DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus The Crucifixion of Kavanaugh

Democratic intern arrested in doxxing of GOP senators during Kavanaugh hearing

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democra...vanaugh-hearing

A Democratic congressional intern was arrested Wednesday and accused of posting the personal information of at least one Republican senator during last week's hearing about sexual assault claims against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, authorities said.

U.S. Capitol Police said 27-year-old Jackson Cosko was charged with making public restricted personal information, witness tampering, threats in interstate communication, unauthorized access of a government computer, identity theft, second-degree burglary and unlawful entry. Police added that the investigation was continuing and more charges could be filed.

Senior congressional sources tell Fox News that Cosko most recently worked as an unpaid intern for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. He previously worked with Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and former Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. A LinkedIn page with Cosko's name on it describes him as a "Democratic Political Professional & Cybersecurity Graduate Student."

Jackson Lee's office told Fox News that Cosko had only worked there for a couple of months, but has now been terminated. Hassan's office declined to comment.

“It’s unfortunate,” Glenn Rushing, Jackson Lee's chief of staff, told Fox News. Rushing added that the congresswoman's office is "cooperating with law enforcement."

Personal information of Sens. Lindsey Graham, Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch was posted on their respective Wikipedia pages as the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Kavanaugh over allegations that he assaulted Christine Blasey Ford at a high school party in the early 1980s. All three have professed their belief that Kavanaugh is innocent of the claims brought against him by Ford, with Graham telling the federal judge "you've got nothing to apologize for" amid a fiery rant denouncing Democrats' handling of the claims.

The intentional publication of the information was first caught by a Twitter bot that automatically tracks any changes made to Wikipedia entries from anyone located in the U.S. Congress and publicizes them on the social media site. The bot account later deleted the tweets because the edits contained personal information. According to the bot, whoever posted the information did so from a computer in the House of Representatives.

The home addresses of the senators appeared to be correct, thought the phone numbers didn't appear to be entirely accurate. A “home” phone number listed for Graham appeared to direct callers to the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League (SMYAL), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group.

Sources tell Fox News that authorities are looking into the possibility that at least two other senators were doxxed.

And, I will add this: Determining someone to be guilty based on only words, and no proof whatsoever, is killing your 'case'.



I remember when you tried to molest me. A while ago. Somewhere. I think it was Sunny and 75. I'm not clear on the details, really. It was at a party where you got drunk. I only had 1 beer. But I don't remember anything.........nothing, other than you attempted to molest me.


BAM! You are not hire able any where.

I don't think so. It's not much different than gang members not giving up the shooter.



I do understand that times were different, but you can't hold it one way and not the other. You can't hold the standards of today to people of yesterday.


I remember the standard when people put you in your car before you fell asleep at the bar. I remember when the cops would follow you home if you were drunk be make sure you got home safe. If you couldn't keep it near the lines, you got locked up and it was a $50 fine. You were out after the sleep off in the morning.


Things change.

Glenn Beck used to say that the side that controls the language, controls the argument.

This is why the accusation has gone from groping, to rape, and now that neither of those can be proven, lying, perjury, throwing ice and a bad temperament. Just exactly what kind of temperament would you all have if you were the father of daughters and had been falsely accused? Just curious.

It's why PDF comes on here and without any proof of any of the above, calls him creepy.

The job interview was over, he wasn't going to be 'coronated'. He was merely going to be confirmed.

Then the Hail Mary.

And now that the investigation is over, DiFi wants the info sealed from the public. Hmmm....

As swish said, you all handled this wrong.

Where do I say he was a rapist? I said sexual assault in my post. In fact, two counts of it, allegedly

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17927606/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-lied-congress

here's a fair article summarizing it.

Mitch McConnell said two days prior that the FBI report wasn't going to be made public. He made the decision long before 'DiFi' peeped up. As you know, I would like to see the report. I'm sure it'll be leaked thoroughly by both sides and guys like Vambo and Beck will only talk about their side.

Also, I'm not a Democrat, so don't lump me in with them.

I'm sorry, but laws will always trump traditions and norms. Apply this logic to all the boys the Catholic Priests raped. Hopefully you can see how shameless you are being.

That's cool. I openly welcome an investigation and will comply fully with law enforcement. I can even drive you to the station, if you want to file a report. I know victims of assault don't like to come forward all the time. As a top legal mind, I have complete faith in the legal system getting down to the bottom of it.

Then before we assume Kav is guilty then there should be some form of proof. DNA, video of the incident, eye witness, etc... if not then he should be presumed innocent and everyone should shut up.

Alright, you get all the videos from 1983 and we'll have Gibbs and the NCIS team figure it all out.

And if you read my post, which you didn't, you would notice that I don't ask for Arch's proof, because it's only helpful to me.

That equals no proof. In our law if a person is not proven guilty they are innocent!!! That system was set up so people could not just call out others and have them jailed. It is our legal system. If they can not prove his guilt then they should shut up. Oh but that does not fit their political agenda now doe it?

Now doe it? Are you breaking down midrant? You haven't even dropped a racial slur yet, so don't give up now. Also what sort of proof do you want from sexual assault? do you want to smell their fingers?

I guess that would be a form of proof.

Why do you guys keep acting like this is a trial?

It's not a trial - the guy is up for a prestigious lifetime appointment.

And, given the fact that Ford seemed composed and credible while Kavanaugh alternated between shouting and crying while telling obvious lie after obvious lie in between unhinged rants about how much he likes beer, it's pretty clear it's an appointment he doesn't deserve.

GOPers should know this:

If Kavanaugh is innocent of these specific allegations which I doubt he is, the chances are high that he's still a sexual assaulting drunken lying rapist from the descriptions of his school age character and what we seen in the hearings. He's UNFIT for SCOTUS.

First, thank you for the measured, rational response. There's not much of that going on around this issue.

I'll concede that a lot of what you said has merit, but it falls apart when you apply it in the context of what's really going on.

To begin with, several Democrats said flat out they would vote No against whomever Trump nominated and many expressed the same sentiment specific to Kavanaugh when he was named. If you look at his history, he has the qualifications for the job in terms of his resume. People may disagree with his views and rulings, but he is qualified. There is no whataboutism here because several Republicans didn't agree with Sotomayor or Kagan's philosophies, but did vote for her because she had the qualifications.

If this "interview" were held in the private sector, the Dems would be guilty of discrimination.

What's we are seeing going on with Kavanaugh would have happened no matter who was nominated, even ACB. They panicked when Justice Kennedy announced his retirement. They were banking on the make up of SCOTUS not changing until they got back in power. These tactics weren't used against Gorsuch because his presence didn't upset the Court's make up.

Imagine what the Dems will sink to if Ginsburg bites it before 2020

If this were a private sector interview it would be the equivalent of "Alright gage, you're file looks good, you're qualified. I'll send your packet to HR, but one more thing before you go: someone called and said you molested their goat 25yrs ago. We don't have much in the way of specifics but we're going to go ahead and have to ask you to prove to us you didn't molest a goat 25yrs ago. Oh, and we think you should call the cops and report what you did."

As for Kavanaugh's demeanor... apparently people have never seen how a Judge acts in their courtroom. Especially when people are disrespectful or try to present absurd accusations. They aren't demure and deferential. Now I get it wasn't Kavanaugh's courtroom, but to act like his demeanor is something out of the norm for a Judge is ludicrous. He did exactly what he should have done in the way he interacted with the Dems. He basically took over their time to mitigate the pontificating and grand standing and illustrated the absurdity of what they were doing.

Any Dawg who says they wouldn't be angry if they were in Kavanaughs shoes is full of crap. Or a Beta male.

But in fairness, if anyone is worried about him being a loose cannon on the Court, then they should start showing evidence of him acting like a loose cannon from the bench. He's spent plenty of time in a court room. His conduct and behavior one way or the other should easily be verified.

I know he isn't on trial, but it does worry me how easily people are dismissing the concept of innocent until proven guilty all the same. And I thin it's born out of ignorance, this belief that something like this could never happen to them. I think PDF even said as much a week ago. False allegations happen all the time against people who aren't as important as a SCOTUS nominee.

Let's assume Kavanaugh is the raging, assaulting drunk that people are trying to paint him as. The man hasn't become "born again" right? At least not that we know of. He clearly hasn't given up drinking. Human behavior being a pattern and generally constant, where are the allegations of sexual misconduct within the 35 years? During the last 20? He's been a powerful man of position... he's been surrounded by women constantly throughout his career (even his wife looked uncomfortable about that one)... where are the people witness to his drunken stupors from around D.C.? There's got to be at least one Inaugural Ball where he groped someone right? OR at the very least some uncomfortably close contact between he and an intern? Something?

The proof I want is corroborating evidence that proves her accusations beyond a reasonable doubt that the attack occurred. Her testimony fell way short of that, in my opinion. And there has been nothing since that proves her correct. If there was evidence that proved her case beyond a reasonable doubt, I would be the first to say he should not be confirmed.

Your post literally makes no sense. The behavior you accuse him is entirely based upon alleged acts from 36 years ago. If he is innocent and based on your premise, LOGIC dictates he is not a drunken rapist.


It's sad that you and so many other people are so triggered by a man standing up for himself and his family and refusing to cede the narrative to some very dishonest people.

In his yearbook, he referred to a "Devil's Triangle", which is a threesome with two men and a woman.

He lied under oath, claiming it was a drinking game similar to quarters.

He also claimed that when he asked a friend if he had ever "boofed" before (boofing is sticking drugs up your ass for a faster and more intense high), he tried to claim that "boof" was slang for farting, and that he was asking his friend if he ever farted before.

In his Yale yearbook, he and his friends listed themselves as "Renata alumni", a reference that they'd all had sex with the same woman (who denies it). He lied and tried to say that it was a reference to her "being one of the guys" (she claimed that she wasn't really friends with any of them).

He also claimed that he'd never blacked out before, which was another obvious lie (he refers to blacking out several times in his e-mails).

Add in Ford's very credible story, and the bizarre crying and shouting about how much he liked beer and sports...

....and, yeah, the guy is clearly creepy.

And you probably believed that his legal secretary was making white supremacy signs on TV too!

I like that they say things like "PROVE HE LIED!" and then as soon as you rattle off a handful of the painfully obvious lies he told under oath, they immediately veer off to something else.

Not to mention...even leaving Ford out of it, the guy should've been disqualified for his unhinged rant about how the Clintons and his political enemies were out to get him.

That sounded like something you would hear in the Breitbart comment section.

Or dawgtalkers.net

Not 100% but back then I think/thought the devil's triangle referred to the untanned area covered by the bikini bottom. Guys wanted to get into or take a trip to the triangle. I could be wrong but I'm about the same age as Kavanaugh.

This is not a rape trial.
It's not a Gross Sexual Imposition trial.
It's not even a court hearing.

The standards governing these proceedings are not even close to the same as something you might see on 'Law & Order/SVU.'

This is a confirmation hearing to determine a person's fitness to assume a job from which they can never be fired.
A job that carries the weight of the US Constitution with its appointment.

'Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt' is reserved for court trials. Specifically, criminal court trials. It's a prime condition of jurisprudence, and places the burden of proof ON THE STATE to prove the guilt of an accused criminal who was arrested, booked, and bound to stand trial.

The standard of proof you want/require is not required in the investigation of a presidential nominee to an appointed post.
In other words: what you want is important only to you. It has no standing/relevance in the congressional proceedings being discussed in this forum/thread.

The purpose of these proceedings is to determine the fitness of the candidate/nominee, in issues of character (personal history), acumen (adherence to the laws of the land), and temperament (ability to remain under control under pressure).


It is not (I repeat: NOT ) a criminal trial.


This man has greased his way through many pointed, targeted questions. He has stalled, obfuscated, and elided the truth in many others. He has demonstrated belligerence and animosity to his questioners ("and yet, he persisted..."). He invoked extremely partisan sentiments, and even went so far as to accuse his questioners of conspiring against him in support of an obsolete, 90's-era Power Couple that only FOX hounds seem to care about any more. There is now a growing list of people- both male and female- who are stepping up to call out SPECIFIC POINTS OF HIS TESTIMONY which are sketchy at best... and outright lies, at worst (lying to Congress is flat-out grounds for disqualification). I guess this is one time when "Yale's Males" dumped the 'Bros Before Ho's' party line, -because dudes who used to party with him back in the day have said that he's not been truthful during these hearings.

In the short time I've seen him perform on the national stage, I'd feel uneasy knowing he was presiding over my own local traffic court, much less the most influential judicial body our country has to offer.

______________

In my opinion, the President should trashcan this flawed nominee, and put another up in his place. Someone with a far less sketchy background. Someone more like Neil Gorsuch- the stolen appointment that sailed through, with much 'procedural' howling from the Left- but no official resistance, in terms of the candidate's legitimacy.

Everyone (even Trump fans) knows that he's too stupid/clueless/unplugged to have his own list of candidates, and that his 'list of 21' has been hand-picked for him by The Federalist Society. Any/all of them are acceptable to those who yank Trump's judiciary strings ("I'm not the puppet- you're the puppet..." [Donald Trump/2016/3rd presidential debate]).

Which begs the question: "Why are Donald Trump, the Republicans of the Senate Confirmation Committee and even others like Lindsey Graham so willing to die on this particular hill... for this particular dude? With all his dirty/sketchy/questionable character baggage- while other, more obviously cleaner candidates remain on the list?

Here's your answer:


Of the Federalist's list.... Brett Kavanaugh is the only candidate who is on official record for positing that a standing POTUS should not be subject to criminal investigation while in office.

Slam.
And dunk.

Reasonable conclusion: These people are ready to go balls to the walls for Brett for two reasons- and two reasons only:

1. He's the only one they can reasonably rely upon to protect a morally/ethically bankrupt official from the potential crimes he may have committed before assuming office (read: Mueller investigation).

2. He's the only 'issue' they can use as their "Churchill Moment" to rally an easily manipulated (and previously unenthusiastic) voting base to turn out in November.

GOP wants Brett because 45 wants Brett.
And 45 wants Brett for the same brain-dead, clueless calculus that led him to relentlessly attack Sessions, after his recusal: "Obama's AG protected him.... why can't my AG protect me????").

GOP are not 'Reagan's Party' any longer. They are no longer the 'Party of Lincoln.'

Their craven regard and need for short-term gain/survival has made them firmly and totally "The Party of Trump."

And that's a few dozen ladder rungs below the two names I just invoked.


Perhaps just one rung removed from Andrew Jackson.

#diga6footholetosetyourbar

How is that any different than my example? If I have someone apply for a senior position, they must have prior job experience. Just because the issues didn't show up until later in his career doesn't mean that I should ignore it. That's putting my company at serious risk and liability.

I believe we would be singing this song

I don't think the context changes in a way that makes my example fall apart. I actually think the context changes to further strengthen it. I can fire a bad employee I hire. It's messy and takes alot of time and I don't want to do it. You can't fire a supreme court justice. No justice has ever been removed from the bench outside of death or resignation. One was impeached but found not guilty by the Senate back in 1805. It is for all practical purposes, a fully tenured position from the moment of confirmation.

Democrats saying they would vote no on whoever was nominated is indeed a partisan move, and to be perfectly clear: Much of the democrats behavior in this has been a damn failure in both political posturing as well as actionable benefit. Had they at least made a dog and pony show out of giving Brett Kavanaugh a fair shake, I think he would have been withdrawn by now. But when democrats dig in, you basically dare the GOP to put forward a candidate that enrages democrats. Still, just because someone doesn't like a candidate doesn't mean you HAVE to then hire them. Usually it's better if you don't. Additionally, it's not discriminatory to say you won't hire anyone who is recommended by a colleague for hire. There is no law on the books against that.

The fundamental concern with your position that he hasn't been alleged to do anything recent: It takes a long time on average for sexual assault allegations to be made relative to the act. 35 years occurred between the Ford allegation and the alleged act. It's not far fetched to consider similar delays in response. We've seen it with Larry Nassar. Harvey Weinstein. Bill Cosby. Louis CK. Charlie Rose. Matt Lauer. Kevin Spacey. All of their allegations occurred years or decades after the act. Claiming Ford is uncredible because of the time delay simply doesn't make sense, because of the frequency of the time delay in overall sexual assault reporting. So if I was hiring someone and they had recent allegations on things that happened decades ago.... I don't want to wait and "find out" if there are others. It's too risky.

Is it unfair to the candidate to not take on this risk? Perhaps. But there's so much about the hiring process that is unfair. Almost every job I've hired for I've had at least 2 qualified candidates that I really liked. Is it fair to the person not selected that they weren't chosen?

The difference is that obama never denied it.. Never lied about it. He admitted it.

He was deceptive in his answers but I can't see how you could prove it.


Boof - is definitely butt f'ing, but you can't prove his definition wasn't a nuanced inside joke.
I had never heard about devils triangle to be honest, so I can't say he was lying there but some do.
His "like beer" comments also seem to be deceptive as he has been described by many as a guy who likes to drink. You can never "prove" that he was getting blackout drunk.



The left is holding onto stuff that wasn't the original point of the hearing as cause to keep him out. While I agree that he was deceptive, A) I don't know that you can prove it, B) that wasn't the intent of this hearing and C) does not wanting everyone to know how much you like to drink disqualify you? I would think not, but we will see.

Obama did it that's why he admitted it, Judge Kavanaugh didn't do it so way admit to it?

Boofing is NOT anal sex. Boofing is, as PDF stated earlier, taking drugs or alchohol anally to speed ups it’s uptake into the bloodstream.

Kavanaugh was butt chugging beers with his buddies. Or he was using illicit drugs anally. Period.

You and PDF seem to be the experts on "Boofing", but can a word mean different things in different eras and different locations?

Senate Judiciary Committee receives FBI report on sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-...ainst-kavanaugh

You can live in denial all you choose. Look up boofing online. It is what it is. It’ll always be what it’s always been.
...unless you’re a kayaker. Then it has a different meaning. But I don’t think the Kav-man and his brohs were kayakers. I think they were drunks....and he’s now also a liar.

Yet you have no proof . Unlike Obama being a drunk and doper. No wonder he thought there are 57 states!

Nah, as a young man I used the phrase boofing and I literally never once, ever, until right this minute ever heard anyone of my friends use the term like you just have. It was always a term to describe gay men having sex ( was too young to understand M/F anal sex).

Nope. like I said, I recognize the term because I used it often to make fun of my brother and others growing up. "Boof" was butt F and stop acting like that is so far fetched.

My friends and I always used it as a reference to plugging or butt chugging. American colloquialisms are often butchered between a group of people. Have you ever read Kerouac?