Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[DixonHur 11340]

14 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

It may not be a criminal trial, which if an actual sexual assault took place as claimed, why is a criminal trial not in the making?  Go ahead and answer that.

Outside the statute of limitations, and it was considered a misdemeanor at the time of the alleged incident.  Next?

[GHOSTUSER 361]

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I really wish people would stop saying this.  Her testimony, especially under oath, is evidence.  How many people have been put away solely on the word of the victim?  Plenty.  The question is if you believe she is credible.  You apparently think not.  Which means you think she's lying.  That's your right to believe, but don't say there is "zero" evidence.  Her testimony is evidence.  His testimony is evidence.  She seems more credible to me than him.  It may not be strong enough for a criminal conviction, but it's damn sure enough to keep him away from a lifetime appointment to one of the most important institutions in the world.  And as many have said, his temperament alone and political rant should be enough to not confirm, even if you think he isn't a drunk molester.

There are no specifics to her testimony. Everyone she says was at the party fails to corroborate her story. Now that the spectacle of her testifying is over, I’m hoping conservative media this week comes up with numerous ways to shred her story. It’s shameful to me that someone so unsure of the facts of what allegedly happened has the gall to sully the reputation of an accomplished man like him. 

[kevwun 15798]

His behavior during his hearing disqualifies him from the job.  Anyone who acts like that has no business on the Supreme Court.  Adversity reveals a person's character and Kavanaugh showed that he's a partisan asshole who lacks the gravitas necessary for the job.

Edited October 1, 2018 by kevwun

[Cacti 191]

4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I agree.  What’s matters is that he lied to Congress while under oath.  And if he would lie about inconsequential items what else was he lie about?

From a moral standpoint, is lying under oath about such "inconsequential items" worse than lying while not under oath? And if not using a moral argument, what is it about the former that is so egregious that it should be used as a disqualifier for SCOTUS? And why shouldn’t such a character flaw or otherwise questionable behavior be a disqualifier for the other branches of government?

[DixonHur 11340]

I don't understand how the peppers and Iconoclasts of the board can't grasp that the issue many of us have has little to do with any attempted sexual misconduct when he was 18.  As sachick points out, there will likely never be any hard evidence of that.  We think he is unfit for the SCOTUS because he has lied under oath. Full stop.

[LongestHorn 759]

POTUS thinks the FBI should interview whomever they want, within reason.  But he hears the third accuser has no credibility.

[retread 2951]

2 minutes ago, Cacti said:

From a moral standpoint, is lying under oath about such "inconsequential items" worse than lying while not under oath? And if not using a moral argument, what is it about the former that is so egregious that it should be used as a disqualifier for SCOTUS? And why shouldn’t such a character flaw or otherwise questionable behavior be a disqualifier for the other branches of government?

wow. America 2018 ^

Edited October 1, 2018 by retread

[DixonHur 11340]

3 minutes ago, Cacti said:

From a moral standpoint, is lying under oath about such "inconsequential items" worse than lying while not under oath? And if not using a moral argument, what is it about the former that is so egregious that it should be used as a disqualifier for SCOTUS? And why shouldn’t such a character flaw or otherwise questionable behavior be a disqualifier for the other branches of government?

Do you even Bill Clinton, bro?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

Kavanaugh told a number of falsehoods under oath before even addressing Dr Ford's allegations, and then stated more falsehoods, demonstrable falsehoods, addressing the allegations when he wasn't refusing to answer questions. Dr Ford told multiple people of the sexual assault years before BK was ever nominated and answered all the questions posed to her under oath. Anyone who doesn't think Dr Ford is an order of magnitude more credible than Kavanaugh isn't paying attention or just lying.

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

41 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Can someone explain to me how he's not disqualified by his political rant to start his testimony against "the democrats," "the Clintons," and "the media"?  We all know these guys have political leanings but the good ones hide it in their confirmation hearings.  This fucking guy goes full party line attack to start his testimony.  How on earth can he be expected to be fair and unbiased?  I mean, we all know he was hand selected to be biased as fuck, but he's not supposed to admit it in his fucking confirmation hearings.

It's pretty amazing, isn't it? He's not a conservative judge, he's a Republican judge and he's not even trying to hide it. 

[Party_Taco 3742]

Haven’t checked to see if this was posted, but I’ve yet to see a more detailed breakdown of the hearing:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

[Hank Kingsley 20967]

3 minutes ago, Cacti said:

From a moral standpoint, is lying under oath about such "inconsequential items" worse than lying while not under oath? And if not using a moral argument, what is it about the former that is so egregious that it should be used as a disqualifier for SCOTUS? And why shouldn’t such a character flaw or otherwise questionable behavior be a disqualifier for the other branches of government?

Yes. 

It is perjury. 

It should. 

 

[Huckleberry 32997]

3 minutes ago, Cacti said:

From a moral standpoint, is lying under oath about such "inconsequential items" worse than lying while not under oath? And if not using a moral argument, what is it about the former that is so egregious that it should be used as a disqualifier for SCOTUS? And why shouldn’t such a character flaw or otherwise questionable behavior be a disqualifier for the other branches of government?

Are you seriously asking why perjury should be a bigger deal than non-perjurious lying FOR SOMEONE BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES?

That could be one of the dumbest questions I've ever read on any message board, and that's saying a lot.

[Kilgorehorn 308]

8 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Outside the statute of limitations, and it was considered a misdemeanor at the time of the alleged incident.  Next?

It is not outside the statute of limitations in Maryland.

[Ghost of Shag 2614]

I'd love to see some of you hold yourselves to the same standards you impose on others.

If you believed yourself to be innocent, and half the nation turned on quickly and mercilessly, you think you would just sit there calmly and respond in monotone to false accusations?

Shit, most of us can't read a post on Surly without responding emotionally.

I love this narrative that "his demeanor and rants are unacceptable for the Supreme Court of the United States."

Shut the fuck up with that noise.  Had he responded in opposite fashion, you would be saying that were he truly innocent, he would have responded passionately and with anger.  

Maybe the guy did it, maybe he didn't.  Either way, it's very likely to be unproven in the time allotted, and possibly if they had all the time in the world.

I'm neither Democratic nor Republican and whether it's Kavanaugh or the next candidate to the seat, I don't really care.  I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary; they were both dogshit.  But this double standard nonsense is ridiculous.  

Edited October 1, 2018 by Ghost of Shag

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

23 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't think anyone in here is surprised that the dregs of society who still cling to the GOP would be "won over" by a lying, egotistical, angry, privileged  white male playing the world is out to get me card...I mean y'all still support Trump God's sake..

Talk about a dog whistle.. white male, white male, white male ........ aaaaaaugh it's the white males.....

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't understand how the peppers and Iconoclasts of the board can't grasp that the issue many of us have has little to do with any attempted sexual misconduct when he was 18.  As sachick points out, there will likely never be any hard evidence of that.  We think he is unfit for the SCOTUS because he has lied under oath. Full stop.

And because he's a whiny, crying bitch who can't control his emotions. 

[kevwun 15798]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Shag said:

I'd love to see some of you hold yourselves to the same standards you impose on others.

If you believed yourself to be innocent, and half the nation turned on quickly and mercilessly, you think you would just sit there calmly and respond in monotone to false accusations?

Shit, most of us can't read a post on Surly without responding emotionally.

I love this narrative that "his demeanor and rants are unacceptable for the Supreme Court of the United States."

Shut the fuck up with that noise.  Had he responded in opposite fashion, you would be saying that were he truly innocent, he would have responded passionately and with anger.  

He could have made his feelings known in a tactful manner.  Instead he went on a 10 minute rant where he alternated between crying and yelling.  Go act like that in a courtroom anywhere in this country and see what happens to you.  Or try it in your next job interview and see if you get hired.

