Kavanaugh Hearing

I must disagree. Speaking for myself, @Gator715 and @GatorBen have both made points that caused me to change my mind. GatorBen did so in this thread. Albeit, I changed my mind after seeing Swetnick's interview, but the points GatorBen made certainly played a role in it. We're all stubborn. People generally are. But some of us are open to contrary evidence and opinions.

 

It's been reported that contemporary classmates of Kav indicated that the term was a sexual reference (which seems to be what most people around at the time think it meant), while Kav and pals insist that it was a drinking game. One potential explanation is that Kav's group of friends thought it would be amusing to name one of their drinking games after the three-way reference.

 

At this point, I think he's being honest about the yearbook references (except for the Renate one).

 

The liberal democrats would like nothing better than for people to be guilty of their trumped up allegations until proven innocent so they can further their agenda of socialism. Socialism will always fail.

 

Great point being made here:


He could have just sent a letter to the major media outlets. Instead, like his Fox News interview, he chose a media outlet known for catering to Republicans. Even his denial of partisanship comes off as partisan.

 

I can see the craigslist ad now:

“Act like a jackass — earn $15 an hour”

 

Won't work on Saturday. They're busy getting paid to fill FSU's stadium.

 

I could see that. It does look like they had some sort of joke about a game with it (whether it was a drinking game or not).

 

The Renate explanation doesn’t seem believable to me. I’m not going to claim I know for certain he is lying about it but calling other guys alumni of a girl sounds bad.

 

Was the Princeton Theologian at the party when the Ramirez claims she was assaulted? If not, then why does the FBI need to talk with him?

Strange how some many people at Yale seems to remember Kavanaugh differently now then they did during his previous 6 background check, especially since a SCOUTS seat is on the line. The FBI clearly feels that they have heard from plenty of people that knew Kavanaugh well during his time at Yale.

You can think whatever you want about how I arrived at my conclusions of Roche. I think that it is pretty clear that he is going out of his way to insert himself into this process. Add to the fact that Kavanaugh stated that he and Roche really didn't like each other. And now Kavanaugh is about to be put on the SCOTUS and Roche has the chance to sink it and he is now jumping up and down screaming to the media "Put me in coach!" Yeah, there is a very good chance he is doing it to grind a personal and political axe.

Yeah, you clearly do not understand the difference between an FBI background check and a FBI investigation.

 

That does look like some kind of game then. Thanks!

 

Is there a hack gene? If so, Justice Stevens has it.

 

Given the other things pointed out, I won't go so far as to say it was a drinking game (or that they weren't basing the name on the sex act), but it does appear to be some sort of game. Now about Renate Alumnae. Do you think that references her going to dances? How about boofing? Flatulence?

 

Why would you talk to a credible person who independently corroborated Ramirez's story based on what he heard while living in the same area as Kavanaugh? C'mon. The mental gymnastics need to stop. If you care about finding the truth, you talk to him.

Roche is on the record saying he was never contacted during any previous background check. I imagine the same is true of the others. Then again, his drinking wasn't an issue until he opened the door.

Can you point me to a statement from Kavanaugh saying that? A statement from Roche would also suffice.

Okay. Enlighten us all why the difference between the two is relevant and significant here. Don't say subpoena power because the people are all willing to go on the record (in fact, the FBI turned them away).

 

Justice Stevens, the Republican, is a hack?

 

I'm quite baffled that The Federalist posted this in defense of Kavanaugh. It confirms what NBC reported:
NBC Owes Kavanaugh A Retraction For 'Perjury' Claim On Ramirez Texts

Here's a quote from their article:

How do you ask somebody to go on the record about allegations you claim you have never heard about or discussed?

 

Looking at the Politico reporting about statements from Cornyn (the Senate will put an end to this circus-like atmosphere when it votes to confirm this weekend - asked later if he had the votes, responded that he was going to let Senators make their own statements, but he is optimistic they will get there) and the planned procedure (sounds like they’re moving ahead with Saturday’s vote and will hold the vote open until Daines can return to the Senate floor from Montana if his vote is needed), it sounds like the GOP is pretty confident at this point that the votes are there.

 

He was unqualified in high school that is certainly true. He is qualified now. I think interviewing people about things that happened 35 years ago is ridiculous.

 

I think ignoring sexual assault because it happened a long time ago is ridiculous.

 

I am not ignoring sexual assault. I am saying that an unsubstantiated allegation from 35 years ago is not relevant.