This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Police report says Brett Kavanaugh was in a barfight in 1985

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 4]

2seaoat wrote:Now... I know, it's 30 years ago and more, but... saying the women are accurate and truthful, which they may well be and you can't prove otherwise, would you be comfortable with an attempted rapist being on the Supreme Court? Even if he was only 17, 18, 19, 20 at the time? Would you excuse that?

I just wish people could spend a year in a sex crime courtroom, and realize that this is much ado about absolutely nothing.  You use the word attempted rape......how do you make such an outrageous claim?  I could argue equally that it was playful wrestling on the bed where an intoxicated girl misinterpreted something non sexual with rough housing, including the covering of the mouth.  Would I be wrong?  We will never know because courts have learned over thousands of years that we need a gatekeeper on irrelevant evidence.  My answer to your question is that this was a juvenile and our entire legal system is based on the irrelevancy of youth.....so much so that these records evaporate after five years.   This man should be confirmed if for no other reason than to assure the rule of law still has meaning in this country and common sense and decency will prevail.  I have had girls in my dorm room where there was some wrestling and some fun......gosh......I guess I am a rapist. No

She wasn't intoxicated or even had any drugs or alcohol. And yes, you would be dreadfully wrong.

View user profile
90% of the time I tend to agree with most of what SeaOat says but on this one I'm totally on opposite sides of the issue.

Kavanaugh is like Trump. He is an evasive liar with the temperament of a drug addict who needs a fix. He is not Judgeship material much less SCOTUS material. Do you honestly think the other Justices now on the court want this guy to join them? Do you honestly think he could render an unbiased opinion on a case involving anything the Democrats or some citizens group might bring before the court? His background is in partisan politics. He pals around with Carl Rove.

Here is an article that lays out piece by piece the lies and contradictions he presented just last week in his testimony! This is him lying LAST WEEK. This is not some decades old unprovable alligation(s).

His supporters need to stop making excuses for this guy. He is unfit and his own behavior and words testify to that.

45 says we have to hurry because it is not fair to Kavanaugh to drag this out...poor man is being stressed. What about being fair to the country and the rest of the Justices to say nothing of the effects his rulings might have?


SEPTEMBER 29, 2018
HOW WE KNOW KAVANAUGH IS LYING

This man should not serve another day as any kind of judge…
by NATHAN J. ROBINSON

On Thursday morning, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford detailed under oath her claim that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh attacked her and sexually violated her when he was 17. On Thursday afternoon, Kavanaugh went before the committee to defend himself from the charge, emotionally—sometimes angrily—claiming that he was an innocent man being persecuted by Democrats, that his hearings had become a “national disgrace” that had “destroyed my family and my good name.”

“If both parties speak with passion and clarity, but one of them says many inconsistent, evasive, irrational, and false things, then we actually have a very good indicator of who is telling the truth…”

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


Please read this well laid out article. He references Kavanaugh's calendar with the names of the people Dr. Ford cites, a map showing the locations of their houses, schools and the country club where Ford was swimming that day and many other events that show his attempts at evading the question etc.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:
I just wish people could spend a year in a sex crime courtroom, and realize that this is much ado about absolutely nothing.

Well, I haven't done that... but I have read a hell of a lot of Andrew Vachss's work, as well as his wife Alice Vachss's, and they work extensively in those courtrooms, and they are driven, buddy.  Spend some time in The Zero and see if you don't pick up a few things.

And I have had one girlfriend who got raped by her dad multiple times when she was a kid.  I won't even tell you how that one turned out.  I have held another girlfriend because I was at her house one night when her old boyfriend showed up, and I wondered why she broke down shaking and crying at the sight of him... and then she told me what he did to her.  And I won't tell you much about what went down after that, either.  I did have an aunt who got attacked by a guy who broke into her house and brained her with a hammer and then did other things to her while he thought she was dying.  My aunt survived with tunnel vision in one eye and no sense of smell.  To my knowledge the guy who did it is still in a Texas prison.  I did used to work all night at a radio station where a woman known locally as "Champagne Cathy" told me about a couple of cops raping her when she called 911 after a suicide attempt.  And those are just a few of the things I've been through with women I've known.

So, sorry, I don't see this as "much ado about absolutely nothing."  I'm kind of surprised that you do, either.  You've never struck me as the kind of guy who'd shrug off cruelty to a woman.  I admit I'm a little taken aback by it.  I know you like a good scrap and you like to dig in your heels and play devil's advocate just for the fun of the argument, but, I dunno, dude, I think this is a bridge too far.  I'm not trying to "win" an argument or back you down or whatever, I'm just trying to figure out how far you really want to run with this thing... and why.



 
You use the word attempted rape......how do you make such an outrageous claim?

Because women have testified that he tried to tear their clothes off, or shoved his penis in their face, or gotten girls drunk enough where they didn't know what was going on and pulled a train on them.  I mean, Jesus, dude, what should I call such an aggressive unwanted sexual advance?


 I could argue equally that it was playful wrestling on the bed where an intoxicated girl misinterpreted something non sexual with rough housing, including the covering of the mouth.  Would I be wrong?

If the woman didn't want it going on and feared for her life, then YES, absolutely, you would be wrong.  And not just a little wrong, but really-really-reaaaaally wrong.

And I'm guessing you missed the part where Kavanaugh was tearing at her clothes?   Or shoving his dick in Miss Ramirez's face?  How is that "non-sexual" roughhousing?   Would we agree that trying to pull off clothes or exposing one's genitals would not be out of bounds for someone to interpret as "sexual"?  




 We will never know because courts have learned over thousands of years that we need a gatekeeper on irrelevant evidence.

Is sworn testimony "irrelevant evidence"?


 My answer to your question is that this was a juvenile and our entire legal system is based on the irrelevancy of youth.....so much so that these records evaporate after five years.  

He wasn't five, he was 17 to 20.  If a five year old grabs a woman's titty or something, that's a much different thing than a 17-year-old doing it.  Can we agree on that?  We all do dumb things when we're teenagers, it's true.  But there's a level of what's ignorant and what's just wrong, there's a limit.  When I was 16 I wore Confederate flag tee-shirts and would laugh at racist jokes.  I'm now embarrassed by that and think I was stupid and I don't do any of that anymore.  So, I was a dumbass in some ways... but I wasn't dumbass enough to try to sexually assault a woman.  I knew that was wrong, even at that age.  I think most people have that much sense.  If Kavanaugh had, I dunno, said some sexist things as a kid, which he disavows now, I'd excuse it as, "Yeah, he was a dumb kid."  But being in college and trying to tear off someone's clothes or shove his dick in their face?   That ain't "oops, silly kid!" stuff.  

And then he gets on FOX News and pretends he was Wally Cleaver on top of it.  



This man should be confirmed if for no other reason than to assure the rule of law still has meaning in this country and common sense and decency will prevail.

Common sense and decency say that if three women are willing to swear that extremely inappropriate things happened, and other witnesses are willing to corroborate that Kavanaugh lied about his level of drinking back then, then that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  

Rule of law says you don't lie to congress during a hearing.  He did, multiple times.  He's misrepresented himself.  Whether you want to give him a pass for the allegations of sexual misconduct or not, the fact that he lied still stands.



 I have had girls in my dorm room where there was some wrestling and some fun......gosh......I guess I am a rapist. No

I can't speak to that because I don't know whether the girls were having fun, too, or just you.   We'd have to ask the women who were there.   If both parties are roughhousing and are both enjoying it, then it's playing and that's fine.  If one's roughhousing and the other's getting manhandled while trying to get away, then it's something else.  Is that what this is about?  You uncomfortable because you think maybe you did something like he did, and don't want to think the  girls involved weren't playing along with it?   And if he's okay then you're okay?

I dunno.  You know the circumstances of your own story better than I do, but all I know is, more than one woman who "roughhoused" with him say they weren't in on the roughhousing.  If it creates a victim, then it isn't play.  In Kavanaugh's case, he created victims.



Last edited by zsomething on 10/2/2018, 1:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
His supporters need to stop making excuses for this guy. He is unfit and his own behavior and words testify to that.

I am making no excuses. This is a political hack job declared at the onset to do everything and anything to derail this nomination. I am not a supporter of Trump or any of his Supreme Court Picks. I simply believe in due process and the rules of relevancy. If all the worst behavior had been proven in regard to Dr. Ford and resulted in a Juvenile conviction, it would be irrelevant to this hearing. Sorry, go to the next fault of the judge and throw it up on the internet wall......it is wrong. He has done an excellent job as a judge to date, and not one case was dissected in the normal fashion to show a lack of judicial knowledge, rather you enter into the committee record he might be a gang raper in high school and then when he responds with appropriate anger to this political chit show, he now lacks judicial temper.........he is exactly the type of judge I know and respect in real life. It is one thing to say that this man must be stopped by any means, and quite another to deny him due process. He will be confirmed by people of common decency.


We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men – not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.
Edward R. Murrow

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:I have had girls in my dorm room where there was some wrestling and some fun.....

Fun for whom? And exactly what kind of wrestling, and who was the aggressor?

Maybe the real truth behind Sea's position on Kavanaugh is finally coming out.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
2seaoat wrote:He never denied drinking.  He denied blacking out.  His behavior was better than mine in college and graduate school.  

That's no longer the issue. It's his perjury and his unstable behavior in front of the committee now. HE WILL NOT BE CONFIRMED.

Deus is right.

And Seaoat, this isn't about YOU nor a comparison with you. You're not a nominee for a lifetime SCOTUS position.

I'm off to the beach, to forget this crapola for a coupla hours. BBL, LL

View user profile
She wasn't intoxicated or even had any drugs or alcohol.

When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room on the first floor of the house. I drank one beer that evening.When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room on the first floor of the house. I drank one beer that evening......her testimony

Why in trying to railroad this judge, must people lie.

I do not remember all of the details of how that gathering came together, but like many that summer, it was almost surely a spur of the moment gathering. I truly wish I could provide detailed answers to all of the questions that have been and will be asked about how I got to the party, where it took place, and so forth. I don’t have all the answers, and I don’t remember as much as I would like to.

A 15 year old girl who spent all summer at the CC and going to drinking parties by her own admission remembers only drinking one beer.....where was the grilling by the democratic senators asking her if she ever blacked out? Nope because to go after a female who admits she was drinking at 15 and ask her the same questions that the male judge was asked.....that would have been attacking the victim, this entire political witch hunt has denied the judge due process, and the probative value of her testimony is small to start with but I have seen 15 year olds drink......I think we need to simply use common sense.

View user profile
He lied repeatedly in his testimony while under oath - he even lied about inconsequential stuff that he didn't need to lie about.

And, he was visibly an emotional train wreck - belligerent one moment and sniveling the next.

Truthfulness and temperament ...

... that's all.

View user profile
He lied repeatedly in his testimony while under oath - he even lied about inconsequential stuff that he didn't need to lie about.

And, he was visibly an emotional train wreck - belligerent one moment and sniveling the next.

Truthfulness and temperament ...

... that's all.


To validate this new standard of denial of due process is quite funny.....tell someone that they are a gang raper.....where I come from you get angry when falsely accused. Please give me just your top three truthfulness got ya Judge moments which justify your conclusion. Temperament was exactly like a judge should be when due process and our constitution is being dragged through the sewer because politics dictated anything goes. Just three really good lies which now make him unqualified.......oh and please do not even start talking about perjury if you do not understand the legal term.....I know you think you fully understand from the internet......but go for it.....three lies which are relevant to this confirmation.

