Kavanaugh SCOTUS Senate Judicial Hearing

Page 275 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Someone forgot to clean the cage again.

At no point will "women" have their rights lowered so far that they become equal with men.

Men are forced to become parents against their will all the time, with no escape. The lefts "empathy" as with all things is proven a lie.

Think that one over, but you won't think, and that's the problem.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,825
49,527
136
At no point will "women" have their rights lowered so far that they become equal with men.

Men are forced to become parents against their will all the time, with no escape. The lefts "empathy" as with all things is proven a lie.

Think that one over, but you won't think, and that's the problem.

Wow. Just wow.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,128
2,167
136

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,602
29,319
136
I concede that revealing the contents of the report wasn't an option, but certainly if there was something there worth pursuing, it would have been, unless we have that little faith in each and every member of the committee.
The only ones that can choose to pursue or not are Republicans.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I concede that revealing the contents of the report wasn't an option, but certainly if there was something there worth pursuing, it would have been, unless we have that little faith in each and every member of the committee.

The report was just a little bit of lipstick on the pig. The White House picked the shade. Compiling it put a little bit of air between the GOP & the shit show Kavanaugh gave us last week. It gave them a way to redirect the whole conversation away from that.
 

crashtech

Lifer
Jan 4, 2013
10,556
2,139
146
The report was just a little bit of lipstick on the pig. The White House picked the shade. Compiling it put a little bit of air between the GOP & the shit show Kavanaugh gave us last week. It gave them a way to redirect the whole conversation away from that.
Seems to have worked, although it's the Democrats that orchestrated the "shit show" smear job once it was clear there was nothing much in Kavanaugh's record that would support a no vote.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Well states generally exempt car pool lanes from tolls if anything but I think I understand your point.
I had the toll roads of SoCal in mind when I made that point. There is certainly precedence of the government charging a fee for better service. TSA pre approval comes to mind as well.

The thing is, it isn’t any different except that states are states and ISPs aren’t.
But corporations are people apparently

We use the government to decide what roads should be tolled. Similarly, the state can decide what ‘information highways’ should be tolled or not. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, appears to think that the ‘cars’ an ISP handles are the equivalent of speech so it’s unconstitutional for the government to make that choice. ie: you effectively can’t regulate ISPs.
True, but the government also imposes or delegates what I perceive as its responsibilities on corporations. Health care comes to mind. Disability insurance as well.

This is in accordance with tons of other conservative holdings that weaponize the first amendment against government regulation.
It’s because we’ve politicized every topic but I understand your point.

Baking a cake is speech so public accommodation laws can’t apply. Signing a form saying you decline to provide birth control is infringing on your religion so the ACA can’t apply. Money is speech so campaign finance laws can’t apply. As almost anything can be speech, Internet packets apparently included, the first amendment has been changed from something encouraging the free exchange of ideas into something corporations can use to fuck us over.
There are hot button topics for which the left and right will simply never agree. Free Speech is used to silence rather than encourage the exchange of ideas, a useful distraction while corporations tread on our rights.

That’s what Kavanaugh represents and it’s super radical! Again, maybe you don’t consider that a reason to oppose him but let’s make no mistake, he’s a radical.
I don’t like the guy either, I’m just bewildered by the playbook used against him.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,825
49,527
136
I had the toll roads of SoCal in mind when I made that point. There is certainly precedence of the government charging a fee for better service. TSA pre approval comes to mind as well.

But corporations are people apparently

True, but the government also imposes or delegates what I perceive as its responsibilities on corporations. Health care comes to mind. Disability insurance as well.

It’s because we’ve politicized every topic but I understand your point.


There are hot button topics for which the left and right will simply never agree. Free Speech is used to silence rather than encourage the exchange of ideas, a useful distraction while corporations tread on our rights.

I don’t like the guy either, I’m just bewildered by the playbook used against him.

His jurisprudence is basically that the first amendment precludes huge swaths of business regulation. I find it very hard to believe that was either the original intent or how most people view it today. It’s bananas.

Also TSA is a horrible institution but so long as we are stuck with it precheck is the bomb. I can get through security at JF fucking K of all places in like 5 minutes.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
His jurisprudence is basically that the first amendment precludes huge swaths of business regulation. I find it very hard to believe that was either the original intent or how most people view it today. It’s bananas.

Also TSA is a horrible institution but so long as we are stuck with it precheck is the bomb. I can get through security at JF fucking K of all places in like 5 minutes.
...and I bet you don’t even check your privilege or your carry on...I bet you’re one of those gold elite platinum special people that get to board early and smile at all the little people as they board after you. I bet you even have TUMI luggage.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,825
49,527
136
Seems to have worked, although it's the Democrats that orchestrated the "shit show" smear job once it was clear there was nothing much in Kavanaugh's record that would support a no vote.

You mean other than his perjury about criminally obtained documents, right?

I mean that kind of supports a no vote, haha.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,825
49,527
136
...and I bet you don’t even check your privilege or your carry on...I bet you’re one of those gold elite platinum special people that get to board early and smile at all the little people as they board after you. I bet you even have TUMI luggage.

I never board early because being on a plane fucking blows. If I had my way I would board at the front five seconds before the door closes and be the first off.

I hate flying.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,557
27,861
136
I never board early because being on a plane fucking blows. If I had my way I would board at the front five seconds before the door closes and be the first off.

I hate flying.
Yep, I know I have a seat so why rush it?
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,128
2,167
136
I keep seeing people say "he lied" and others asking what are the lies. So I picked a couple of sites that list "the lies" and their analysis. The first is WaPo, the second is HuffPo. HuffPo is more aggressive which is no surprise and some of their reasoning seems speculative. Some of the "lies" overlap.

I know that the voting is over but some of this is still relevant.

On a different note I'm working on leads that indicate the Flake elevator encounter was staged. Stay tuned.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...sleading-what-was-not/?utm_term=.64bd2ebe624a
washingtonpost.com

Analysis | Brett Kavanaugh’s testimony: What was misleading, what was not
https://www.facebook.com/FactChecker
Here’s a guide to the credibility of 14 statements made under oath by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh that have become an issue during the nomination battle over his elevation to the Supreme Court. Opponents have seized on various statements to suggest Kavanaugh misled the Senate, but in several cases the problems have been overstated or are wrong. In other cases, the discrepancies might appear inconsequential or unimportant to supporters of Kavanaugh.

One woman, Christine Blasey Ford, says Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her after drinking heavily in high school. Another, Yale University classmate Deborah Ramirez, says he exposed himself during a drunken evening, though her memory of what happened is not clear. As of Oct. 4, no eyewitness who has confirmed the allegations of sexual misconduct by Ford or Ramirez has been identified.

Beyond the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh had been challenged on his answers concerning work he did while serving in the George W. Bush administration, including his efforts to confirm conservative judges.

We have previously fact-checked some of these issues and so have provided a summary as well as a link to the original fact check.

Misleading
“I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation. … She and I did not travel in the same social circles.”

What’s controversial: In his testimony, Kavanaugh tried to minimize the possibility that he and Ford ever interacted.

Analysis: Kavanaugh’s own calendar lists a small gathering July 1, a Thursday, for “skis” — brewskis, or beer — that includes two people Ford named as being present in the house during the alleged attack — Patrick “P.J.” Smyth and Mark Judge. Also in attendance: “Squi,” Chris Garrett, who Ford said she was dating that summer. Thus it’s not credible for Kavanaugh to claim that such a gathering did not take place or that he and Ford were not in the same social circle.

“Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers. … The witnesses who were there say that it didn’t happen.”

What’s controversial: Kavanaugh stretched the meaning of “refuted.”

Analysis: Ford named four people who she said attended the gathering: Kavanaugh, Smyth, Judge and Leland Keyser. Judge, according to Ford, was in the room at the time of the attack. Kavanaugh denied it happened but the other three only said they had no memory of the gathering. “I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today,” Judge wrote in a letter to the committee. “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.” Keyser told The Washington Post that she believes Ford’s account. “I don’t expect that P.J. and Leland would remember this evening,” Ford said during her testimony. “It was a very unremarkable party.” Kavanaugh’s language went beyond the evidence — which is inappropriate for a judge.

“That yearbook reference [Renate Alumnius] was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.”

What’s controversial: Kavanaugh provided an interpretation disputed by other classmates.

Analysis: In his high school yearbook, Kavanaugh listed himself as “Renate Alumnius,” which classmates said was a sexual reference to Renate Dolphin. She attended a nearby Catholic girls school, and her name appears at least 14 times in the 1983 edition of the Georgetown Prep yearbook. If it was really intended to show affection, that was news to Dolphin; she told the New York Times that she was hurt and offended by it. A lawyer for Kavanaugh said the two shared a brief kiss; she denied that. It’s unclear why Kavanaugh would not admit forthrightly that this was inappropriate, juvenile humor.

“You’d have to ask him.”

What’s controversial: Kavanaugh sidestepped a direct question about whether he was “Bart O’Kavanaugh,” referenced in a memoir of alcoholism written by Judge, as having “puked in someone’s car the other night.” The book is described as “based on actual experiences,” but uses pseudonyms for people.

Analysis: Kavanaugh suggested that “Bart” was a figment of Judge’s imagination. But the New York Times later reported that this was a nickname for Kavanaugh in high school after a teacher botched the name Brett. A letter obtained by the Times, written by Kavanaugh about planning for renting a house for Beach Week, was signed “Bart.” It’s not clear what Kavanaugh gained by refusing a direct response.

“I knew Mr. Miranda, as he and many other Senate staffers were part of regular meetings, telephone calls and emails about the judicial confirmation process. These meetings, calls and emails were typical of how judicial confirmations have been handled in past administrations. I never knew or suspected that he or others had obtained information from Democratic computer files.”

What’s controversial: Kavanaugh has claimed at three Senate hearings since 2004 and in written answers to senators’ questions that he never suspected that a Republican ally, Manuel Miranda, was sending him sensitive, stolen, insider information from Democrats on the Judiciary Committee in the early 2000s.

Analysis: Kavanaugh’s claims of ignorance warrant heavy skepticism. Miranda, a Republican Senate staffer working to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees in the early 2000s, for nine months sent Kavanaugh and other GOP allies a steady stream of intel on Democrats’ plans for stumping nominees. Included in this trove were the contents of a confidential letter Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) had received about one nominee, and a nearly 4,000-word memo written by one of Leahy’s staff lawyers that went on in breathtaking detail about the Democrats’ strategy on another nominee. Kavanaugh was an elite political operative, a White House lawyer working intensely on Bush’s nominations at the time, and it strains credulity for him to claim that these extraordinary leaks seemed normal. (Kavanaugh earned Three Pinocchios.)

“I didn’t know about the memos or see the memos that I think you’re describing.”

What’s controversial: Democrats say Kavanaugh misled then-Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) at a 2006 hearing by testifying that he hadn’t seen any Democratic memos provided by Miranda, when he clearly had received at least one full-length memo from Leahy’s staff.

Analysis: A March 18, 2003, email from Miranda to Kavanaugh — which was not released to the public until this year for Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination — casts serious doubt on Kavanaugh’s claim at the 2006 hearing. Miranda wrote, “For use and not distribution” in the subject line and appended the full, nearly 4,000-word memo from Leahy’s nominations counsel, Lisa Graves. The memo covered the Democrats’ entire playbook for stumping Bush’s nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Kavanaugh did not respond to this email, according to the records made public by the Senate, so it’s not clear whether he saw it. But he was working hard on Estrada’s nomination, and the Graves memo was a gold mine of intelligence about the other side’s strategy: the kind of stuff that would have prepared Kavanaugh immensely for the Estrada fight.

“I was not the associate counsel in the White House Counsel’s Office assigned to Judge [Charles] Pickering’s nomination.”

What’s controversial: Democrats say Kavanaugh misled then-Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) by testifying in 2006 that he was not “assigned” or was not “primarily handling” Pickering’s nomination.

Analysis: Pickering was a sitting federal judge who asked lawyers practicing in his court, including lawyers with open cases, to write letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of his nomination to fill an appeals court vacancy. Asked about this ethical lapse, Kavanaugh testified at a 2006 hearing that he was not “primarily handling” the nomination. He later reiterated to Feingold in response to written questions that he was not the White House lawyer “assigned” to Pickering’s nomination. These responses were misleading. Records released for his Supreme Court nomination show that Kavanaugh was fairly consumed with the Pickering nomination even though he was not the White House lawyer with primary responsibility. He coordinated meetings about the nomination, wrote an op-ed for then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales about Pickering, and had a hand devising the overall strategy, among other contributions.

On the fence
“I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone.”

What’s controversial: Ford and Ramirez both say the attacks happened after Kavanaugh had been drinking heavily. His statement closed off the possibility that he was ever too drunk to remember.

Analysis: Friends and former classmates have offered diametrically opposed recollections in media interviews, making it difficult to reach a final judgment. Three high school or college friends said Kavanaugh was a social drinker who never drank to excess; six college classmates said he was a stumbling, sometimes nasty drunk. At Yale, “Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. … There are many times that he could not remember what was going on,” said Charles “Chad” Ludington, a former basketball player at Yale who said he socialized frequently with Kavanaugh while they were at that university. Ludington and two other classmates wrote an opinion article in The Washington Post saying that “we felt it our civic duty to speak the truth and say that Brett lied under oath while seeking to become a Supreme Court justice.”

“I think with respect to the legal justifications or the policies relating to the treatment of detainees, I was not aware of any issues on that or the legal memos that subsequently came out until the summer, sometime in 2004 when there started to be news reports on that. This was not part of my docket, either in the Counsel's Office or as staff secretary.”

What’s controversial: Democrats say Kavanaugh misled the Judiciary Committee by testifying in 2006 that he had no role in the Bush administration’s detainee-torture policy.

Analysis: Kavanaugh’s responses to Durbin and Leahy about this issue were problematic. He told Durbin, “I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.” His answer to Leahy was slightly broader: Kavanaugh said he “was not aware of any issues” regarding “the legal justifications or the policies relating to the treatment of detainees” until news reports about it were published. After this hearing, The Washington Post reported in 2007 that Kavanaugh did have a role in one aspect of the Bush administration’s internal debate over detainee treatment. He offered his assessment of how Justice Anthony M. Kennedy might vote on the Supreme Court if the Bush administration denied access to counsel to detainees. Since he told Leahy he “was not aware of any issues” regarding “policies relating to the treatment of detainees,” and since access to legal counsel could fairly be described as a factor in the treatment of detainees, Kavanaugh’s response arguably was misleading.

“I am familiar generally with Mr. [Bill] Pryor, but that was not one that I worked on personally.”

What’s controversial: Democrats say Kavanaugh misled Kennedy by testifying in 2004 that Pryor’s nomination “was not one that I worked on personally.”

Analysis: Pryor had disparaged some Supreme Court rulings and once called Roe v. Wade the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.” Kavanaugh did have a role in the Pryor fight — and recommended Pryor for the appeals court to begin with — although he was not the White House lawyer with primary responsibility for the nomination. This particular response he gave Kennedy in 2004 was false, since Kavanaugh did work on the Pryor nomination personally. But Kavanaugh later told Kennedy at the same hearing that he may have attended a moot court session to prepare Pryor for his Senate confirmation hearing. In response to Kennedy’s written questions, Kavanaugh clarified months later, “I participated in moot court preparation for Judge Pryor.” Kavanaugh also disclosed in response to Durbin’s written questions in 2004 that he worked on Pryor’s nomination and those of 18 other judicial nominees. He also disclosed that all White House lawyers handling nominations participated in discussions about all nominees. In sum, Kavanaugh disclosed some of the work he did in a lawyerly, guarded fashion, but omitted other relevant details.

Not problematic
“I have no connections there [Yale]. I got there by busting my tail."

What’s controversial: The Intercept reported that Kavanaugh’s grandfather had attended Yale University, leading some media to say he was a “legacy” candidate.

Analysis: Many universities only consider candidates to be legacy if a parent attended — and Yale is among them. “For admission to Yale College, we consider a ‘legacy applicant’ to be the son or daughter of a Yale alumnus or alumna,” said university spokesman Thomas Conroy. “We do not consider a connection through the grandparent to be defined as a ‘legacy.’”

“I know Jim Haynes, but it was not one of the nominations that I handled. I handled a number of nominations in the counsel’s office. That was not one of the ones that I handled.”

What’s controversial: Democrats say Kavanaugh misled Durbin by testifying in 2006 that Jim Haynes’s nomination “was not one of the ones that I handled.”

Analysis: As general counsel of the Department of Defense, Haynes had a role devising the Bush administration’s policy of torturing detainees. Kavanaugh accurately said he did not “handle” the Haynes nomination in the White House. Another associate White House counsel at the time was the lead on Haynes. The limited records released as part of his Supreme Court nomination show that Kavanaugh had a minor role in the Haynes nomination nonetheless. Although Durbin says Kavanaugh’s response in 2006 was not accurate, Kavanaugh had stated in response to Durbin’s written questions in 2004 that he had had some involvement in the Haynes nomination. Then, at the same 2006 hearing, Kavanaugh told Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) point-blank that he was involved in the Haynes nomination. Kavanaugh’s responses in sum were confusing and lawyerly at several points but overall accurate.

“Nothing at all.”

What’s controversial: Democrats say Kavanaugh misled Leahy by testifying in 2006 that he had seen “nothing at all” about a Bush-era warrantless surveillance program to track terrorists until the New York Times uncovered it in December 2005.

Analysis: The lone piece of evidence that Kavanaugh might have known about this program before the Times article is an email he sent to John Yoo at the Justice Department in the days after 9/11, asking about the Fourth Amendment “implications of random/constant surveillance of phone and email conversations of non-citizens who are in the United States when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent terrorist/criminal violence.” The warrantless wiretapping program did not exist when Kavanaugh sent this email, and multiple Bush administration officials have stated on the record that Kavanaugh was not “read into” the Terrorist Surveillance Program once it was up and running. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, White House lawyers were sending a flurry of questions to the Justice Department to research the president’s powers to combat terrorist threats. Kavanaugh’s email to Yoo appears to have been part of that preliminary work.

“It was a technical matter of filling out a form, in that case with — that — they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were — as a religious matter, objected to.”

What’s controversial: Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) claimed that the use of the word “abortion-inducing drugs” was “a dog whistle for going after birth control.”

Analysis: Kavanaugh was merely quoting from the plaintiff’s position in a lawsuit over the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to provide contraception as part of health insurance coverage for employees. A plain reading of Kavanaugh’s answer during the hearings showed that it was broadly consistent with his written opinion. Though Harris suggested Kavanaugh opposes contraception, in that opinion Kavanaugh wrote that the government appeared to have “a compelling interest in facilitating women’s access to contraception.”


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-lies_us_5bb26190e4b027da00d61fcd
huffingtonpost.com

All The Lies Brett Kavanaugh Told

WASHINGTON ― Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said Sunday that if Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath, his nomination is over.

“Oh, yes,” Flake told CBS News’ Scott Pelley.

Well, Senator? Do we have some news for you! Kavanaugh lied throughout his confirmation hearing. He told big lies and easily disprovable small lies. This may not even be the first time he has lied under oath: former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) said Kavanaugh lied to him in his 2006 confirmation hearing for his current seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

So, Sen. Flake, we now present to you all the lies Kavanaugh told in last week’s hearing — at least all the ones we can prove.

(A Flake spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.)



Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are ‘refuted’


A key point made by Kavanaugh throughout his defense was that Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations were “refuted” by three contemporaries alleged to have been at the party where she said he sexually assaulted her. Those alleged attendees said, under penalty of perjury, that the event did not take place, Kavanaugh argued.

“Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers,” Kavanaugh said.

“The evidence is not corroborated at the time,” he said at another time. “The witnesses who were there say that it didn’t happen.”

But none of the alleged party attendees ― Mark Judge, Leland Keyser and P.J. Smyth ― ever refuted anything Blasey claimed. They simply said they could not recall attending such a get-together.

“I have no memory of this alleged incident,” Judge said.

“I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct,” Smyth said.

Keyser said that she has “no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where [Kavanaugh] was present, with, or without Dr. Ford.” She added that while she can’t remember the event from 36 years ago, she believes Blasey’s allegations. She reiterated this after Kavanaugh’s misleading testimony.

Blasey explained that there was no reason for them to remember the party. “It was not one of their more notorious parties because nothing remarkable happened to them that evening,” she said.



‘Never attended a gathering’ like the one described by Blasey


“I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation,” Kavanaugh said.

But according to Kavanaugh’s calendars from the summer of 1982, which he submitted as evidence in his defense, he did.

As he said himself, “The calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends’ houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers.” He says that he never attended a gathering like this, but that’s obviously false because the type of gathering he said he did attend is exactly the kind she described.

“None of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr. Ford has identified,” he also said.

On July 1, Kavanaugh wrote that he planned to go “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.” “Skis” are “brewskis,” a popular slang term for canned or bottled beer in the early 1980s.

So he gathered for brewskis with two of the three people Blasey said she remembers being there. Small gathering? Beer? Judge, Brett and P.J.? Check, check and check.


The Washington Post via Getty Images

Brett Kavanaugh’s own calendar shows that Christine Blasey Ford’s story checks out.




Blasey and Kavanaugh ‘did not travel in the same social circles’


“She attended an independent private school named Holton-Arms, and she was a year behind me,” Kavanaugh said. “She and I did not travel in the same social circles.”

In that July 1 calendar entry about drinking “skis” with friends, he lists “Squi,” the nickname for his high school classmate Chris Garrett. Blasey testified that she briefly “went out with” Garrett in the summer of 1982.

Kavanaugh also admitted in a separate Sept. 17 committee interview that he was friends with Holton-Arms girls. “I would imagine that there were Holton-Arms girls [at parties] on occasion, and I was friends with a couple,” he said.



‘I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out’


“I drank beer with my friends,” Kavanaugh yelled in his opening statement. “Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone.”

It shouldn’t matter if someone who likes to drink beer or used to binge-drink to the point of blacking out goes on to have a successful career. What is at issue is that Blasey alleged that Kavanaugh was “visibly drunk” when the alleged assault took place. It’s possible Kavanaugh had drunk too much to remember the event.

Kavanaugh repeatedly stated that he has never blacked out in his life. Numerous people who knew him in college and high school said this was likely impossible, based on the number of times they saw him staggering drunk.

“Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him,” said Dr. Liz Swisher, a college friend of Kavanaugh’s. “I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling.”

“He was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk,” said James Roche, a freshman-year college roommate of Kavanaugh’s. “I did not observe the specific incident in question, but I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk.”

“There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember,” said Lynn Brookes, a college classmate.

Kavanaugh and his friends were “loud, obnoxious frat boy-like drunks,” who were the “hardest drinkers on campus,” according to Kit Winter, Kavanaugh’s other freshman-year college roommate.

“I definitely saw him on multiple occasions stumbling drunk where he could not have rational control over his actions or clear recollection of them,” said Daniel Livan, who lived in Kavanaugh’s dorm. “His depiction of himself is inaccurate.”

“The fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker,” said Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s. “I know because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer.”

Ludington added, “I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.”

Kavanaugh’s assertion that he has never blacked out from drinking is further challenged by his own stories and emails.

In a 2014 speech at Yale, Kavanaugh recounted his fun partying days with a story about “falling out of the bus onto the front steps of Yale Law School at about 4:45 a.m.” after attending a Red Sox game at Fenway Park. He then admitted that he and a friend had to put together their memory of the drunken night the next day.

“Indeed, as a classmate of mine and I were reminiscing and piecing things together the other day, we think we had more than a few beers before the banquet,” Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh, in an email to friends after a fun weekend vacation, apologized for getting belligerent after losing games of dice and said he didn’t remember it happening.

“Excellent time,” reads Kavanaugh’s email dated Sept. 10, 2001. “Apologies to all for missing Friday (good excuse), arriving late Saturday (weak excuse), and growing aggressive after blowing still another game of dice (don’t recall). Reminders to everyone to be very, very vigilant w/r/t confidentiality on all issues and all fronts, including with spouses.” (Emphasis added.)


Alex Wong via Getty Images

Kavanaugh told Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) that a “boof” is a fart. That’s not what Kavanaugh’s former classmates said it means.




‘The drinking age was 18 in Maryland’


“My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends,” Kavanaugh testified. “The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school.”

The legal drinking age was raised to 21 in Maryland when Kavanaugh was 17 years old in 1982, which is when Blasey’s alleged assault took place.

Not only is Kavanaugh wrong about the drinking age when he was in high school; he wasn’t even 18 years old (the incorrect drinking age he claims) when he recorded his own beer drinking on his calendar at the time.

Who cares about a little underage drinking? It wouldn’t matter if this weren’t about two bigger issues: the event in question and whether Kavanaugh is credible. His dishonesty here shows he gets even the little things wrong.



‘Boofs’ and ‘Devil’s Triangle’


“Judge, have you boofed yet?” The question appears on Kavanaugh’s 1983 senior yearbook page. It corresponds with Judge’s page, which says, “Bart, have you boofed yet?” Kavanaugh’s entry includes other terms that refer to heavy drinking (“100 kegs or bust” and “Beach Week Ralph Club”) and a curious phrase, “Devil’s Triangle.”

What does “boof” mean? And “Devil’s Triangle”? The first term “refers to flatulence,” Kavanaugh said in response to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and the second is a “drinking game” akin to quarters.

But many people, including Kavanaugh’s classmates at Georgetown Prep, said that’s not what those terms mean and that’s not what Kavanaugh was referring to at all. “Boof” has a history of being a slang term for anal sex, and “Devil’s Triangle” refers to sex between two men and one woman.

“Based on extensive interviews by me and @katekelly with Kavanaugh’s former Georgetown Prep classmates, what he just said about the meanings of ‘boofed’ and ‘Devil’s Triangle’ is not true,” tweeted David Enrich, who broke the story about Kavanaugh’s yearbook writings.



‘Renate Alumnius’


In his high school yearbook, Kavanaugh listed himself as a “Renate Alumnius.” (The misspelling of “alumnus” is in the original text.) This was a reference to Renate Dolphin, a female contemporary who attended a Maryland Catholic girls’ school.

“That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection and that she was one of us,” Kavanaugh testified. “But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.”

But two other Georgetown Prep classmates of Kavanaugh’s told The New York Times that it was related to sex. The prep school boys who wrote “Renate Alumnius” in their yearbooks intended it as a claim of conquest ― that they had some kind of physical relations with her.

“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” Sean Hagan, one of Kavanaugh’s high school classmates, told The New York Times.

Another Georgetown Prep classmate wrote a ditty about Dolphin clearly documenting that their reference was not about friendship: “You need a date / and it’s getting late / so don’t hesitate / to call Renate.” They were saying she was easy.

Dolphin had signed a letter to the committee with 64 other women in support of Kavanaugh after Blasey’s allegations emerged. When the Times contacted her about the “Renate Alumnius” yearbook reference, she said she had not known about it and that it greatly hurt her to learn of it.

“I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means,” she told the Times. “I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment.”

A statement from Kavanaugh’s lawyer Alexandra Walsh to the Times said that her client and Dolphin attended a high school event once and “shared a brief kiss good night following that event.”

“I think Brett must have me confused with someone else, because I never kissed him,” Dolphin said through a lawyer in response.

And yet Kavanaugh said the reference was “not related to sex” after claiming a kiss that the woman in question denies.


Jim Bourg / Reuters

Kavanaugh testified that his yearbook reference to being the biggest contributor to the “Beach Week Ralph Club” was about spicy food making him vomit, not about partying and drinking to the point of puking.




‘Beach Week Ralph Club, Biggest Contributor’


Kavanaugh listed himself as the biggest contributor to the “Beach Week Ralph Club.” Beach Week is a party week in the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia area where high school students go to nearby beaches to drink heavily. “Ralph” is slang for “vomit.” When Whitehouse asked Kavanaugh about this reference, he said it was about spicy food.

Subscribe to the Politics email.

How will Trump's administration impact you?

“I’m known to have a weak stomach, and I always have,” Kavanaugh testified. “In fact, the last time I was here, you asked me about having ketchup on spaghetti. I always have had a weak stomach.”

“So the vomiting that you reference in the Ralph Club reference, related to the consumption of alcohol?” Whitehouse followed up.

To which Kavanaugh sputtered a non sequitur reply about how he went to Yale: “Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school. Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College, got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.”

“Did it relate to alcohol? You haven’t answered that,” Whitehouse pressed.

“I like beer. I like beer. I don’t know if you do,” Kavanaugh sneered.

“OK,” Whitehouse said, as Kavanaugh weirdly pressed the senator on whether he liked beer and what he preferred to drink.

It is simply laughable to consider that “Beach Week Ralph Club, Biggest Contributor” is in reference to anything other than drinking so much alcohol that one vomits.



‘No connections to Yale’


“I have no connections there,” Kavanaugh insisted regarding his ties to Yale University, where he went as an undergraduate and for law school. “I got there by busting my tail.”

But his grandfather, Everett Edward Kavanaugh, went to Yale for undergrad. The Intercept dug up a copy of his grandfather’s yearbook, showing him as a student.

Yale has said that 20 to 25 percent of its students are classified as legacy students.



No one accused me of sexual misconduct ‘until last week’


“Throughout my 53 years and seven months on this Earth, until last week, no one ever accused me of any kind of sexual misconduct,” Kavanaugh declared in his Sept. 27 hearing.

But Blasey alerted Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the committee, of her allegations in July. Blasey publicly revealed herself in a Sept. 16 article in The Washington Post.



Mark Judge’s memoir was ‘fictionalized’


Kavanaugh’s friend Judge wrote a book titled “Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk,” in which a character named Bart O’Kavanaugh (sound familiar?) vomits on someone’s car during Beach Week and passes out.

Kavanaugh denied that he was the inspiration for O’Kavanaugh. “He wrote a book that is a fictionalized book,” he said in his hearing.

But a note at the beginning of Judge’s book states, “This book is based on actual experiences.”



Judge Alex Kozinski


Kavanaugh repeatedly denied knowing that Judge Alex Kozinski, a mentor for whom Kavanaugh clerked from 1991 to 1992, was a sex predator who harassed women in his office and maintained a private server in his offices for porn. Kozinski is the most important judicial figure, aside from now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Kavanaugh’s life. Kozinski introduced Kavanaugh when the latter was nominated to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

It’s impossible to know if Kavanaugh provided misleading testimony when he said the revelations about Kozinski were a total surprise and “a gut punch.” But it seems very unlikely.

Kozinski was first accused of “sadistic” and “abusive” behavior in 1985. When the allegations emerged, the Senate Judiciary Committee reopened hearings into his nomination after it already voted to send his nomination to the full Senate. He was still confirmed to the 9th Circuit.

Reports about his harassment of female clerks and his maintenance of a website hosting porn came out in 2008. Kozinski was also known to send to a listserv wildly inappropriate content that demeaned women. He was admonished in 2009 and stepped down as chief judge of the 9th Circuit in 2014. Yet Kavanaugh appeared with Kozinski at a Federalist Society event in 2015.

Kozinski’s behavior was not unknown. Legal reporters Dahlia Lithwick and Ian Millhiser have written that they knew about Kozinski. Yale Law School students told HuffPost that professors Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld, who are married to each other, intimated that they avoided clerking with Kozinski because he was known to sexually harass women. Chua is friends with Kavanaugh, has directed multiple students to clerk with him and endorsed his nomination.

Heidi Bond, one of the women who came forward in 2017 to tell their stories of harassment at Kozinski’s hands, wrote in Slate, “Kozinski’s sexual comments — to both men and women — were legendary.”

“Having clerked in his chambers, I do not know how it would be possible to forget something as pervasive as Kozinski’s famously sexual sense of humor or his gag list, as Kavanaugh has professed to in his hearings,” Bond wrote.

Kavanaugh said in his hearing that he could not remember receiving emails from Kozinski’s email list, known as the “Easy Rider Gag List.”

It’s hard to confirm what Kavanaugh knew about Kozinski. It would be possible to find out if he ever received some of those creepy emails Kozinski sent to his listserv, but Kavanaugh did not offer to search his emails to find out.


Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh are political “smears.”




William Pryor nomination


William Pryor was nominated by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in 2003. Pryor, a protege of now–Attorney General Jeff Sessions, was controversial for his views on abortion. Kavanaugh, who handled judicial nominations for the White House at that time, denied that he personally handled Pryor’s nomination when he was questioned during his appeals court confirmation hearings.

“I was not involved in handling his nomination,” Kavanaugh said. “I am familiar generally with Mr. Pryor, but that was not one that I worked on personally.”

But emails showed that Kavanaugh was consulted on Pryor’s nomination.

“How did the Pryor interview go?” Kyle Sampson, a Bush-era Justice Department staffer, emailed Kavanaugh in 2002. “Call me.”

This email did not refute Kavanaugh’s careful testimony, as he said he was “not involved in handling this nomination.” But Democratic senators felt that he misled with his testimony. When he was asked whether he lied or misled about this during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, he responded, “As I recall at least, I was not the primary person on that.”



Judge Charles Pickering Sr. nomination


During Kavanaugh’s 2006 confirmation hearing for his seat on the D.C. Circuit, he was asked about his role in the Bush White House during the 2001 nomination of Charles Pickering Sr. to a seat on the 5th Circuit. Pickering had solicited letters of support for his nomination from lawyers who had business before his court in Mississippi. Kavanaugh was asked whether he knew about those letters of support.

“My first question is this,” then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) asked Kavanaugh. “Did you know that Judge Pickering planned to solicit letters of support in this manner before he did so? And if not, when did you become aware that Judge Pickering had solicited these letters of support?”

“The answer to the first question, Senator, is no,” Kavanaugh replied. “This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.”

But recently disclosed emails show that Kavanaugh played a significant role in Pickering’s nomination process, which dragged on into 2004 because of a Democratic Party filibuster. Kavanaugh was often the only person included on emails about Pickering’s nomination and helped place op-eds and news stories to help the nominee.

This doesn’t directly refute Kavanaugh’s statement that he wasn’t “primarily handling” the Pickering nomination. Feingold, however, believes he was misled at the time by Kavanaugh.

“Taking all his testimony together, we see a clear pattern emerge: Brett Kavanaugh has never appeared under oath before the U.S. Senate without lying,” Feingold wrote in a HuffPost opinion piece.



Warrantless wiretapping


When Kavanaugh was nominated to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2006, he was asked whether he knew anything about the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping policy.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) pressed Kavanaugh on whether he had ever seen “documents relating to the president’s [National Security Agency] warrantless wiretapping program.”

“I learned of that program when there was a New York Times story — reports of that program when there was a New York Times story that came over the wire, I think on a Thursday night in mid-December of [2005],” Kavanaugh said at the time.

Emails that came out during Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, however, tell a different story on both accounts.

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Kavanaugh asked John Yoo, an Office of Legal Counsel lawyer who helped justify warrantless surveillance and torture programs, “Any results yet on the [Fourth Amendment] implications of random/constant surveillance of phone and e-mail conversations of non-citizens who are in the United States when the purpose of the surveillance is to prevent terrorist/criminal violence?”

While Bush did not authorize the NSA surveillance program until 2002, Kavanaugh’s email indicates he was aware of discussions about the program before he said he learned about it from news reports.

Yoo defended Kavanaugh, stating that he was not involved in the development of the NSA program known as Stellarwind.


BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has said Kavanaugh “was not forthright” with him about his access to Democratic strategy documents that Republican aides stole from Leahy in 2003 and passed to George W. Bush’s White House, where Kavanaugh worked. “I’m bothered by it.”




Stolen emails


In 2003, Kavanaugh received information based on documents that were stolen from Senate Democrats by a Republican staffer. This included one fully copied stolen document. The documents provided inside information about Democrats’ strategy to oppose Bush’s judicial picks.

Leahy, whose documents were stolen, asked Kavanaugh about this in 2006. He denied knowing the source of the information he received.

Leahy returned to this question during Kavanaugh’s hearing last week ― this time with access to Kavanaugh’s emails from the time. One of those emails included the first draft of a memo composed by Leahy’s staff, although it was not labeled as such. Another came with a subject line of “Spying,” although this one simply suggested the author had a “mole” among Democrats providing intelligence on their strategy.

Leahy pressed Kavanaugh on the draft memo, which he said was “obviously taken from my internal emails.” He asked, “Did any of this raise a red flag in your mind?”

“It did not, Senator, because it all seemed consistent with the usual kind of discussions that happen,” Kavanaugh responded.

As to the question of the “mole” email labeled “Spying,” Kavanaugh chalked it up to bipartisanship, saying, “There was a lot of bipartisanship among the staffs. There were a lot of friendships and relationships where people would talk to — ‘Oh, I’ve got a friend on Sen. Ted Kennedy’s staff’ or ‘I have a friend on Sen. Hatch’s staff or Sen. Specter’s staff.’ That kind of information sharing did not raise red flags.”

Kavanaugh never apologized to Leahy about receiving or using the stolen documents. Leahy concluded, “It’s fair to say that he was not forthright with me, and I’m bothered by it.”



When he learned of Deborah Ramirez’s allegations


Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked Kavanaugh on Sept. 27 when he first learned that Deborah Ramirez, a classmate from Yale, had alleged Kavanaugh once shoved his penis into her face as part of a joke.

“In the last — in the period since then, The New Yorker story,” Kavanaugh replied, referencing the Sept. 23 story about Ramirez’s allegations written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer.

NBC News reported on Oct. 1 that Kavanaugh’s team had reached out to former classmates via text message to get them to rebut Ramirez’s allegations prior to the publication of The New Yorker article.

Two former classmates of Kavanaugh and Ramirez ― Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage ― discussed efforts by Kavanaugh and his lawyers to get Yale classmates to tell the press that the allegations were false.

“In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense,” NBC reported. “Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh’s team and former classmates in advance of the story.”

Oddly, in a private interview with committee members held on Sept. 25, Kavanaugh indicated that he did know about the allegations before The New Yorker article was published

In the printed transcript of this interview that occurred two days before his public testimony, Kavanaugh complained that Ramirez was calling former classmates to see if they remembered the alleged incident. “And I, at least ― and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that,” he said, admitting that he knew about it ahead of time.

It’s not clear why Kavanaugh provided a different response in his public testimony on Sept. 27.



Sucking up to Trump


“No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination,” Kavanaugh said moments after President Donald Trump announced his nomination.

Not only is this an impossible claim to prove ― one would have to review the details of every past president’s vetting process for every Supreme Court nominee ― but it certainly appears that Trump did next to no consulting on his court pick. He was given a list of possible nominees by the Federalist Society, a conservative group that has tremendous sway over Trump’s judicial nominees, and told to pick one.

It took Trump two weeks to pick Kavanaugh from the list. For some contrast, President Barack Obama spent about a month reviewing his options before nominating Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the court.

CORRECTION: An earlier version incorrectly noted the location where Trump announced Kavanaugh’s nomination.

This article has been updated to include Kavanaugh response to Ramirez’s allegations.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,885
34,850
136
Watching republicans even start doing a victory lap on the upcoming midterms is...interesting. Some are predicting a landslide R victory. They were cautioning against just this kind of overconfidence a week ago. Polls indicated some uptick of GOP enthusiasm but there really is relatively little data to support and now that the goal has been achieved no guarantee it will persist. In the meantime money (big and small donors) appears to be gushing into the Dem side.

Kind of feels like the elation after the tax cut that they felt certain would also be the ticket to bigger majorities.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,825
49,527
136
Yep, I know I have a seat so why rush it?

Right? What are you going to do on the plane other than spend another 20 minutes in a seat you’re going to occupy for another five hours? It’s the worst.

Flying sucks, period, but flying out of New York sucks extra, especially because the security lines can be insane. Precheck/global entry is a lifesaver. Some credit cards pay the fee for you and while you still have to take a couple hours to do the interview it’s totally worth it.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
This is just one aspect of why the Trump presidency is so good for America. It is fantastic knowing that it is likely the 2A will be protected for years to come. Now if Ginsberg would just retire too...
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,825
49,527
136
Watching republicans even start doing a victory lap on the upcoming midterms is...interesting. Some are predicting a landslide R victory. They were cautioning against just this kind of overconfidence a week ago. Polls indicated some uptick of GOP enthusiasm but there really is relatively little data to support and now that the goal has been achieved no guarantee it will persist. In the meantime money (big and small donors) appears to be gushing into the Dem side.

Kind of feels like the elation after the tax cut that they felt certain would also be the ticket to bigger majorities.

Republican enthusiasm is good click bait as apparently conservatives love reading it because it makes them feel good and liberals read it because it terrifies them. So far there’s little evidence that this has changed much and even less evidence that this controversy is likely to persist for the next month or that even now it has moved the needle.

You never know, it could! So far there’s no reason to believe that though.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |