Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh should take a polygraph, just like Ford did.

Is it okay if it's privately administered, and then he provides those results to the FBI?

Yes. And he should be able to know what the two questions will be ahead of time.

She told her entire story at the polygraph! The "two questions" were asking if any part of it was false or made up. Why don't you actually learn the facts before you spout this nonsense?

Why was "early" crossed out in relation to the 80s? Because she can't even be sure if this happened in 82 or 86!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swetnick's boyfriend of 7 years delivered a scary profile of Swetnick's emotional, psychological challenges...history of false accusations

You mean the guy who sued her and was thrown out of court?

Did anyone else notice the Fox News article said she threatened his wife, his family and to kill ’his’ unborn baby all in one breath? Meaning he was cheating on his wife with her? Their writing was all over the place I couldn't make the timeline. I want the answer to be yes because it would be hilarious /so telling if Fox would take the statement of a cheater to discredit his AP. Family Values.

You didn’t see his interview....
She was essentially stalking him after he broke up with her. She is a loon. She would have to be slightly “off” considering who she hired for her attorney.

Has it been discussed on this forum , that Swetnick's former employer says she falsified having a degree from John Hopkins on her resume and she brought false sexual harassment claims against four of her co-workers?

Yes, and quickly dismissed by the liberals. She seeks the spotlight. This is her 15 minutes of fame before charges for filing false allegations are filed on her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's straw grasping. Kavanaugh is literally quoted responding in the Deborah Ramirez New Yorker article (quote below). I'm not sure what the scandal is that Kavanaugh admitted he'd heard Ramirez was hitting up their mutual friends for dirt to give to the press and Kavanaugh wanted to get in front of it. Unless there's evidence he was directing people to lie to Senate investigators or the FBI, this is just more desperation.


In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote, “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name—and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building—against these last-minute allegations.”

But it isn't straw grasping. Kavanaugh and the GOP knew of this allegation since at least July and sought to bury it. When asked about it, Kavanaugh claimed the first he heard of it was in September, when the New Yorker came out with it. That was an outright lie.

Gosh, where have I heard THIS type of thing before? Hmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First Kavanaugh was an attempted rapist; didn't step down
Then he because a mass rapist; didn't step down
Then the pivot was that he lied under oath; hasn't stepped down

And there are still people who don't see through the playbook.

One of those is not like the other.

Intelligence like this helps me understand how Republicans can support people like Trump and kavanaugh

I think they really do think he lied under oath. They just don’t care.

They don’t care if BK does it. And they won’t care when DJT does. Very scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Alright, looks like the B team has arrived. Are we going to go back and talk about how the music was playing in the room again? Albertsons vs Safeway?

TIRESOME

I hope his nomination gets withdrawn, but I also hope that his house was not actually vandalized. That is unacceptable and I hope the people who did it (if it happened) are brought to justice.

Why should it get withdrawn? None of the accusers have any evidence at all. How would like you like it if someone came out of the blue from 40 yrs ago and made baseless claims against you or one of your male relative just due to political hate for them not being a Democrat. Its sick what the Democrats are doing.

Haven't you been paying attention? Perjury.

He said nothing that perjured himself, he was defending himself from well scripted lies from the left.

The goal is to get him to perjure himself - why do you think the left wants Trump interviewed by FBI so badly? Traps well-set. All you have to do is mis-remember a small detail and there's leverage. But Ford's story is determined to be held together by dust by a well-respected prosecutor, and that's just fine.

“Misremember a small detail”? Have you had you’re head in the sand? Try to catch up if you have any intellectual honesty.

[Anonymous]

^ your

[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.

If you you are not a lawyer--please stop chiming in about privilege. The ignorance from the Grandpas and Grandmas of Facebook Brigade on this thread is stomach churning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brett had trouble back in 2006, the second time Bush nominates him for Court of Appeals. ABA lowered their rating for him then.

“The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.””

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?utm_term=.34824ec86ca9

He had trouble getting confirmed for the Court of Appeals - had to be nominated twice by his Yale fraternity brother, Bush - because of his conduct, including LYING in court.

[Anonymous]

I don't see how they can confirm with all this mounting evidence that he lied under oath. It's not about the sexual assault anymore. That would be a "he said, she said" and it's not possible to make a conclusion. But all these people coming out to say he was a belligerent drunk, in contradiction to his testimony, will bring him down.

I think DJT is thinking about dumping him. Trump doesn't like alcoholics. I think DJT is really mad that he was persuaded by whomever to nominate this guy and *now* it's coming out that the guy had or has drinking issues. DJT is unpredictable, he's not a lock-step, dedicated Republican, he'd sandbag this guy in a second if he's angry.

In the end I think Trump will go by the (foxnews) polls and his personal feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brett had trouble back in 2006, the second time Bush nominates him for Court of Appeals. ABA lowered their rating for him then.

“The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.””

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?utm_term=.34824ec86ca9

He had trouble getting confirmed for the Court of Appeals - had to be nominated twice by his Yale fraternity brother, Bush - because of his conduct, including LYING in court.

The same few papers have been reporting garbage about him for weeks, then having to amend/retract their stories. Why trust a darn thing they say?

[Anonymous]

I don't see how they can confirm with all this mounting evidence that he lied under oath. It's not about the sexual assault anymore. That would be a "he said, she said" and it's not possible to make a conclusion. But all these people coming out to say he was a belligerent drunk, in contradiction to his testimony, will bring him down.

I think DJT is thinking about dumping him. Trump doesn't like alcoholics. I think DJT is really mad that he was persuaded by whomever to nominate this guy and *now* it's coming out that the guy had or has drinking issues. DJT is unpredictable, he's not a lock-step, dedicated Republican, he'd sandbag this guy in a second if he's angry.

In the end I think Trump will go by the (foxnews) polls and his personal feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you you are not a lawyer--please stop chiming in about privilege. The ignorance from the Grandpas and Grandmas of Facebook Brigade on this thread is stomach churning.

That information came from a Constitutional lawyer. You can't release your notes to a newspaper, then turn around and say that those same notes are private and confidential.

[Anonymous]

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

Tonight NBC tells us investigators have or are about to have *documentary evidence* Kavanaugh lied—and *not* on any ancillary point, but on a sex-crime allegation he was so scared about that he was secretly plotting with Yale friends and possibly the White House to block it.

That last point matters—as perjury requires a "purposeful" mental state. How do you show such a mental state in proving a perjury? Well, *text messages showing the perjurer plotting about how to conceal a fact from Congress and others* will do it...like, 100 times out of 100.

This is why Sen. Grassley's staff came out tonight with the insane statement that Kavanaugh's testimony *wasn't* contradicted by these text messages. That is to say, Grassley *knows* the messages prove a perjury but he and his staff are trying to set a false narrative *fast*.

Question -- what is the "insane statement" by Grassley's staff Abramson is referring to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how they can confirm with all this mounting evidence that he lied under oath. It's not about the sexual assault anymore. That would be a "he said, she said" and it's not possible to make a conclusion. But all these people coming out to say he was a belligerent drunk, in contradiction to his testimony, will bring him down.

I think DJT is thinking about dumping him. Trump doesn't like alcoholics. I think DJT is really mad that he was persuaded by whomever to nominate this guy and *now* it's coming out that the guy had or has drinking issues. DJT is unpredictable, he's not a lock-step, dedicated Republican, he'd sandbag this guy in a second if he's angry.

In the end I think Trump will go by the (foxnews) polls and his personal feelings.

1. Lied under oath? According to who? Twitter and the liberal press? Yeah. Good luck with that.
2. Belligerent drunk? Seriously? And, this was never revealed during his 6 FBI background investigations? Again, good luck with that.
3. Alcoholic? LOL - refer to #2

This is pure desperation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brett had trouble back in 2006, the second time Bush nominates him for Court of Appeals. ABA lowered their rating for him then.

“The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.””

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?utm_term=.34824ec86ca9

He had trouble getting confirmed for the Court of Appeals - had to be nominated twice by his Yale fraternity brother, Bush - because of his conduct, including LYING in court.

The same few papers have been reporting garbage about him for weeks, then having to amend/retract their stories. Why trust a darn thing they say?

Did you read it? Which parts of the article are “garbage”?

Here is the 2006 article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801422.html?tid=a_inl_manual