Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero change Judge is going to admit to any kind of assault or attempted assault. What he *might* MIGHT admit to is a level of drinking that Brett has denied.

Again, Brett did indeed admit to being drunk. Many times he admitted it. There was no denial there. Your statement about a 'level of drunk' cannot be substantiated because there is no physical measure of such. It would just be opinion.

grasping grasping grasping

Oh he's right. Brett even said he never drank past what the chart says!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/26/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-ford-releases-results-polygraph-test-but-key-detail-appears-to-contradict-past-statements.html

I don't like fox news but this article is interesting

So maybe a polygraph is more helpful if you're using it to see how someone responds to a particular question.

Asking the murderer who knows he murdered someone with an usual weapon:

Did you kill her with a gun? (No response)
Did you kill her with a knife? (No response)
Did you kill her with a banana? (Off the charts!)


Is that how they are supposed to be used?

I suppose it could also see if she has some response to being asked if she made anything up, but maybe that's not how a polygraph is supposed to work

Sure would be nice if the senate judiciary committee had questioned the person who gave the polygraph! Sure would have been helpful to have the FBI investigation started before they forced the vote!
Only one side is scared of those things. The GOP should be ashamed of themselves.

Her lawyers would NEVER let her be hooked up to an independent polygraph after that testimony. EVER. They will ask many more questions of her.

And Kavanaugh won't let himself take a polygraph - something he himself in his opinions (his WORK PRODUCT) said was a fantastic tool for law enforcement!

If he has to take one, do you believe she should as well? Not one given by her lawyers, but one given by the FBI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They wanted to question her themselves. Ford's team claimed she was afraid. So they brought in a woman. Then she claimed she was afraid of her too. The woman is a basket case.

I didn't see a basketcase until after the lunch break!

My father [sniff sniff] kept calendars! I GOT IN TO YALE!
Crying alternating with yelling.

He was pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a little scary that those women were able to harass Flake in an elevator. He didn’t sexually assault anyone. Where was security? They should seek therapy and protest through legal channels rather than harassing and cornering an innocent man in an elevator. Excuse me if I don’t think that these bullies were heroes. And BTW, I say this as a sexual assault victim.

They didn’t harass him!!! We still live in a world where we can speak to our elected officials!! Giving your opinion to an elected official is actually a part of the franchise of democracy!

You must be joking. This woman and her minions got up in Flake's face, *screaming* at him. They absolutely harassed him and I can't believe people like that are allowed in the building, much less allowed to approach lawmakers in that way. Plenty of guards were just standing around and no one pulled her away from Flake. What a lunatic. If she wanted to "speak" to her elected officials, she should have done so respectfully. But she didn't even come close.

Did Kavanaugh speak to elected representatives respectfully yesterday? Nope.

If you accused ME of doing what he’s been accused of doing...and then I had to sit down in front of a room full of people who had just finished telling my accuser “I believe you” without hearing me emphatically deny the accusations first, I think “respectful” would be a pretty difficult time for me to strike.

The GOPers already said they didn’t believe her and they couldn’t even question her themselves, had to bring in a ringer. Ford remained respectful. Why couldn’t he?

They wanted to question her themselves. Ford's team claimed she was afraid. So they brought in a woman. Then she claimed she was afraid of her too. The woman is a basket case.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie la la lie, lie lie lie.

Trollies lie lie lie lie lie.

Dr. Ford was a very credible witness. Even your great orange leader admitted it on TV just earlier today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big Brain Brett

https://www.instagram.com/p/BoQ3RYIFEGB/?taken-by=elarapictures

This is what I’ve been waiting for all day!

Just quoting this hilarious thing for people on this page of the thread who might have missed it

SO FUNNY!!!!

When he shuts up Lindsay Graham, I lost it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever you believe there is one thing I take away from this:

I'm scared to live in a world where we will believe something just because someone says it (whether you believe Ford or Bk). There is literally no proof in either direction. No witnesses really saying anything substantial on either side.

But regardless half are believing one side and the other half are believing the other side. With literally no proof. Am I the only one who finds this terrifying?

You've never been in court before, I'm guessing.

Rarely is there direct evidence. Cases are almost always decided on circumstantial evidence. In this instance, the general consensus is that Prof. Ford did not have a motivation to lie, there was some evidence that she mentioned the event well before his nomination, and you got to see her demeanor while testifying. Judge Kavanaugh has a motive to lie, you saw his demeanor at the hearing and on Fox News, and how he answered questions about what he was like in prep. School vs. the picture depicted in his yearbook.

No motive to lie except that LYING WILL DETERMIE THE BALANCE OF THE SCOTUS FOR DECADES. Other than that, no motive.

But why would she do this? This is a woman who has a very protected private life as a college professor, has stayed out of politics and the limelight as much as possible. Now you are saying that she would go out of her way to push herself into the center of national politics, making up details about an incident that never happened to risk being found out and charged with perjury to Congress, to push her family into the national politics, get death threats, have her complete life invaded upon by the media so that her entire family had to move out of their home to evade the press, have her classes invaded with papparazzi trying to ask her questions during a lecture, harrass her students, harass her family have her and her family's personal information including phone numbers, cell numbers, emails, work locations all outed so they could be stalked around the clock, have her email hacked, and so many more indignities just to make a political stand about the balance of the SCOTUS? From a woman who has stayed away from politics for all of her adult life? To make such a strong political stand, to risk so much and to endanger her family, lose her home, her privacy, and her personal security?

If you truly think that what you've posited is at all a conceivable motivation for her to fabricate this testimony and accusation, then you and I are not even in the same realm of conversation. You belong to the tin foil hat contingent who see conspiracy behind everything. I can't think of a single person man or woman who is like Dr. Ford who would ever consider what you suggest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Kavanaugh taken a polygraph where he was questioned about the alleged incident?

He couldn't pass kindergarten at this point, no way he would pass a polygraph.

If Kavanaugh takes a polygraph then so should Ford. NOT one administered by her lawyer either.

Deal. Kavanaugh will never agree. He’s guilty AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a little scary that those women were able to harass Flake in an elevator. He didn’t sexually assault anyone. Where was security? They should seek therapy and protest through legal channels rather than harassing and cornering an innocent man in an elevator. Excuse me if I don’t think that these bullies were heroes. And BTW, I say this as a sexual assault victim.

They didn’t harass him!!! We still live in a world where we can speak to our elected officials!! Giving your opinion to an elected official is actually a part of the franchise of democracy!

You must be joking. This woman and her minions got up in Flake's face, *screaming* at him. They absolutely harassed him and I can't believe people like that are allowed in the building, much less allowed to approach lawmakers in that way. Plenty of guards were just standing around and no one pulled her away from Flake. What a lunatic. If she wanted to "speak" to her elected officials, she should have done so respectfully. But she didn't even come close.

Did Kavanaugh speak to elected representatives respectfully yesterday? Nope.

If you accused ME of doing what he’s been accused of doing...and then I had to sit down in front of a room full of people who had just finished telling my accuser “I believe you” without hearing me emphatically deny the accusations first, I think “respectful” would be a pretty difficult time for me to strike.

That is funny because many people go to court EVERY DAY to defend themselves - actual court where the stakes are million times higher than he faced here. Not getting his dream job??? Sorry, no. How about people facing the death penalty, life in prison, losing custody of their kids? Any defendant would be thrown out of court for contempt if they did what he did, and as a judge, he knows it.

Don't fall for the faux outrage.

1-it’s not a trial but he IS being accused of a very serious crime so expecting him to not be irritated and be respectful to the nastiness of the senators who are taking the accusation as gospel is ridiculous. Further, the case would never actually make it to trial bc no time/place/witnesses/evidence make it an impossible case for any prosecutor to try! Bc you know...that silly burden of proof thing and all)....but 2)—IF it did go to trial he would be able to be calm to the jury bc jury would not have cheered on the accuser with accolades and affirmations of “I believe YOU!” Prior to defendant being called to the stand to testify.
You are the one who (erroneously) compared this to a trial.
It was not. It was a disgusting, political circus!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/26/kavanaugh-accuser-christine-ford-releases-results-polygraph-test-but-key-detail-appears-to-contradict-past-statements.html

I don't like fox news but this article is interesting

So maybe a polygraph is more helpful if you're using it to see how someone responds to a particular question.

Asking the murderer who knows he murdered someone with an usual weapon:

Did you kill her with a gun? (No response)
Did you kill her with a knife? (No response)
Did you kill her with a banana? (Off the charts!)


Is that how they are supposed to be used?

I suppose it could also see if she has some response to being asked if she made anything up, but maybe that's not how a polygraph is supposed to work

Sure would be nice if the senate judiciary committee had questioned the person who gave the polygraph! Sure would have been helpful to have the FBI investigation started before they forced the vote!
Only one side is scared of those things. The GOP should be ashamed of themselves.

Her lawyers would NEVER let her be hooked up to an independent polygraph after that testimony. EVER. They will ask many more questions of her.

And Kavanaugh won't let himself take a polygraph - something he himself in his opinions (his WORK PRODUCT) said was a fantastic tool for law enforcement!

If he has to take one, do you believe she should as well? Not one given by her lawyers, but one given by the FBI?

Ford took and passed a very long polygraph test given by a former FBI agent. Of course she'll take one administered by the FBI if necessary, as she's agreed to an FBI investigation, but it's likely they will accept one given by one of their own. They only have a week to finish this investigation.

[Anonymous]

Senate GOP weasels agree to new FBI investigation, whatever that means.

[Anonymous]

Why is it terrifying? The FBI will either clear him or Judge has some remembered info that will not.

[Anonymous]

K is effed, but I predict he'll be confirmed anyway. The GOP wants him in place so badly that they'll just vote him in even if the FBI digs up evidence that he engaged in sexual assault while in high school. The GOP does not care. They want a conservative majority on the high court and will do anything to get it.

[Anonymous]

Mark Judge showed up at his lawyer's office in Washington at 1:25pm as it looked like a deal was being made to delay the vote.

Did he go on his own or did someone who knows more tell him to go?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mark-judge-lawyer-kavanaugh_us_5bae7dd5e4b0343b3dc01248?ei

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Senate GOP weasels agree to new FBI investigation, whatever that means.

Reading comprehension problems, eh, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Senate GOP weasels agree to new FBI investigation, whatever that means.

I love that now that they have agreed to what the Dems have been asking for all day yesterday, the new line is going to be “whatever RHAT means”....bc now that won’t be mouth either!