Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

sachick

sachick 1,189

Posted
Posted
What a pro-trump forum looks like right now.
C633F4F6-8EB0-4B41-9D6D-D70EA0399EF6_zpstygw73sd.png

6a14c3174f29e76651e2f95a95d2033f.gif
They could have avoided him having to publicly say he was 40 year old virgin if they had just agreed to a private FBI background investigation. They wanted to put Ford on display to discuss this publicly in front of the committee, turnabout is fair play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Yuk
Yuk

No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

TexArcher
TexArcher

In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Patrick Bateman said:

She's a concern troll..... very concerned all the way up to the vote.

 

Oh absolutely, I said she’s GOP version of Hillary, willing to flip-flop when necessary and straddle the centrist fence.  I’m sick of her shit and I imagine her GOP associates are too.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,618

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, MixtyMotions said:

McConnell's position would be an idiotic, quixotic suicide mission if he did not have the votes.  But McConnell is a very smart guy.  I have to believe he has quiet assurances from all in the caucus.

The only other possibility is that he's been given no choice by the White House, and he's signalling to Collins et al that there is no easy way out.  I don't see how any GOP Senator votes no.  They don't have a real reason.  There won't be a better nominee.  The Dem machine will go after the next nominee with even most viciousness.  And the GOP base will never, ever forgive any Senators voting no.

Everything adds up to a confirmation.

He’s running a prevent defense and trying to run the clock out.  

Which is fucking stupid, because Amy would be happy to come off the bench and put more points on the scoreboard be confirmed quickly.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,877

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

Well, if she had said it 30+ years ago I might be more likely to believe it.  If she had brought it up when Kavanaugh was being considered for the five other positions he has held that required FBI background checks but were not in the media limelight and did not worry Democrat senators whether he was confirmed or not in that 30+ year time span I might be more likely to believe it. 

Hmmm.  There's a potential explanation here, but I just can't quite put my finger on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I didn't mischaracterize your position. You have now made multiple posts focusing on the fact that the only alleged direct eyewitnesses who responded state that it didn't happen. That is completely uninformative given that they are accused of participating in a sexual assault. My question to you is why you seem to be hung up on that fact to the point of believing it calls into question the credibility of the allegation. A denial calls into question the credibility of an accusation exactly as much as the allegation calls into question the credibility of the denial. So I ask again, do you find a denial of a sexual assault claim interesting?

I gave several reasons why the supporting evidence for the allegation is weak.  You ignored all these reasons expect for one.  Why did you not address the other points I made such as the accuser called others before the story came out and told them she wasn't certain it was Kavanaugh, that during the event she was lying on the floor drunk & foggy and that she has gaps in her memory, and that she only remembered the event more clearly after coaching?  Did you ignore these points out of an honest attempt to address my position? 

Furthermore, you did a lousy job of addressing the only point you focused on.  You think the fact that there are no confirming eyewitnesses to an event is completely uninformative?  This is utterly absurd.  Any investigation into such event checks for eyewitnesses.  The journalists for this New Yorker article checked for eyewitnesses.  They felt compelled to report that there were no confirmed eyewitnesses: "The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party."   Why on earth do you think they would check and report this completely uninformative piece of information?  Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that it is one of the primary pieces of evidence checked for with any criminal activity?    

Even if we give the most generous interpretation to your comment and take it to mean that it is not surprising that an accomplice would deny an allegation, it is still absurd.  For one, the fact that there are no eyewitnesses is still informative.  It does not prove that the accusation is false, but it means the accusation is without a useful type of supporting evidence.  Imagine how different her allegation would be viewed at the moment if there was an eyewitness.  But there is none at the moment, and this information is important to know.  That's why investigators check for it.  And finally, your comment that "the only people who could be direct eyewitnesses would have been in the room during the sexual assault and are therefore probably, at a minimum, accomplices" is also ridiculous.  It was a party in a dorm room suite; there could have been a dozen kids there (the New Yorker article says they contacted several dozen classmates, but likely some of them weren't there and were contacted for any type of corroboration).  If one of them whips their dick out, you're telling me that they are all accomplices?  I've been to parties where a lot crazier shit happened than someone whipping their dick out, and I was in no way an accomplice.  Why should we assume that anyone present at a party is an accomplice to anything done in the moment?  It is plausible that there would be an eyewitness to testify that wasn't ok with what occurred and is willing to say so; which is why they looked for some.  But they couldn't find any.  I know because they reported this useful piece of information.  

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,877

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I gave several reasons why the supporting evidence for the allegation is weak.  You ignored all these reasons expect for one.  Why did you not address the other points I made such as the accuser called others before the story came out and told them she wasn't certain it was Kavanaugh, that during the event she was lying on the floor drunk & foggy and that she has gaps in her memory, and that she only remembered the event more clearly after coaching?  Did you ignore these points out of an honest attempt to address my position? 

Furthermore, you did a lousy job of addressing the only point you focused on.  You think the fact that there are no confirming eyewitnesses to an event is completely uninformative?  This is utterly absurd.  Any investigation into such event checks for eyewitnesses.  The journalists for this New Yorker article checked for eyewitnesses.  They felt compelled to report that there were no confirmed eyewitnesses: "The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party."   Why on earth do you think they would check and report this completely uninformative piece of information?  Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that it is one of the primary pieces of evidence checked for with any criminal activity?    

Even if we give the most generous interpretation to your comment and take it to mean that it is not surprising that an accomplice would deny an allegation, it is still absurd.  For one, the fact that there are no eyewitnesses is still informative.  It does not prove that the accusation is false, but it means the accusation is without a useful type of supporting evidence.  Imagine how different her allegation would be viewed at the moment if there was an eyewitness.  But there is none at the moment, and this information is important to know.  That's why investigators check for it.  And finally, your comment that "the only people who could be direct eyewitnesses would have been in the room during the sexual assault and are therefore probably, at a minimum, accomplices" is also ridiculous.  It was a party in a dorm room suite; there could have been a dozen kids there (the New Yorker article says they contacted several dozen classmates, but likely some of them weren't there and were contacted for any type of corroboration).  If one of them whips their dick out, you're telling me that they are all accomplices?  I've been to parties where a lot crazier shit happened than someone whipping their dick out, and I was in no way an accomplice.  Why should we assume that anyone present at a party is an accomplice to anything done in the moment?  It is plausible that there would be an eyewitness to testify that wasn't ok with what occurred and is willing to say so; which is why they looked for some.  But they couldn't find any.  I know because they reported this useful piece of information.  

 

Sheeeit.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2,664

Posted
Posted (edited)

Avenatti's client was both a witness and victim who we will find is being entirely credible and believable.  There are multiple others who can testify to his client's account in addition to multiple incidents spanning months, if not years.  It's a clear pattern of sexual misconduct involving BK and others, esp. Judge.

Full disclosure from Avenatti's client will pre-empt Thursday's scheduled events.

Edited by triplehorn
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
burntorangebongos

burntorangebongos 10,710

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Would you say things got better or worse for Brett Kavanaugh today? 

Worse. They are squeezing the Republicans into calling for the FBI to investigate and allowing more people to testify. It could get hard to continue to push back on that. He is starting to become a heavy burden in the interest of seating a conservative judge before the mid-terms happen or shortly thereafter. I think he is more in danger from them cutting bait than anything else, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,618

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Avenatti's client was both a witness and victim who we will find is being entirely credible and believable.  There are multiple others who can testify to his client's account in addition to multiple incidents spanning months, if not years.  It's a clear pattern of sexual misconduct involving BK and others, esp. Judge.

Full disclosure from Avenatti's client will pre-empt Thursday's scheduled events.

How many times now has somebody hitched their wagon to Trump, only to have a bunch of nasty shit about their past exposed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Party_Taco

Party_Taco 3,722

Posted
Posted

Bill Burck produced to the committee a document from Kavanaugh’s tenure in the White House Counsel’s Office that references a “game of dice.” After a reunion with friends in September 2001, Kavanaugh emailed: “Apologies to all for missing Friday (good excuse), and **growing aggressive** after blowing still another game of dice (don’t recall). Reminders to everyone to be very, very vigilant w/r/t confidentiality on all issues and all fronts, including with spouses.”

After the trip, there’s lots of virtual high-fiving all around, including an email from Kavanaugh in which he talks about gambling, getting aggressive and keeping secrets. That email was dated Sept. 10, 2001.

It’s not clear why these emails were marked “committee confidential,” and Grassley’s office didn’t return a request for comment.

https://www.scribd.com/document/388011903/Kavanaugh-emails

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...