New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Avennatti's gal walks that stuff all the way back.

On Monday, asked by NBC’s Kate Snow whether she had ever seen Kavanaugh spike a girl’s punch, Swetnick demurred: “Well I saw—I saw him giving red solo cups to quite a few girls during that time frame, and there was grain punch at those parties. … I saw him around the punch—I won’t say bowls, the punch containers. I don’t know what he did, but I saw him by them.”

Yeah, stick a fork in her and her sleazy lawyer.

NBC starts out the interview saying that the network hasn't been able to confirm details of her allegations and hasn't received names from Avenatti of people who witnessed the alleged rape.

So, yeah. Would have been better had he been duped by 4chan! Bwhahahahaa!
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
His response to "how many is too many" is pretty interesting as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was striking out on softballs. It was really clumsy and weird.

I would have no trouble explaining my excessive drinking in high school. It is not who I am now. It is something I have talked about with my kids and my spouse. Many of my friends from that time are still friends and we shake our heads in surprise that we survived that time. But I sure as hell never referred to a chart to determine how many is too many.
 
A woman writes about what men don't know:
A man emailed recently in response to something I’d written about street harassment. He was so glad, he said, that his college-age daughter never experienced anything like that. Less than a day later, he wrote again. They had just talked. She told him she’d been harassed many, many times — including that week. She hadn’t ever shared this, because she wanted to protect him from her pain.

For all the stereotypes that linger about women being too fragile or emotional, these past weeks have revealed what many women already knew: A lot of effort goes into protecting men we love from bad things that happen to us. And a lot of fathers are closer to bad things than they’ll ever know.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html?noredirect=on
 
acbytesla said:
Now I'm a teetotaler. I haven't had a drink for a decade and few even before that. I'd say I've been actually intoxicated less than 10 times in my life and probably 8 of those times were in college. And me with my limited drinking experience has 'blacked out'. I know this because friends told me I did things I couldn't remember. I don't buy it that a heavy partier didn't have these kinds of experiences.
Click to expand...

Why? Lots of heavy drinkers don't have blackouts. It doesn't strike people uniformly, your personal experiences aren't representative of drinkers in general or Kavanaugh specifically.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180613-why-do-only-some-people-get-blackout-drunk
 
Ziggurat said:
Why? Lots of heavy drinkers don't have blackouts. It doesn't strike people uniformly, your personal experiences aren't representative of drinkers in general or Kavanaugh specifically.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180613-why-do-only-some-people-get-blackout-drunk
Click to expand...


From your own link:
If this type of amnesia after drinking alcohol sounds familiar, that’s because blackouts are surprisingly common: one analysis suggests that over half of university-aged drinkers have experienced some level of blackout when asked about their drinking habits, while a survey of more than 2,000 adolescents recently out of secondary school found that 20% had experienced a blackout in the previous six months.
......
He found that out of 100 alcoholics, more than 60 experienced regular blackouts,
Click to expand...

So there's a strong likelihood that a frequent heavy drinker has experienced blackouts. And that's the key to whether Kav would remember attacking someone, or whether he would even have perceived his behavior as an attack.
 
The Big Dog said:
That is an old version of the story that falsely states when BK found out about the investigation.

The whole thing is bull ****
Click to expand...

I don't believe the dates of these texts have been released yet.

And if i've missed those dates, please do correct me.

If they are before the writer of the article reached out to Kavanaugh's team, a date and time that should be easy to verify. Then that would represent an issue with Kavanaugh's testimony, no?
 
Cavemonster said:
I don't believe the dates of these texts have been released yet.

And if i've missed those dates, please do correct me.

If they are before the writer of the article reached out to Kavanaugh's team, a date and time that should be easy to verify. Then that would represent an issue with Kavanaugh's testimony, no?
Click to expand...

You mean this testimony?

[Judge Kavanaugh]: They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that. And you know, that just strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people, is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out. That’s what it sounds like.
Click to expand...

Nope
 
acbytesla said:
What the hell? I'm with Big Dog on this and I'm almost never on the Big Dog's side. I HAVE NEVER seen anyone use asterisks for emphasis.
Click to expand...

I’m a bit late to this party/topic, but I frequently used asterisks for emphasis and have done so on this very site. I’ll dig up links to posts on request.
 
The Big Dog said:
You mean this testimony?
Click to expand...

Nope, I mean this testimony.

HATCH: When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?

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

If the texts concerning Ramirez's allegations occurred prior to the New Yorker reaching out to Kavanaugh about the story, then that testimony would be false, wouldn't it?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
That's what she said in her statement, so if that's what she also said on TV then it doesn't appear to be the case that her story has changed.
Click to expand...
I'd have to compare the texts side by side. Instead of lining up she now has boys in a huddle or clump. This might be minor, but it tells me her visual memory is changing. A huddle or clump is not any less reprehensible; for all I know they took a number. But people often fill in memories with images they are sure happened, and if that story changes at all it is a weak spot in their recollection. IMO only. Have not checked the latest on talking to Swetnick.
 
We know the white house has intentionally edited video and transcripts to remove things they'd rather never existed.

We know the Kavanaugh hearings have been blatantly partisan and that the FBI investigation was originally limited to the extent that it was a sham.

Now that the investigation is apparently unhindered, who receives a copy of the report? Will Trump refuse to release the report, or release it but with inconvenient facts missing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom