Brett Kavanaugh

[Spartanmack]

The President of the United States, and his enablers, seems to have forgotten how he gleefully provided Bill Clinton's accusers a very public platform during the election... He didn't seem to have much trouble believing them then. What's changed? Nah, sorry. Trump threw that argument out the window when he paraded those 4 women out on live TV to accuse Slick Willy, just 90 minutes before a debate with Hillary and just 1-2 days after his 'grab her by the pussy' comments. You don't get to play it both ways.

how many of those were 30 year old uncorroborated stories? I think the fact that they came one after another, the victims remembered ever detail, witnesses were able to at least place the accused and the victim in the time and place of the alleged incidents, there was a track record of philandering behavior, etc, etc make this situation entirely different from the slick willy move - particularly when candidate Hillary Clinton was going around saying that women are to be believed. Parading those women around wasn't to impugn her by association, it was to point out what a massive hypocrite and lying sack of shit she is. She ruined those women's lives, all for her won personal gain and tried to pretend she gave a shit when her opponent faced allegations of improper behavior. Not gonna fly. Also, 1 or 2 days after Trump's comments? Hadn't it been YEARS since he actually said those words? and by the way, as crass as they were, they were words, not actual rapes. There's a canyon of difference between the allegations against either Trump or Kavanagh and what Clinton was alleged to have done or what his wife did in his defense.

If you're so certain that the Kavanaugh accuser is just a partisan shill, what's the harm in investigating and clearing his name? Dragged their feet for a year with Garland but now it's imperative we shove Kavanaugh through before mid terms. Like I said, they're scummy politicians. The whole thing is bullshit.

I'm not certain, but the whole thing smacks of partisan nonsense. The FBI had already declined to investigate - the same FBI that tried to stop Trump from getting elected, so I doubt they declined for political reasons. If there's enough evidence to indicate it's necessary, have at it, but an uncorroborated accusation from 36 years ago, from a victim who can't recall the year, place or other details? seems rather flimsy to me.

Sexual assault or misconduct shouldn't be something that is swept under the rug because some time passed by. We don't do it with theft or murder, why the exception? According to the Department of Justice , 2 out of 3 rapes don't even get reported. If your inclination is to roll your eyes, do mental gymnastics, or spin your tires concerning allegations of rape, that says a lot about you as a person in my opinion. Could a woman/man lie about being sexually assaulted? Sure can. But you could say that about every crime. Again, why do we treat this differently?

I'm not saying to sweep anything under the rug, I'm just not willing to throw Kavanagh to the wolves based on a flimsy accusation. And we do have a statute of limitations for theft, not murder though. Not sure if there is one for rape or not, although he's not accused of that. There's probably some sort of limitation for the type of assault that's seems to be alleged here - unwanted groping.

 

[tinselwolverine]

how many of those were 30 year old uncorroborated stories? I think the fact that they came one after another, the victims remembered ever detail, witnesses were able to at least place the accused and the victim in the time and place of the alleged incidents, there was a track record of philandering behavior, etc, etc make this situation entirely different from the slick willy move - particularly when candidate Hillary Clinton was going around saying that women are to be believed. Parading those women around wasn't to impugn her by association, it was to point out what a massive hypocrite and lying sack of shit she is. She ruined those women's lives, all for her won personal gain and tried to pretend she gave a shit when her opponent faced allegations of improper behavior. Not gonna fly. Also, 1 or 2 days after Trump's comments? Hadn't it been YEARS since he actually said those words? and by the way, as crass as they were, they were words, not actual rapes. There's a canyon of difference between the allegations against either Trump or Kavanagh and what Clinton was alleged to have done or what his wife did in his defense.



I'm not certain, but the whole thing smacks of partisan nonsense. The FBI had already declined to investigate - the same FBI that tried to stop Trump from getting elected, so I doubt they declined for political reasons. If there's enough evidence to indicate it's necessary, have at it, but an uncorroborated accusation from 36 years ago, from a victim who can't recall the year, place or other details? seems rather flimsy to me.



I'm not saying to sweep anything under the rug, I'm just not willing to throw Kavanagh to the wolves based on a flimsy accusation. And we do have a statute of limitations for theft, not murder though. Not sure if there is one for rape or not, although he's not accused of that. There's probably some sort of limitation for the type of assault that's seems to be alleged here - unwanted groping.

She was requested to testify in front of the Senate committee.

Let?s see if she shows up, and let?s see what she has to say.

 

[sggatecl]

how many of those were 30 year old uncorroborated stories? I think the fact that they came one after another, the victims remembered ever detail, witnesses were able to at least place the accused and the victim in the time and place of the alleged incidents, there was a track record of philandering behavior, etc, etc make this situation entirely different from the slick willy move - particularly when candidate Hillary Clinton was going around saying that women are to be believed. Parading those women around wasn't to impugn her by association, it was to point out what a massive hypocrite and lying sack of shit she is. She ruined those women's lives, all for her won personal gain and tried to pretend she gave a shit when her opponent faced allegations of improper behavior. Not gonna fly. Also, 1 or 2 days after Trump's comments? Hadn't it been YEARS since he actually said those words? and by the way, as crass as they were, they were words, not actual rapes. There's a canyon of difference between the allegations against either Trump or Kavanagh and what Clinton was alleged to have done or what his wife did in his defense.

1 to 2 days after the video came out, whatever, I'm not going to argue semantics. And weren't there reports of at least 10-15 reports of accusations against Trump. Far from just 'words'. I assume we're dismissing those for 'partisan hack' reasons though.

I'm not certain, but the whole thing smacks of partisan nonsense. The FBI had already declined to investigate - the same FBI that tried to stop Trump from getting elected, so I doubt they declined for political reasons. If there's enough evidence to indicate it's necessary, have at it, but an uncorroborated accusation from 36 years ago, from a victim who can't recall the year, place or other details? seems rather flimsy to me.

And having said alllll that, flimsy or not, my question stands. Why are we rushing this dude through without finding out for sure?

I'm not saying to sweep anything under the rug, I'm just not willing to throw Kavanagh to the wolves based on a flimsy accusation. And we do have a statute of limitations for theft, not murder though. Not sure if there is one for rape or not, although he's not accused of that. There's probably some sort of limitation for the type of assault that's seems to be alleged here - unwanted groping.

I hardly think vetting Kavanaugh properly (isn't that what these hearings are for?) is 'throwing him to the wolves'. If someone is calling for the hearings to end RIGHT NOW and Kavanaugh to immediately be disqualified, I'll call bullshit. But most level headed discussions I see just want to see the matter investigated before handing the guy a lifetime government appointment. All I'm learning from this and many other ordeals is that if you can get away with rape, sexual assault, etc for a long enough time, most people will probably just give you a pass.

 

[sggatecl]

Another partisan hack accuses the honorable Judge Kavanaugh of unwanted sexual advances.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Avenatti is tweeting a 3rd
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044032678951960576


Here's the opening of the letter he sent the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Dear Mr. Davis:
Thank you for your email. We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a "train" of men to subsequently gang rape them. There are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts and each of them must be called publicly. As a starting point, Senate investigators should pose the following questions to Judge Kavanaugh without delay and provide the answers to the American people:

I'm not sure that I think of Avenatti as a lawyer. Seems like a politician. Not particularly relevant to this. Just a side comment.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Another partisan hack accuses the honorable Judge Kavanaugh of unwanted sexual advances.

I guess she can get her day in front of the Senate subcommittee if she wants to also.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Avenatti is tweeting a 3rd
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1044032678951960576


Here's the opening of the letter he sent the Senate Judiciary Committee:



I'm not sure that I think of Avenatti as a lawyer. Seems like a politician. Not particularly relevant to this. Just a side comment.

He?s actually a showman the likes of PT Barnum.

 

[tomdalton22]

Another partisan hack accuses the honorable Judge Kavanaugh of unwanted sexual advances.

"I wasn't going to touch a penis until I was married," she told The New Yorker.

I don't know why...but I found this funny.

 

[Spartanmack]

1 to 2 days after the video came out, whatever, I'm not going to argue semantics. And weren't there reports of at least 10-15 reports of accusations against Trump. Far from just 'words'. I assume we're dismissing those for 'partisan hack' reasons though.

And having said alllll that, flimsy or not, my question stands. Why are we rushing this dude through without finding out for sure?

I hardly think vetting Kavanaugh properly (isn't that what these hearings are for?) is 'throwing him to the wolves'. If someone is calling for the hearings to end RIGHT NOW and Kavanaugh to immediately be disqualified, I'll call bullshit. But most level headed discussions I see just want to see the matter investigated before handing the guy a lifetime government appointment. All I'm learning from this and many other ordeals is that if you can get away with rape, sexual assault, etc for a long enough time, most people will probably just give you a pass.

That's not a semantic argument and I don't recall dismissing allegations against Trump - I've said time and again, I think Trump is a bad guy. This isn't a defense of Trump and I didn't defend him from any credible allegations then or now. But the fact that he's a philandering slimeball doesn't mean he can't call out Hillary for her hypocrisy - she's absolutely fair game especially if she's going to call him out for his treatment of women - people who live in glass houses...


And we're not rushing this dude through. His document submission was multiple times greater than any justice before him due to inordinate level of requests by the opposition. He's been properly vetted, more than any nominee before him. this whole thing smacks of 11th hour partisan desperation.

 

[biggunsbob]

That's not a semantic argument. And we're not rushing this dude through. His document submission was multiple times greater than any justice before him due to inordinate level of requests by the opposition. He's been properly vetted, more than any nominee before him. this whole thing smacks of 11th hour partisan desperation.

He is a right wing partisan hack Judge and if any democrat president had picked as far a left as this guy is to the right the Gop would be up in arms. Sadly the GOP is a outdated party that needs to go. The guy is a awful pick. Democrats should do anything they can to block this pick who will go out of his way to protect his piece of shit President. Sadly nothing Phases the republicans in their quest to Consolidate their power.

 

[tomdalton22]

Sadly the GOP is a outdated party that needs to go.

that's funny. You disagree with the opinions of a group so they "deserve to go".

 

[Gulo Blue]

Sadly the GOP is a outdated party that needs to go.

I would say hijacked rather than outdated. I feel like they've abandoned any interest in small budgets, government not picking winners and losers, and individual freedom and rights.

 

[Spartanmack]

He is a right wing partisan hack Judge and if any democrat president had picked as far a left as this guy is to the right the Gop would be up in arms. Sadly the GOP is a outdated party that needs to go. The guy is a awful pick. Democrats should do anything they can to block this pick who will go out of his way to protect his piece of shit President. Sadly nothing Phases the republicans in their quest to Consolidate their power.

you mean like Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor or the notorious RGB? Which liberal partisan hack justices have faced anywhere near this level of scrutiny? please, enlighten us...

 

[tigermud]

I would say hijacked rather than outdated. I feel like they've abandoned any interest in small budgets, government not picking winners and losers, and individual freedom and rights.

and I feel like the dems and repo never trumps left the US worker in favor of a globalist multinational sell out crap trade policy. The wound runs very deep. trump is the result of their abandonment. If they want to go back to supporting the American worker instead of shifting even further left I'll consider them again. Until then carry on Trump! Expose it all, please

 

[Spartanmack]

I guess she can get her day in front of the Senate subcommittee if she wants to also.

this one is pretty good too...

I will not testify on a boat,
I will not testify with a goat.
I will not testify,
Here nor there.
I will not testify anywhere.

I will not testify first. Or last.
I will not testify slow or fast.
There's nothing more for me to say.
I can't remember, anyway.

Dr. Suess-Ford

 

[biggunsbob]

you mean like Elena Kagan, Sonya Sotomayor or the notorious RGB? Which liberal partisan hack justices have faced anywhere near this level of scrutiny? please, enlighten us...

Two can play that game with the shit judges the right has have since like forever. Do I have to name the crappy judges the far right has on this court lol....Novel concept make it 5 to 4 in favor of the moderates or left and we can talk. The Roberts court is a terrible court. It will go in history as awful. Ramming this piece of shit confirmation Kavanaugh through without all the papers is criminal , and a topical GOP tactic. The Gop sucks .. They always will. A old piece of shit party that only cares about itself and staying in power and not helping the American people.

 

[Spartanmack]

Two can play that game with the shit judges the right has have since like forever. Do I have to name the crappy judges the far right has on this court lol....Novel concept make it 5 to 4 in favor of the moderates or left and we can talk. The Roberts court is a terrible court. It will go in history as awful. Ramming this piece of shit confirmation Kavanaugh through without all the papers is criminal , and a topical GOP tactic. The Gop sucks .. They always will. A old piece of shit party that only cares about itself and staying in power and not helping the American people.

no, actually two can't play at that game. This isn't a game, you're simply avoiding the question so I'll ask it again. You said "...if any democrat president had picked as far a left as this guy is to the right the Gop would be up in arms." I named three extremely liberal justices who didn't face anything at all like what Kavanaugh is facing - can you name 1 that did?

 

[biggunsbob]

no, actually two can't play at that game. This isn't a game, you're simply avoiding the question so I'll ask it again. You said "...if any democrat president had picked as far a left as this guy is to the right the Gop would be up in arms." I named three extremely liberal justices who didn't face anything at all like what Kavanaugh is facing - can you name 1 that did?

I could care less about the process unles they are accused of something? If any liberal justice had done the anything like Thomas and or kavanaugh they should be grilled just as much as a far right justice . Make sure you got that so you don?t twist my words
Not sure any of them were accused of sexual harassment, and I bet they had to release all,of their papers.. Did they get excused of anything? Seems like a democratic president has to pick a moderate justice but when it comes the piece of shit candidates the GOP picks they always want their cake and their fucking pick without any questions . . Fucking Thomas shouldn?t even have been confirmed .

Why won?t he and or the GOP , and Trump realase all of his papers?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Ramming this piece of shit confirmation Kavanaugh through without all the papers is criminal , and a topical GOP tactic.

Well, yes - the Kavanagh nomination certainly is getting a lot of attention and being discussed quite a bit.

The tactics the Democrats are employing are pretty topical, too.

 

[Spartanmack]

I could care less about the process unles they are accused of something? If any liberal justice had done the anything like Thomas and or kavanaugh they should be grilled just as much as a far right justice . Make sure you got that so you don?t twist my words
Not sure any of them were accused of sexual harassment, and I bet they had to release all,of their papers.. Did they get excused of anything? Seems like a democratic president has to pick a moderate justice but when it comes the piece of shit candidates the GOP picks they always want their cake and their fucking pick without any questions . . Fucking Thomas shouldn?t even have been confirmed .

Why won?t he and or the GOP , and Trump realase all of his papers?

I'm not twisting your words, you're changing your tune. You said nothing about the allegations, you only said if a Dem appointed an ideological polar opposite, the GOP would be up in arms. but, just to be certain, you seem to be saying you don't care about due process - as far as you're concerned, the allegation is enough, Kavanaugh did it, is that about right? Keep in mind, I'm not twisting your words, you said "if any liberal justice had done the anything like Thomas and or kavanaugh..."

And the justices I named (Sotomayor, Kagan and RGB) are not moderates, they're all extreme leftists ideologically and none of them were put to anywhere near the level of scrutiny Kavanaugh was. Even before this 11th hour allegation, he was way more scrutinized than any of them.