[Flem72]

 barmar, on 2018-October-02, 09:57, said:

Exactly. Kavanaugh's reaction to the allegations and the process surrounding it have shown his true colors. The bar for getting on the Supreme Court should be far higher than "not a sexual predator", it should be more like "has impeccable character and is able to judge things dispassionately and without personal bias".

Is that what we saw when he was shouting at Democratic Senators on Thursday?

@Winstonn: I await the evidence supporting your allegations.
@barmar: Ditto, and I would've said that any person who cares about the role of English common law and the Constitution in the construction of our political discourse/process, who would not become angry at the blatant political hatchet job directed at him/her and his/her family and at destruction of his/her entire adult life-- which, one might note, has harmed Dr. Ford as well -- has not a shred of the kind of human understanding and fiber that one expects from a judge. Even an appellate judge, whose decisions are 98% relatively rarefied and far removed from the spit, crap and evil of a criminal trial court.
"Sexual predator" seems a stretch. Ask a survivor of criminal rape whether his/her assailant displayed any emotional behavior other than cold, power-driven intent.

[barmar]

 Flem72, on 2018-October-02, 10:42, said:

@Winstonn: I await the evidence supporting your allegations.

Examples were given earlier when I asked about claims that he'd perjured himself.

Not to mention when he claimed during his hearing last week that various sexual references are actually drinking games. No wonder Trump likes him, they're both "pants on fire" liars.

[hrothgar]

 Flem72, on 2018-October-02, 10:42, said:

@Winstonn: I await the evidence supporting your allegations.

Here's a pretty damn obvious example...

The following are direct quotes from the Kavanaugh hearing

Quote

ORRIN HATCH: When did you first hear of [Deborah] Ramirez’s allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story.

Here's the rub. We now know that:

Quote

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett's guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

Bob Bauer, former White House counsel for President Barack Obama, said: "It would be surprising, and it would certainly be highly imprudent, if at any point Judge Kavanaugh directly contacted an individual believed to have information about allegations like this. A nominee would normally have been counseled to leave to his legal and nominations team the job of following up on any questions arising from press reports or otherwise, and doing so appropriately."

Further, the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.

https://www.nbcnews....vidence-n915566

And, of course, the really big question is

"How did Kavanaugh know way back in July that Ramirez - someone Kavanaugh claims that he didn't know - was going to make up stories and release them in September?"

Eagerly awaiting your latest rationalization...

[ggwhiz]

 hrothgar, on 2018-October-02, 11:47, said:

"How did Kavanaugh know way back in July that Ramirez - someone Kavanaugh claims that he didn't know - was going to make up stories and release them in September

I'm not sure there is anything to this. Any number of reporters could have spilled these beans by nosing around one of his supporters.

[hrothgar]

 ggwhiz, on 2018-October-02, 12:03, said:

I'm not sure there is anything to this. Any number of reporters could have spilled these beans by nosing around one of his supporters.

No doubt!

I have no problem believing that Kavaugh and his team knew way back in July that Rameriz might come forward with accusations.

The circle that I can not square is Kavanaugh's claim that he had no knowledge of Rameriz before the publication of the New Yorker article and an active counter measures campaign two months earlier.

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2018-October-02, 12:19, said:

No doubt!

I have no problem believing that Kavaugh and his team knew way back in July that Rameriz might come forward with accusations.

The circle that I can not square is Kavanaugh's claim that he had no knowledge of Rameriz before the publication of the New Yorker article and an active counter measures campaign two months earlier.

The only possibility I can think of is if the New Yorker approached Kavanaugh 2 or 3 months prior to publication seeking his comments on what they planned to print; however, I would think Kavanaugh would have said something to that effect had it occurred.

The question in my mind is why this guy? He has been shown to have an questionable record with the truth, about participating in the use of stolen Democratic computer records, and now accused of sexual assault and drunkenness while he responds like an angry frat boy trying to prove himself to his peers.

There must be 100 suitable judges with similar ideological conservative bent to nominate, none of whom would bring this kind of baggage.

So why Kavanaugh? Why aren't the Republicans quietly urging him to withdraw him nomination?

[hrothgar]

Interesting new piece in the Times

https://www.nytimes....fred-trump.html

TLDR:

1. Trump fraudulently dodged taxes on hundreds of millions of inheritance taxes
2. No chance of criminal penalties
3. Still vulnerable to civil penalties

[johnu]

 hrothgar, on 2018-October-02, 11:47, said:

Here's a pretty damn obvious example...

The following are direct quotes from the Kavanaugh hearing



Here's the rub. We now know that:



https://www.nbcnews....vidence-n915566

And, of course, the really big question is

"How did Kavanaugh know way back in July that Ramirez - someone Kavanaugh claims that he didn't know - was going to make up stories and release them in September?"

Eagerly awaiting your latest rationalization...

I want to defend Bart O. He started lying early and often when he was investigated before he was appointed to the appeals court. He continued lying during the Supreme Court hearings. I submit that it is completely unreasonable to blame Bart for failing to keep all the lies straight when there are so many of them to juggle.

[hrothgar]

 Flem72, on 2018-October-02, 10:42, said:

@Winstonn: I await the evidence supporting your allegations.

Yo, Flem...

Still waiting a response to my earlier post about Ramirez...

If you prefer, here's another one:

Kavanaugh was directly asked whether his friends referred to him as Bart.
Kavanaugh replied "You'd have to ask him"

We now have copies of a letter that Kavanaugh wrote to his buddies.
He signed it "Bart"

[Winstonm]

 Flem72, on 2018-October-02, 10:42, said:

@Winstonn: I await the evidence supporting your allegations.

Here is what I wrote:

Quote

No, but lying to Congress and evidence of an inability to control anger along with overt partisan bias should be enough, don't you think?

For the first, there is no absolute proof, but perjury is difficult to prove and prosecute because it is so difficult to prove. For the last two, all you need is a VCR.

Or, if you don't have a VCR, you have this:

Quote

WASHINGTON ― Two former law school classmates of Brett Kavanaugh’s who previously vouched for him wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday to say they are withdrawing their support for him because of “the nature” of his recent testimony.

“Under the current circumstances, we fear that partisanship has injected itself into Judge Kavanaugh’s candidacy,” Michael J. Proctor and Mark Osler say in a letter to Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the committee’s chairman and ranking member, respectively. “That, and the lack of judicial temperament displayed on September 27 hearing, cause us to withdraw our support.”

[PassedOut]

 hrothgar, on 2018-October-02, 17:21, said:

Yo, Flem...

Still waiting a response to my earlier post about Ramirez...

If you prefer, here's another one:

Kavanaugh was directly asked whether his friends referred to him as Bart.
Kavanaugh replied "You'd have to ask him"

We now have copies of a letter that Kavanaugh wrote to his buddies.
He signed it "Bart"

Kavanaugh’s 1983 Letter Offers Inside Look at High School Clique

Quote

“I think we are unanimous that any girls we can beg to stay there are welcomed with open....,” he wrote, his ellipsis at the end leaving certain things unsaid. He noted that the boys should kick out anyone who didn’t belong: “The danger of eviction is great and that would suck because of the money and because this week has big potential. (Interpret as wish.)”

Judge Kavanaugh signed the letter: “FFFFF, Bart.”

What a guy...

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2018-October-02, 17:52, said:

Kavanaugh’s 1983 Letter Offers Inside Look at High School Clique


What a guy...

You know, I really don't care so much what a college guy did during drunken frat weekends - what I do mind is that he hasn't changed - we don't need a smart-ass drunken frat boy SC justice.

[Flem72]

 hrothgar, on 2018-October-02, 11:47, said:

Eagerly awaiting your latest rationalization...

Keep checking the updates on the story.

[hrothgar]

 Flem72, on 2018-October-02, 18:23, said:

Keep checking the updates on the story.

need to be more specific. i've seeing plenty of attempts at slut shaming, but nothing that addresses the core of her claims.

Oh wait, I take that back, there's another corroborating witness backing the claims

https://twitter.com/...226356831059970

[Flem72]

@PassedOut: "What a guy."@Winstonn: You know, I really don't care so much what a college guy did during drunken frat weekends - what I do mind is that he hasn't changed - we don't need a smart-ass drunken frat boy SC justice.
You both seem very certain of the conclusion that K is the same person now that he was in high school. Is it fair to conclude that you folks are the same persons now that you were in high school?

I would rather have had Barrett, Eid or Thapar in any case: K was a priori too much of a Yalie for me from the get-go. I think K was a serious twit, an immature prep school and Yalie jerk. He's also a top rank jurist, and there is nothing in any of this about his adult life--30-35 years after the "fact."

[Flem72]

@hrothgar

"need to be more specific." Yes, you do. All of this stuff about the summer texts was covered in the judiciary committee interviews. You can even read the transcripts. Imagine that.

"i've seeing plenty of attempts at slut shaming, but nothing that addresses the core of her claims." What in the core of her claims does not require proving a negative? Come to think of it, what allegations constitute the core of her claims?

You're going with Avenatti? Seriously?

[Flem72]

If I have time and inclination, I'd like to look at the K transcripts to see exactly what was asked and answered. OTOH, I rarely can gather the energy to distill all of the innuendo down to what is actually confirmed or likely. Perhaps some of the more virulent anti-K posters (some have posted what appear to be this kind of thing) would care to do some actual factual investigation? I mean, since we've gone from gang rape parties to 'I saw him at the punch bowl handing out red cups to girls....'

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2018-October-02, 17:58, said:

You know, I really don't care so much what a college guy did during drunken frat weekends - what I do mind is that he hasn't changed - we don't need a smart-ass drunken frat boy SC justice.

W was a precedent, of sorts, did Cavanaugh dodge his military service as well?

[hrothgar]

 Flem72, on 2018-October-02, 19:29, said:

If I have time and inclination, I'd like to look at the K transcripts to see exactly what was asked and answered. OTOH, I rarely can gather the energy to distill all of the innuendo down to what is actually confirmed or likely. Perhaps some of the more virulent anti-K posters (some have posted what appear to be this kind of thing) would care to do some actual factual investigation? I mean, since we've gone from gang rape parties to 'I saw him at the punch bowl handing out red cups to girls....'

No, its

"I saw him at the punch bowl dropping Quaalude into red cups and handing them to girls"

[hrothgar]

 Flem72, on 2018-October-02, 19:08, said:

@hrothgar

"need to be more specific." Yes, you do. All of this stuff about the summer texts was covered in the judiciary committee interviews. You can even read the transcripts. Imagine that.

Funny that, given how many of the texts in question didn't get made public until after Thursday...

Quote

You're going with Avenatti? Seriously?

Yeap.

You might not like the fact that he is repping a porn star, but this doesn't invalidate his lawsuit or the information that he has brought forth.