Kavanaugh hearings change minds?

4,018 Views | 84 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by prospeCt
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Seems the letter DiFi sent to the FBI is about sexual harassment, while Brett was in high school. Another Catholic school boy sexual harasser.

Local angle, the sender is somehow related/involved with Stanfurd.




Feinstein held the letter for 3 months? ***? Her liberal opponent Leon is all over her for that - why hold back to when the hearings are over and Brett can't be questioned? Also accuser is anonymous, and won't tell her side of the story. DiFi just turning the letter over to FBI and not confronting Brett may suggest some concerns she has with the story.

Something doesn't smell right including that Furd is involved. Wonder if more women come forward. Almost always this is not a one time thing, but a pattern of behavior.

W-F is now censored?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

Seems the letter DiFi sent to the FBI is about sexual harassment, while Brett was in high school. Another Catholic school boy sexual harasser.

Local angle, the sender is somehow related/involved with Stanfurd.




Feinstein held the letter for 3 months? ***? Her liberal opponent Leon is all over her for that - why hold back to when the hearings are over and Brett can't be questioned? Also accuser is anonymous, and won't tell her side of the story. DiFi just turning the letter over to FBI and not confronting Brett may suggest some concerns she has with the story.

Something doesn't smell right including that Furd is involved. Wonder if more women come forward. Almost always this is not a one time thing, but a pattern of behavior.

W-F is now censored?
Per Feinstein, the accuser wanted to keep her anonymity. She didn't want to expose her to the media.

Not saying I agree, just saying what the argument is.

I'm not sure what to make of the accusation. I can certainly believe it could be true, but it's also from when Kavanaugh was a teenager. Unless the pattern of behavior continued into adulthood (and closer to the present day) I don't know how relevant that is.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

Seems the letter DiFi sent to the FBI is about sexual harassment, while Brett was in high school. Another Catholic school boy sexual harasser.

Local angle, the sender is somehow related/involved with Stanfurd.




Feinstein held the letter for 3 months? ***? Her liberal opponent Leon is all over her for that - why hold back to when the hearings are over and Brett can't be questioned? Also accuser is anonymous, and won't tell her side of the story. DiFi just turning the letter over to FBI and not confronting Brett may suggest some concerns she has with the story.

Something doesn't smell right including that Furd is involved. Wonder if more women come forward. Almost always this is not a one time thing, but a pattern of behavior.

W-F is now censored?
Per Feinstein, the accuser wanted to keep her anonymity. She didn't want to expose her to the media.

Not saying I agree, just saying what the argument is.

I'm not sure what to make of the accusation. I can certainly believe it could be true, but it's also from when Kavanaugh was a teenager. Unless the pattern of behavior continued into adulthood (and closer to the present day) I don't know how relevant that is.
So Feinstein releases it when her colleagues pressure her? As I understand it, the letter was from a Stanford law professor and was provided under the condition that the information not be released. So why does DiFi not at least ask Kavanagh about sexual harassment in a non-specific way? What was the point of giving her the letter?

In the Thomas case, I generally believed Hill's testimony because other women said he was that type of a sleaze (one of my female law partners who had gone to school with him affirmed that). I'm also not sure what to make of this development other than they way it broke is peculiar, and I don't understand DiFi's conduct.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

Seems the letter DiFi sent to the FBI is about sexual harassment, while Brett was in high school. Another Catholic school boy sexual harasser.

Local angle, the sender is somehow related/involved with Stanfurd.




Feinstein held the letter for 3 months? ***? Her liberal opponent Leon is all over her for that - why hold back to when the hearings are over and Brett can't be questioned? Also accuser is anonymous, and won't tell her side of the story. DiFi just turning the letter over to FBI and not confronting Brett may suggest some concerns she has with the story.

Something doesn't smell right including that Furd is involved. Wonder if more women come forward. Almost always this is not a one time thing, but a pattern of behavior.

W-F is now censored?
Per Feinstein, the accuser wanted to keep her anonymity. She didn't want to expose her to the media.

Not saying I agree, just saying what the argument is.

I'm not sure what to make of the accusation. I can certainly believe it could be true, but it's also from when Kavanaugh was a teenager. Unless the pattern of behavior continued into adulthood (and closer to the present day) I don't know how relevant that is.
If HuffPuff is to be believed, DiFi told fellow Democratic Senators sometime ago the allegation "was too distant in the past to merit public discussion" and that "she had taken care of it." Clearly she recently changed her mind, probably (intentionally?) too late in the process.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The accuser comes forward. S*** might be hitting the fan now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiFi didn't bring up the letter during the hearing because the hearings are useless. She could have asked. He would deny. In that scenario the matter is "litigated" and over. Time to move on.

By strategically waiting she has now gummed up the works and used the little leverage she has on this issue. If the Republicans confirm BK now without a formal investigation they are disgusting pigs. I expect them to do just that.
An old white dude
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I read the account. Sounds like Kavanaugh watched one too many John Hughesesque, nerd-boy tries to get laid teen pix. I agree in concept with DiFi...high school behavior is a long time ago.

That said, Kavanaugh and Clarance Thomas will likely become best buds. They have so much in common...like a SC confirmation with a sexual harassment/assault count on the books.

Right about now the GOP are wondering if there's a closeted congressmember that could do a Larry Craig, just to draw a distraction.
BearChemist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even Kavanaugh is confirmed, this could tip the Senate over which has been an unlikely outcome until this past week.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearChemist said:

Even Kavanaugh is confirmed, this could tip the Senate over which has been an unlikely outcome until this past week.


We're now seeing signs of liberal voters willing to form blocs and issue campaigns specifically around judicial appointments, which is NOT something you saw before.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/16/dionne-maines-susan-collins-a-grassroots-revolt-against-kavanaugh-and-accusations-of-bribery/

Used to be this only happened on the right. Now that Roe is seriously threatened, the shoe is on the other foot.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

BearChemist said:

Even Kavanaugh is confirmed, this could tip the Senate over which has been an unlikely outcome until this past week.


We're now seeing signs of liberal voters willing to form blocs and issue campaigns specifically around judicial appointments, which is NOT something you saw before.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/16/dionne-maines-susan-collins-a-grassroots-revolt-against-kavanaugh-and-accusations-of-bribery/

Used to be this only happened on the right. Now that Roe is seriously threatened, the shoe is on the other foot.


Are they doing the same for the Dems who may vote for him? They should. No Democrats should vote for this guy.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

I read the account. Sounds like Kavanaugh watched one too many John Hughesesque, nerd-boy tries to get laid teen pix. I agree in concept with DiFi...high school behavior is a long time ago.

That said, Kavanaugh and Clarance Thomas will likely become best buds. They have so much in common...like a SC confirmation with a sexual harassment/assault count on the books.

Right about now the GOP are wondering if there's a closeted congressmember that could do a Larry Craig, just to draw a distraction.
(1) Graham?

(2) A question for me is now: Assuming Kavanaugh is appointed, could that turn into the beginning of a crisis of disrepute of the Supreme Court which could have political consequences down the line, as follows:?

I've seen some pretty bad decisions from the right wingers on the post-Nixon court, like:

(a) Deciding that the statute of limitations on discriminatory wages started to run from the date the discrimination first occurred, instead of years and years later when the victim first learned of it, and

(b) Deciding that a whole-cloth implication made-up by the right-wingers beat express language in the ERISA law to the effect that ERISA did not pre-empt comprehensive state laws to the contrary (such as the volumes of California Insurance Code, which contains a long list of very specific prohibitions of fairly typical bad insurance company behavior, violations of which, now, as the result of the Supreme Court decision, insurance companies can no longer be sued for),

(c) Not to mention:
(i) Bush v. Gore, which in fact over-rode decades of precedent (especially in right wing decisions on states rights), without saying so, while claiming that the decision was sui generis and so shouldn't be precedential (which hasn't stopped it being used as such); or
(ii) Of course, Citizens United which, among other crap, created the duck-blind behind which the Russians were able to hide their activities in the 2016 Election (and other elections).

But I haven't seen the widespread revulsion and resistance to these decisions which they merit, and which are perhaps practically possible given sufficient political will - keeping in mind the truism about the judiciary that, without any enforcement mechanism at their command (like an army or a police force), fidelity to their decisions depend on those decisions being respected due to them making sense - like Justice Holmes said about the law having to fit the people it governs like a suit of clothes.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

BearChemist said:

Even Kavanaugh is confirmed, this could tip the Senate over which has been an unlikely outcome until this past week.


We're now seeing signs of liberal voters willing to form blocs and issue campaigns specifically around judicial appointments, which is NOT something you saw before.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/16/dionne-maines-susan-collins-a-grassroots-revolt-against-kavanaugh-and-accusations-of-bribery/

Used to be this only happened on the right. Now that Roe is seriously threatened, the shoe is on the other foot.


Are they doing the same for the Dems who may vote for him? They should. No Democrats should vote for this guy.


It's just one example, but I could see those Dems feeling similar pressure, even more so now with this sexual assault allegation out there. Hard to know for sure.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Supreme Court has no repute- it is a tool of the Executive and Legislative branch manned by hacks. The problem is that the Constitution which was supposed to be our salvation is now our ruin. In the control of the originalists or what they are called these days the Constitution is used to deny rather than affirm rights to the people- deny a woman's right to choose, deny entry to the US by arbitrary reasons. deny joining a union, at the same time affirming rights of speech and untold power to corporations, None of this is of course relevant or even existed to the 18th century men of the enlightenment but is only relevant to a state exerting it's power and authority by means other than the ballot box. The fact that this is couched in some legal doctrine is Stalinesque. The Supreme Court and Constitution are now the enemy of a free people not its guardians. Anything that reduces its credibility is progress.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

The Supreme Court has no repute- it is a tool of the Executive and Legislative branch manned by hacks. The problem is that the Constitution which was supposed to be our salvation is now our ruin. In the control of the originalists or what they are called these days the Constitution is used to deny rather than affirm rights to the people- deny a woman's right to choose, deny entry to the US by arbitrary reasons. deny joining a union, at the same time affirming rights of speech and untold power to corporations, None of this is of course relevant or even existed to the 18th century men of the enlightenment but is only relevant to a state exerting it's power and authority by means other than the ballot box. The fact that this is couched in some legal doctrine is Stalinesque. The Supreme Court and Constitution are now the enemy of a free people not its guardians. Anything that reduces its credibility is progress.
AND relevant to a state refusing to exert its power to help people in ways that it is capable of doing
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?




https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/cold-opening/n10108
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

DiFi didn't bring up the letter during the hearing because the hearings are useless. She could have asked. He would deny. In that scenario the matter is "litigated" and over. Time to move on.

By strategically waiting she has now gummed up the works and used the little leverage she has on this issue. If the Republicans confirm BK now without a formal investigation they are disgusting pigs. I expect them to do just that.
That the accuser came public and will testify completely changes the equation. My WAG is that:

1) They have a hearing which the GOP hammers at the credibility of the accuser and accuses Dems of a political hit, and the Dems say this is why accusers never come forward and the GOP hates women. There will be a boatload of women BK knows who will testify he is a choir boy. BK is confirmed with everyone just as divisive.

2) Other women step forward with accusations and BK's nomination is pulled. Usually guys that engage in this behavior, don't do it just once.

That said, I don't know that the accusations are true or not. But the accuser being willing to testify and not be anonymous is a big deal.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One thing is clear, sexual assault is on another level than sexual harassment. If the allegations are true, Brett the choirboy attacked a girl while drunk.

Any way, karma might pay a full visit to Kavanaugh...or maybe not. It's beyond irony of course Kavanaugh chased down Bill Clinton for a consensual BJ and now he's on the hot seat.

Karma...yup it's a beotch.
kjkbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If Clinton hadn't been a predator--while in public office in Arkansas, not simply as a private citizen--Hillary could have made a big, effective argument against the current idiot in the White House. Trump might have been stopped. Bill's behavior made that impossible, or at least not credible coming from Hillary.

As for Kavanaugh, is he really the best the President could find?

Even for those of you on this board who can't see straight if the subject is a conservative justice, some arguments are tough to fight: Wm Brennan was intellectually top drawer. So was Wm Rehnquist. And those two were collegial to one another and close friends. Warren was top drawer. Burger was not close.

Most of the nine now on the court are unimpressive.

If Kavanaugh did what he is accused of, I want him driven from the judiciary entirely, if possible. If he did not, I would like to see the politicians who brought this up get criminally punished (they will not be) instead of ruining an evidently mentally ill woman's life (meaning, if she lied, she is mentally ill or malicious). Based on the Garland fiasco, I hope this pick gets blocked. That to me would be just.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The argument should be extremely easy for any Democratic Senator at this point: no seating Kavanaugh until this matter has been investigated. None of them should vote for his nomination right now.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is this matter being brought up at this late date for political reasons? Absolutely. Did Kavanaugh act in the manner claimed by the victim? In my experience the answer is yes. Why?
1. She passed a lie detector. Rest assured he won't go near one;
2. The other eyewitness to the assault, Kavanaugh's buddy, Mark Judge, says he doesn't recall the incident. That means he has at least a sliver left of a conscious and he is unwilling to say it didn't happen and thus call the victim a liar. He is punting and insulating himself from perjury if he is ever questioned under oath.

"In an email Sunday afternoon to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Judge responded to the Washington Post report: "Now that the anonymous person has been identified and has spoken to the press, I repeat my earlier statement that I have no recollection of any of the events described in today's Post article or attributed to her letter. Since I have nothing more to say I will not comment further on this matter. I hope you will respect my position and my privacy." The Weekly Standard
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Internet researchers claim Kavanaugh buddy Mark Judge has troubling history of posting photos of young girls

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The more Kavanaugh's broheim Mark Judge gets exposed, the worse it will get for poor Brett. The man is a full creep.

The "fair" thing to do is wait for a hearing and air it all out. Not going away. If it does going to a hearing...I believe Kavanaugh is done. He'll get borked.

Kavanaugh's Alleged Accomplice Has Spent Years Trying to Discredit Rape Accusations Online

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kjkbear said:

If Clinton hadn't been a predator--while in public office in Arkansas, not simply as a private citizen--Hillary could have made a big, effective argument against the current idiot in the White House. Trump might have been stopped. Bill's behavior made that impossible, or at least not credible coming from Hillary.

As for Kavanaugh, is he really the best the President could find?

Even for those of you on this board who can't see straight if the subject is a conservative justice, some arguments are tough to fight: Wm Brennan was intellectually top drawer. So was Wm Rehnquist. And those two were collegial to one another and close friends. Warren was top drawer. Burger was not close.

Most of the nine now on the court are unimpressive.

If Kavanaugh did what he is accused of, I want him driven from the judiciary entirely, if possible. If he did not, I would like to see the politicians who brought this up get criminally punished (they will not be) instead of ruining an evidently mentally ill woman's life (meaning, if she lied, she is mentally ill or malicious). Based on the Garland fiasco, I hope this pick gets blocked. That to me would be just.
I doubt there is anyway to prove or disprove the accusation. The accuser has passed a lie detector test. The third person in the room says the story is BS and has passed a lie detector test. I think the politicians that brought this up have a duty to bring-up and investigate the accusation when your talking about a SCOTUS life time appointment (you can argue about timing of this coming out).

I'm not sure what you mean by unimpressive. Kavanaugh on paper is a good as it gets. Double Yale with honors, Law Review and Notes Editor, actually passing the bar his first time despite going to Yale (inside joke for lawyers), clerk for Kennedy, who was top drawer, fellowship with the solicitor general, worked for independent counsel (you may not like an independent counsel, but only top flight guys get picked to be assistants), partner in a mega large law firm, counsel to the President, Assistant to the President, and White House Staff Secretary for crying out loud.

He has been a circuit court judge since 2006 in the DC Circuit, which is considered by anyone who knows what they are talking about to be the top circuit. He was a visiting professor of law at Harvard being selected by then HLS Dean Elena Kagan. He also has taught at Yale and Georgetown Law Schools.

In looking at SCOTUS justices he probably is one of the most qualified.

As for the current Justices being unimpressive, I'm not sure how you judge them other than by philosophy, and that many of the justices are relatively new? How do you argue Roberts, Kagan, Breyer and Gorsuch are not top flight? They have an amazing record both in academic, public and private service and thought to be intellectual heavyweights by legal experts. Ginsburgh may not have their credentials, but she was an effective con law practitioner for many years. Nothing wrong with having someone with practical experience. Both Alito and Sotomeyer have similar backgrounds as professional prosecutors, and then long tenures as judges. I see nothing that says they are light weights. And then there is Thomas, who is the most senior judge and fits in the Burger category. FWIW, liberal commentators tend to give Burger Court high marks. In fact, Rehnquist got his nickname as the great dissenter, during his tenure on the Burger Court.

I will let other comment on your Clinton remark.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:





https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/cold-opening/n10108
Thanks Bearister. I posted this before and got grief. Everyone became pious. I would hate to be a comedian in today's atmosphere.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:


I doubt there is anyway to prove or disprove the accusation. The accuser has passed a lie detector test. The third person in the room says the story is BS and has passed a lie detector test.
Where are you getting this information from? I have seen no mention of Mark Judge passing/taking a polygraph. Also, saying he has no recollection of the incident does not = him saying the story is bs.
bearup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think it's been mentioned this way before...on this forum:

This is STRIKE THREE for Kavanaugh on sexual issues.


STRIKE 1 (as Anarchistbear posted)
"If Monica Lewinksy says you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
5. If Monica Lewinksy says that you had phone sex with her on approximately 15 occasions, would she be lying?
6. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?
7. If Monica Lewinksy says that she gave you oral sex on nine occasions in the Oval Office area, would she by lying?
8. If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
9. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions you had her give oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom off the Oval Office, would she be lying?
10. If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office, would she be lying?"


BTW: at that point seemingly so longer ago, I was ready for Bill to "just quit already"

STRIKE 2
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/05/kavanaugh-calls-sex-misconduct-allegations-against-former-judge-gut-punch-point-to-broader-issue.html

STRIKE 3!!!

A woman stands up against him for sexual assault
=>"You're OUT, dude"




Being a Cal fan: You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BEARUPINDC said:

I don't think it's been mentioned this way before...on this forum:

This is STRIKE THREE for Kavanaugh on sexual issues.


STRIKE 1 (as Anarchistbear posted)
"If Monica Lewinksy says you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
5. If Monica Lewinksy says that you had phone sex with her on approximately 15 occasions, would she be lying?
6. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?
7. If Monica Lewinksy says that she gave you oral sex on nine occasions in the Oval Office area, would she by lying?
8. If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
9. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions you had her give oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom off the Oval Office, would she be lying?
10. If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office, would she be lying?"


BTW: at that point seemingly so longer ago, I was ready for Bill to "just quit already"

STRIKE 2
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/05/kavanaugh-calls-sex-misconduct-allegations-against-former-judge-gut-punch-point-to-broader-issue.html

STRIKE 3!!!

A woman stands up against him for sexual assault
=>"You're OUT, dude"







I kinda get the vapors reading Kavanaugh's questions. It brings to mind a story from 25 years ago. All the attorneys in our firm had to attend a mandatory class on sexual harassment put on by Littler Mendelson, one of the preeminent employment firms in The City. The instructor was a female partner in the firm. During the class she recited several hypothetical workplace fact scenarios, the only problem being that her hypothicals were crossing the line into pornography. At one point I whispered to a colleague, "I think this is more than just getting continuing education credits for her."
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This book was written by Mark Judge, friend of Kavanaugh and fellow sexual assault perp. Anyone going to read it? Or just wait for someone else to read and report?

God and Man at Georgetown Prep: How I Became a Catholic Despite 20 Years of Catholic Schooling





Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kavanaugh reminds me of Brock Turner the swimmer who humped a passed out drunk woman in Stanford Quad. Turner's humping got a judge recalled. Kavanaugh's may be that rare judicial double dry hump recall-one of the rarest feats of jurisprudence.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

wifeisafurd said:


I doubt there is anyway to prove or disprove the accusation. The accuser has passed a lie detector test. The third person in the room says the story is BS and has passed a lie detector test.
Where are you getting this information from? I have seen no mention of Mark Judge passing/taking a polygraph. Also, saying he has no recollection of the incident does not = him saying the story is bs.
NPR in the Larry Mantle show had some expert that said it. Of course thanks to my annual upper respiratory bug from hell, my meds may be kicked in at the wrong time, but I though that is what the guy said.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

BEARUPINDC said:

I don't think it's been mentioned this way before...on this forum:

This is STRIKE THREE for Kavanaugh on sexual issues.


STRIKE 1 (as Anarchistbear posted)
"If Monica Lewinksy says you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
5. If Monica Lewinksy says that you had phone sex with her on approximately 15 occasions, would she be lying?
6. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions in the Oval Office area, you used your fingers to stimulate her vagina and bring her to orgasm, would she be lying?
7. If Monica Lewinksy says that she gave you oral sex on nine occasions in the Oval Office area, would she by lying?
8. If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?
9. If Monica Lewinksy says that on several occasions you had her give oral sex, made her stop, and then ejaculated into the sink in the bathroom off the Oval Office, would she be lying?
10. If Monica Lewinsky says that you masturbated into a trashcan in your secretary's office, would she be lying?"


BTW: at that point seemingly so longer ago, I was ready for Bill to "just quit already"

STRIKE 2
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/05/kavanaugh-calls-sex-misconduct-allegations-against-former-judge-gut-punch-point-to-broader-issue.html

STRIKE 3!!!

A woman stands up against him for sexual assault
=>"You're OUT, dude"







I kinda get the vapors reading Kavanaugh's questions. It brings to mind a story from 25 years ago. All the attorneys in our firm had to attend a mandatory class on sexual harassment put on by Littler Mendelson, one of the preeminent employment firms in The City. The instructor was a female partner in the firm. During the class she recited several hypothetical workplace fact scenarios, the only problem being that her hypothicals were crossing the line into pornography. At one point I whispered to a colleague, "I think this is more than just getting continuing education credits for her."
Are you kidding, labor attorneys have the best stories and all sorts of perks. Our firm had this one case where the employee used corporate funds for his hooker habit. So our attorney deposes all these hookers. Was like a perpetual line of male attorneys (and a couple gay women attorneys) walking back and forth in front of the conference room every depo. Lawyers are as big of voyeurs than everyone else.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

B.A. Bearacus said:

wifeisafurd said:


I doubt there is anyway to prove or disprove the accusation. The accuser has passed a lie detector test. The third person in the room says the story is BS and has passed a lie detector test.
Where are you getting this information from? I have seen no mention of Mark Judge passing/taking a polygraph. Also, saying he has no recollection of the incident does not = him saying the story is bs.
NPR in the Larry Mantle show had some expert that said it. Of course thanks to my annual upper respiratory bug from hell, my meds may be kicked in at the wrong time, but I though that is what the guy said.
WIAF, you must have misheard the part about a lie detector test. Mark Judge has made zero mention of that to anyone in the press.

Per Vox:

Judge has backed up Kavanaugh's emphatic denial of the accusations... "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way," Judge said.

B.A.: the above comment is from a man who described himself as a teen alcoholic (and even wrote a book about it) who would frequently get blackout drunk. He has not said anywhere that Ford's claim is a lie -- just that he doesn't recall anything like that happening and how "nuts" it is to think it could have happened.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Very interesting, Trump has been completely silent regarding Kavanaugh. WaPo headline something like: Trump Silent, Kavanaugh left to defend himself.

Either someone told Trump to shut up, or he's keeping his distance in case Kavanaugh goes down.

Any other guesses?
BearChemist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WH can drag this out, go through all the hearing, and risk Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed.

WH can withdraw his nomination soon. Since other candidates have been vetted (not as extensively but you can always withhold 3 zillion documents citing privilege), there is enough time to ram through another nomination before the new Senate comes in in January.

Page 2 of 3
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.