'I was angry and I sent it': Another Justice Brett Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting

[Eagle367]

NightlyPoe said:

Hiku said:

They didn't even bother questioning the woman who credibly (GOP members and Trump's own words) accused Kavanaugh after taking and passing the most accurate type of polygraph.

Was there something more Ford wanted to tell the FBI that she couldn't tell the Senate?  What's the basis of this complaint?

Not to mention him obviously committing perjury by claiming Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, among other things. And he's a judge. Who seemingly thinks it's ok to lie under oath. But it's ok to have a supreme court justice who doesn't give two shits about the oath?

Several people have confirmed that Devil's Triangle was a drinking game both at Kavanaugh's school and also by people who say Kavanaugh taught him the game.

And if you think they're all lying, I'll remind you that the term was used several times in that yearbook.  And then I'll also remind you that this was the early-80s and we're talking about a bunch of boys at a prep school.  Now, do you think it's likely that there was a ton of guys at Kavanaugh's school that yelled out to the world that they liked to get naked with other dudes?

The devil's triangle perjury is wishful thinking.

And it's not the first time he seemingly lied under oath, which is a criminal offense. Two other occasions were discovered in the hundreds of thousand pages of documents that the GOP didn't want Democrats to read until 15 hours before the hearing. And a criminal investigation into this was initiated in Washington, but as you know the GOP were not interested in waiting for the outcome of it, but decided to push him through as soon as possible as their candidate regardless of that.

The two charges of perjury that Democrats had previously been making were specious at best and relied on reading individual sentences instead of the broader scope of the answers.  For example, in one Kavanaugh said he wasn't handling Pickering's nomination.  Democrats found an email where he talked about the Pickering nomination.

Aha right!?  Well, no.  Kavanaugh, in his original testimony went on to say that he was somewhat involved and may even have participated in a mock hearing with him.  "Handling" meant more that Pickering was his judge.

Aside, Pickering was falsely accused of racism by Democrats.  So smearing a person's good name for political reasons is an old game for Democrats.

Same thing with the other one involving Democrats having their emails leaked.  Democrats actually knew this back when Kavanaugh was first confirmed as a Circuit judge, but didn't even accuse him of perjury back then, not because they didn't have documents, but because it was a ridiculous charge as it didn't contradict his full statement.

BTW, those leaked Democrat emails?  Well, they showed Democrats getting together to deny a Latino a judgeship specifically because they were afraid that he'd become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.  The method they decided to use?  Well, they just kept demanding documents be released until the Bush administration had to exert executive privilege, and then Democrats made him (Miguel Estrada) the first nominee ever killed by a filibuster.

Yeah, Democrats have been playing the game of making unreasonable demands for documents and then using it as an excuse for killing a nominee as well.  It's a favorite strategy.

Eagle367 said:
He still isn't fit for the supreme court. He was angry and shouting like crazy. I wouldn't want that for my supreme court justice. Just an outsider's perspective who's neither democrat not republican and as impartial as possible.

His reputation and life will never be the same.  His life will be permanently in danger because of this.  He has lost a job over this.  His daughters will face consequences.  His wife will face consequences.  This will be the first thing mentioned when he dies.

There's a certain smugness in the whole notion that having basic human emotions in response to an injustice is itself disqualifying.  It's not just you, I know that the final argument made against him was, "Well, we can't prove this, but look, he didn't take his public humiliation with humility.  That proves he's not qualified."  However, it's a ridiculous standard to put someone up against.

 

No it's not. He didn't lose any job. And the supreme court is a ridiculous job. A judge in essence has to stay calm and collected. A judge can't scream and shout at senators like that. Just like a cop can't break someone's hand if they insult him. Hell a cop isn't supposed to get angry when someone insults them to their face. There are plenty of jobs where you can't get angry even if someone insults you. And getting angry is different from getting angry and shouting at senators, Getting angry at a false accusation the moment you hear it is different from processing it and defending yourself from it in a professional setting. He was snug and angry and for some reason bringing up beer a lot. He knew he was getting into the supreme court and was just being spiteful and sort of rubbing it in the face of everyone at the hearing. That sort of disposition does not belong on any sort of supreme court. I wouldn't want such a guy to be a judge on any of my cases let alone deciding the future if my country's legal framework

 

 

Ntt