Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As usual

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1046915870675619841

Is anyone paying attention though?

tweet is at 4.5K likes and it has been up for like 45 min

so yes.

This thread: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1046594628005363718
hit 16k likes and 13K retweets

So, back to the important conversations. Seth is looking pretty good right now.

[Anonymous]

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?

Burden of proof is on the accusers, they have no proof and ruined a man's life intentionally, so they deserve no sympathy at all.

They deserve prosecution.

[Anonymous]

^ please read his Tweets for anyone just joining. Didn’t want this to get lost in cartoon land.

[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?

Burden of proof is on the accusers, they have no proof and ruined a man's life intentionally, so they deserve no sympathy at all.

They deserve prosecution.

Just like perjury should be prosecuted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Julie Swetnick just said on MSNBC that she filed a report with the Montgomery County Police after her assault. The police say it will take a month fo find the report. Perhaps the FBI can speed things up?

I just saw a clip of her interview on NBC Nightly News. She does not come across as remotely believable. The excerpt pointed out that of the four people she provided as witnesses who could back up her claims, one said he didn't recall anyone named Julie Swetnick, the other friend is dead, and the other 2 have not responded.

This is why the contemporaneous report is important. I don't know if it names anyone, but it would obviously add to her credibility.

I agree. Same goes for Ford. There is nothing to add to her credibility so far.

Okay if you think ford was not credible then I trust your opinion about Swetnick's credibility even less then I would trust Brett Kavanaugh to not put Rohypnol in a girl's drink. Which is to say, not at all.

Her story was deemed not credible by a prosecutor who specializes in the field.

False. She never said Ford wasn’t credible. Nor did she even finish questioning Kavanaugh.

Oh, please. She lays it all out in painstaking detail. It's just not the outcome you wanted.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-hired-prosecutor-rachel-mitchell-questions-credibility-of-kavanaugh-accuser-christine-blasey-ford/

Which is why you are seeing the crazy come out to play

[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.

Another liberal game - when you put the word 'but' after a statement, i.e. 'the cartoonist was wrong, BUT', you nullify the statement before it. When you say the cartoonist was wrong, then say Kavanaugh was the one who spoke of his daughter, you are indeed saying the cartoonist was not wrong. Because you are a liberal, you don't see the free choice aspect of this. The cartoonist went low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Duh

Let me re-state. Ford shared the notes with media and therefore, they are fair game.

[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.

Another liberal game - when you put the word 'but' after a statement, i.e. 'the cartoonist was wrong, BUT', you nullify the statement before it. When you say the cartoonist was wrong, then say Kavanaugh was the one who spoke of his daughter, you are indeed saying the cartoonist was not wrong. Because you are a liberal, you don't see the free choice aspect of this. The cartoonist went low.

It’s not zero sum. They are BOTH wrong.

And it’s already been discussed for 20 pages. It’s just not that important. I know you need to be appalled at something. Go find something new. Hint: perjury.

[Anonymous]

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.

Ramierez has contemporaries backing her story.
The third accuser claims she filed a complaint at the time, Montgomery County said it would take a month to find it. Conveniently, the Judge's mother was the lead prosecutor for teen delinquency in Montgomery County at the time.

I withhold full judgement on these until the facts are borne out.

[Anonymous]

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.

At this point, what happened 30 years ago is irrelevant. His actions of the last 3 months are disqualifying. Lying under oath, witness tampering. Wake up.

[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.

Ramierez has contemporaries backing her story.
The third accuser claims she filed a complaint at the time, Montgomery County said it would take a month to find it. Conveniently, the Judge's mother was the lead prosecutor for teen delinquency in Montgomery County at the time.

I withhold full judgement on these until the facts are borne out.

She says she filed a report. We have no way to know if it is actually true. My bet is that it isn’t.
The police officer she spoke to is no longer alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the Mitchell memo. No one is asking for charges to be brought. No one is contending that she met the reasonable doubt standard.

The report just makes me more sympathetic to Ford. She is being criticized and torn apart and now a prosecutor has torn through and prepared a report for nothing. And there is no report on Kavanaugh. And we all saw his performance and know where the inconsistencies are. Not to mention his conduct.

How bizarre.

I think the point is that these allegations simply cannot be proven. While this isn’t a court of law, there has to be *something* to pin on Kavanaugh, and there just isn’t. And Ford hasn’t been “criticized and torn apart.” Please. Quite the opposite. She’s being hailed as some kind of “folk hero” for bringing forward decades old allegations that could have been resolved - you guessed it - decades ago. Without ruining someone else’s life and family in the process.

One can reasonably conclude Ford perjured herself after reading prosecutor Rachel Mitchell's report. After this farce is all over, the senate should seriously consider refer Ford to a criminal investigation.

Get a grip.

Did you read Mitchell's report?

Mitchell's report was detailed, and absolutely devastating to Ford. Which is why the narrative is now focusing on groupspeak re: women/assault as well as Kavanaugh's drinking. The new narrative is designed to create a tale in which Kavanaugh was blackout drunk and didn't remember assaulting her, so Ford should be believed.

In fact, Mitchell's report shows Ford story has no credibility INDEPENDENT OF KAVANAUGH.

Keep up, no one cares about Mitchell, she has proven to be a hack. Swetnick filed a report AT THE TIME OF HER ASSAULT.

Kavanaugh is done.

Oh, this is rich. "No one cares about Mitchell," you mean because her opinion didn't go your way? Waah! Tantrum!!

She's an extremely well-thought of sexual crimes prosecutor.

Which is great, but her job here was not to prosecute a sex crime. In fact, once she started questioning the alleged, she was replaced because she was doing too good a job and Grassley had to bury her. The write-up she provided is incomplete and has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

[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.

And Kavanaugh's decision to use his child as a prop was moral?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP, but he also lied when asked by Orrin Hatch about it. He lied when he falsely claimed that he first heard about it when he read it in the New Yorker.

Liar.

Not court worthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk of the process being akin to a job interview are so ridiculous. Tell me about the job interviews you've had where half of the people who are interviewing you have publicly stated that there is zero chance that they will consider hiring you.

And no job interview I ever had asked asked my drinking in college. ESPECIALLY when I was 30 years past college.

I would take that as a sign, frankly. To step away from the job. How can he do his job after this? He's supposed to be a judge, not a president. A judge embodies the impartiality and justice of our entire system. If half the people don't trust you whatsoever, it's a no go. They need to get someone else. This is pure incompetence on their parts.

You do know that EVERY Democrat on the SJC voted against Gorsuch as well? No conservative will get any support from Democrats. That is not going to make a candidate a no-go. It makes the Democrats incredibly partisan.

No, I don't know that. Because you're wrong. Something you could easily have figured out with a handy search tool called google which can show you with little blue and red circles that there were Democrats who voted for Gorsuch.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/07/us/politics/gorsuch-confirmation-vote.html

Reading is Fundamental. .
Go Back. Read what I wrote..... Here it is again:

'You do know that EVERY Democrat on the SJC voted against Gorsuch as well?'

I have bolded the part that you seem to have missed.
Now, go back and use that “handy search tool called google” to confirm my statement is accurate.