View user profile
Someone who knows Kavanaugh well and has worked with him said they wouldn't confirm him to the Supreme Court.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/

He stayed in, and he delivered on Thursday, by way of defense, a howl of rage. He went on the attack not against Ford—for that we can be grateful—but against Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and beyond. His opening statement was an unprecedentedly partisan outburst of emotion from a would-be justice. I do not begrudge him the emotion, even the anger. He has been through a kind of hell that would leave any person gasping for air. But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.

Consider the judicial function as described by Kavanaugh himself at his first hearing. That Brett Kavanaugh described a “good judge [as] an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy.” That Brett Kavanaugh reminded us that “the Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices on the Supreme Court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms.”

A very different Brett Kavanaugh showed up to Thursday’s hearing. This one accused the Democratic members of the committee of a “grotesque and coordinated character assassination,” saying that they had “replaced advice and consent with search and destroy.” After rightly criticizing “the behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at [his] hearing a few weeks ago [as] an embarrassment,” this Brett Kavanaugh veered off into full-throated conspiracy in a fashion that made entirely clear that he knew which room he caucused in:




Kavanaugh blew across lines that I believe a justice still needs to hold.

The Brett Kavanaugh who showed up to Thursday’s hearing is a man I have never met, whom I have never even caught a glimpse of in 20 years of knowing the person who showed up to the first hearing. I dealt with Kavanaugh during the Starr investigation, which I covered for the Washington Post editorial page and about which I wrote a book. I dealt with him when he was in the White House counsel’s office and working on judicial nominations and post–September 11 legal matters. Since his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, he has been a significant voice on a raft of issues I work on. In all of our interactions, he has been a consummate professional. The allegations against him shocked me very deeply, but not quite so deeply as did his presentation. It was not just an angry and aggressive version of the person I have known. It seemed like a different person altogether.

My cognitive dissonance at Kavanaugh’s performance Thursday is not important. What is important is the dissonance between the Kavanaugh of Thursday’s hearing and the judicial function. Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable pro-choice woman would feel like her position could get a fair shake before a Justice Kavanaugh? Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable liberal of any kind, would after that performance consider him a fair arbiter in, say, a case about partisan gerrymandering, voter identification, or anything else with a strong partisan valence? Quite apart from the merits of Ford’s allegations against him, Kavanaugh’s display on Thursday—if I were a senator voting on confirmation—would preclude my support.



On one side of the ledger, Ford is wholly credible. Yes, her story has holes. The location of the event is unclear in her memory, as is—importantly—how she got home and what happened after she left the house in question. Yet few observers seem to dispute her credibility. Not even Kavanaugh and his supporters contend that she is lying or making up the incident in question, merely that she is mistaken as to his involvement in it.

Her story is certainly plausible, and certain details she offers lend it additional credibility. She correctly identifies, for example, a social circle that appears actually to have existed around Kavanaugh during the summer in question. A fabulist likely would not know, for example, of Kavanaugh’s friendship with Mark Judge and their propensity to drink beer together in the relevant period with other individuals she named. While Kavanaugh said he didn’t recall meeting Ford but that it was possible they had interacted, it seems overwhelmingly likely that her claim to have known him and his circle socially while the two were in high school is true.

While Ford can offer no contemporaneous corroboration of story in the form of testimony from people who remember being present at the alleged event, her story is not wholly uncorroborated either. She appears to have told her therapist about the alleged event years ago, and she identified Kavanaugh as her attacker to her husband years ago, as well.

She initially raised the allegation with her congresswoman before Kavanaugh’s nomination took place. At a minimum, it seems quite clear that Ford was genuinely part of the world in which she claims the attack took place and that she genuinely believed—long before Trump’s election, let alone Kavanaugh’s nomination—that Kavanaugh attacked her.

