Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adios to Kavanaugh's Harvard teaching gig...

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will not return to Harvard Law School to teach a course that he was previously scheduled to teach in the winter 2019 term.

Harvard Associate Dean Catherine Claypoole wrote in an email to Harvard Law students on Monday evening that the school will not offer the course because Kavanaugh can "no longer commit" to teaching it.


"Today, Judge Kavanaugh indicated that he can no longer commit to teaching his course in January Term 2019, so the course will not be offered," Claypoole wrote, according to the Harvard Crimson.

Kavanaugh was slated to teach a course called "The Supreme Court since 2005."

A group of Harvard Law School students had previously urged the school to stop allowing Kavanaugh to teach there until there was an investigation into accusations of sexual assault made against him.

"Will Harvard Law School take seriously the credible allegation of Kavanaugh’s sexual assault against a young woman before he is allowed to continue teaching young women?" Molly Coleman, Vail Kohnert-Yount, Jake Meiseles and Sejal Singh wrote in The Harvard Law Record. "Or will Harvard allow him to teach students without further inquiry?"

Yeah, his life hasn't been ruined AT ALL. SMH.

Whatever. If three women accused a teacher of assaulting, any school, whether it's an elementary public school or Harvard would want them out. Where's your sympathy for his alleged victims?

With the possible exception of Ford, the "alleged" victims don't have my sympathies because I think they're completely unbelievable and seem to have conveniently come out of the woodwork at an opportune time.

You don't think Ramirez is believable after it's been revealed that Kavanaugh sought to pre-emptively bury her story?

She was calling college friends of hers from that time period and asking them if they remembered a party with kavanaugh, and if it even was Kavanaugh. Mmmm thats not credible at all.

+1
She actually had to spend six days deciding whether or not it was actually Kavanaugh. SIX DAYS, because she really had no clue. Ridiculous that this is even being taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/far-left-cartoonist-accused-of-targeting-kavanaughs-10-year-old-daughter-in-vicious-cartoon

Cartonnist targeting Kavanaugh's 10-year old.

This needs to stop. Take a vote and move on.

She' not being targeted, there is NOTHING negative about the child in that cartoon

You’ve been brainwashed. Children should be off limits.

Children should be off limits, which includes being misleading about how children are depicted in cartoons. The child was not targeted and you are attempting to exploit the child to generate outrage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think about this.... when his girls get a little older and google information about themselves, this will certainly be returned in the search results.
It is horrible.

The child IS being targeted. She is being used by the cartoonist putting words in her mouth that suggest she believes those awful things are true about her own father. I don't know how anyone could attempt to justify that hideous behavior. Imagine how she'll feel the day she sees that. It won't be as far off as when she's old enough to find it on her own. How long will it be before it is shown to her by a classmate taunting her with it? It will be used in a second way to target her.

Most people posting here either won't admit it or don't care at all.

Yup. I'd say I was surprised, but I'm not.

Who on here said the cartoonist wasn't wrong? Please post a time-stamp. I won't wait because there isn't a single post supporting him. But go ahead and make up crap. You do seem to relish it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So true. And the worst thing is that certain elements of the Blessed Sacrament community have started referring to "Coach K" as "Coach Rapey." How cruel!


And them now starting to call him Coach Rapey is troubling too. It's just wrong!

and unfortunately growing in popularity, day by day. It's all "Coach Rapey" this and "Coach Rapey" that. What was wrong with Coach K???

There is only one Coach K and he is at Duke.

Yeah, I would think that calling someone "Coach K" in the vicinity of College Park would be worse than being called "Coach Rapey". Though "Coach Rapey" is pretty inappropriate, especially around children.

My kids go to Blessed Sacrament. There are more conservatives than liberals. I doubt anyone is calling him that. Source?

These are all trolls obviously

Are you saying the coach rapey posters are trolls?

If only. People can be cruel! Coach Rapey is not appropriate.

Still plugging for Coach Boof. Get him a jersey “Coach B8f” to make it subtle.

Not funny. Coach Rapey spreading in parish is troubling.

Yes. It is. It makes you wonder why in the world the Catholic Church/ parish is allowing a man who is being investigated by the FBI for sexual assault to coach a youth team. Like they don’t have enough issues in 2018 with the perception that the Church condones sex abuse.

—Catholic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/far-left-cartoonist-accused-of-targeting-kavanaughs-10-year-old-daughter-in-vicious-cartoon

Cartonnist targeting Kavanaugh's 10-year old.

This needs to stop. Take a vote and move on.

She' not being targeted, there is NOTHING negative about the child in that cartoon

You’ve been brainwashed. Children should be off limits.

Children should be off limits, which includes being misleading about how children are depicted in cartoons. The child was not targeted and you are attempting to exploit the child to generate outrage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think about this.... when his girls get a little older and google information about themselves, this will certainly be returned in the search results.
It is horrible.

The child IS being targeted. She is being used by the cartoonist putting words in her mouth that suggest she believes those awful things are true about her own father. I don't know how anyone could attempt to justify that hideous behavior. Imagine how she'll feel the day she sees that. It won't be as far off as when she's old enough to find it on her own. How long will it be before it is shown to her by a classmate taunting her with it? It will be used in a second way to target her.

Most people posting here either won't admit it or don't care at all.

Yup. I'd say I was surprised, but I'm not.

This is absolutely disgusting. I hope the cartoonist is never hired again. Of course, if this had been the child of a Democrat, their heads would be exploding in outrage. But, hey, it's fine! "There's NOTHING negative about the child!" My god, could Democrats stoop any lower?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Facts...
*ZERO evidence against Kavanaugh from ANY of the accusers. ZERO. NONE.
*Ford's own 4 witnesses say they dont remember any party ever happening
*Ford cant even remember the location the date or the time of the supposed party
*She said she was afraid to fly and that delayed her testifying for a full week...then when questioned on Thursday at DC - she said she flew there!! Wow.
*She changed her original story in 2012 from 4 guys down to 2 guys a few months ago
*Her main witness Keyser has retained a lawyer and admantly denies any party ever happening, completely contradicting Ford

*The other accusers are just as bad.
*And one of the accusers is under criminal investigation by the FBI for completely making up a claim about Kavanaugh raping a woman on a boat...How much lower can the Democrats go [who knows they are rock bottom already]

It makes you look bad when you c&p stuff that is outdated info from some raving site. If this was your own work, don't quit your day job.

Those are all facts, complete facts. Unlike you i actually have good morals and decency and believe in facts and innocent until proven guilty.

Do you believe in perjury?

I don't think she knows what it is. Or cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/far-left-cartoonist-accused-of-targeting-kavanaughs-10-year-old-daughter-in-vicious-cartoon

Cartonnist targeting Kavanaugh's 10-year old.

This needs to stop. Take a vote and move on.

She' not being targeted, there is NOTHING negative about the child in that cartoon

You’ve been brainwashed. Children should be off limits.

Children should be off limits, which includes being misleading about how children are depicted in cartoons. The child was not targeted and you are attempting to exploit the child to generate outrage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think about this.... when his girls get a little older and google information about themselves, this will certainly be returned in the search results.
It is horrible.

The child IS being targeted. She is being used by the cartoonist putting words in her mouth that suggest she believes those awful things are true about her own father. I don't know how anyone could attempt to justify that hideous behavior. Imagine how she'll feel the day she sees that. It won't be as far off as when she's old enough to find it on her own. How long will it be before it is shown to her by a classmate taunting her with it? It will be used in a second way to target her.

So Brett should have never publicly talked about her prayers. He introduced the topic and the cartoonist ran worth it. Both of them were wrong.

I cannot believe you said this. I cannot believe that you are rationalizing what this person did because of Kavanaugh’s testimony.
I just am astounded daily at the thought process of a liberal.

Uh. You need to look up the definition of “rationalizing”.

He gave the cartoonist material. They were both wrong.

You think it’s A-OK to bring your young daughters into the discussion when you’ve been accused of sexual assault? You obviously have no respect for young girls. Just there for you to manipulate. No wonder you support Brett.

I've bolded the problem with liberal thinking. The cartoonist apparently has no free will and therefore is not to be blamed for his amoral decision to use a young child in this fashion.

This cartoonist CHOSE to take something sweet Kavanaugh said about his daughter and twist it into something despicable. It was 100% the cartoonist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adios to Kavanaugh's Harvard teaching gig...

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will not return to Harvard Law School to teach a course that he was previously scheduled to teach in the winter 2019 term.

Harvard Associate Dean Catherine Claypoole wrote in an email to Harvard Law students on Monday evening that the school will not offer the course because Kavanaugh can "no longer commit" to teaching it.


"Today, Judge Kavanaugh indicated that he can no longer commit to teaching his course in January Term 2019, so the course will not be offered," Claypoole wrote, according to the Harvard Crimson.

Kavanaugh was slated to teach a course called "The Supreme Court since 2005."

A group of Harvard Law School students had previously urged the school to stop allowing Kavanaugh to teach there until there was an investigation into accusations of sexual assault made against him.

"Will Harvard Law School take seriously the credible allegation of Kavanaugh’s sexual assault against a young woman before he is allowed to continue teaching young women?" Molly Coleman, Vail Kohnert-Yount, Jake Meiseles and Sejal Singh wrote in The Harvard Law Record. "Or will Harvard allow him to teach students without further inquiry?"

Yeah, his life hasn't been ruined AT ALL. SMH.

Whatever. If three women accused a teacher of assaulting, any school, whether it's an elementary public school or Harvard would want them out. Where's your sympathy for his alleged victims?

With the possible exception of Ford, the "alleged" victims don't have my sympathies because I think they're completely unbelievable and seem to have conveniently come out of the woodwork at an opportune time.

You don't think Ramirez is believable after it's been revealed that Kavanaugh sought to pre-emptively bury her story?

Is there actual, verifiable proof of this, or is it simply more breathless speculation?

[Anonymous]

Kavanaugh has much bigger problems than the cartoonist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/far-left-cartoonist-accused-of-targeting-kavanaughs-10-year-old-daughter-in-vicious-cartoon

Cartonnist targeting Kavanaugh's 10-year old.

This needs to stop. Take a vote and move on.

She' not being targeted, there is NOTHING negative about the child in that cartoon

You’ve been brainwashed. Children should be off limits.

Children should be off limits, which includes being misleading about how children are depicted in cartoons. The child was not targeted and you are attempting to exploit the child to generate outrage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think about this.... when his girls get a little older and google information about themselves, this will certainly be returned in the search results.
It is horrible.

The child IS being targeted. She is being used by the cartoonist putting words in her mouth that suggest she believes those awful things are true about her own father. I don't know how anyone could attempt to justify that hideous behavior. Imagine how she'll feel the day she sees that. It won't be as far off as when she's old enough to find it on her own. How long will it be before it is shown to her by a classmate taunting her with it? It will be used in a second way to target her.

Most people posting here either won't admit it or don't care at all.

Yup. I'd say I was surprised, but I'm not.

Who on here said the cartoonist wasn't wrong? Please post a time-stamp. I won't wait because there isn't a single post supporting him. But go ahead and make up crap. You do seem to relish it.

DP. That's BS and you know it. Look at the thread, above. I've helpfully bolded it for you so you can see your pals think there's nothing wrong with that cartoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Therapist notes? Are they privileged?

Yes.

Even at a criminal trial? Defense couldn’t ask about the method of memory recovery? Dr Ford’s testimony is so old alraedy, it seems. On to ice. Throwing, that is. Feiler faster.

Once she shared the notes with the WaPo, legal privilege disappeared.

Her therapist is not a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adios to Kavanaugh's Harvard teaching gig...

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will not return to Harvard Law School to teach a course that he was previously scheduled to teach in the winter 2019 term.

Harvard Associate Dean Catherine Claypoole wrote in an email to Harvard Law students on Monday evening that the school will not offer the course because Kavanaugh can "no longer commit" to teaching it.


"Today, Judge Kavanaugh indicated that he can no longer commit to teaching his course in January Term 2019, so the course will not be offered," Claypoole wrote, according to the Harvard Crimson.

Kavanaugh was slated to teach a course called "The Supreme Court since 2005."

A group of Harvard Law School students had previously urged the school to stop allowing Kavanaugh to teach there until there was an investigation into accusations of sexual assault made against him.

"Will Harvard Law School take seriously the credible allegation of Kavanaugh’s sexual assault against a young woman before he is allowed to continue teaching young women?" Molly Coleman, Vail Kohnert-Yount, Jake Meiseles and Sejal Singh wrote in The Harvard Law Record. "Or will Harvard allow him to teach students without further inquiry?"

Yeah, his life hasn't been ruined AT ALL. SMH.

Whatever. If three women accused a teacher of assaulting, any school, whether it's an elementary public school or Harvard would want them out. Where's your sympathy for his alleged victims?

With the possible exception of Ford, the "alleged" victims don't have my sympathies because I think they're completely unbelievable and seem to have conveniently come out of the woodwork at an opportune time.

You don't think Ramirez is believable after it's been revealed that Kavanaugh sought to pre-emptively bury her story?

Is there actual, verifiable proof of this, or is it simply more breathless speculation?

The proof is Kavanaugh sought to suppress the story before it broke. You're just burying your head in the sand if that's not enough to convince you that something is rotten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/far-left-cartoonist-accused-of-targeting-kavanaughs-10-year-old-daughter-in-vicious-cartoon

Cartonnist targeting Kavanaugh's 10-year old.

This needs to stop. Take a vote and move on.

She' not being targeted, there is NOTHING negative about the child in that cartoon

You’ve been brainwashed. Children should be off limits.

Children should be off limits, which includes being misleading about how children are depicted in cartoons. The child was not targeted and you are attempting to exploit the child to generate outrage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think about this.... when his girls get a little older and google information about themselves, this will certainly be returned in the search results.
It is horrible.

The child IS being targeted. She is being used by the cartoonist putting words in her mouth that suggest she believes those awful things are true about her own father. I don't know how anyone could attempt to justify that hideous behavior. Imagine how she'll feel the day she sees that. It won't be as far off as when she's old enough to find it on her own. How long will it be before it is shown to her by a classmate taunting her with it? It will be used in a second way to target her.

Most people posting here either won't admit it or don't care at all.

Yup. I'd say I was surprised, but I'm not.

Who on here said the cartoonist wasn't wrong? Please post a time-stamp. I won't wait because there isn't a single post supporting him. But go ahead and make up crap. You do seem to relish it.

DP. That's BS and you know it. Look at the thread, above. I've helpfully bolded it for you so you can see your pals think there's nothing wrong with that cartoon.

It is vile to make jokes about Kavanaugh's kid. The same way it was vile to make jokes about 13 year old Chelsea Clinton's appearance (but John McCain did it anyway at a public forum, as did Saturday Night Live.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/far-left-cartoonist-accused-of-targeting-kavanaughs-10-year-old-daughter-in-vicious-cartoon

Cartonnist targeting Kavanaugh's 10-year old.

This needs to stop. Take a vote and move on.

She' not being targeted, there is NOTHING negative about the child in that cartoon

You’ve been brainwashed. Children should be off limits.

Children should be off limits, which includes being misleading about how children are depicted in cartoons. The child was not targeted and you are attempting to exploit the child to generate outrage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think about this.... when his girls get a little older and google information about themselves, this will certainly be returned in the search results.
It is horrible.

The child IS being targeted. She is being used by the cartoonist putting words in her mouth that suggest she believes those awful things are true about her own father. I don't know how anyone could attempt to justify that hideous behavior. Imagine how she'll feel the day she sees that. It won't be as far off as when she's old enough to find it on her own. How long will it be before it is shown to her by a classmate taunting her with it? It will be used in a second way to target her.

So Brett should have never publicly talked about her prayers. He introduced the topic and the cartoonist ran worth it. Both of them were wrong.

I cannot believe you said this. I cannot believe that you are rationalizing what this person did because of Kavanaugh’s testimony.
I just am astounded daily at the thought process of a liberal.

Uh. You need to look up the definition of “rationalizing”.

He gave the cartoonist material. They were both wrong.

You think it’s A-OK to bring your young daughters into the discussion when you’ve been accused of sexual assault? You obviously have no respect for young girls. Just there for you to manipulate. No wonder you support Brett.

I've bolded the problem with liberal thinking. The cartoonist apparently has no free will and therefore is not to be blamed for his amoral decision to use a young child in this fashion.

This cartoonist CHOSE to take something sweet Kavanaugh said about his daughter and twist it into something despicable. It was 100% the cartoonist.

The cartoonist chose to use the girl in a cartoon for his own benefit.
Brett chose to use the girl in his hearing for his own benefit.

They both used her. A father bringing his own daughter into his own sexual assault hearing is a little extra disgusting IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adios to Kavanaugh's Harvard teaching gig...

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will not return to Harvard Law School to teach a course that he was previously scheduled to teach in the winter 2019 term.

Harvard Associate Dean Catherine Claypoole wrote in an email to Harvard Law students on Monday evening that the school will not offer the course because Kavanaugh can "no longer commit" to teaching it.


"Today, Judge Kavanaugh indicated that he can no longer commit to teaching his course in January Term 2019, so the course will not be offered," Claypoole wrote, according to the Harvard Crimson.

Kavanaugh was slated to teach a course called "The Supreme Court since 2005."

A group of Harvard Law School students had previously urged the school to stop allowing Kavanaugh to teach there until there was an investigation into accusations of sexual assault made against him.

"Will Harvard Law School take seriously the credible allegation of Kavanaugh’s sexual assault against a young woman before he is allowed to continue teaching young women?" Molly Coleman, Vail Kohnert-Yount, Jake Meiseles and Sejal Singh wrote in The Harvard Law Record. "Or will Harvard allow him to teach students without further inquiry?"

Yeah, his life hasn't been ruined AT ALL. SMH.

Whatever. If three women accused a teacher of assaulting, any school, whether it's an elementary public school or Harvard would want them out. Where's your sympathy for his alleged victims?

With the possible exception of Ford, the "alleged" victims don't have my sympathies because I think they're completely unbelievable and seem to have conveniently come out of the woodwork at an opportune time.

You don't think Ramirez is believable after it's been revealed that Kavanaugh sought to pre-emptively bury her story?

Is there actual, verifiable proof of this, or is it simply more breathless speculation?

A partner at a big law firm gave the text messages to the FBI. And was interviewed about it for an article, on record. It looks bad, at a minimum he had the white house nomination handlers reaching out to the people who witnessed it, and he definitely knew he was at the wedding with Ramirez when he spoke at the hearing and said he didn't know. He had been given the picture! At worst, he himself was talking to friends, trying to get them to say that it never happened. It looks really bad now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/far-left-cartoonist-accused-of-targeting-kavanaughs-10-year-old-daughter-in-vicious-cartoon

Cartonnist targeting Kavanaugh's 10-year old.

This needs to stop. Take a vote and move on.

She' not being targeted, there is NOTHING negative about the child in that cartoon

You’ve been brainwashed. Children should be off limits.

Children should be off limits, which includes being misleading about how children are depicted in cartoons. The child was not targeted and you are attempting to exploit the child to generate outrage. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I think about this.... when his girls get a little older and google information about themselves, this will certainly be returned in the search results.
It is horrible.

The child IS being targeted. She is being used by the cartoonist putting words in her mouth that suggest she believes those awful things are true about her own father. I don't know how anyone could attempt to justify that hideous behavior. Imagine how she'll feel the day she sees that. It won't be as far off as when she's old enough to find it on her own. How long will it be before it is shown to her by a classmate taunting her with it? It will be used in a second way to target her.

Most people posting here either won't admit it or don't care at all.

Yup. I'd say I was surprised, but I'm not.

Who on here said the cartoonist wasn't wrong? Please post a time-stamp. I won't wait because there isn't a single post supporting him. But go ahead and make up crap. You do seem to relish it.

DP. That's BS and you know it. Look at the thread, above. I've helpfully bolded it for you so you can see your pals think there's nothing wrong with that cartoon.

It is vile to make jokes about Kavanaugh's kid. The same way it was vile to make jokes about 13 year old Chelsea Clinton's appearance (but John McCain did it anyway at a public forum, as did Saturday Night Live.)

you do get that Chelsea Clinton was the target in that case, right? And the dd was not the target here? Just curious if you are running on all four cylinders.