• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Tuesday Aug 19, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST (date has been pushed). This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Who do you believe?


  • Total voters
    453
He obviously agreed to let mad king Donald to refuse subpoenas and pardon himself, so of course the cowardly Republicans will confirm.
 
He obviously agreed to let mad king Donald to refuse subpoenas and pardon himself, so of course the cowardly Republicans will confirm.

Oh', and he's more than qualified for the position. That too.
 
{<jimmies}

But let me guess, Kagan and Sotomayor do have the proper temperament?

<{clintugh}>

Show me where they intentionally went out to smear and grind someone down not for any lawful reason but just out of a feeling that they should ruin someone that disgust them. Kavanaugh's memos flat out say this.
 
Judge Brett Kavanaugh "categorically and unequivocally" denies anonymous allegations
David Jackson and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY | Sept. 14, 2018

b2564263-357f-4cc5-9b5d-cdbb8bef7c2e-AFP_AFP_1928W4.JPG


WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Friday forcefully denied an anonymous allegation of decades-old sexual assault, the latest unexpected twist in an increasingly nasty Senate confirmation battle.

Facing a Senate Judiciary Committee vote in six days as he fights to replace Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote, Kavanaugh repudiated a report in The New Yorker magazine that he tried to force himself on a woman when they were 17-year-old high school students.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation," Kavanaugh said in a statement issued by the White House. "I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

The latest report followed an announcement by the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein of California, that she had forwarded a letter containing an allegation to the FBI. The bureau added it to Kavanaugh's background investigation file but is not pursuing a criminal investigation.

"In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her," the magazine reported.

It added: "She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself."

The classmate implicated in the claim told The New Yorker he had "no recollection of that."

Within hours of the report, NARAL Pro-Choice America called on Kavanaugh to withdraw. The group, which fears he could provide the fifth vote to overturn abortion rights, said his "record makes clear that he does not respect women’s basic rights and bodily autonomy, and now we know this is the case in his private life, too."

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee released a letter of support from 65 women who knew the 53-year-old federal appeals court judge during his high school years at Georgetown Prep, an all-boys Jesuit school in Bethesda, Maryland.

"For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect," the letter said.

With no way of knowing who is telling the truth, most senators withheld comment Friday, including a handful of moderate Republicans and Democrats whose votes will determine Kavanaugh's fate. Key among those are pro-choice Republicans Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Collins had a previously scheduled phone call with Kavanaugh on Friday that lasted an hour, but she issued no comment afterwards. The moderate senator has said she will say nothing more about the nomination until she announces her vote.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, defended Kavanaugh as someone who "has been accused of having gambling problems, having financial problems, being hostile towards groups that he has actively fought for and having bad taste in food."

"Every accuser deserves to be heard. But a process of verification is also necessary," Hatch said. "The claims are wholly unverifiable and come at the tail-end of a process that was already marred by ugly innuendo, dishonesty and the nastiest form of our politics."

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., a former Judiciary Committee chairman, did not address the latest allegation in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address. But he did accuse Kavanaugh of offering misleading testimony during last week's four-day confirmation hearing.

"Judge Kavanaugh’s candor – and therefore his character – is seriously in question," Leahy said. "And his constitutional views are downright extreme."

Republicans countered that Kavanaugh has gone through six FBI investigations since 1993 and nothing like this week's anonymous allegation ever surfaced.

At the hearing, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked Kavanaugh a question she asks all judicial nominees: "Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?" His one-word response: "No."

Kavanaugh sailed through his hearing by sidestepping most controversial issues. His 12 years and more than 300 opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit took a back seat to his years serving in the White House under President George W. Bush. Most documents from those years were withheld by Republicans.

Since then, Democrats put more than 1,000 questions in writing to the nominee on subjects ranging from Trump's potential legal troubles to Kavanaugh's personal finances and penchant for Washington Nationals baseball tickets. He responded in 263 pages Wednesday night.

Committee chairman Chuck Grassley scheduled the confirmation vote for next Thursday which would leave time for a full Senate vote before the court's new term begins Oct. 1.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ee-denies-anonymous-assault-claim/1301974002/
 
California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault

amp-039-I-thought-you-could-kill-me-inadvertently-amp-039-The-accuser-of-Brett-Kavanaugh-makes-his-story-public.jpg


Earlier this summer, Christine Blasey Ford wrote a confidential letter to a senior Democratic lawmaker alleging that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her more than three decades ago, when they were high school students in suburban Maryland. Since Wednesday, she has watched as that bare-bones version of her story became public without her name or her consent, drawing a blanket denial from Kavanaugh and roiling a nomination that just days ago seemed all but certain to succeed.

Now, Ford has decided that if her story is going to be told, she wants to be the one to tell it.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Ford said that one summer in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh and a friend — both “stumbling drunk,” Ford alleges — corralled her into a bedroom during a gathering of teenagers at a house in Montgomery County.

While his friend watched, she said, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed on her back and groped her over her clothes, grinding his body against hers and clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it. When she tried to scream, she said, he put his hand over her mouth.

“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” said Ford, now a 51-year-old research psychologist in northern California. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”


Ford said she was able to escape when Kavanaugh’s friend and classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling. She said she ran from the room, briefly locked herself in a bathroom and then fled the house.

Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.

Notes from an individual therapy session the following year, when she was being treated for what she says have been long-term effects of the incident, show Ford described a “rape attempt” in her late teens.

So the woman is a professor and researcher a Palo Alto University and has detailed counseling records documenting the attempted rape. But it was SO obvious that Nancy Pelosi was just making stuff up. She should be arrested for slander, remember? Fucking Republicans can't come to terms with the fact that anonymous sources are still way more trustworthy than named Republican sources.

There's no way that Republicans could get through a judicial nominee who has both generationally extreme views and accusations of sexual misconduct.

AP111110115461-1900x1200.jpg


For real, if they can get through Clarence Thomas when (a) Thomas was a MUCH worse jurist, (b) allegations against Thomas were much more well-supported, and (c) the Republican Party wasn't nearly as openly corrupt and anti-democratic, then I'm sure Fuckboy Brett will get through

@Quipling @Fawlty @BKMMAFAN
 
Last edited:
California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault

amp-039-I-thought-you-could-kill-me-inadvertently-amp-039-The-accuser-of-Brett-Kavanaugh-makes-his-story-public.jpg




So the woman is a professor and researcher a Palo Alto University and has detailed counseling records documenting the attempted rape. But it was SO obvious that Nancy Pelosi was just making stuff up. She should be arrested for slander, remember? Fucking Republicans can't come to terms with the fact that anonymous sources are still way more trustworthy than named Republican sources.

There's no way that Republicans could get through a judicial nominee who has both generationally extreme views and accusations of sexual misconduct.

AP111110115461-1900x1200.jpg


For real, if they can get through Clarence Thomas when (a) Thomas was a MUCH worse jurist, (b) allegations against Thomas were much more well-supported, and (c) the Republican Party wasn't nearly as openly corrupt and anti-democratic, then I'm sure Fuckboy Brett will get through

@Quipling
Me too movement might give you shit on the Thomas correlation and how it relates here.

Republicans move forward on this without looking at the allegation and there is a possibility for a huge voter backlash on the female side.
 
Murkowski and Collins are in about as rough a spot as can be with this woman revealing her identity.
 
Damn it damn it damn it. We need to get Amy Barret prepped and ready to go just in case this blows up. We still could get her through during the lame duck even if there is a blue wave
 
Me too movement might give you shit on the Thomas correlation and how it relates here.

Why?

I know firsthand that Thomas is a sleaze, but at the very least his conduct wasn't forcibly predatory like Kavanaugh's' described action.

The only consideration that weighs in Kavanaugh's favor is that he isn't as laughably unqualified and incompetent as Thomas was.

Republicans move forward on this without looking at the allegation and there is a possibility for a huge voter backlash on the female side.

There's no such thing as a "huge" voter backlash when it comes to the GOP imo.
 
Why?

I know firsthand that Thomas is a sleaze, but at the very least his conduct wasn't forcibly predatory like Kavanaugh's' described action.

The only consideration that weighs in Kavanaugh's favor is that he isn't as laughably unqualified and incompetent as Thomas was.



There's no such thing as a "huge" voter backlash when it comes to the GOP imo.
Women vote Republican...Murkowski and Collins have a huge decision to make.

The Republican leadership will probably just calculate the house is lost anyway...so fuck it.
 
This was a complete fabrication. Trump has never been on Epstein plane, and has never been on Epstein Island. In fact it is quite well known that he actually despises the guy.

He said he was a great guy and a lot of fun to be around.
 
He said he was a great guy and a lot of fun to be around.
So did many people. Do some research on trump and the anti-:eek::eek::eek::eek:philia crusaders and organizations. They all think Trump is a hero. If there is one area I will give the guy credit it is that his anti-:eek::eek::eek::eek:philia actions have dwarfed every other president in history combined. It was well known long before he became president that Trump absolutely despised Epstein and lent tremendous support to anti-:eek::eek::eek::eek:philia efforts. The attempts to link him to Epstein and in particular to try to paint him as a :eek::eek::eek::eek:phile where so ridiculous that they were back tracked on almost immediately because it was a bomb that the Democrats didn't want going off in their own face.
 
35 years ago trotsky touched my wiener
he should be banned
painislife was there too but he said it didn't happen
if you don't believe me you hate women and support rape

if they can just prove kavanaugh existed in that year and that this woman was within 82 square miles it will be completely true, no way she's making it up
 
So did many people. Do some research on trump and the anti-:eek::eek::eek::eek:philia crusaders and organizations. They all think Trump is a hero. If there is one area I will give the guy credit it is that his anti-:eek::eek::eek::eek:philia actions have dwarfed every other president in history combined. It was well known long before he became president that Trump absolutely despised Epstein and lent tremendous support to anti-:eek::eek::eek::eek:philia efforts. The attempts to link him to Epstein and in particular to try to paint him as a :eek::eek::eek::eek:phile where so ridiculous that they were back tracked on almost immediately because it was a bomb that the Democrats didn't want going off in their own face.
he has really gone after human traffickers. i have no idea why this isn't bigger news, except for that hollywood loves to fuck kids
 
he has really gone after human traffickers. i have no idea why this isn't bigger news, except for that hollywood loves to fuck kids
Yup, the laundry list of things he has done to go after human traffickers and :eek::eek::eek::eek:philes is actually really astonishing stuff and much of the reason I find it hard to dislike the guy, even when he acts like an idiot or an ass.
 
So did many people. Do some research on trump and the anti-:eek::eek::eek::eek:philia crusaders and organizations. They all think Trump is a hero. If there is one area I will give the guy credit it is that his anti-:eek::eek::eek::eek:philia actions have dwarfed every other president in history combined. It was well known long before he became president that Trump absolutely despised Epstein and lent tremendous support to anti-:eek::eek::eek::eek:philia efforts. The attempts to link him to Epstein and in particular to try to paint him as a :eek::eek::eek::eek:phile where so ridiculous that they were back tracked on almost immediately because it was a bomb that the Democrats didn't want going off in their own face.

I thought they dropped because they knew Bill's name would pop up.

Epstein did an interview in '03 where he talked about Trump coming to his house for dinner - btw that's were she claimed it happened ftr.

Save the didn't like him bit. There are photos of them together and photos of Epstein's recruiter.
https://goo.gl/images/YdZVUS
https://goo.gl/images/2ieZCy
https://goo.gl/images/sM29iw
 
Same people adamantly defending this woman and her bullshit story are the same people vilifying anyone that was questioning the UVA gang rape fiction published by Rolling Stone. Exact same people.
 
35 years ago trotsky touched my wiener
he should be banned
painislife was there too but he said it didn't happen
if you don't believe me you hate women and support rape

if they can just prove kavanaugh existed in that year and that this woman was within 82 square miles it will be completely true, no way she's making it up

I didn't say it didn't happen; I said I wasn't in the room when you and Trotsky were touching weiners. Lol
 
Back
Top