Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25957

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I had a good friend who was accused of sexual harassment early in my career in upper management. The allegations were completely legit. We had all witnessed it for years and passed it off as the way things were done; every office has a handsy guy; every office has a horny guy. We watched as he went scorched earth against the secretary who reported him. We quietly got rid of him and it ruined the professional and personal relationships of everyone involved.

We operated as if we were just wishing it hadn't happened, because when we went home every night we didn't have to think about it. But she did.

I have spent the intervening years thinking about what I/we should have done differently. It's not an easy question, and I can understand why some men see that happen and turn into misogynist babies. I don't respect them for it, but I understand.

Username checks out

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

Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32861

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Amobie said:

It is starting to look like this FBI investigation thing has allowed Republicans time to dig up dirt on Kavanaugh's accusers and it's working.  Ford is likely going to be prosecuted for lying under oath because of the shenanigans of her stupid ass lawyers.  Considering this might be a case of mistaken identity, that is extremely fucked up.

I see three possible scenarios.

1) She was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh

2) She was sexually assaulted but it's a case of mistaken identity.

3) She fabricated a story.

In every possible scenario here, he lawyers completely fucked her on this.  All it takes is one person that doesn't like you to discredit your story.  Given how public this story is, there is bound to be more than a few people willing to discredit her.  We know he ex-boyfriend of 6 years has already given statements and i'm sure old neighbors and colleagues will step forward as well.  Normally all this would be done behind the scenes and these people would be interviewed without knowing all these additional details that are now public.  When asked about flying, confined spaces and all that, they know how to answer if they want to discredit her.  By the same token, friends can answer in a manner to help give her credibility.  It's a fucking mess.

 

This post is all over the place. How can you say that she is likely going to be prosecuted for lying under oath and then immediately say that her having told the complete truth is still a possible scenario. Where are you getting that she may be prosecuted. Is there a link? Honest question.

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

So Ford didn’t know the committee offered to fly out to California to meet her?  How is that possible?

Same honest question here. And if it's true then the only possibility is her lawyers didn't tell her. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MixtyMotions

MixtyMotions 102

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of GOP women who are actively posting in my fb feed about how Kavanaugh is being wronged.  They know what side their bread is buttered on and they've hitched their wagon to white male power.

I am thoroughly knowledgeable about why they are angry.  If you want to understand it do not look at it through the prism of sexual harassment or any gender issue.  Their thinking would be the same as if he were accused of embezzlement, bank fraud, pedophilia, or murder.

The outrage is that people with allegations were sheperded by Dems to law firms specializing in orchestrating political hits.  These allegations were hidden away to be unfolded at the precise moment and with the carefully crafted pr campaign to try to tank the nomination - a nomination they support.  It is viewed as a cultural war with soldiers willing to go to jail for their cause.  It has almost nothing to do, in their mind, with sexual harassment.  That just happens to be the emotional issue chosen.  Dems could just have easily chosen race.  (i.e. "Here is a witness who was called an ethnic slur by Kavanaugh.")  (I'm sure they had such witnesses ready to go but decided not to play that particular card.  The attack could be anything to enrage the public.  The Dem machine chose sexual assault.

Edited by MixtyMotions
  • Like 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17681

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MixtyMotions said:

I am thoroughly knowledgeable about why they are angry.  If you want to understand it do not look at it through the prism of sexual harassment or any gender issue.  Their thinking would be the same as if he were accused of embezzlement, bank fraud, pedophilia, or murder.

The outrage is that people with allegations were sheperded by Dems to law firms specializing in orchestrating political hits.  These allegations were hidden away to be unfolded at the precise moment and with the carefully crafted pr campaign to try to tank the nomination - a nomination they support.  It is viewed as a cultural war with soldiers willing to go to jail for their cause.  It has almost nothing to do, in their mind, with sexual harassment.  That just happens to be the emotional issue chosen.  Dems could just have easily chosen race.  (i.e. "Here is a witness who was called an ethnic slur by Kavanaugh.")  It could be anything to enrage the public.

It's great that you've expressed their opinions for them.

Not a one of them has said any of this to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25957

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

I am thoroughly knowledgeable about why they are angry.  If you want to understand it do not look at it through the prism of sexual harassment or any gender issue.  Their thinking would be the same as if he were accused of embezzlement, bank fraud, pedophilia, or murder.

The outrage is that people with allegations were sheperded by Dems to law firms specializing in orchestrating political hits.  These allegations were hidden away to be unfolded at the precise moment and with the carefully crafted pr campaign to try to tank the nomination - a nomination they support.  It is viewed as a cultural war with soldiers willing to go to jail for their cause.  It has almost nothing to do, in their mind, with sexual harassment.  That just happens to be the emotional issue chosen.  Dems could just have easily chosen race.  (i.e. "Here is a witness who was called an ethnic slur by Kavanaugh.")  It could be anything to enrage the public.

No you're not. You have a very small sample size to draw from.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11671

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Serious question, but has anyone here actually been wrongly accused of sexual assault?  And if so, what were the ramifications?

I feel like there are some who are trying to equate false accusations with sexual assault, but I honestly don't know of a single man who has dealt with this, while it seems that almost every woman has.  

I know 2 men who were falsely accused.

One died out shortly after his intitial contact from police,  when the woman recanted the story.

 

The other made it all the way to charges.  He "passed" a polygraph which caused the accuser to recant.

Second one was pretty sure he was going to do time as it was based on a consensual sex situation that she turned into a rape accusation. 

So there was a rape kit against him.

 

Both were hell hath no fury situations.

Edited by Incredulity
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amobie

Amobie 58

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Serious question, but has anyone here actually been wrongly accused of sexual assault?  And if so, what were the ramifications?

I feel like there are some who are trying to equate false accusations with sexual assault, but I honestly don't know of a single man who has dealt with this, while it seems that almost every woman has.  

I have a friend that went to UT and was a pediatric oncologist.  About 12 years ago he was accused by his brother in law of molesting his kids during a messy divorce.  He didn't get to see his kids without being under observation for around 3 years and only for about 1-2 hour blocks per week.   Even after being cleared, he was only able to see his kids under observation for an additional year after that.  During that time, he lost his job and could no longer work with children because the hospital didn't want to take that risk.  It took 8 years for him to get joint custody.

12 years since the start of that disaster, his former brother in law has not faced any charges for making those false accusations.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

I am thoroughly knowledgeable about why they are angry.  If you want to understand it do not look at it through the prism of sexual harassment or any gender issue.  Their thinking would be the same as if he were accused of embezzlement, bank fraud, pedophilia, or murder.

The outrage is that people with allegations were sheperded by Dems to law firms specializing in orchestrating political hits.  These allegations were hidden away to be unfolded at the precise moment and with the carefully crafted pr campaign to try to tank the nomination - a nomination they support.  It is viewed as a cultural war with soldiers willing to go to jail for their cause.  It has almost nothing to do, in their mind, with sexual harassment.  That just happens to be the emotional issue chosen.  Dems could just have easily chosen race.  (i.e. "Here is a witness who was called an ethnic slur by Kavanaugh.")  It could be anything to enrage the public.

Basically what you’re saying is the Republicans knew all this shit could come out but took their chances with Kavanaugh anyway and tried their hardest to conceal it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17681

Posted
Posted
Just now, MixtyMotions said:

Have you asked them in a context where they would believe you are sincere?  (That means privately.)

I have.  They gave the explanations I described above.  

Again, none of them said a thing about the grand scheme you described.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MixtyMotions

MixtyMotions 102

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Basically what you’re saying is the Republicans knew all this shit could come out but took their chances with Kavanaugh anyway and tried their hardest to conceal it.

Oh they didn't know the specifics.  But they were ready to bet the house that there would be allegations.  I'm sure the operatives have collected thousands of allegations.  Thousands.  Some might even be true.  (e.g. Kavanaugh probably did throw ice in a guy's face.)   But they KNEW there would be an "October surprise " political hit.

 

And there will be for all the nominees for the next twenty years.  The days of Ginsberg getting confirmed 96-3 are gone.  The new era will be all ugly unfounded attacks.  This will be true no matter the President, the nominee or the party in control of the Senate.

Edited by MixtyMotions
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Again, just a suggestion, but you may want to consider not letting your life be dictated by people you despise.

I don’t despise them.  They’re people too but holding a good faith conversation is often times impossible.  That’s a problem that needs a solution.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29354

Posted
Posted
Just now, MixtyMotions said:

Oh they didn't know the specifics.  But they were ready to bet the house that there would be allegations.  I'm sure the operatives have collected thousands of allegations.  Thousands.  some might even be true.  (e.g. Kavanaugh probably did throw ice in a guy's face.)   But they KNEW there would be a October surprise political hit.

 

And there will be for all the nominees for the next twenty years.  The days of Ginsberg getting confirmed 96-3 are gone.  The new era will be all ugly unfounded attacks.  This will be true no matter the President, the nominee or the party in control of the Senate.

Actual ratfuckers complaining about imagined ratfucking is hilarious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AtticusFinch

AtticusFinch 155

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Amobie said:

It is starting to look like this FBI investigation thing has allowed Republicans time to dig up dirt on Kavanaugh's accusers and it's working.  Ford is likely going to be prosecuted for lying under oath because of the shenanigans of her stupid ass lawyers.  Considering this might be a case of mistaken identity, that is extremely fucked up.

I see three possible scenarios.

1) She was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh

2) She was sexually assaulted but it's a case of mistaken identity.

3) She fabricated a story.

In every possible scenario here, he lawyers completely fucked her on this.  All it takes is one person that doesn't like you to discredit your story.  Given how public this story is, there is bound to be more than a few people willing to discredit her.  We know he ex-boyfriend of 6 years has already given statements and i'm sure old neighbors and colleagues will step forward as well.  Normally all this would be done behind the scenes and these people would be interviewed without knowing all these additional details that are now public.  When asked about flying, confined spaces and all that, they know how to answer if they want to discredit her.  By the same token, friends can answer in a manner to help give her credibility.  It's a fucking mess.

 

Well, this is Feinstein's fault.  She handled this about as poorly as possible and hired her lawyer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Amobie

Amobie 58

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This post is all over the place. How can you say that she is likely going to be prosecuted for lying under oath and then immediately say that her having told the complete truth is still a possible scenario. Where are you getting that she may be prosecuted. Is there a link? Honest question. 

You are acting like those are mutually exclusive things...

You can be prosecuted and be innocent of the crimes you are being accused of.  She could believe that he is the person who assaulted her.   Meanwhile her statements were inconsistent and there could be innocent reasons for that.  They could make the case she was being intentionally deceptive about the flying deal which could be used as the basis for digging deeper into her story.

I know everyone seems to think she did a great job on the stand but the prosecutor that the Republicans hired to grill her certainly didn't.  If she was politically active and that's the reason she scrubbed her social media, this could blow up in her face because the FBI can look at all her text messages and scrubbed social media if they really want to. 

When the FBI is looking at these accusations that have no evidence, they immediately start investigating the person making the accusations. Operation kitchen sink has resulted in the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32861

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

Oh they didn't know the specifics.  But they were ready to bet the house that there would be allegations.  I'm sure the operatives have collected thousands of allegations.  Thousands.  Some might even be true.  (e.g. Kavanaugh probably did throw ice in a guy's face.)   But they KNEW there would be an "October surprise " political hit.

 

And there will be for all the nominees for the next twenty years.  The days of Ginsberg getting confirmed 96-3 are gone.  The new era will be all ugly unfounded attacks.  This will be true no matter the President, the nominee or the party in control of the Senate.

Where were Gorsuch's accusers and his last inning surprise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32861

Posted
Posted
Just now, Amobie said:

You are acting like those are mutually exclusive things...

You can be prosecuted and be innocent of the crimes you are being accused of.  She could believe that he is the person who assaulted her.   Meanwhile her statements were inconsistent and there could be innocent reasons for that.  They could make the case she was being intentionally deceptive about the flying deal which could be used as the basis for digging deeper into her story.

I know everyone seems to think she did a great job on the stand but the prosecutor that the Republicans hired to grill her certainly didn't.  If she was politically active and that's the reason she scrubbed her social media, this could blow up in her face because the FBI can look at all her text messages and scrubbed social media if they really want to. 

When the FBI is looking at these accusations that have no evidence, they immediately start investigating the person making the accusations. Operation kitchen sink has resulted in the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.

My question is why are you saying it's "likely" she's going to be prosecuted. What is the basis for that belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

Oh they didn't know the specifics.  But they were ready to bet the house that there would be allegations.  I'm sure the operatives have collected thousands of allegations.  Thousands.  Some might even be true.  (e.g. Kavanaugh probably did throw ice in a guy's face.)   But they KNEW there would be an "October surprise " political hit.

 

And there will be for all the nominees for the next twenty years.  The days of Ginsberg getting confirmed 96-3 are gone.  The new era will be all ugly unfounded attacks.  This will be true no matter the President, the nominee or the party in control of the Senate.

congratulations, mitch mcconnell!

this is your party's baby, dude.

Edited by hayden_horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45952

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Amobie said:

Probably not because he's going to get confirmed.  Then you'd need 2/3 majority to impeach him.

That seems a little Machiavellian, or at least circular.  So Kavanaugh isn't going to be prosecuted for perjury because he's going to be confirmed, but Ford will be prosecuted for same?  QED?

Is that where we are?  You're OK with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MixtyMotions

MixtyMotions 102

Posted
Posted
Just now, Huckleberry said:

Where were Gorsuch's accusers and his last inning surprise?

I watched that one quite a bit.  There was a huge debate among Dems about how to play the two nominations.  One of the big issues was whether to have two attacks or one.  The forces that lobbied for one won out.

 

The thinking on going after Gorsuch were that:

1. they couldn't really win anything.  There would just be a "new Gorsuch".

2. they'd lose political capital for the Kennedy replacement fight.

3. it was possible to "win" the Kennedy replacement issue with delay, followed by winning the Senate in '18.

4. the Kennedy replacement fight was more potent, as it meant a true 5-4 Court, whereas Gorsuch didn't affect the balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32861

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

Comparing the two confirmations doesn't really work because there is now no filibuster.

Democrats filibustered Gorsuch.  

That doesn't make sense. If you take one arrow out of the quiver then they are more likely to use a different arrow, not fail to use it entirely when defeat is assured (Gorsuch was going to win any vote, just as Kavanaugh would have before these allegations). If every nomination is going to have accusers pop up at the last second then the previous existence of the filibuster is not a valid explanation for why Gorsuch didn't have any accusers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32861

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

Oh they didn't know the specifics.  But they were ready to bet the house that there would be allegations.  I'm sure the operatives have collected thousands of allegations.  Thousands.  Some might even be true.  (e.g. Kavanaugh probably did throw ice in a guy's face.)   But they KNEW there would be an "October surprise " political hit.

 

And there will be for all the nominees for the next twenty years.  The days of Ginsberg getting confirmed 96-3 are gone.  The new era will be all ugly unfounded attacks.  This will be true no matter the President, the nominee or the party in control of the Senate.

 

3 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

I watched that one quite a bit.  There was a huge debate among Dems about how to play the two nominations.  One of the big issues was whether to have two attacks or one.  The forces that lobbied for one won out.

 

The thinking on going after Gorsuch were that:

1. they couldn't really win anything.  There would just be a "new Gorsuch".

2. they'd lose political capital for the Kennedy replacement fight.

3. it was possible to "win" the Kennedy replacement issue with delay, followed by winning the Senate in '18.

4. the Kennedy replacement fight was more potent, as it meant a true 5-4 Court, whereas Gorsuch didn't affect the balance.

Your first quoted post says that all nominees will have this happen. Your second quoted post lays out the reasoning for a nominee not to face such accusations, logic which may apply to nominations in the future. Which is it? Will all nominees face this or will there be certain circumstances that will prevent some from facing this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85336

Posted
Posted

I love when Tahoe tries to act how clued in he is to the inner workings of the Democratic Party and the Senate caucus. He just KNEW what was going to happen.  He knew which side won.  He knows everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11671

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That doesn't make sense. If you take one arrow out of the quiver then they are more likely to use a different arrow, not fail to use it entirely when defeat is assured (Gorsuch was going to win any vote, just as Kavanaugh would have before these allegations). If every nomination is going to have accusers pop up at the last second then the previous existence of the filibuster is not a valid explanation for why Gorsuch didn't have any accusers.

The urgency to delay or defeat Kavanaugh was greater than versus Gorsuch because there are no options after committee.  There was no guarantee the R's would invoke the Nuclear Option with Gorsuch.  They will pay that bill downline, just as the D's will pay the bill for their tactics in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29354

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Comparing the two confirmations doesn't really work because there is now no filibuster.

Democrats filibustered Gorsuch.  

...with the knowledge that it would lead to the GOP eliminating the filibuster and voting for him. You can't pretend that the Democratic party has some super-organized conspiracy with thousands of false allegations in the can for anyone but that they were too stupid to realize they'd need some for Gorsuch once the GOP eliminated the filibuster.

Correction, you can pretend exactly that, just not with any shred of intellectual honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85336

Posted
Posted
Just now, wildcat09 said:

...with the knowledge that it would lead to the GOP eliminating the filibuster and voting for him. You can't pretend that the Democratic party has some super-organized conspiracy with thousands of false allegations in the can for anyone but that they were too stupid to realize they'd need some for Gorsuch once the GOP eliminated the filibuster.

Correction, you can pretend exactly that, just not with any shred of intellectual honesty.

It would be super awkward if Kavanaugh got withdrawn and they nominate ACB or Hardiman and no one came forward with accusations. 

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...