ADVERTISEMENT

Kavanaugh

Why wait until Wednesday?

If a claim like this...actual rape, and not just willie flashing...is levied then I’d say she’d better be pressing charges.
 
Avenatti seemed to hint that his client will be announcing she was raped by Kavanaugh along with Mark Judge. I think she will be coming out with her statement on Wednesday. Avenatti is starting to sound like Gloria Allred.


LOL....sounds like a good strategy to get Kavanaugh confirmed. The guy is off the rails and full of shit. Wouldn't be surprised if this ends up getting him disbarred.
 
Why wait until Wednesday?

If a claim like this...actual rape, and not just willie flashing...is levied then I’d say she’d better be pressing charges.
Is there a statute of limitations on the rape? If it was long ago and there is an SOL, then charges aren't possible.
 
LOL....sounds like a good strategy to get Kavanaugh confirmed. The guy is off the rails and full of shit. Wouldn't be surprised if this ends up getting him disbarred.
I think he’s an attention whore . But he’s pretty much come through when he says he has something. We will see. I saw him on Cuomo and he didn’t go as far. He did say the woman was both a witness and a victim.
 








As I posted earlier, and leaving aside the worst of the allegations, these stories are old, but they suggest he was the sort of privileged a-- that inflicts his privileged a--holery on others with impunity. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way, even if there's certainly no consensus on that opinion, even though it was a long time ago, and even though it's not the stuff of illegality. That he's sorta saying otherwise now makes it worse for those who are rubbed the wrong way by this sort of thing. And it suggests he's the sort guy today that people would suspect a guy like that would one day become. (And, again, there's no consensus around that; not everybody dislikes "that guy").

But whoever posted the picture of James Spader and Craig Sheffer was pretty much spot on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411








As I posted earlier, and leaving aside the worst of the allegations, these stories are old, but they suggest he was the sort of privileged a-- that inflicts his privileged a--holery on others with impunity. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way, even if there's certainly no consensus on that opinion, even though it was a long time ago, and even though it's not the stuff of illegality. That he's sorta saying otherwise now makes it worse for those who are rubbed the wrong way by this sort of thing. And it suggests he's the sort guy today that people would suspect a guy like that would one day become. (And, again, there's no consensus around that; not everybody dislikes "that guy").

But whoever posted the picture of James Spader and Craig Sheffer was pretty much spot on.


That's a bunch of absolute nothing. My high school yearbook (and senior wills) were full of all the same kind of stuff.

And his college fraternity paraded around with a flag made of girls underwear? Oh, surely not. The horror.

This is getting to the point of total absurdity.
 
Not sure what your point is then....what exactly makes him an ass? That he got drunk fairly often? Who that went to Georgetown Prep and then Yale wasn't privileged?
I'm not singling him out.

I'm not suggesting that the JC would or should vote him down as a result.

I'm not suggesting it's shocking or extraordinary. It's not like this is totally foreign to me.

But it's also not like everybody did that stuff or that everybody was okay with it at the time even if it was just hijinx. And even if it is a common one, it does speak to a mindset. And it's not ideal when that mindset carries on past college. The #metoo movement, imo, is getting at some of that; not just by protesting assault, but by suggesting that widely accepted behaviors aren't acceptable. Regardless of how common it is, not everybody was treated favorably amid those hijinx. And there's plenty of that mindset (even if lots and lots of folks consider it harmless) permeating among adults in corporate America and it plays out in ways that are scoffed at and dismissed by those making the rules.

Maybe I'm just saying I don't find him particularly sympathetic, especially if he's whitewashing that stuff. Again, that wouldn't preclude him from the Supreme Court, but it would explain authoritarian impulses.

Obviously, I'm just talking out loud here. I don't know the guy and we're working off limited data sets.
 
I think the New Yorker piece might actually help Kavanagh get confirmed. That was some very weak reporting that seems to have galvanized Republican Senate support of BK.
 
I think the New Yorker piece might actually help Kavanagh get confirmed. That was some very weak reporting that seems to have galvanized Republican Senate support of BK.

How so? Another accusation will actually help them? Are they trying to get to 19? I suppose if Avenatti comes forward with the third it should be a home run. Actually many of the people that signed letters of support, including one who made the commercial for him, and Renate, of Renate Alumni have pulled their support. Most of the yearbook stuff was silly, but that one is bad. And if the FFFF is what they are implying, that’s not great either. Of course there is going to be more coming out in the next 48 hours. Oh and two of the people in the NY story that disputed the claim have now gone back on it. So the only people disputing are the ones actually involved allegedly.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what your point is then....what exactly makes him an ass? That he got drunk fairly often? Who that went to Georgetown Prep and then Yale wasn't privileged?
And expanding on my post just above, I'm speaking to that divide that isn't just a partisan one or a political party one. It's a difference of perception. We saw it in the reaction to BLM. We saw it in the reaction to Charlottesville and the confederate statues. We saw it in the reaction to Kavanaugh's accuser(s). Anger. Outright rejection of a contrary view. Demonization of that contrary view. By the folks who've traditionally and really still do hold the position of something like privilege. While those on the other side aren't church mice, a large segment simply has expressed a "new" view based on their own personal experiences and from a position of something other than privilege and with a result that left them with something like the short end of the stick. That genuine and learned perspective isn't considered with sober reflection or an openness to something different by those who drew the long stick. It's shouted down. This thread is something of an example of that. It feels hard-wired in people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rockfish1
I'm not singling him out.

