely to be "corroboration."

And understand that I'm a born skeptic, even when it comes to sexual assault allegations. I was the first person I know to raise doubt about the "Rolling Stone" campus rape story. I knew within a couple paragraphs that it was unmitigated b.s.

Red herring is a meaningless term. Don't use it.

The issue with guys and girls hooking up as parties and doing "whatever" is not the worry. The worry is when guys get ignorant and intentionally drug a girl to have sex, or gang rape her. The later is a major legal issue.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/johncardillo/status/1045009203159601152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1045009203159601152&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fnews%2F2018-09-26%2Fkavanaugh-accuser-slammed-not-reporting-gang-rape-parties-she-attended-adult

Cardillo is destroying Avenatti. She was an adult, she served minors, and continually attended rape-parties. .. charge her.

It's coming wrote:

Cardillo is . . .

A hardcore conservative troll. Can't even get a at Breitbart.

Kavanaugh was 17, he attempted to drug and rape an underage girl .. charge him!

The Angel of Death wrote:

Peonies wrote:

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

Yeah, 100% this. It's going to add more trash to this RUNNING message board.

+1 this place has become a gathering place of sorts for the alt right. and one of the owners of the website is the one starting this thread. it's about clicks -- not content. brojos will probably argue but the way they let anti women sentiments run wild on these boards says otherwise.

Sexual assault should not be a partisan issue between Democrats & Republicans and it should not be something that there are two sides to on these boards. The only response on this should be to investigate the claims and move forward accordingly. Believe me, I think Kavanaugh is guilty and a scumbag but time will sort that out. I do not understand why Republicans want to jam through a lifetime appointment for a man that could be guilty of up to more than 3 cases of sexual assault. The Supreme Court should be comprised of the most morally outstanding & intellectual people we can find. The victim blaming language the Republicans are using is gross. We are talking about sexual assault here. And, sure, Democrats want to jump the gun on this but they had a nominee stolen from them and it's looking worse and worse for Kavanaugh by the minute. Why can't the Republicans just pick someone different? Why is it important to go out on a limb for this guy? Voters are noticing. Women are noticing.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Bernienomics/status/1044982007799795712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1044982007799795712&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fnews%2F2018-09-26%2Fkavanaugh-accuser-slammed-not-reporting-gang-rape-parties-she-attended-adult

You've got something wrong with you if this is your first response. Men need to stop committing sexual assault. Period.

I agree. But talking point on the left is the Supreme Court is an honor and can't put someone on it who has a cloud of suspicion.

The latest allegation today is so extreme it might give us resolution one way or another on his confirmation. If he did any of these things and they can get a corroborating witness he's toast obviously, but with the last claim that he was present at multiple gang rapes, it is so extreme. I think it polarizes the outcome. Surely someone had to have witnesses this or been able to corroborate it right? And now I feel if it's not substantiated then the other two are dismissed as well and he gets confirmed.

That may not be the case after tomorrow's testimony which will put focus back on one person. If she doesn't show to testify I think he'll get get approved.

I was just on Salon.com and saw this sentence, "multiple women with corroborating witnesses have come forward to testify under penalty of perjury that their allegations against the Supreme Court nominee are true."

My take is no one has corroborated the allegations.

I agree the therapists notes are the closest to what would be corroborating evidence. But they don't name Kavanugh. She didn't mention Kavanaugh in the notes, and then her friend she cites as being at the party a female has no recollection of it and I think denies even having met Kavanaugh. The 4th man (not one of the 2 attempted rapists) denies it as well.

Also if she was assaulted and ran out wouldn't that be memorable to her friend at the party or the guy? Yet her friend says she wasn't at such a party or hasn't met Kavanaugh.

Yes I get there isn't corroboration of sexual assaults but the fact her friend says she never met Kavanaugh does not help her case. It makes it 100% her word vs his and people are denying innocent parts of her story.

She could have been assaulted by someone else, etc and that's why its in the notes.

Testimony tomorrow is what everyone needs to see. Tackle that first. And then assess.

Agreed . That's why this is so serious especially with the 3rd charge. He says he was a virgin, yet others are saying he was gang raping drunk women. It's just so polar.

If one woman came forward and just said she had sex with him it would do him in as he would be shown to be a liar.

Kethledge would've been good. Independent thinker.

wejo wrote:

If one woman came forward and just said she had sex with him it would do him in as he would be shown to be a liar.

How? Again, evidence. Look, I'm not saying BK is some saint, but the presumption of innocence and the accuser(s) to provide evidence, is critical. If this is going to be the norm moving forward, many politicians and candidates are going to be implicated simply on accusation. What goes around, comes around. If this is the new weapon, nobody is spared.

smrtrthantrump wrote:

I thought he was a dud even before...

Agree. Go with Kethledge. Independent thinker. Wrote opinions of the year. What were they thinking?

They should change the pick to Kethledge on Thursday. Have him come in Friday for a one day interview. Vote him in on Monday.

This is why I never went to parties and just stayed home and watched reruns of The Rifleman.

Apparently, even McConnell, that drooling, no chin functionary, opposed Kavanaugh's nomination because he had such a long record to find things to oppose. Now there's a third accuser claiming date/gang rape.

GoatZenHeimer wrote:

This is why I never went to parties and just stayed home and watched reruns of The Rifleman.

+1

Sigh!

And on Friday nights, The Wild, Wild West.

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Apparently, even McConnell, that drooling, no chin functionary, opposed Kavanaugh's nomination because he had such a long record to find things to oppose. Now there's a third accuser claiming date/gang rape.

Indeed. BK was a political Hitman for the 90s. How did they think this wouldn't be a problem? His hearing in 2006 was ugly, and so everyone knew this wouldn't be any better.

wejo wrote:

sssseeeettttttttt4 wrote:

Understand where you are coming from, however I think it comes down to this:

3 people claiming sexual assault. They claim that in total there were numerous (a dozen? dozens?) people who witnessed or partook in this. If someone corroborates one of these stories, he is toast.

If they cant get 1 out of a dozen people to corroborate, then you can not obstruct his path/ruin his life. Sorry, if there is no evidence we can't act on these claims.

I agree. But talking point on the left is the Supreme Court is an honor and can't put someone on it who has a cloud of suspicion.

The problem is entirely the making of Mitch McConnell. The requirement had always been 60 Senators must approve a SCOTUS nominee. But, McConnell decided that the rule needed to be 50, so he change it. The result is what you have today.

The rule needs to be set into stone. Sixty Senators. And no majority leader can change it for political purposes. Kavanugh would never been under consideration if 60 votes were required.