Kavanaugh Hearing

He reminds me of quite a few folks I know. I have many slimeball friends

 

He's talked about running. I think the Dem base is so fired up for a fight right now that there's a good chance of him getting that far. Probably not good for the country, but I think we're far beyond that unfortunately.

 

This is exactly right. Senator Feinsteins goal here was to stall, to slowly derail the Kavanaugh until there would not be time to confirm anyone before the midterms. Her goal was to hope after the midterms the dems would be in the majority in the Senate. I am uncomfortable even discussing these allegations. I wasnt there. I wont impugn the women claiming this and I wont judge the man denying it.

 

Doubtful.

These days it’s better for slime balls to host reality TV shows first, then run for President.

 

He went to a prominent prep school. I imagine the alumni association did it. Come on atleast think before you post nonsense.

 

Where does it say that?

This is another one of those "read it carefully and look at what it actually says, not what you want it to say" things.

Because if you mean this sentence, it doesn't say that:

"During the years 1981-82 I became aware of efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh, and others to 'spike' the 'punch' at house parties I attended . . . ."

 

And what came next? Something about drugs and grain alcohol, right?

 

So lets have her testify. Seems like a logical next step.

 

Dr. Ford's legal team has stated that they will not turn over her therapists notes to the JC that they showed the Washington Post.

 

They released Dr. Blasey's polygraph today. Anyone want to discredit that?

And another interesting article on the culture at the time (woman briefly mentions Kavanaugh; says he was nice when sober but a crude jerk when drunk):
Bethesda resident describes “Culture of Privilege” leading to exploitation and abuse

 

From the NyTimes: “none of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.”

Julie Swetnick Is Third Woman to Accuse Brett Kavanaugh of Sexual Misconduct

 

"I became aware of" sure as hell sounds like code for hearsay to me.

 

Besides that poly's are not admissible in court? Have you ever had to take one?

What about her therapist's notes?

 

FAKE NEWS

 

Dr. Ford hides the name of her accuser for years until 2012, when she comes forward to her therapist and her husband. Same year, Kavanaugh is featured as a prominent name that Romney might choose for a SCOTUS nomination. Up until this point, Kavanaugh's name has been largely out of the public eye. Coincidence that Ford came forward in 2012 after hearing Kavanaugh's name? Unlikely. More likely it was a trigger that caused Ford to seek out therapy.

Now we have two other accusations that speak to Kavanaugh's behavior as a high school student and student at Yale. We also have the Kavanaugh Fox interview where he tries to portray himself as an alter boy and brushing off the heavy drinking and partying as a few things all of us have done in the past we'd like to forget about. Sorry. Not buying it.

In the past, behavior like Kavanaugh's youthful partying would have been accepted in the boy's club that was the Beltway. It's likely why Kavanaugh feels like he can just brush it off like it was no big deal. After all, Kavanaugh's entire life was one of privilege. But it's no excuse, unless you really want someone who treated women like Kavanaugh did on the Supreme Court. And if you want this, you probably think all three women are lying or somehow to blame/deserved what happened.

 

So polygraphs are useless? Would it surprise you to know that Brett Kavanaugh disagrees? In an opinion affirming the effectiveness of polygraphs as law enforcement tools (he even called it an "important law enforcement tool"), Brett Kavanaugh said "law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants." Obviously, though, we can't trust him.

 

That's the same thing the NYT said about the second accuser. Conservatives tried to latch onto that as if it meant something, and the NYT later made clear that they were misstating what it meant. It was literally the same situation. Ramirez wouldn't interview with them. Funny how you're doing it again.

 

If Julie Swetnik had fabricated this entire story to sink the nomination and she has never even met Kavanaugh why leave any ambiguity in her statement? Why not just specifically say that Kavanaugh was one of the men who raped her?

If anything, her unwillingness to to do so lends her statement credibility, IMO.

 

Are they admissible in court?

 

Is Brett Kavanaugh wrong? Do you know better than him?