I'm not suggesting that the JC would or should vote him down as a result.

I'm not suggesting it's shocking or extraordinary. It's not like this is totally foreign to me.

But it's also not like everybody did that stuff or that everybody was okay with it at the time even if it was just hijinx. And even if it is a common one, it does speak to a mindset. And it's not ideal when that mindset carries on past college. The #metoo movement, imo, is getting at some of that; not just by protesting assault, but by suggesting that widely accepted behaviors aren't acceptable. Regardless of how common it is, not everybody was treated favorably amid those hijinx. And there's plenty of that mindset (even if lots and lots of folks consider it harmless) permeating among adults in corporate America and it plays out in ways that are scoffed at and dismissed by those making the rules.

Maybe I'm just saying I don't find him particularly sympathetic, especially if he's whitewashing that stuff. Again, that wouldn't preclude him from the Supreme Court, but it would explain authoritarian impulses.

Obviously, I'm just talking out loud here. I don't know the guy and we're working off limited data sets.
I thought your basic point was that it paints a significantly different picture than he's trying to paint now and that present-time disingenuity is the problem.
 
And expanding on my post just above, I'm speaking to that divide that isn't just a partisan one or a political party one. It's a difference of perception. We saw it in the reaction to BLM. We saw it in the reaction to Charlottesville and the confederate statues. We saw it in the reaction to Kavanaugh's accuser(s). Anger. Outright rejection of a contrary view. Demonization of that contrary view. By the folks who've traditionally and really still do hold the position of something like privilege. While those on the other side aren't church mice, a large segment simply has expressed a "new" view based on their own personal experiences and from a position of something other than privilege and with a result that left them with something like the short end of the stick. That genuine and learned perspective isn't considered with sober reflection or an openness to something different by those who drew the long stick. It's shouted down. This thread is something of an example of that. It feels hard-wired in people.
Furthermore, this demonization is misplaced because it's Kavanaugh's job interview. These people are defending Kavanaugh and demonizing the Other as if they're thinking there are no other applicants. He is it. It's an unintelligent, knee-jerk, root-for-the-team action and it's undermining the integrity of the Supreme Court, independent of whether or not Kavanaugh is qualified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Furthermore, this demonization is misplaced because it's Kavanaugh's job interview. These people are defending Kavanaugh and demonizing the Other as if they're thinking there are no other applicants. He is it. It's an unintelligent, knee-jerk, root-for-the-team action and it's undermining the integrity of the Supreme Court, independent of whether or not Kavanaugh is qualified.
I think I'm saying more than that, but to that point:

 
That's a bunch of absolute nothing. My high school yearbook (and senior wills) were full of all the same kind of stuff.

And his college fraternity paraded around with a flag made of girls underwear? Oh, surely not. The horror.

This is getting to the point of total absurdity.

Maybe the point is that he doesn't own it and therefore hasn't learned anything from it?
 
Furthermore, this demonization is misplaced because it's Kavanaugh's job interview. These people are defending Kavanaugh and demonizing the Other as if they're thinking there are no other applicants. He is it. It's an unintelligent, knee-jerk, root-for-the-team action and it's undermining the integrity of the Supreme Court, independent of whether or not Kavanaugh is qualified.

The integrity of the Supreme Court has been undermined by both parties since FDR’s Court packing attempt, if not earlier. The Court wouldn’t be nearly the battleground it is if Congress wasn’t full of life’s losers who only care about getting re-elected instead of actually governing and making law which has resulted in the Court turning into a super legislature of sorts.
 
The issue is that if he says under oath Thursday what he said on Faux yesterday that he only occasionally drank and never blacked out, he's lying under oath and that's something you can clear-cut prove is BS. His roommate at Yale, his buddy Mark Judge's book, and his yearbook all contradict that. I'm sure many other witnesses could testify that he was a heavy binge drinker.

I wouldn't care about that part of his behavior if he was honest about it, but he's so concerned for some reason about the truth coming out about his past that he's faked an entire choir boy image for himself.

In this case, his drinking ties into the sexual assault allegations, so it's certainly a relevant line of questioning. I'm sure 80% of Republicans that were so concerned about Bill Clinton committing perjury won't care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
The issue is that if he says under oath Thursday what he said on Faux yesterday that he only occasionally drank and never blacked out, he's lying under oath and that's something you can clear-cut prove is BS. His roommate at Yale, his buddy Mark Judge's book, and his yearbook all contradict that. I'm sure many other witnesses could testify that he was a heavy binge drinker.

I wouldn't care about that part of his behavior if he was honest about it, but he's so concerned for some reason about the truth coming out about his past that he's faked an entire choir boy image for himself.

In this case, his drinking ties into the sexual assault allegations, so it's certainly a relevant line of questioning. I'm sure 80% of Republicans that were so concerned about Bill Clinton committing perjury won't care.

I'm not sure that it's something you can "clear-cut prove", but I agree that not being able to own up to your past is problematic for your future.
 
BHSS in the mid-seventies was a beehive of sexual experimentation. Kavanaugh claims he was a virgin "throughout high school and for many years afterwards." This is spit-out-your-morning-coffee laughable.
 
The issue is that if he says under oath Thursday what he said on Faux yesterday that he only occasionally drank and never blacked out, he's lying under oath and that's something you can clear-cut prove is BS. His roommate at Yale, his buddy Mark Judge's book, and his yearbook all contradict that. I'm sure many other witnesses could testify that he was a heavy binge drinker.
This is the alcohol equivalent to "I didn't inhale".
 


Having consensual sex and heavily drinking in HS/College certainly doesn't disqualify someone from sitting on the court, but if he lies about it under oath, that would be disqualifying.

If Kavanaugh changes his story that would call his memory/credibility on the alleged sexual assaults into question.

That Fox interview was a huge unforced error he's going to struggle to get out of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
You need help.
You take yourself and perhaps life way too seriously.


A Nun and a Condom.
Uploaded 11/02/2011
Two sweet little old ladies were standing outside their nursing home having a smoke when it started to rain. One lady pulled out a condom with the end cut off, pulled it over her cigarette, and continued smoking. The other lady asked, “What’s that?“ “A condom.“ “Condom? I never heard of it. Where’d you get it?“ “Oh, you can get them at any drugstore.“ The next day the second lady walked into the drugstore and said to twenty02, “Give me a pack of condoms.“ He looked a little shocked, but politely asked, “What brand?“ “Oh, it doesn’t matter,“ she replied, “just as long as it fits a Camel!“ … twenty02 fainted.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't care about that part of his behavior if he was honest about it, but he's so concerned for some reason about the truth coming out about his past that he's faked an entire choir boy image for himself.
I'd be interested to learn what precipitated his transformation from obnoxious privileged drunken frat boy to studious academic choir boy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
And the beat goes on:

OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM MORMON WOMEN FOR ETHICAL GOVERNMENT WITH REGARD TO THE BRETT KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION PROCEEDINGS

Given the seriousness of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh, we call upon the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to immediately suspend the confirmation proceedings until a thorough independent investigation can be conducted.

We very specifically urge the four members of the committee who share our faith as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--Senator Hatch, Senator Lee, Senator Flake, and Senator Crapo--to ensure that these charges be taken seriously and that every attempt be made to ascertain the truth of the situation. Our mutual faith teaches that any sexual abuse or assault in any context is contemptible and worthy of the most severe condemnation.

...​
 
We very specifically urge the four members of the committee who share our faith as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--Senator Hatch, Senator Lee, Senator Flake, and Senator Crapo--to ensure that these charges be taken seriously and that every attempt be made to ascertain the truth of the situation.

LOL. Hatch? Lee??? You have got to be kidding...
 
And Lisa Murkowski doesn't kowtow to MkKonnell on Kavanaugh:

“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” Ms. Murkowski, a key swing Republican vote, said in an extended interview in the Capitol Monday night. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”

In the interview, Ms. Murkowski emphasized how invested she is in assessing Dr. Blasey’s story. She said she worked behind the scenes last weekend to ensure negotiations between Republicans and the accuser’s lawyers did not fall apart because of an “arbitrary timeline.” She canceled a meeting of the Senate committee she chairs on Thursday to ensure her schedule was clear. And although she is not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she will be watching.
And on Susan Collins:

Ms. Collins, an institutional-minded centrist who carefully reviews judicial nominees, has expressed similar views on Judge Kavanaugh and Roe and indicated that she will watch on Thursday with equal vigor.

“I had not made a decision, and obviously the hearing Thursday is an important one,” Ms. Collins told reporters on Tuesday. She expressed concern about Ms. Ramirez’s accusation, published Sunday in The New Yorker, and suggested that the Judiciary Committee question her under oath as well as Dr. Blasey.​
 
And Lisa Murkowski doesn't kowtow to MkKonnell on Kavanaugh:

“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” Ms. Murkowski, a key swing Republican vote, said in an extended interview in the Capitol Monday night. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”

In the interview, Ms. Murkowski emphasized how invested she is in assessing Dr. Blasey’s story. She said she worked behind the scenes last weekend to ensure negotiations between Republicans and the accuser’s lawyers did not fall apart because of an “arbitrary timeline.” She canceled a meeting of the Senate committee she chairs on Thursday to ensure her schedule was clear. And although she is not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she will be watching.
And on Susan Collins:

Ms. Collins, an institutional-minded centrist who carefully reviews judicial nominees, has expressed similar views on Judge Kavanaugh and Roe and indicated that she will watch on Thursday with equal vigor.

“I had not made a decision, and obviously the hearing Thursday is an important one,” Ms. Collins told reporters on Tuesday. She expressed concern about Ms. Ramirez’s accusation, published Sunday in The New Yorker, and suggested that the Judiciary Committee question her under oath as well as Dr. Blasey.​



Everyone knows that at the end of the day it comes down to these two women....regardless of Mitch's bluster on the Senate floor.

And really, I think it's a jury of one....Susan Collins. She will basically decide if this nomination succeeds or fails....Murkowski will likely go along with what Collins decides.
 
The issue is that if he says under oath Thursday what he said on Faux yesterday that he only occasionally drank and never blacked out, he's lying under oath and that's something you can clear-cut prove is BS. His roommate at Yale, his buddy Mark Judge's book, and his yearbook all contradict that. I'm sure many other witnesses could testify that he was a heavy binge drinker.

I wouldn't care about that part of his behavior if he was honest about it, but he's so concerned for some reason about the truth coming out about his past that he's faked an entire choir boy image for himself.

In this case, his drinking ties into the sexual assault allegations, so it's certainly a relevant line of questioning. I'm sure 80% of Republicans that were so concerned about Bill Clinton committing perjury won't care.


How do you "clear cut prove" that someone has blacked out from drinking?

As a self proclaimed expert in this field....with years of field testing under my belt....there is a wide gulf between being quite drunk and blacking out. Particularly when it seems all these party stories revolve around beer drinking. I've never once in my life blacked out from drinking beer...even binge drinking beer....and I've consumed oceans of the stuff, particularly during college.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MonroeCity
How do you "clear cut prove" that someone has blacked out from drinking?

As a self proclaimed expert in this field....with years of field testing under my belt....there is a wide gulf between being quite drunk and blacking out. Particularly when it seems all these party stories revolve around beer drinking. I've never once in my life blacked out from drinking beer...even binge drinking beer....and I've consumed oceans of the stuff, particularly during college.

I'm with you on the "clear-cut" thing. But, do you notice what you have done in this post?
 
As a self proclaimed expert in this field....with years of field testing under my belt....there is a wide gulf between being quite drunk and blacking out. Particularly when it seems all these party stories revolve around beer drinking. I've never once in my life blacked out from drinking beer...even binge drinking beer....and I've consumed oceans of the stuff, particularly during college.
True blackouts are like fugue states -- there is no recollection, period. Not a foggy or vague memory, it's a black nothing, like being under anesthesia. It's like time has been erased. They're more often associated with liquor than beer.

It's odd that people are talking in these terms about Kavanaugh's possible behavior. It's almost as if it's being considered exculpatory.
 
Everyone knows that at the end of the day it comes down to these two women....regardless of Mitch's bluster on the Senate floor.

And really, I think it's a jury of one....Susan Collins. She will basically decide if this nomination succeeds or fails....Murkowski will likely go along with what Collins decides.
And how sad is that , once again, it’s only the women that are put on the hot seat about possible sexual abuse. Everyone else just assumes the men will go along with whatever Trump wants. Spineless jellyfish, lacking in character, integrity, and particularly testosterone.
 
True blackouts are like fugue states -- there is no recollection, period. Not a foggy or vague memory, it's a black nothing, like being under anesthesia. It's like time has been erased. They're more often associated with liquor than beer.

It's odd that people are talking in these terms about Kavanaugh's possible behavior. It's almost as if it's being considered exculpatory.
Exactly. I mentioned that the other day. If the woman is drunk it’s her fault for getting abused and if the man is drunk, that explains why he sexually abused someone. Trump finally alluded to it today, by saying Victim 2 admitted to being drunk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meridian
And how sad is that , once again, it’s only the women that are put on the hot seat about possible sexual abuse. Everyone else just assumes the men will go along with whatever Trump wants. Spineless jellyfish, lacking in character, integrity, and particularly testosterone.
On the bright side, maybe the simplest and most realistic solution to our current political morass is just more women in the US Congress. For instance, what if there were less than 40 white, male Republicans?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT