Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

Clay Travis said:

I dont think you need to say that you are in the business of determining whether you believe her. I think the question is, 'Do you believe her or do you believe the four witnesses who have told different stories than her?' Because if it is 1 against 1, then it's hard to decide what we actually know but if it is 4 witnesses against 1 witness, then I think this is a big deal and it's much easier to argue.

I thought it was a really misguided move to focus on how she got an attorney, how did the polygraph take place. The idea that she is a democratic operative is to me much less interesting than whether or not her story is true.

I believe, having watched that entire testimony, that she believes her story. There are all sorts of things that we believe on a regular basis that actually are not true.... Lawyers know that among the least reliable of witnesses are eyewitnesses. There are tons of people that have been freed from off of death row because they were convicted on eyewitness testimony....

Often times, you get stories that are not true. Not because people are trying to intentionally lie necessarily but because we all see things differently even when they occur directly in front of us. We have this allusion that eyewitness testimony is incredible reliably when in essence it often isn't which is why corroborating evidence or circumstantial evidence frequently becomes so instrumental.

Here is what we know about Dr. Ford, she doesn't know the date, she doesn't know the location, she doesn't even know the year, she doesn't know how she got to or from this party and we know that there are four witnesses on the record including her best friend in high school who have all failed to confirm or corroborate any of the details she has given...

Clay Travis said:

8:45 This is what he "Focus on the evidence that is against her during your questioning. I want to know, 'What do you think about the fact that your best friend says that she has no recollection of this happening. Don't you think it's a big strange that you can claim to remember everything from inside the house so well but you don't remembrer how you got back 7 miles back home that night or how you go to the party?

Don't you think it's a bit strange that everybody else who was at this party doesn't have any recollection of it ever happening including your best friend? Why would their recollections be different than yours? This is not a he-said, she-said. This is a he said, he said, he said, she said versus a she-said. If you have five people with recollections and four of them have one recollection and the other one has a different recollection, which one in general is likely to be telling the truth overall?

Again, I don't she's intentionally lying. I think she may be mistaken, I think she may be misidentifying who the individuals are in this case. I think she believes what she is saying but there are all sorts of examples of great, tremendous people who get up on the witness stand and are proven to be wrong, not because they are intentionally lying, not because there motive is something nefarious but just because when you are on a witness stand and you are an eyewitness for something that happened 36 years ago.

Clay Travis said:

"You need to loook like a human, not like a lawyer or a judge... People like humans, they do not like lawyers or judges. If I were advising Brett Kavanaugh, I would (tell him to) come out guns blazing about how you didn't do this, about how awful you feel that we have entered into a universe where one person's accusations can torpedo someone from getting a job especially when it's not corroborated by any extra evidence. That you have had to sit down with your two daughters and have a conservation with them about how nasty and brutish our modern day politics has become. That even when your dad has tried to do everything (right) in his life, sometimes peopel are going to attack him because of what he believes.....

I think you need to say that you're not saying that nobody attacked Dr. Ford. You don't know what her motivations are. You don't know what happened that night in question. You're not even questioning whether it happened as you simply do not know enough. The only thing you can say is that it was not me as all of the evidence has reflected, and I think you need to say that in a human manner, not like a robot, and not like a lawyer or a judge answering questions in a courtroom thinking this is some sort of argument about legal jurisprudence.

You are in the midst of political theatre. You are putting on makeup to sit at a table. You have to put on a show that convinces the American public that what has been alleged against you is not true. You are not a professional actor but you have to act like crazy.

When I (Clay Travis) am on television, that is not a 100% accurate personification of what I am - it is a reflection of that. When you put on makeup to do your job, you are taking yourself fundamentally out of reality and putting on a show. Politicians right now are using you to stage political theatre. They know millions of people are watching, they are worried about their 2020 presidential campaigns, they are worried about their reelections.

This is not a legal proceeding where you are standing in front of the Supreme Court making a (legal) argument. In fact, this is one of the very reasons why the Supreme Court does not want cameras in the courtroom because they want to make it about the law, not about the performance. This is a trial and you learn in law school that trial courts are about putting on shows, putting on performances, being a great master of (getting the) attention of the jury.

As you move up beyond trial court and you are not peforming for a jury anymore, it's about the law, the arguments for the law. Judges typically focus not on the performance - they focus on the legal argument. Kavanaugh has to be told and he has to understand this is not about the law, this is about performance art, this is political theatre. If you want to be a Supreme Court justice, you have to go out there and put on the performance of your life, selling a verified, authentic version of yourself which emotes much more than you do normally.

Dr. Ford told a very good story. She was a very compelling witness. The Republicans did a poor job of rebutting her allegations, the Democrats did a great job of buttressing her arguments. Now is the opportunity for Brett Kavanaugh to go out and sell his side of the story. If he doesn't do a good job of selling it, then he may never get to sit of the Supreme Court. But he'll still probably get to sit on the DC Circuit. He will join Robert Bork as a footnote in history.

But there is a precedent. Will Brett Kavanaugh put on the performance of his life right now and vindicate himself, and his family and his good name? We're about to find out.

Awsi Dooger wrote:

Kamala Harris had the golden question but blew the application. On the way to the Canes/North Carolina game I was listening on NPR and almost drove into a truck when she asked Kavanaugh if he watched Dr. Ford's testimony in the morning, and he said no.

He's guilty and he's a liar.

I don't need any further evidence.

An innocent person absolutely watches every second of that testimony. Not only watches it, he makes copious notes and uses that testimony as the basis for his opening statement and everything he says during questioning. He amends everything he planned to say based on what he hears in the morning. You'd have to be a fool to believe otherwise.

Think about it from the standpoint of a truly innocent person: You've got to be shocked beyond belief at something like this claimed from 36 years earlier. Who is this woman? What does she look like? Does she jog any memory at all? If I listen to everything she says maybe I can make some sense of it. Maybe I can figure out who she might be confusing me for. I certainly can pick apart one claim after another.

On the other hand, a guilty person has every reason to totally ignore the Ford testimony. He never thought he would see her again. He can't believe this has resurfaced after so many decades, as threat to his career. He doesn't want to hear the familiar voice. He can't stand to relive the memory, to look at a face he remembers violating, or any recognizable gestures or idiosyncrasies.

A guilty person knows he can't fight a truthful summary from an accuser so he relies on a Roy Cohn/Donald Trump scorched earth policy of lies and fear and blaming the system and the Clintons and anyone who dares question him. After all, only the bottom line matters at all, not the truth.

If Kamala Harris merely understood what she had from the outset she could have entirely changed how the afternoon was remembered. She could have coaxed Kavanaugh into emphasizing how much time he spent preparing for his testimony. Kavanuaugh undoubtedly would have bragged about that. Then ask him if he watched Dr. Ford's testimony. Once he says no he has no idea he just stumbled into a trap. The liars always ignore the little details, like the fact that an innocent person would watch everything his accuser says, especially when in the catbird seat of being able to immediately follow her on the same stage, and with Dr. Ford unable to have a follow up rebuttal of her own.

Conservatives here will dismiss this. Who cares? They are not credible. I asked several people tonight at the football game and subsequently. Every one of them immediately agreed with me that an innocent person would watch the accuser, and a guilty person would not.

Big miss by a sharp person like Kamala Harris not to understand what she had.

joedirt wrote:

Ford was treated with kid gloves for political reasons. Even at that there are notable instances of her lying. I would have like to have heard more tough questions or Ford, like:

You have stated that you couldn't scream because one of the assailants hand was over your mouth. That you had a fear you might be raped or killed. After you had freed yourself and escaped to the bathroom, was their hand still over your mouth?

Was the room dark or light? Was the attack from the front or behind? Where was the radio and what song was playing? How far was it from the door to the bed? Did they carry you or did you walk? You have testified that there were 5 people at the party, but the house you described does not match the house of any of the individuals that you have said attended the party. Is it possible there were other individuals at the party, as it would be unusual for the owner of the house to not be at a party.

rojo wrote:

Awsi Dooger wrote:

Kamala Harris had the golden question but blew the application. On the way to the Canes/North Carolina game I was listening on NPR and almost drove into a truck when she asked Kavanaugh if he watched Dr. Ford's testimony in the morning, and he said no.

He's guilty and he's a liar.

I don't need any further evidence.

An innocent person absolutely watches every second of that testimony. Not only watches it, he makes copious notes and uses that testimony as the basis for his opening statement and everything he says during questioning. He amends everything he planned to say based on what he hears in the morning. You'd have to be a fool to believe otherwise.

Think about it from the standpoint of a truly innocent person: You've got to be shocked beyond belief at something like this claimed from 36 years earlier. Who is this woman? What does she look like? Does she jog any memory at all? If I listen to everything she says maybe I can make some sense of it. Maybe I can figure out who she might be confusing me for. I certainly can pick apart one claim after another.

On the other hand, a guilty person has every reason to totally ignore the Ford testimony. He never thought he would see her again. He can't believe this has resurfaced after so many decades, as threat to his career. He doesn't want to hear the familiar voice. He can't stand to relive the memory, to look at a face he remembers violating, or any recognizable gestures or idiosyncrasies.

A guilty person knows he can't fight a truthful summary from an accuser so he relies on a Roy Cohn/Donald Trump scorched earth policy of lies and fear and blaming the system and the Clintons and anyone who dares question him. After all, only the bottom line matters at all, not the truth.

If Kamala Harris merely understood what she had from the outset she could have entirely changed how the afternoon was remembered. She could have coaxed Kavanaugh into emphasizing how much time he spent preparing for his testimony. Kavanuaugh undoubtedly would have bragged about that. Then ask him if he watched Dr. Ford's testimony. Once he says no he has no idea he just stumbled into a trap. The liars always ignore the little details, like the fact that an innocent person would watch everything his accuser says, especially when in the catbird seat of being able to immediately follow her on the same stage, and with Dr. Ford unable to have a follow up rebuttal of her own.

Conservatives here will dismiss this. Who cares? They are not credible. I asked several people tonight at the football game and subsequently. Every one of them immediately agreed with me that an innocent person would watch the accuser, and a guilty person would not.

Big miss by a sharp person like Kamala Harris not to understand what she had.

While I don't agree with you, I love the thoughts behind your post. Pretty brilliant.

I don't agree because if you are innocent and know there are 4 people who say it didnt' happen all you'd think you'd have to do is figure out a way to remind people of that fact.