First, I don't intend to argue, but i want to make sure that we are on the same page on all of this.
1. Regarding the Devil's triangle - I heard Kav explain that it was a drinking game.
2. Regarding "Boofing", I heard Kav explain that this was his teenage term for flatulance (that one I have heard of).
3. Regarding Renate Alumnius, my understanding is that Renate was the first name of some hot chick at a nearby catholic high school. The implication of "Renate Alumnius" would be that they were bragging about being in a group that had accommodating interactions with her. I also saw his testimony on that where he openly apologized to her for the things written in that yearbook, and that he was extremely sorry to her for the comments - that it was his greatest regret in this saga. He specifically stated that he never actually had any sex with anyone until several years after high school. I also saw that the girl (married name Renate Dolphin now - I kid you not) was one of 64 fellow students who signed a petition of support for Brett Kavanaugh, and she also personally wrote a letter stating that Kav had never acted like anything but a gentleman, and that they had not had sex.
Thus, on this last account, it would appear that 17 y.o. Kav had bragged to his buds in his senior yearbook about being part of the group who was claiming to have had sex with the hot babe they did when he really didn't.
53 y.o. Kav says he didn't as does 53 y.o. Renate, both are obviously on good enough terms to get the letter of support.
So are the alleged lies that are being referred to by Kavanaugh just this, or is there more? Is there more information on the other two allegations mentioned above that I am didn't mention, or other allegations not mentioned?
for better. For our daughters.
Fuck Trump and Kav.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I'll recommend Frontline's Decision 2016 documentary again.
(no message)
(no message)
you're a piece of shit
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
We have a justice system here which is designed to protect the innocent, not punish the guilty at all costs. And Kavanaugh is presumed innocent until some real evidence can delivered and shown.
(no message)
So this could get interesting if he chooses to pursue it.
This is just an internet forum. No presumption of innocence here. You must believe the accuser, right?
Obviously, I'm just trying to make a point about false accusations having to be believed. If we require that, it could cause problems for innocent people. So, I think you are wrong to require belief in all accusations.
I know you are just repeating something you heard, but do you not see how harmful it is to help create a society without a presumption of innocence in general?
A rather important job, don't you think?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Kavanaugh was not on the Federalists's initial list, by the way. Apparently Don McGahn and others helped convince Trump that they needed someone more political, more openly partisan and willing to fight.
That whole travesty we went through was Trump's fault. Just keep that in mind.
Link: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-lies_us_5bb26190e4b027da00d61fcd
further enlighten you.....
Kavanaugh is still a judge first, and he is innocent of Dem BS charges. Quite simply, the Left cannot be allowed to be successful in eliminating a candidate merely by bringing false charges by a female Dem activist - otherwise, the Right will never get another candidate approved - ever. I oppose the ruthless, evil tactics employed without remorse by the Left. i oppose your overall philosophy of the ends justifying the means to torpedo his nomination as well. And i am not even slightly in doubt that Amy Barret or the others would have been given similar treatment.
Now that that has been made clear, Kav was my last choice of the final list because he was not an outsider like Gorsuch essentially was (you could argue that even Gorsuch was IVY though, and it would have been nice to go outside of the liberal academic power base to represent middle America better.
Kavanaugh will unfortunately be too much like Kennedy for my liking. he will not reverse Roe v Wade (which is why Collins wanted to come to a "yes" decision because she knows that any other Trump pick will be more than willing to address that judiciary malfeasance). But at the same time, he will be a bit right of Kennedy who already went with conservatives about 94% of the time.
I know that he is the most conservative candidate that we could get through with Collins/Murkowski/Flake, and i also know that he did not deserve the hatchet job that he got and that you have conveniently convinced yourself to be true. Ford is an obvious, obvious liar. But for you, it's just about how it makes you feel. you don't decide with your brain.
It's interesting that you mentioned that Kav wasn't on Trump's initial list. His initial list supposedly caused Ford to share her concerns with a friend. She did a complete 180 when that was pointed out.
Um. OK.
(no message)
(no message)
the Internet.”
Fuck Trump and fuck Kav.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8hIPyyB16U
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Don't blame me. Blame the media, blame the Party, and blame yourselves.
I bet you have to look up who he said that to.
Edited for punctuation.
(no message)
(no message)
and at the same time told me it was ok. If it was ok for Dems, then I don't give two shits about what Trump did. I care about #WINNING
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Also, his policies are generally good for the country.
Although, "embrace" is a strong word. I mostly would like there to not be a constitutional crisis (like you guys are seeking to create) while we let the country benefit from his superior economic and foreign policies. I recognize that he is a dislikable human being, but the alternatives are not better.
Now, answer my question: Why do you oppose the democractic aspects of our constitutional republic? That is very short sighted of you.
you referring to, and please state specifically why you think I ignore or hate or do not believe in it.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
....and those people care more about overturning Roe v. Wade than they do about victims of sexual assault.
Murkowski the exception.
It's all about protecting Little Hands. Period.
I don't think anyone would think that drinking beer as a minor, attending wild parties or making crude jokes in high school are items that should keep him from the bench. The only item that falls into that category is the sexual assault.
But just like Trump he lied about pretty much everything else, which pretty much shatters his credibility on the one serious charge.
(no message)
(My original response to this was at the link below. Moving it here, since you reposted it without commenting earlier. Probably just slipped down the page on you.)
The first one is pure nitpicking. She gave names of witnesses to corroborate, and those witnesses said they didn't remember seeing what she said happened. When he characterized the witnesses statements, he said that her own witnesses refuted her. They kind of did. She said they were there; they said they saw nothing. But HuffPo says the witnesses didn't "refute" her, they just failed to corroborate her story. Okaaaay.
The second one is also a stretch at best: Kavanaugh said, “I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation.” But, HuffPo notes that his calender shows he went to parties with his friends where there was beer. Okaaaay.
On the assumption that the two best "lies" were listed first, I stopped reading, and I feel confident Kavanaugh didn't lie.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=497527
(no message)
It is a reasonable statement to say that the witnesses refuted Ford when she says they were at the party, and they say that they don't remember it.
It is also reasonable for Kavanaugh to say that he was never at a party llike Ford described since she gave multiple specifics of the scene if, conveniently, nothing that could be used to
corroborate her story. He did not say he was not at other parties in his day, just not one like she described. I wouldn't think twice about describing it that way myself in his shoes without ever imagining that the Left would be looking to split hairs like they are now.
Baron wanted to know where people stand. I find the inconsistencies identified in the article reprehensible. He would have not received a confirmation vote from me, solely on the basis of dishonesty and integrity. However, I'm not about to join any impeachment movement over things like that.
But, I get that many people will have a lower standard, and that is their prerogative. The standard is not defined, and so is a flexible one.
If the allegations had not been from high school, if Ford had not waited to come forward solely for political purposes, if Feinstein had not withheld the information until the final hour, the allegations would have had more credence for me.
It's not allegations about activity 36 years ago. It is about activity in the last few weeks. As you've noted, we've some agreement on the Ford issue. No need to defend that again.
These were obvious lies. None of them serious enough to arrest him. Just serious enough to know that this guy should not be sitting on the Supreme Court. And I have no dog in this fight. If he doesn't get in, Trump will just pick another like him (at least jurisprudentially). I had no real desire to derail this guy. I just observed his behavior and developed an opinion that he was not fit.
I just didn't think any of his recent acts or statements rise to the level of barring him from SCOTUS. When I ask what was so bad, people almost always point to the 36 year old accusations.
This has been my experience.
I will be at the game this weekend, BTW. I'll be the handsome one wearing an ND shirt.
(no message)
(no message)
I'm just not surprised you believe him. Of course you do.
Responding usually requires a little legwork and I can’t do that at the moment. A couple of quick thoughts.
“Accommodating interactions” is brilliant. I am working this into my lexicon for sure.
I believe Renate withdrew her support upon learning of the yearbook thing.
While your explanation of the bragging makes sense, it is the fact that Kavanaugh didn’t offer it that bothers me.
I understand your reasoning anyway.
The lies they do identify were either (i) made when he was in high school (and if that is it, then ok, let's go with that), or (ii) cryptic terms which are interpreted to mean "X" today by people who oppose Kavanaugh, when the people who spoke the terms 36 years ago claim they meant "Y" and still claim they meant "Y." "We know today what they meant 36 years ago by that made up term." It just seems a stretch to say that is sufficient evidence of perjury.
I admit as well that I haven't followed the Saga of Kavanaugh's Lies closely. But, I'm not the one making claims about it. I honestly expected those who do make those claims to come up with some clear examples of lies. But, their best argument seems to be, "Oh, c'mon, of course he lied, let's go scratch on the doors of SCOTUS like cats."
to warrant an impeachment.
This probably means that they will continue to come forth with libera, activist female Dems making unprovable charges until they then try to claim that there is too much smoke for there not to be fire somewhere.
They are very predictable.
From the linked article:
Four high school classmates of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have claimed that the phrase "Devil's Triangle" in Kavanaugh's yearbook is a drinking game and not a reference to sexual activity, as has been claimed by some opponents of Kavanaugh.
...
In a letter released by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Delancey Davis, Bernard McCarthy Jr., Paul Murray and Matthew Quinn said the game was a variation on quarters.
"When we played 'Devil’s Triangle,' four people sat at a table. On the table, three small glasses of beer were arranged next to one another to form a triangle. Each of the four participants took turns being the “shooter," they wrote. "The shooter attempted to bounce a quarter into one of the glasses. If the quarter landed in one of the glasses, the person at the table sitting nearest that glass had to drink the beer."
The quartet added that while they do not remember how the game came to be called "Devil's Triangle," they were adamant that "none of us used the phrase ... in our yearbook to refer to any kind of sexual activity."
"If the phrase 'Devil's Triangle' had any sexual meaning in the 1980s, we did not know it," they concluded.
The committee also released a letter from two men who roomed with one of Kavanaugh's high school classmates while they were undergraduates at Boston College. The men, Greg Aceto and Bill Van Pelt IV, said that Kavanaugh's classmate Matthew Quinn had taught them how to play "Devil's Triangle" and added that they did not understand it to have any sexual meaning.
I get that people are saying the above is not true, but this is not a strong case for perjury.
Link: Kavanaugh's prep school friends say 'Devil's Triangle' was a drinking game
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
The evidence there does point to Kavanaugh partying hard (and a lot) as a teenager, and into college. Also, him saying he never had sex until his early twenties screams bullshit. I would have liked for him to own up to this, and he never did.
(no message)