That she believes this story sincerely is corroborated, if only weakly, by her polygraph exam. Polygraphs are not especially reliable, but the willingness to take one can be a show of strength in a witness. The polygraph is not evidence that Kavanaugh attacked Ford. It is evidence that Ford believes her story truthful and is an earnest accuser, not a conspirator.


It goes on for quite some length, so I won't paste in all of it, but the link is there.

So maybe you'll listen to somebody who actually knows him and has reasons other than just Doctor Ford's, and will accept that that should be held in a higher regard than your opinion as somebody who just saw little bits of him on TV and likes him for some weird reason I can't fathom.

Or, more likely, you'll just dig in. Which you can, for all the good it'll do.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:
To validate this new standard of denial of due process is quite funny.....tell someone that they are a gang raper.....where I come from you get angry when falsely accused.   Please give me just your top three truthfulness got ya Judge moments which justify your conclusion.   Temperament was exactly like a judge should be when due process and our constitution is being dragged through the sewer because politics dictated anything goes.  Just three really good lies which now make him unqualified.......oh and please do not even start talking about perjury if you do not understand the legal term.....I know you think you fully understand from the internet......but go for it.....three lies which are relevant to this confirmation.

Pretty remarkable that you can be howling nonstop about due process and in the next breath assert that the nominee himself can decide which questions are consequential enough to truthfully answer.

Keep spinning, grandpa ...




... it's fun to watch!

View user profile
zsomething wrote:
So maybe you'll listen to somebody...

Fat chance--Seaoat is incapable of changing his opinion which is the hallmark of a truly closed [and small] mind.

View user profile
zsomething wrote: they'll say, "Oh, that was some other guy wearing a Brett Kavanaugh mask, which were very popular at the time!"  

Hey!  Thanks for the Halloween costume idea!   Laughing

I wonder when they'll start selling them? ... all I could find was this:

https://www.ebay.com/i/273454225663?chn=ps

Brett Kavanaugh Cardboard Cutout Standee …

View user profile
Sal wrote:
2seaoat wrote:
To validate this new standard of denial of due process is quite funny.....tell someone that they are a gang raper.....where I come from you get angry when falsely accused.   Please give me just your top three truthfulness got ya Judge moments which justify your conclusion.   Temperament was exactly like a judge should be when due process and our constitution is being dragged through the sewer because politics dictated anything goes.  Just three really good lies which now make him unqualified.......oh and please do not even start talking about perjury if you do not understand the legal term.....I know you think you fully understand from the internet......but go for it.....three lies which are relevant to this confirmation.

Pretty remarkable that you can be howling nonstop about due process and in the next breath assert that the nominee himself can decide which questions are consequential enough to truthfully answer.

Keep spinning, grandpa ...




... it's fun to watch!











LOL Of Mice and Menace. Twisted Evil

View user profile
2seaoat wrote: I drank one beer that evening.


Laughing    Laughing


 That's what we used to tell the deputies back in the day when we'd get stopped on a Saturday night underage with beer in the car.  We knew we couldn't say "none" because they could smell it on your breath.  So you just said "I only had one beer, Officer"

 (and what with all of our teenage stupidity and hubris ...  we  actally thought that would fly Rolling Eyes   Never did for us, but apparently it did for Ms Ford last week!  Laughing  )



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 10/2/2018, 5:38 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
zsomething wrote:
So maybe you'll listen to somebody...

Fat chance--Seaoat is incapable of changing his opinion which is the hallmark of a truly closed [and small] mind.

Have you ever known anybody to change their mind on this board? About anything? Laughing

View user profile

View user profile
Pretty remarkable that you can be howling nonstop about due process and in the next breath assert that the nominee himself can decide which questions are consequential enough to truthfully answer.

Keep spinning, grandpa ...


Perjury.......yep......keep puffing.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:Have you ever known anybody to change their mind on this board?  About anything?

Yeah, ME! I used to think Seaoat was an intelligent, reasonable guy.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:Have you ever known anybody to change their mind on this board?  About anything?

Yeah, ME! I used to think Seaoat was an intelligent, reasonable guy.

Laughing

(I've had that thought about you from time to time ... then you'll say some idiot thing again and I realize I was mistaken and my original impression was correct! Laughing )

View user profile
I am a patient guy. Just three lies the judge told which you think is important. I get him being angry causing heartburn for democrats because when he was not being called a racist in an I am Spartacus moment, or a gang raper, he should have given credence to this shameful line of questioning......relevancy......due process.......are all concepts to complex for some. He will be confirmed, and after this happens will any of the sheep realize this terrible behavior only made trump look good. You cannot handicap stupidity.....there are no extra strokes to hand out to save the lack of conceptual thinking.

View user profile
The judge is an arrogant, immature, manchild with a 200 lbs. chip on his shoulder. The judge might just pass but then the GOPiglets will get roasted next month. What a delightful sound of squealing piglets being turned into sausage and devoured by their own children who despise their parents. Torture, agony and damnation for flaccid cracker barrel boy republicans but sweet bliss for all real Americans. Twisted Evil




View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
zsomething wrote: they'll say, "Oh, that was some other guy wearing a Brett Kavanaugh mask, which were very popular at the time!"  

Hey!  Thanks for the Halloween costume idea!   Laughing

I wonder when they'll start selling them? ... all I could find was this:

https://www.ebay.com/i/273454225663?chn=ps

Brett Kavanaugh Cardboard Cutout Standee …



Could be fun. You could trick-or-treat and then when they gave you candy, you could say, "Sorry, I don't take candy, I only take beer. I like beer. I like a lot of beer. Sometimes I drink too much beer. Do you have any beer? I like beer." And, like, do that for twenty minutes. It'll seem like the real Kavanaugh showed up on their doorstep!

View user profile
zsomething wrote:

It only hurts when I laugh.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:Now... I know, it's 30 years ago and more, but... saying the women are accurate and truthful, which they may well be and you can't prove otherwise, would you be comfortable with an attempted rapist being on the Supreme Court? Even if he was only 17, 18, 19, 20 at the time? Would you excuse that?

I just wish people could spend a year in a sex crime courtroom, and realize that this is much ado about absolutely nothing.  You use the word attempted rape......how do you make such an outrageous claim?  I could argue equally that it was playful wrestling on the bed where an intoxicated girl misinterpreted something non sexual with rough housing, including the covering of the mouth.  Would I be wrong?  We will never know because courts have learned over thousands of years that we need a gatekeeper on irrelevant evidence.  My answer to your question is that this was a juvenile and our entire legal system is based on the irrelevancy of youth.....so much so that these records evaporate after five years.   This man should be confirmed if for no other reason than to assure the rule of law still has meaning in this country and common sense and decency will prevail.  I have had girls in my dorm room where there was some wrestling and some fun......gosh......I guess I am a rapist. No

Nope...just a stubborn jackass.

Kavanaugh has a "tell", Seaoat. Did you notice how he twitched his nose just before he lied? I lived the whole ANIMAL HOUSE experience in college. I also kept up my grades, except for that one semester I mentioned before, and had full-time classes and a part-time job which became full-time in the Summer months. Like many of my classmates, I burned the candle at both ends. I miss those days and most of those people (not my ex). But the point is that he blatantly lied about all of it. His classmates beg to differ:



And that's not really the whole of it, either, because the GOP "leadership" on the JC withheld substantial info about his partisan background and the time he spent in the Bush administration, which makes Jeff Flake's call for due diligence empty and hypocritical. According to what I could stomach of the hearing, the Democrats on the committee didn't even get copies of the 47k last-minute doc dump.

And, as if that wasn't enough, his testimony revealed him to be exactly what he is...a partisan hack with a nasty temper and a propensity for lying to cover his como se llama.

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum