What Mark Judge, the witness to Kavanaugh's attempted rape, had to say about women’s sexuality

[OscarLevant]

I'll tell you why Mr Judge doesn't want to testify before Congress or the FBI:

He knows he would be lying under oath.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-assault-a-woman-wrote-about-female-sexuality

A quote from a playwright runs alongside the family photos on Mark Judge’s page in his high school yearbook: “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.”

[...]

In two memoirs, Judge depicted his high school as a nest of debauchery where students attended “masturbation class,” “lusted after girls” from nearby Catholic schools and drank themselves into stupors at parties. He has since renounced that lifestyle and refashioned himself as a conservative moralist — albeit one who has written about “the wonderful beauty of uncontrollable male passion.”

And then we have, on video, Kavanaugh saying

But fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,' " Kavanaugh said, drawing a few laughs. "That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

And we are supposed to trust these once upon a time unruly blind drunk misogynist frat boys?

Look, there are a lot of men who have memories of their frat days they would like to forget, no one is perfect, I get it. However, we're talkin' here about attempted rape. So putting a man on the Supreme court who will be there for at least another 30 years, well...

SCOTUS deserves better.

 

[Zyphlin]

Horny high school males acted like horny high school males = they must be guilty of any accusation of sexual assault.

This seems logical.

Hey guys, high school males lusted after girls and tried to get ahold of alcohol! Clearly, any that did that must be guilty of sexual assault, because we know normal high school males were totally never horny and never would dream of trying to break the law about illegal substances.

 

[OscarLevant]

Horny high school males acted like horny high school males = they must be guilty of any accusation of sexual assault.

This seems logical.

Hey guys, high school males lusted after girls and tried to get ahold of alcohol! Clearly, any that did that must be guilty of sexual assault, because we know normal high school males were totally never horny and never would dream of trying to break the law about illegal substances.

Speak for yourself. I was once a normal high school kid, we got drunk a lot, told a lot of dirty jokes and all that goes with it, but I never attempted to commit rape, nor do I know anyone that did.

But, regarding Ford, we have an alleged victim who is going to testify to a fact which is in dispute.

Your rant seems to be attempting to mitigate attempted rape. Brilliant.

No matter, it's irrelevant to the situation.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Speak for yourself. I was once a normal high school kid, we got drunk a lot, told a lot of dirty jokes and all that goes with it, but I never attempted to commit rape, nor do I know anyone that did.

But, regarding Ford, we have an alleged victim who is going to testify to a fact which is in dispute.

Your rant seems to be attempting to mitigate attempted rape. Brilliant.

No matter, it's irrelevant to the situation.

Conflation, please look it up. You are already doing it.

 

[Zyphlin]

Speak for yourself. I was once a normal high school kid, we got drunk a lot, told a lot of dirty jokes and all that goes with it, but I never attempted to commit rape, nor do I know anyone that did.

Right, that's my point.

You were a high school kid. You told dirty jokes, you drank alcohol, you were a horny teenage boy.

That doesn't mean you attempted to committed rape (or a sexual offense, as its relevant to this case).

Just like the fact that Judge was a high school kid that told dirty jokes, was horny, and tried to drink doesn't mean that he or Kavanaugh are guilty of rape (or a sexual offense as relevant to this case).

Yet that's precisely what you're post was suggesting, that because of the things you quoted (which equated to him telling dirty jokes and being a horny teenager that liked to drink) that he'd be lying if he said that Kavanaugh didn't do what he was accused of doing.

My "rant" isn't attempting to mitigate a sexual offense, but rather is attempting to mitigate the notion that somehow being a horny, dirty joke telling, alcohol desiring teen means he's somehow obviously guilty of said accusations.

 

[OscarLevant]

Right, that's my point.

You were a high school kid. You told dirty jokes, you drank alcohol, you were a horny teenage boy.

That doesn't mean you attempted to committed rape (or a sexual offense, as its relevant to this case).

Just like the fact that Judge was a high school kid that told dirty jokes, was horny, and tried to drink doesn't mean that he or Kavanaugh are guilty of rape (or a sexual offense as relevant to this case).

Yet that's precisely what you're post was suggesting, that because of the things you quoted (which equated to him telling dirty jokes and being a horny teenager that liked to drink) that he'd be lying if he said that Kavanaugh didn't do what he was accused of doing.

My "rant" isn't attempting to mitigate a sexual offense, but rather is attempting to mitigate the notion that somehow being a horny, dirty joke telling, alcohol desiring teen means he's somehow obviously guilty of said accusations.

No, it doesn't. That isn't what is happening here. I suspect most men in high places were once unruly frat boys, long ago. I also believe that the vast majority of them did not, nor would they, commit rape or attempt to.
When there is an accusation, however, we must move beyond assumptions, we must take the accusation seriously and investigate it.


You are implying that because of the boys will be boys in high school, because of that alone, we are assuming he is guilty.

You are omitting the fact that We have a victim of a attempted rape. Okay, "alleged". but...

That changes the entire dynamic.

She has little incentive to accuse him.

He has a huge incentive to deny it and lie.

What also changes the dynamic is that Ms Ford demands that the FBI investigate.

I hardly could believe if that she is lying she would be requesting the FBI to investigate, putting
witnesses under oath, etc.

Therefore, just on these circumstances, the odds are he is lying.

that isn't an absolute proof, of course, but we are not in a court of law.

A SCOTUS appointment MUST be above reproach, above suspicion, and in a very unTrumpian fashion, Trump even said so.

Those are the circumstances we are evaluating this, and though the colors you are painting are part of it, without the fact that she has no incentive to make this up, and he has a great incentive to deny it, that changes the dynamic considerably, because without it, no one would be accusing him of this.

Of course, the question then becomes, "so, in order to prevent a judge from being nominated, all a woman has to do is accuse the nominee of attempted rape?".

I wouldn't say that, because the thing is, it's not going to happen if the woman is credible. Credible, responsible women, they DO NOT do this.

If you can prove otherwise, please do.

So, a responsible, credible woman, such as Dr Ford, no one can believe she is making this all up. It makes no sense.

And that fact, changes the dynamic.

If she were not credible, say she was some kind of wretched person, someone with a history of drugs, lying, debauchery, etc, then you would have a point. But that is not the case.

Moreover, because of Anita Hill, who is very credible, I believe Justice Thomas should be impeached.

 

[OscarLevant]

Conflation, please look it up. You are already doing it.

One of these days, Mr. Conservative, you are going to make sense. But, I wont be holding my breath.

 

[veritas1]

You are implying that because of the boys will be boys in high school, because of that alone, we are assuming he is guilty.

You are omitting the fact that We have a victim of a attempted rape. Okay, "alleged". but...

That changes the entire dynamic.

She has little incentive to accuse him.

He has a huge incentive to deny it and lie.

Therefore, just on the circumstance, the odds are he is lying.

that isn't an absolute proof, of course, but we are not in a court of law.

A SCOTUS appointment MUST be above reproach, above suspicion, and in a very unTrumpian fashion, Trump even said so.

Those are the circumstances we are evaluating this, and though the colors are are painting are part of it, without the fact
that she has no incentive to make this up, and he has a great incentive to deny it, that changes the dynamic considerably,
because without it, no one would be accusing him of this.

Bill Clinton's accusers had no incentive, either, since most of those accusations were made well before the Clintons had used government to enrich themselves. Context is important as is proof, meaning dates, times, details, etc. The most we'll be able to say about this is that it may have happened. People describing it as "attempted rape" are constructing scenarios out of whole cloth. Of course, we also have the signed letter from 65 former female colleagues of Kavanaugh attesting to his character. So, which carries more weight?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Right, that's my point.

You were a high school kid. You told dirty jokes, you drank alcohol, you were a horny teenage boy.

That doesn't mean you attempted to committed rape (or a sexual offense, as its relevant to this case).

Just like the fact that Judge was a high school kid that told dirty jokes, was horny, and tried to drink doesn't mean that he or Kavanaugh are guilty of rape (or a sexual offense as relevant to this case).

Yet that's precisely what you're post was suggesting, that because of the things you quoted (which equated to him telling dirty jokes and being a horny teenager that liked to drink) that he'd be lying if he said that Kavanaugh didn't do what he was accused of doing.

My "rant" isn't attempting to mitigate a sexual offense, but rather is attempting to mitigate the notion that somehow being a horny, dirty joke telling, alcohol desiring teen means he's somehow obviously guilty of said accusations.

The point is it wasn't just high school. Judge has a lifelong record from his teenage years for rather blatant misogyny and, for much of that period, uncontrolled binge drinking.

 

[OscarLevant]

Bill Clinton's accusers had no incentive, either, since most of those accusations were made well before the Clintons had used government to enrich themselves. Context is important as is proof, meaning dates, times, details, etc. The most we'll be able to say about this is that it may have happened. People describing it as "attempted rape" are constructing scenarios out of whole cloth. Of course, we also have the signed letter from 65 former female colleagues of Kavanaugh attesting to his character. So, which carries more weight?

I'm no fan of Bill Clinton. I believed his accusers. I believe Trump's accusers, all 22 of them, one of them accuses Trump of rape. But, another thing, a presidency is 8 years tops, a SCOTUS judge is for life. That changes things.

Bill was bad, but Trump is far worse, as a human being, as a business person, he is a fraud and a criminal far worse than Clinton.

And on the concept of a poisoned tree yields poisoned fruit, I hold all of his appointments as suspect.

I'm sure one could find just as many women vouching for Bill, as well. There is a concept, a movie was made, "Jeckel and Hyde".

Some otherwise seemingly good men could easily have a dark side, or a dark history. In the annals of history, it has happened.

Maybe Kavanaugh has straightened up and flewn right, but thing is, if he done wrong, the right thing to do
is own it, apologize, and move on. But, if he done wrong and is lying about it, he does not deserve to be a Supreme court judge.

He should have done that years ago,(apologize to her ) for if he had, she probably would have forgiven him and this wouldn't be happening.

 

[Renae]

No, it doesn't. That isn't what is happening here. I suspect most men in high places were once unruly frat boys, long ago. I also believe that the vast majority of them did not, nor would they, commit rape or attempt to.
When there is an accusation, however, we must move beyond assumptions, we must take the accusation seriously and investigate it.


You are implying that because of the boys will be boys in high school, because of that alone, we are assuming he is guilty.

You are omitting the fact that We have a victim of a attempted rape. Okay, "alleged". but...

That changes the entire dynamic.

She has little incentive to accuse him.

He has a huge incentive to deny it and lie.

What also changes the dynamic is that Ms Ford demands that the FBI investigate.

I hardly could believe if that she is lying she would be requesting the FBI to investigate, putting
witnesses under oath, etc.

Therefore, just on these circumstances, the odds are he is lying.

that isn't an absolute proof, of course, but we are not in a court of law.

A SCOTUS appointment MUST be above reproach, above suspicion, and in a very unTrumpian fashion, Trump even said so.

Those are the circumstances we are evaluating this, and though the colors you are painting are part of it, without the fact that she has no incentive to make this up, and he has a great incentive to deny it, that changes the dynamic considerably, because without it, no one would be accusing him of this.

Of course, the question then becomes, "so, in order to prevent a judge from being nominated, all a woman has to do is accuse the nominee of attempted rape?".

I wouldn't say that, because the thing is, it's not going to happen if the woman is credible. Credible, responsible women, they DO NOT do this.

If you can prove otherwise, please do.

So, a responsible, credible woman, such as Dr Ford, no one can believe she is making this all up. It makes no sense.

And that fact, changes the dynamic.

If she were not credible, say she was some kind of wretched person, someone with a history of drugs, lying, debauchery, etc, then you would have a point. But that is not the case.

Moreover, because of Anita Hill, who is very credible, I believe Justice Thomas should be impeached.

She has motive and mean to lie, are you kidding me?

 

[veritas1]

I'm no fan of Bill Clinton. I believed his accusers. I believe Trump's accusers, all 22 of them, one of them accuses Trump of rape.

Bill was bad, but Trump is far worse, as a human being, as a business person, he is a fraud and a criminal far worse than Clinton.

And on the concept of a poisoned tree yields poisoned fruit, I hold all of his appointments as suspect.

I'm sure one could find just as many women vouching for Bill, as well. There is a concept, a movie was made, "Jeckel and Hyde".

Some otherwise seemingly good men could easily have a dark side, or a dark history. In the annals of history, it has happened.

Maybe Kavanaugh has straightened up and flewn right, but thing is, if he done wrong, the right thing to do
is own it, apologize, and move on. But, if he done wrong and is lying about it, he does not deserve to be a Supreme court judge.

He should have done that years ago,(apologize to her ) for if he had, she probably would have forgiven him and this wouldn't be happening.

Or perhaps it never happened and he has nothing to apologize for. If we didn't kick Bill out of the Oval Office for his known sexual misbehavior, how can we keep Kavanaugh off the court for something which appears to have no proof at all? If there's a shred of proof, let's see it. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence must remain. If we're going to become a place where being accused means being guilty, regardless of the evidence, then we're heading toward huge problems. Anyone can make an accusation.

 

[OscarLevant]

Or perhaps it never happened and he has nothing to apologize for. If we didn't kick Bill out of the Oval Office for his known sexual misbehavior, how can we keep Kavanaugh off the court for something which appears to have no proof at all? If there's a shred of proof, let's see it. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence must remain. If we're going to become a place where being accused means being guilty, regardless of the evidence, then we're heading toward huge problems. Anyone can make an accusation.

A SCOTUS appointment is for life, a Presidency is temporary. That is the difference.

 

[OscarLevant]

Or perhaps it never happened and he has nothing to apologize for. If we didn't kick Bill out of the Oval Office for his known sexual misbehavior, how can we keep Kavanaugh off the court for something which appears to have no proof at all? If there's a shred of proof, let's see it. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence must remain. If we're going to become a place where being accused means being guilty, regardless of the evidence, then we're heading toward huge problems. Anyone can make an accusation.

The reality is that credible women do not accuse men of something they didn't do, especially when the stakes are this high where their names will be dragged through mud, get hate mail, death threats, etc. This is already happening to Ms Ford. Who would put themselves through all that? It makes no sense.

We are not oin courtroom, so forensic standards are not applied to a life time appointment to the Supreme court. No one is entitled to that spot.

Where I would apply your reasoning to most places, for a life time appointment on the Supreme Court, I wouldn't, nor should you or anyone.

 

[Zyphlin]

No, it doesn't. That isn't what is happening here.

Nope, that's most certainly what you're doing here, when you're not making a call for an investigation or just taking an accusation seriously, but outright accusing the individual of lying about the event.

You are implying that because of the boys will be boys in high school, because of that alone, we are assuming he is guilty.

No, I'm suggesting that the notion of "boys will be boys in high school" is all you provided in your OP as the basis for your accusation that he was lying.

You are omitting the fact that We have a victim of a attempted rape. Okay, "alleged". but...

First, I'm going to get this out of the way so I don't have to keep typing it.

There was no attempted rape that occurred here. What occurred, if it happened as described, was a sexual offense (specifically, under Maryland Law, a sexual offense of the third degree).

Second, I'm omitting no such thing. I've acknowledged in my post that he was accused of that, which by the very nature is the opposite of "omitting it". However, an accusation is not itself definitive evidence of an action happening. While you're speaking about "omitting", while you did not omit the fact that the one neutral witness in this (neutral in the sense that it's not the accusing victim or the accused perpetrator) has stated it didn't happen, you did outright declare him a liar simply because he was a horny teenage boy.

She has little incentive to accuse him.

She does have incentive to accuse him, so you're just flatly wrong there. However, the intent to accuse him is, frankly, irrelevant in my mind. It's not about whether she has intent to accuse him, simply accusing does not equate to proof.

He has a huge incentive to deny it and lie.

Anyone, EVER, accused of a crime has huge incentive to deny it. This is precisely one of the reasons that the government is meant to presume innocence.

Furthermore, Judge's incentive to lie, which is what you spoke about in the actual OP, is as limited as hers is.

What also changes the dynamic is that Ms Ford demands that the FBI investigate.

No, that doesn't change a damn thing, because it's not the FBI's place to investigate this beyond what it has already done. It's done their requisite background check on him. Since it's 1) not a federal crime 2) not a national security threat 3) not a criminal charge on his record, there is absolutely no legitimate jurisdiction for the FBI to conduct a criminal investigation into the matter and no legitimately compelling reason for it to reopen it's background investigation into him (something, I'll note, that they've conducted repeatedly and have never turned up something like this. An aspect of the "dynamic" you fail to note because it doesn't suit your cause).

Her "demands" of the FBI are irrelevant.

I hardly could believe if that she is lying she would be requesting the FBI to investigate, putting
witnesses under oath, etc.

You seem to be operating in this strange world where everything is black and white, binary 0 and 1, yes or not.

It's perfectly plausible that her memory of a 30+ year old event has been distorted over the years and is one that she adamantly believes is true, and yet is also utterly against the recollection of the two other individuals supposedly there. The answer is not simply "she's purposefully lying" or "she's telling the absolute truth".

Therefore, just on these circumstances, the odds are he is lying.

No, it's not.

that isn't an absolute proof, of course, but we are not in a court of law.

But we are speaking about the Federal Government, and you are talking about a Law Enforcement agency and matters of federal law (in terms of your accusation that he'd be lying under oath), so there are reasonable levels of expectations with regards to protection under the law.

 

[Zyphlin]

A SCOTUS appointment MUST be above reproach, above suspicion, and in a very unTrumpian fashion, Trump even said so.

1. I've never given two ****s what Trump has said, as it more often then not it makes me want to put my head into a wall

2. I'm sorry, but no, the "must" not be such a thing because such a thing is a purely subjective notion. In reality, there is no true "must" as to what a SCOTUS justice must be as there is no specified qualifications. However, personally, my opinion is that they "must" be highly qualified from a legal stand point, free of any felony convictions, that holds a belief that the constitution must be upheld. I'm not in favor of some abstract notion of "beyond reproach" or "above suspicion" as that simply opens it to partisan games, just as I'm not a fan of denying a nominee because they simply interpret the constitution in a way that disagrees with my own or because I dislike some of their judgements. Unless they've shown themselves to either disregard the constitution (i.e. actively advocating that it should be ignored and that the law should be based on things other than it), be ignorant of the law, or have a history of violating the law, I am not of the opinion that they are unfit for the office from a qualification stand point.

Quoting me Trump is, frankly, laughable; I don't make my opinion based on other peoples stances, let alone other people I have no respect for.

 

[joko104]

I'll tell you why Mr Judge doesn't want to testify before Congress or the FBI:

He knows he would be lying under oath.




And then we have, on video, Kavanaugh saying



And we are supposed to trust these once upon a time unruly blind drunk misogynist frat boys?

Look, there are a lot of men who have memories of their frat days they would like to forget, no one is perfect, I get it. However, we're talkin' here about attempted rape. So putting a man on the Supreme court who will be there for at least another 30 years, well...

SCOTUS deserves better.

There is no allegation of attempted rape.

 

[joko104]

The Democrats of Congress, reducing government to unlimited trivialities.

The Supreme Court not only affects over 320,000,000 Americans, but everyone on earth. Democrats claim THE basis to make such a decision is upon a woman who claims a high school boy tried to fondle her nearly 4 decades ago - but doesn't remember, when, where, and was so drunk she doesn't ever recall how she got home. On THAT, the future of everyone on earth turns?

The Democratic Party doesn't even qualify as a clown car with this. To the Democratic Party, everything is just a sick trivial joke.

 

[OpportunityCost]

One of these days, Mr. Conservative, you are going to make sense. But, I wont be holding my breath.

You are conflating underage drinking and rape. You should follow the logic of your own posts better.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[JustHanging]

I'll tell you why Mr Judge doesn't want to testify before Congress or the FBI:

He knows he would be lying under oath.




And then we have, on video, Kavanaugh saying



And we are supposed to trust these once upon a time unruly blind drunk misogynist frat boys?

Look, there are a lot of men who have memories of their frat days they would like to forget, no one is perfect, I get it. However, we're talkin' here about attempted rape. So putting a man on the Supreme court who will be there for at least another 30 years, well...

SCOTUS deserves better.

I wondered about his "denial" the second I heard it. If someone said this in regards to my behavior in high school, there wouldn't be a question, it would be "That's ridiculous, my friends and I would never do such a disgusting thing!" His denial was "I have no recollection of that incident." My first thought was: Wow, you don't know if you might have tried to gang rape a girl? How many times did you guys do this?

 

[D_NATURED]

Horny high school males acted like horny high school males = they must be guilty of any accusation of sexual assault.

This seems logical.

Hey guys, high school males lusted after girls and tried to get ahold of alcohol! Clearly, any that did that must be guilty of sexual assault, because we know normal high school males were totally never horny and never would dream of trying to break the law about illegal substances.

Don't forget the actual PERSON who accused him. It's not a circumstantial case, there were witnesses.

If someone had told me ten years ago that the GOP would be banding together to defend rapists, I wouldn't have been surprised then either. I don't think there is a crime they can't forgive if it means cutting taxes, screwing brown people or making war. With Trump you get all three!

 

[nota bene]

Don't forget the actual PERSON who accused him. It's not a circumstantial case, there were witnesses.

If someone had told me ten years ago that the GOP would be banding together to defend rapists, I wouldn't have been surprised then either. I don't think there is a crime they can't forgive if it means cutting taxes, screwing brown people or making war. With Trump you get all three!

If somebody had told me ten years ago that someone would unashamedly call a Supreme Court nominee a rapist--that someone would have no understanding at all of the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty"--I might have been surprised.

 

[gdgyva]

No, it doesn't. That isn't what is happening here. I suspect most men in high places were once unruly frat boys, long ago. I also believe that the vast majority of them did not, nor would they, commit rape or attempt to.
When there is an accusation, however, we must move beyond assumptions, we must take the accusation seriously and investigate it.


You are implying that because of the boys will be boys in high school, because of that alone, we are assuming he is guilty.

You are omitting the fact that We have a victim of a attempted rape. Okay, "alleged". but...

That changes the entire dynamic.

She has little incentive to accuse him.

He has a huge incentive to deny it and lie.

What also changes the dynamic is that Ms Ford demands that the FBI investigate.

I hardly could believe if that she is lying she would be requesting the FBI to investigate, putting
witnesses under oath, etc.

Therefore, just on these circumstances, the odds are he is lying.

that isn't an absolute proof, of course, but we are not in a court of law.

A SCOTUS appointment MUST be above reproach, above suspicion, and in a very unTrumpian fashion, Trump even said so.

Those are the circumstances we are evaluating this, and though the colors you are painting are part of it, without the fact that she has no incentive to make this up, and he has a great incentive to deny it, that changes the dynamic considerably, because without it, no one would be accusing him of this.

Of course, the question then becomes, "so, in order to prevent a judge from being nominated, all a woman has to do is accuse the nominee of attempted rape?".

I wouldn't say that, because the thing is, it's not going to happen if the woman is credible. Credible, responsible women, they DO NOT do this.

If you can prove otherwise, please do.

So, a responsible, credible woman, such as Dr Ford, no one can believe she is making this all up. It makes no sense.

And that fact, changes the dynamic.

If she were not credible, say she was some kind of wretched person, someone with a history of drugs, lying, debauchery, etc, then you would have a point. But that is not the case.

Moreover, because of Anita Hill, who is very credible, I believe Justice Thomas should be impeached.

she has nothing to gain?

why did she scrub every one of her social media outlets? afraid of what the public would see?

why did she wait till now...he was a FEDERAL judge 12 years ago....and has been on the LIST for SCOTUS for many years

can we take a look at her, and her families finances....i want to make sure no houses were paid off....no accounts set up in kids names....no business loans paid off....etc

not saying ANY of that happened....but if she has NOTHING to hide....lets open ALL the books, and let the IRS and FBI in really good....Trump can order it....you okay with it?

and finally....lets say for a moment....just a moment....that PART of her story is true...and she called the cops way back then...and they came...what would he have been charged with in reality? what would have been his punishment? no priors, and none since....17 and 15 year old with alcohol involved....imo maybe a years probation? maybe? and the record sealed if he kept his nose clean? i dunno, but speculating that would have been a good idea on if found guilty....

so fast forward 35+ years....nothing else on record....juvy record expunged.....we are in exactly the SAME place even if her story is partially true

there is NO WIN here for the left....not sure why you guys are pushing it so hard....just making your side look stupid

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'll tell you why Mr Judge doesn't want to testify before Congress or the FBI:

He knows he would be lying under oath.




And then we have, on video, Kavanaugh saying



And we are supposed to trust these once upon a time unruly blind drunk misogynist frat boys?

Look, there are a lot of men who have memories of their frat days they would like to forget, no one is perfect, I get it. However, we're talkin' here about attempted rape. So putting a man on the Supreme court who will be there for at least another 30 years, well...

SCOTUS deserves better.

I've come to the conclusion that Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh are from this crowd:

George Willis, Harry Havermayer, Trent Potter and Jimmy Jameson...the Baird preppie frat boys who've been entitled their entire lives.



I grew up in the neighborhood that Georgetown Prep is located in, and I attended a similar school for one year, Congressional Prep in Virginia, couldn't stomach it, and demanded to go back to public school.

Baird men, as Al Pacino says, they're Baird BUMS.

 

[gdgyva]

A SCOTUS appointment is for life, a Presidency is temporary. That is the difference.

so i saw you fooling around with a 4 year old....dont remember where, or when...but that doesnt matter does it

i saw you do it....

see outrageous that crap is....

anyone can accuse anyone else, of anything....and without proof right now....that is not how we do things her in america

i have zero problems with women bringing men to justice for sexual harassment or worse....call the cops...get a lawyer...make the SOB pay

but do it NOW....not 30 years from now....do it when there is a modicum of chance of actually making a case....and both parties get a real chance to present their case

cases out of the blue from distant past, with NO proof....just not within the guidelines of what most americans deem fair

everyone is entitled to a fair and impartial trial before their peers....these cases are being tried in the court of public opinion....and there is no coming back from ruining a mans reputation