Edited October 1, 2018 by kevwun

[Celery Man 20968]

14 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

There are no specifics to her testimony. Everyone she says was at the party fails to corroborate her story. Now that the spectacle of her testifying is over, I’m hoping conservative media this week comes up with numerous ways to shred her story. It’s shameful to me that someone so unsure of the facts of what allegedly happened has the gall to sully the reputation of an accomplished man like him. 

prediction - the ability of the "conservative" media to shred Ford's story will be dependent on how successful the Trumpers are at impeding the FBI

[Dahobbs 17625]

15 minutes ago, Cacti said:

From a moral standpoint, is lying under oath about such "inconsequential items" worse than lying while not under oath? And if not using a moral argument, what is it about the former that is so egregious that it should be used as a disqualifier for SCOTUS? And why shouldn’t such a character flaw or otherwise questionable behavior be a disqualifier for the other branches of government?

It is a crime (and can even be a capital offense in some states). And is considered a crime of moral turpitude in every single state and by every single state bar association. Not only is it a disqualifier to be a Supreme Court Justice, it would in many instances disqualify one from even holding a law license. 

Edited October 1, 2018 by Dahobbs

[sachick 1189]

4 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

There are no specifics to her testimony. Everyone she says was at the party fails to corroborate her story. Now that the spectacle of her testifying is over, I’m hoping conservative media this week comes up with numerous ways to shred her story. It’s shameful to me that someone so unsure of the facts of what allegedly happened has the gall to sully the reputation of an accomplished man like him. 

There are no specifics to her testimony - She doesn't remember details outside of the trauma, which is common. But she remember she went up stairs, the bathroom was to the right bedroom door to the left. She remembers what side of the room the bed was on, she remembers hearing the music get louder, she remembers them laughing, she remembers him on top of her, she remembers his hand on her mouth, she remembers falling off the bed, she remembers hiding in the bathroom. Sounds like specifics to me.

Everyone she says was at the party fails to corroborate her story. - They say they don't remember this specific party/get together. Not denying that it could have happened. There is a different. Isn't surprising they don't remember, why would they? They weren't traumatized and nothing memorable happened for them. I don't remember all the HS parties/get togethers, do you? Maybe if you only went to a couple, you might remember. I went to lots of them and who knows what happened to other people. I remember one where we had to run and hide in the trees and walk around to get to our car because the cops showed up. That was a memorable event for me because it was the only time I ran and hid from cops. I can't tell you what month or year it was. I can't tell you whose house it was at or how I got home. I remember a specific guy who I was seeing when I was 16, but that's as close to a timeline I can get you.

someone so unsure of the facts - She remembers the incident exactly.

 

 

[Huckleberry 32997]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Shag said:

I'd love to see some of you hold yourselves to the same standards you impose on others.

If you believed yourself to be innocent, and half the nation turned on quickly and mercilessly, you think you would just sit there calmly and respond in monotone to false accusations?

Shit, most of us can't read a post on Surly without responding emotionally.

I love this narrative that "his demeanor and rants are unacceptable for the Supreme Court of the United States."

Shut the fuck up with that noise.  Had he responded in opposite fashion, you would be saying that were he truly innocent, he would have responded passionately and with anger.  

I'm neither Democratic nor Republican.  I didn't vote for either candidate; they were both dogshit.  But this double standard nonsense is ridiculous.  

No, this post is ridiculous. Holding a standard of behavior for a potential Supreme Court Justice while testifying under oath in front of a Senate committee that is different than the standard of behavior I hold for an average citizen is not a double standard. What would be a double standard would be holding a different standard of behavior for that position depending on the nominee's political leanings.

I expect a different level of behavior from my 10-year-old son than I did when he was 3. Is that a double standard?

[DixonHur 11340]

8 minutes ago, Kilgorehorn said:

It is not outside the statute of limitations in Maryland.

Yes, it is because what he's accused of was a misdemeanor, not a felony.

In Maryland, the statute of limitations on misdemeanor sexual crimes is 1 year.

Edited October 1, 2018 by DixonHur

[jimmyjazz 45976]

11 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Kavanaugh told a number of falsehoods under oath before even addressing Dr Ford's allegations, and then stated more falsehoods, demonstrable falsehoods, addressing the allegations when he wasn't refusing to answer questions. Dr Ford told multiple people of the sexual assault years before BK was ever nominated and answered all the questions posed to her under oath. Anyone who doesn't think Dr Ford is an order of magnitude more credible than Kavanaugh isn't paying attention or just lying.

. . . or stupid.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

There are no specifics to her testimony. Everyone she says was at the party fails to corroborate her story.

Your first statement is a falsehood. Your second statement makes sense DUE TO the specifics of her testimony- that it was upstairs in another room she was shoved into and the only other witness who could be implicated is in hiding.

[sachick 1189]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

. . . or stupid.

Or doesn't care.

[Hank Kingsley 20967]

 

[Ghost of Shag 2614]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

No, this post is ridiculous. Holding a standard of behavior for a potential Supreme Court Justice while testifying under oath in front of a Senate committee that is different than the standard of behavior I hold for an average citizen is not a double standard. What would be a double standard would be holding a different standard of behavior for that position depending on the nominee's political leanings. 



I expect a different level of behavior from my 10-year-old son than I did when he was 3. Is that a double standard?

You mean testifying under oath in front of a group of people who are trying, at all costs, to keep you from getting the seat you've worked toward your whole life? 

You sit across from the people you believe to be lying about your life and a sexual assault accusation, and do so in a calm, collected manner.  Don't raise your voice.  Don't get emotional.  

Because by god, this is the Supreme Court.  You're not a human.  You're a Supreme Court Judge.  So sit there, take your beating like a man, and fucking like it.

Bullshit.  

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

(and can even be a capital offense in some states)

Imma guess you don't know what capital offense means.

[Dahobbs 17625]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Imma guess you don't know what capital offense means.

You would guess wrong. Perjury is fucking serious. 

[jimmyjazz 45976]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Imma guess you don't know what capital offense means.

I had to look it up.  It turns out perjury which secures the execution of an innocent person is a capital offense.  Kind of a specific distinction, but OK.  (Disclaimer:  not an attorney and I don't know if the reference I saw is legit or current.  Just an FYI.)

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Just now, Ghost of Shag said:

You mean testifying under oath in front of a group of people who are trying, at all costs, to keep you from getting the seat you've worked toward your whole life? 

You sit across from the people you believe to be lying about your life and a sexual assault accusation, and do so in a calm, collected manner.  Don't raise your voice.  Don't get emotional.  

Because by god, this is the Supreme Court.  You're not a human.  You're a Supreme Court Judge.  So sit there, take your beating like a man, and fucking like it.

Bullshit.  

(Clarence Thomas did exactly that.)

[jimmyjazz 45976]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of Shag said:

You mean testifying under oath in front of a group of people who are trying, at all costs, to keep you from getting the seat you've worked toward your whole life? 

You sit across from the people you believe to be lying about your life and a sexual assault accusation, and do so in a calm, collected manner.  Don't raise your voice.  Don't get emotional.  

Because by god, this is the Supreme Court.  You're not a human.  You're a Supreme Court Judge.  So sit there, take your beating like a man, and fucking like it.

Bullshit.  

Serving on SCOTUS is a tremendous privilege, not a right.  Very very few should meet that high standard.  I'll wager that nobody on surly should (although I might be over my skis in that assessment).

Ironically, there are no actual standards, but in practice you shouldn't be a raging shitbag and expect confirmation.

[Huckleberry 32997]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Shag said:

You mean testifying under oath in front of a group of people who are trying, at all costs, to keep you from getting the seat you've worked toward your whole life? 

You sit across from the people you believe to be lying about your life and a sexual assault accusation, and do so in a calm, collected manner.  Don't raise your voice.  Don't get emotional.  

Because by god, this is the Supreme Court.  You're not a human.  You're a Supreme Court Judge.  So sit there, take your beating like a man, and fucking like it.

Bullshit.  

Perhaps you're unaware that this impossible feat of staying calm in the face of asshole politicians and not behaving like a child has been achieved by countless others in the history of our nation and others around the globe. The reason you're hearing about this is because Kavanaugh is one of the only examples of someone who was actually incapable of doing so. I mean if you think you wouldn't be able to do so, that's fine. I would not impugn your ability to be a decent person because of it.

But I wouldn't confirm you to be a Justice on the Supreme Court, either.

[SubliminalHorn 6806]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Shag said:

You mean testifying under oath in front of a group of people who are trying, at all costs, to keep you from getting the seat you've worked toward your whole life? 

You sit across from the people you believe to be lying about your life and a sexual assault accusation, and do so in a calm, collected manner.  Don't raise your voice.  Don't get emotional.  

Because by god, this is the Supreme Court.  You're not a human.  You're a Supreme Court Judge.  So sit there, take your beating like a man, and fucking like it.

Bullshit.  

Yes the right way to handle it is to yell and cry and sniffle the whole time. I’m so sure if it was a woman you’d be saying the same thing. 

[Js1 85412]

I like how because he "worked towards this his whole life," Kavanaugh is somehow thus immune from criticism.  How entitled.

[David Dennison 18922]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Shag said:

You mean testifying under oath in front of a group of people who are trying, at all costs, to keep you from getting the seat you've worked toward your whole life? 

You sit across from the people you believe to be lying about your life and a sexual assault accusation, and do so in a calm, collected manner.  Don't raise your voice.  Don't get emotional.  

Because by god, this is the Supreme Court.  You're not a human.  You're a Supreme Court Judge.  So sit there, take your beating like a man, and fucking like it.

Bullshit.  

What do you think the reaction would have been to a woman nominee who acted exactly like Brett Kavanaugh did?

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I had to look it up.  It turns out perjury which secures the execution of an innocent person is a capital offense.  Kind of a specific distinction, but OK.  (Disclaimer:  not an attorney and I don't know if the reference I saw is legit or current.  Just an FYI.)

Heh.  Okay.  *That* perjury.  I'm not sure that's what we are talking about here.

[kevwun 15798]

If a woman had been stifling sobs while talking about a calendar, Republicans would be losing their minds over how unfit for the job she was.

[SubliminalHorn 6806]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

I like how because he "worked towards this his whole life," Kavanaugh is somehow thus immune from criticism.  How entitled.

Poor prep schooled, white, privileged male. Life is hard for him. 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

19 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't understand how the peppers and Iconoclasts of the board can't grasp that the issue many of us have has little to do with any attempted sexual misconduct when he was 18.  As sachick points out, there will likely never be any hard evidence of that.  We think he is unfit for the SCOTUS because he has lied under oath. Full stop.

He “lied” under oath because his definition of slang terms boof and devil’s were different than many others. Also, he claims he never was black out drunk. I’m sure he’d agree that he’d gotten woozy before. That again is SUBJECTIVE motherfuckers. 

[Chuckie Finster 22700]

4 minutes ago, Ghost of Shag said:

You mean testifying under oath in front of a group of people who are trying, at all costs, to keep you from getting the seat you've worked toward your whole life? 

You sit across from the people you believe to be lying about your life and a sexual assault accusation, and do so in a calm, collected manner.  Don't raise your voice.  Don't get emotional.  

Because by god, this is the Supreme Court.  You're not a human.  You're a Supreme Court Judge.  So sit there, take your beating like a man, and fucking like it.

Bullshit.  

Yes, that's exactly what I would expect of a Supreme Court judge.  Being asked to serve as a Justice is an honor, not a privilege.  There are only 9 people who get that claim at a time, and you better fucking believe I want them to be more level-headed and composed than your average Joe.

[Brandywine 1316]

20 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Kavanaugh told a number of falsehoods under oath before even addressing Dr Ford's allegations, and then stated more falsehoods, demonstrable falsehoods, addressing the allegations when he wasn't refusing to answer questions. Dr Ford told multiple people of the sexual assault years before BK was ever nominated and answered all the questions posed to her under oath. Anyone who doesn't think Dr Ford is an order of magnitude more credible than Kavanaugh isn't paying attention or just lying.

Bottom line, he’s a little rich kid weasel who looks like a little rich kid weasel. That alone should disqualify him. 

[pepper brooks 580]

33 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I really wish people would stop saying this.  Her testimony, especially under oath, is evidence.  How many people have been put away solely on the word of the victim?  Plenty.  The question is if you believe she is credible.  You apparently think not.  Which means you think she's lying.  That's your right to believe, but don't say there is "zero" evidence.  Her testimony is evidence.  His testimony is evidence.  She seems more credible to me than him.  It may not be strong enough for a criminal conviction, but it's damn sure enough to keep him away from a lifetime appointment to one of the most important institutions in the world.  And as many have said, his temperament alone and political rant should be enough to not confirm, even if you think he isn't a drunk molester.

ok.  fair enough.  In going to the next step, there is not one shred of evidence to prove her evidence occurred, nor one shred of evidence that can be put up as a way to "disprove" her evidence, i.e. nothing tangible that can be put up in order to provide an alibi.  However, Kavanaugh does have evidence that says her story didn't happen.  Basically, it is he said - 3, she said - 1.  With no further evidence that can corroborate her story, it's pretty hard to believe this is anything more than an attempt to delay the SC being stacked against the left for a good while.  If you start from a place of innocent until proven otherwise, this story is nothing but a political stunt.  The fall out may be we have discovered Kavanaugh may lack the ability to make good decisions under pressure, and perhaps that disqualifies him.  Further, I wouldn't support a guy for SC who has perjured himself.  I also wouldn't support a president sworn to uphold the laws of the land who has perjured himself, but I know a damn good number of those bringing up perjury  in this thread do not feel the same.    and we know house democrats certainly do not think perjury is a big deal when it comes to lying about being a sexual predator.  

[Chuckie Finster 22700]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

He “lied” under oath because his definition of slang terms boof and devil’s were different than many others. Also, he claims he never was black out drunk. I’m sure he’d agree that he’d gotten woozy before. That again is SUBJECTIVE motherfuckers. 

He said the drinking age was 18 when he was a Senior.  It was 21.  This is verifiable fact.  And this doesn't even touch the multiple instances of perjury he had committed BEFORE Thursday.

[Dahobbs 17625]

Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Heh.  Okay.  *That* perjury.  I'm not sure that's what we are talking about here.

Did I fucking say perjury was at all times a capital offense? No, I said it "can be a capital offense", which it can, depending on the circumstances. As I said, perjury is fucking serious. I didn't fucking say Kavanaugh should be given the death penalty. But, since it is a very serious crime, yes, it disqualifies him you pedantic halfwit. 

CA Penal Code § 128 (through 2012 Leg Sess)

Every person who, by willful perjury or subornation of perjury procures the conviction and execution of any innocent person, is punishable by death or life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The penalty shall be determined pursuant to Sections 190.3 and 190.4.

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Perhaps you're unaware that this impossible feat of staying calm in the face of asshole politicians and not behaving like a child has been achieved by countless others in the history of our nation and others around the globe. The reason you're hearing about this is because Kavanaugh is one of the only examples of someone who was actually incapable of doing so. I mean if you think you wouldn't be able to do so, that's fine. I would not impugn your ability to be a decent person because of it.

But I wouldn't confirm you to be a Justice on the Supreme Court, either.

No one has endured what Kavanaugh is going through. Allegations of wrongdoings as a teenager and being impugned as a rapist when there hasn’t been anything remotely pointing to such deviancy as an adult. 36 year old claims without the necessary detail to rightfully merit a police interview. What Clarence Thomas or Bork went through don’t hold a candle to this bullshit.

[SubliminalHorn 6806]

No one has been subject to congressional inquiries and questioning like Kavanaugh has. No one! 

[Aqua Buddha 14598]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

No one has endured what Kavanaugh is going through. Allegations of wrongdoings as a teenager and being impugned as a rapist when there hasn’t been anything remotely pointing to such deviancy as an adult. 36 year old claims without the necessary detail to rightfully merit a police interview. What Clarence Thomas or Bork went through don’t hold a candle to this bullshit.

[retread 2951]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

No one has endured what Kavanaugh is going through. Allegations of wrongdoings as a teenager and being impugned as a rapist when there hasn’t been anything remotely pointing to such deviancy as an adult. 36 year old claims without the necessary detail to rightfully merit a police interview. What Clarence Thomas or Bork went through don’t hold a candle to this bullshit.

They weren't accused of sexual assault, rape trains, or penis in the face treatment.