Stick a fork in Brett Kavanaugh

[Rooster]

And the pile on continues.

I keep getting a whiff of ETOH in every one of ol’ Gin Blossom’s posts. Anybody else smelling it too? :P

[Derron]

As for his drinking while underage, maybe he did lie.

This is so fucking hilarious. All the sanctimonious mother fuckers here cracking on the dude (maybe) lying about drinking as a 17 year old. I am sure all of you never drank under age, never smoked weed, never did any blow, never maybe banged a girl under the age of 18 or did anything else that you need to maybe tell a fib or two about.

Fucking Dems are the biggest liars on the face of the earth and they have their panties in a wad over this. Hilarious.

[Derron]

So this bitch has some women’s super power then to detect when a man is lying?

She's an attorney, for God's sake!

And that matters how?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe Gobbles McCock can post some support that attorneys have super powers for lie detection. Of course the support will be several pages long cut and paste that will be summarily ignored.

[Goober McTuber]

It was a fucking joke, you tedious morons. .

[smackaholic]

Lindsey Graham, who I have newfound respect for delivered one of the better lines during this fiasco.....



Anytime, you can work a monty python reset into politics, you should.

[Kierland]

I honestly do not know about any of that. But from my reading on him from trusted sources who both know more about such matters and his history in jurisprudence, he is on the side of angels on most legal and Constitutional matters.

So in other words, he is going to fuck the USC generally and the CC specifically, but you don't care because someone told you what to think and that is good enough for you. Pathetic.

Not sure what you want from me, but I freely admit to my lack of knowledge in this matter. There’s plenty of stuff I don’t know much about— just ask Goober, he’ll tell you —but that shouldn’t mean that we can’t or mustn’t use the opinion of someone better versed in a particular subject than us. After all, you’d go see a doctor when it comes to issues of health and a financial specialist when needing advice on money, right? Or do you prefer to perform appendectomies on yourself? If your answer is you take the advice of someone who knows more on the topic of rupturing appendixes, well... pathetic!

I’m saying you are trusting the wrong sources. Which makes your opinion shit.

[BSmack]

Goobs you allege that BK lies, but have no proof.

He did not claim to be a “choir boy”. He admitted to drinking and getting drunk. Believe it or not, it is possible to get shitfaced and NOT blackout.

He talked of a weak stomach. I have the same condition. Lord knows, I attempted to reach blackout territory more than once. Fortunately, my stomach would not permit it. I had friends with tougher stomachs who could get there. His explanation is totally plausible. As for underage drinking, who fukking knows or cares? Many his age could legally drink as HS seniors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is very possible to reach blackout stage without passing out. You should have a chat with my old friend Everclear. You would find out real quick that you can be blackout drunk and still be awake.

I would advise having a few friends nearby to take you to the hospital since I had a rough time at 19 with that shit and your old ass would probably have worse.

[Goober McTuber]

Not sure what you want from me, but I freely admit to my lack of knowledge in this matter. There’s plenty of stuff I don’t know much about— just ask Goober, he’ll tell you —but that shouldn’t mean that we can’t or mustn’t use the opinion of someone better versed in a particular subject than us. After all, you’d go see a doctor when it comes to issues of health and a financial specialist when needing advice on money, right? Or do you prefer to perform appendectomies on yourself? If your answer is you take the advice of someone who knows more on the topic of rupturing appendixes, well... pathetic!

I’m saying you are trusting the wrong sources. Which makes your opinion shit.

I'd say his opinion is shit because he's a slack-jawed halfwit.

[Carson]

Nice of Kweerland to step in while Screwey is too much of a bitch to post lately.

[Rooster]

Rachel Mitchell’s report of her conclusions about Ford:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-case- ... 630ea4cbcf

(Editor’s note: This is the text of a memorandum sent to Republican senators Sunday by Rachel Mitchell, nominations investigative counsel to the Judiciary Committee. Ms. Mitchell questioned Christine Blasey Ford during Thursday’s hearing.)

RE: Analysis of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations

Please permit me this opportunity to present my independent assessment of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Before I do this, I want to emphasize two important points:

1. This memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations, based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of experience as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona. This memorandum does not necessarily reflect the views of the Chairman, any committee member, or any other senator. No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release, and I was not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this memorandum with which I do not fully agree. The words written in this memorandum are mine, and I fully stand by all of them. While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person.

2. A Senate confirmation hearing is not a trial, especially not a prosecution. The Chairman made the following statement on September 25, 2018, after he hired me:

As I have said, I’m committed to providing a forum to both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh on Thursday that is safe, comfortable and dignified. The majority members have followed the bipartisan recommendation to hire as staff counsel for the committee an experienced career sex-crimes prosecutor to question the witnesses at Thursday’s hearing. The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns. I’m very appreciative that Rachel Mitchell has stepped forward to serve in this important and serious role. Ms. Mitchell has been recognized in the legal community for her experience and objectivity. I’ve worked to give Dr. Ford an opportunity to share serious allegations with committee members in any format she’d like after learning of the allegations. I promised Dr. Ford that I would do everything in my power to avoid a repeat of the ‘circus’ atmosphere in the hearing room that we saw the week of September 4. I’ve taken this additional step to have questions asked by expert staff counsel to establish the most fair and respectful treatment of the witnesses possible.
That is how I approached my job. There is no clear standard of proof for allegations made during the Senate’s confirmation process. But the world in which I work is the legal world, not the political world. Thus, I can only provide my assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations in that legal context.

In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.

• In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid 1980s.”

• In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.”

• Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain.

• A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.”

• Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review.

• While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year.

Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.

• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.

• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.

• In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive.

When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.

• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.

• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account.

• She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it.

• She does not remember how she got to the party.

• She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity.

• Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.

o Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.

o She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.

o She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.

o Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked.

o But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.

o Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.

• She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault.

Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend.

• Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward.

• All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.”

o Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

• According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.


o In her letter, she stated, “I locked the door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.”

o She testified that Judge Kavanaugh or Mark Judge turned up the music in the bedroom so that the people downstairs could not hear her scream. She testified that, after the incident, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and heard them going downstairs. But she maintained that she could not hear their conversation with others when they got downstairs. Instead, she testified that she “assum[ed]” a conversation took place.

• Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent.

o According to the Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted.

o She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom.

o In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party.

o In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward.

o Dr. Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s.

Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory.

• Dr. Ford struggled to remember her interactions with the Washington Post.

o Dr. Ford could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter.

 • She does not remember whether she showed the Post reporter the therapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post. But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records.

o She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6.

 • Dr. Ford said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post’s tipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the [sic] mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office.

• Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.

• Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions.

o She claimed originally that she wished for her story to remain confidential, but the person operating the tipline at the Washington Post was the first person other than her therapist or husband to whom she disclosed the identity of her alleged attacker. She testified that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president.” She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claims she “did not know how to do that.” She does not explain why she knew how to contact her Congresswoman but not her Senator.

• Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being audio- or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral.

o It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.

Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions.

• She maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

o The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies “fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.” She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing.

o Note too that her attorneys refused a private hearing or interview. Dr. Ford testified that she was not “clear” on whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her. It therefore is not clear that her attorneys ever communicated Chairman Grassley’s offer to send investigators to meet her in California or wherever she wanted to meet to conduct the interview.

• She alleges that she struggled academically in college, but she has never made any similar claim about her last two years of high school.

• It is significant that she used the word “contributed” when she described the psychological impact of the incident to the Washington Post. Use of the word “contributed” rather than “caused” suggests that other life events may have contributed to her symptoms. And when questioned on that point, said that she could think of “nothing as striking as” the alleged assault.

The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account.

• See the included timeline [pages 6-9 of PDF] for details.

[Kierland]

Another shit post from Rooster42.

[Rooster]

You don’t like her conclusions, but cannot refute them. Got it, keirland.

[Rooster]

My, oh my. You get what’s coming to you. So after the Kavanaugh lynching Trump has decided that playing nice is passe’. You screw with my pick for SCOTUS when he has an unblemished record? Ok, how’s this taste then?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... th-circuit

Instead of working with the senators from the region where the Circuit Court operates as has been the norm, Trump is unilaterally selecting three conservative judges for the 9th. Ouch. Payback certainly is a bitch.

[Kierland]

You don’t like her conclusions, but cannot refute them. Got it, keirland.

Why? Your mind is already made up.

[Kierland]

My, oh my... Payback certainly is a bitch.

WTF are you babbling about now?

[Rooster]

Two birds killed with one stone:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/n ... tti-client

First bird is the irrefutable proof that Kavanaugh is innocent of the horrible crime he was accused of committing. The second bird killed is the irrefutable proof that the media is unquestionably the enemy of the people in that they purposefully and willfully hid exonerating evidence from the public in an effort to smear an innocent American citizen for having the audacity to be a fair and impartial judge.

No wonder the American public distrusts the MSM.

[Left Seater]

If completely true, this is quite sad. True journalism is gone. Now we just have media with an agenda, and the produce pieces to fit that agenda.

[Kierland]

Two birds killed with one stone:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/n ... tti-client

First bird is the irrefutable proof that Kavanaugh is innocent of the horrible crime he was accused of committing. The second bird killed is the irrefutable proof that the media is unquestionably the enemy of the people in that they purposefully and willfully hid exonerating evidence from the public in an effort to smear an innocent American citizen for having the audacity to be a fair and impartial judge.

No wonder the American public distrusts the MSM.

Do you even know HOW to read? That Faux article says no such thing.

[Arch Angel]

So Screwy, how does your crow taste? You put a fork in it. I heard it is gamy with the carrion they eat, like armadillos, raccoons, turkeys, deer, moose and stupid Democrats.

[Mikey]

Democrats.

That should read Demon Rats, Jeannie.

[Diego in Seattle]

Senator Chuck Grassley wants the DOJ to open an investigation into one of the women victims & atty Michael Avenatti.

[smackaholic]

But, investigations are good, right? At least they were last week.

I hope that fukking rat Aveneti ends up in an orange jump suit.

[Diego in Seattle]

But, investigations are good, right? At least they were last week.

Yes, they are.

They require interviews with the FBI.

And that would include Kavanaugh, something he avoided like the plague previously.

[Dinsdale]

They require interviews with the FBI.

And that would include Kavanaugh, something he avoided like the plague previously.

If by "avoided like the plague," you meant "did 6 times," then sure.

[Kierland]

It would be nice if they interviewed him about the allegations. They have done that a grand total of zero times.

[Kierland]

Because an FBI interview is not 5 mins from your party and 5 from the other side for about an hour.

I don’t have the testimony memorized, but I’m sure the FBI would be more prepared.

[Kierland]

Shouldn’t they ask if he knew her first?

[Kierland]

Why don’t you go ahead and post their finding and I will explain to you what was flawed in their investigation as it relates to why Justice Barf should be interviewed.

[Mikey]

But, investigations are good, right?.

Yes they are. And hopefully some real ones will begin in earnest in January.

[Rooster]

Is this the final nail in the coffin of the whole “You gotta believe the accusing woman every time— after all, what does she have to gain by coming forward publicly?” charade? It should be, seeing how none of Kavanaugh’s accusers are remotely believable.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kav ... legations/

This thread should be renamed as Stick A Fork In #MeToo.

[Left Seater]

This type of shit is just sad. There are plenty of women who are victims of rape and sexual assault. But when other women tell lies about rape for political gain, they undercut those who have actually suffered.

The libs and Dems try to claim they are the party for women. However, when they lift up liars about sexual assault they are actually hurting women. It just proves that Pelosi and other liberal women don’t actually care about other women, they are just pawns in their power grab.

[Kierland]

There are plenty of cops who do a good job, but those that lie undercut all the others.
There are plenty of DAs do are straight shooters, but the ones that lie and commit Brady violations undercut all the others.
There are plenty of Right wingers that are not racists or violent, but the ones that are undercut all the others.
Lights yet tards?

[Kierland]

Is this the final nail in the coffin of the whole “You gotta believe the accusing woman every time— after all, what does she have to gain by coming forward publicly?” charade? It should be, seeing how none of Kavanaugh’s accusers are remotely believable.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/kav ... legations/

This thread should be renamed as Stick A Fork In #MeToo.

National Review? That is a fake news site that is the enemy of the people.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

National Review? That is a fake news site that is the enemy of the people.

National Review barely conceals their contempt of Trump. It's quite obvious from the tone of their articles that he's not "their guy".

[Left Seater]

There are plenty of cops who do a good job, but those that lie undercut all the others.
There are plenty of DAs do are straight shooters, but the ones that lie and commit Brady violations undercut all the others.
There are plenty of Right wingers that are not racists or violent, but the ones that are undercut all the others.
Lights yet tards?

So you typed all that out to say you agree with me.

[smackaholic]

Two birds killed with one stone:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/n ... tti-client

First bird is the irrefutable proof that Kavanaugh is innocent of the horrible crime he was accused of committing. The second bird killed is the irrefutable proof that the media is unquestionably the enemy of the people in that they purposefully and willfully hid exonerating evidence from the public in an effort to smear an innocent American citizen for having the audacity to be a fair and impartial judge.

No wonder the American public distrusts the MSM.

To be fair, it is impossible to "prove" Kavanaugh innocent. Fortunately, our system realizes that and puts the burden of proof on the accuser. And in this case, the accuser had ZERO corroboration and a good bit of uhhhhh, that word that is the opposite of corroboration, which i will recall after a few more cups of Joe.

The real fun will happen when RBG punches out and Trump picks Atilla The Hun as her replacement, and the Senate, hopefully with a 4-5 vote cushion, jams it up the dems ass.

[Kierland]

Justice Beer Goggles scores one for the Constitution with a strong opinion in Flowers v Mississippi.

Oh and Fuck You Clarence.

[Kierland]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-brett ... oc-justice

But what about the victim being a slut?

But what about the source being a left wing rag?

What about this?

What about that?

[Donnie Baker's Ghost]

This thread title aged like milk.

[Kierland]

Now that is true. But who knows, there is still a .0000001% chance the Ds will grow a spine and sack this POS.