• Kavanaugh allegedly vandalized a classmate's friend's truck while drunk in 1986
    80 replies, posted
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/kavanaugh/card/1538782969 As senators were mulling their position on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, many headed to the Senate basement to view the FBI reports on the roughly 10 interviews they conducted in regard to a sexual assault allegation stemming back to the 1980s. Upon entering the secure room, some were surprised to see a stack of documents containing thousands of other tips sent to the bureau about Judge Kavanaugh since his nomination and the assault allegations. The judge denied the charges. One document likely in the stack would be a notarized statement submitted to the FBI Tuesday by a truck owner, who allegedly confronted an inebriated college student who was “smashing the black cargo box” in the bed of his parked Ford Courier on a New Haven, Conn., street in the fall of 1986. “I yelled again at the person, and realized it was Brett Kavanaugh,” reads the statement, which goes on to allege that the future Supreme Court nominee, “uncontrollably, incoherently drunk,” later refused to pay for the damage when confronted over the incident at meeting of Truth and Courage, the secret society both Yale undergraduates belonged to. Judge Kavanaugh, through his attorney, denies the incident took place. The former truck owner, whose redacted statement was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, says that Truth and Courage members met twice weekly through senior year to hang out and drink. When “heavily drunk,” Mr. Kavanaugh, could turn “belligerent, offensive and even possibly criminal,” the statement says. The judge has denied such allegations about his alcohol habits in testimony before the Senate. Arge O'Neal, then a Yale freshman, said he was friends with the truck owner through the swim team and heard him complain that Mr. Kavanaugh had "broken into" his vehicle. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) Thursday criticized the FBI’s one-week review of the sexual assault allegations that limited investigators ability to go beyond them. “This investigation was not a search for truth — but rather a search for cover,” he said.
Didn't he say he never got drunk like that though? :ThinkingEmoji:
Perjury only applies to Democrats. Lying about a bj? Disbarment and impeachment Lying about drinking habits tied to sexual assault? Elevation to the SCOTUS
He WaS JuSt A bOy
Scumbag that everyone knows is a scumbag has additional scumbaggery tied to them. Shock and awe.
What high school boy doesn't do this? Seriously.
Forget your truck, he's about to vandalize the nation
Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump, and Mitch McConnell The Devil's Triangle.
If Kav kills stare decisis (precedent) with things like gay marriage and abortion, he's given license to a future court to overturn every last shitty ruling of the last 15 years. Upending the base of common law to get back at the Clintons. I hope Obama's on the court when it's done too.
Our new Supreme Justice, everyone.
You do realize the Supreme Court still needs a majority to do things like that right? It's not like Kavanaugh is going to go to the Supreme Court look at the next abortion case and declare abortion is illegal forever regardless of what the other 8 people say.
I am 100% aware, but Kav has replaced the last "swing" justice (Kennedy was pro business but also good for abortion and gay rights) so now it's four justices who always dissented in a 5/4 favoring abortion rights written by Kennedy, and Kavanaugh who is also anti-abortion. We'll see 5/4s against abortion now unless Roberts cares about the court's image in the wake of Kav.
The SC does have a 5-4 solid conservative majority now with Kavanaugh on the court. It probably wont be so brazen as what you are describing but abortion restrictions and other conservative rulings are a very real likelihood.
I know it's important but I feel this is getting a little petty, no?
No they're not This is fucking stupid. We should hold judges, who hold LIFETIME seats to higher standards than Billy Joe Dipshit from Arkansaw. You should hold them to higher standards, and if you think that "Higher standards" Shouldn't include "Historical actions" then you're literally dismissing reality because you don't like it. Stop this absolute garbage argument.
I think it's more the rapey bits that matter than the general drunken bullshit.
I'd had second doubts if he somehow turned a new leaf when he was that same age and became a better person from the accident. But with the hearings. It shows that he hasn't changed at all.
I'm not speaking about this Kavacunt guy specifically, but if we're moving forward as a society where you past in never forgotten now matter how embarrassing it can be then everybody will be fucked. Some of the best people had tough times and acted like cunts through their developmental years, then turn out to be great people who have learned from the experience and grown, grown perhaps more than people who didn't go through being a cunt back in the day. Again I'm not attributing this to this guy specifically, just be careful with he standards you set or you're gonna start excluding some brilliant minds later down the line based on past issues that might well have been left in the past.
A respectable person would own up to their past, not bury it.
Are you suggesting we have a televised confession booth for when you enter office? I'll repeat again, I"m not speaking about this guy, I'm speaking about the wider implications of allowing this media circus to become a recurring theme for future candidates, it absolutely will be used against candidates you like in the future.
What am I failing to understand while condemning the idea that judges don't need to be held to high standards? Can you explain that to me? What about being a LIFETIME judge, a person who literally judges the rest of the nation, should be held to "Lax standards"? Yes, he could have grown, but he demonstrated he DID NOT. If he had grown, as you suggest, he would have just owned up to it, and not thrown a tantrum. You know what this makes me realize? All of the people defending Kavanaugh, like you are here and now despite your assertion you aren't, are seemingly projecting a shit ton of things on to EVERYONE who criticizes him. So here, let me test a theory. Do you think, when you're accused of doing something bad, that the best option is to throw a tantrum? That is what Kavanaugh did, and that is what you're defending. This is what you say is okay. Maybe we had different upbringings, but my parents taught me to keep my cool, and be calm and polite when confronted with authority because you will always fair better doing so. So, a LIFE TIME JUDGE, has failed to take such childhood advice seriously, and I imagine you're defending him because you also, would not take this advice.
The difference here is that Kav did his best to paint a much different picture of his youth. This is yet another piece of evidence to suggest that he was misrepresenting his past drinking habits under oath, diminishing his credibility in the testimony her gave to the Senate Committee.
This is not what I'm saying. Look, just because your country is so fucked a rape investigation doesn't lead to a charge because of corrupt officials it does not mean we need to start digging into peoples pasts to get as much dirt as possible to win. What the US does unfortuantely sets a standard for other countries somewhat because we are unfortunately bombarded by your bullshit media. I don't care about kavacunt, he's a dick, we know he's a dick, what part of the process of digging into peoples past and dragging them into the public spectrum are you struggling to grasp is a bad fucking idea. We already have background checks for these kinds of reasons, these however, typically are not thrust into front page news all over the god damn world. Sort your system out before you get even lower as a society than you already are, you're making fools of yourselves and collectively acting like children while being so sure you are the good guys. AGAIN I know he's cunt, he should be nowhere near office, but you are setting standards there is no coming back from once you open this box and let the media have their way, they will keep doing this as a habit to people down the line.
1) Not my country. 2) How does ignoring what people did in the past in any way serve the public good? 3) What does it definitively hurt to verify if people are rapists or otherwise? 4) Are you at all familiar with Anita Hill? I don't care what you don't care about to be frank. I care about the shit you're saying in this thread that is utter fucking garbage. Background checks are not at all what this farce was. This was very similar to what happened to Clarence Thomas, and Anita Hill in the 90's, but with the dials cranked up to 11, and the media circus, and all of the apologists(People like you) cranked up to fucking 12. You literally are saying "we shouldn't worry if someone was a rapist, a murderer, or whatever else as long as the background check was good enough, they're good!" despite the fact in order to come to that conclusion you have to ignore the incredible abuse of power that it took for Kav to even get into the running. It took the republicans manufacturing a cover story, knowingly creating cover for 6 months before the accusations of rape even came public. This is clearly what happened, and you say to this "Well that's for the best, the powers that be got to pick who they want, and they should get to ram him through". This is fucked logic. Look you're doing a good enough job of making a fool of yourself by refusing to even accept the basic facts of this issue, let alone the fact that you don't want to hold people accountable for their actions. This is as clear as day. I don't know how you can believe that you want to hold people accountable, and simultaneously ignore every single bit of context to argue this. If the standard of "shouldn't lie to the congress" is "a standard there's no coming back from", you can go away. I'm not even going to take you seriously if that's your belief.
Again, you're making arguments up in your head, I have not addressed his rape charges at all what so ever, of course this is justified. What you are screaming from the rafters is the right to and justification to dig up peoples DRUNKEN HIGH SCHOOL ANTICS and attribute it to them 30 years down the line. It's so ridiculous it hurts. Calling me a fucking apologist, you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with an interpretation of what I'm saying. Why are you even mentioning the rape thing, I haven't spoken about it at all in this thread.
No, just Supreme Court nominees, and even then only when relevant, such as if there's allegations about sexual assault happening during said drunken high school / college days. Also, notice that this story doesn't stand by itself, but adds to the larger context which is that Kavanaugh probably lied about his alcohol use under oath, in a hearing about whether or not he attempted to rape somebody. The misleading statements alone should have been enough to deny him the seat at least, and it also happens to strengthen the suspicion that he did sexually assault Ford.
Also another point to why this is important. In contradicts Kavanaugh's statement where he proclaimed he wasn't a "Heavy Drinker" or never got "Black out Drunk". So its extremely relevant.
You really don't need to. I'm not making up anything. You are attacking the concept that we shouldn't care what people did with their lives. You are saying we shouldn't care when people LIE about the events in their life. You are saying that we shouldn't evaluate things on a basis of what people did. In 1987, Brett kavanaugh was a grown adult. You fucking liar. I'm sorry that the ignorance that blinds you is literally impossible for you to even attempt to see past.
You're opening Pandoras Box to get a pin to stick in a pincushion that shouldn't need anymore pins to begin with. The precedent you are setting to the media is so incredibly heavy I'm not entirely sure you realize what you are doing. The republicans are going to use this to ruin each of democratic candidate in revenge for this when they feel they are threatened. Shameful.
You can’t even explain what we’re doing so I doubt it bud
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.