Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It doesn’t matter if Brett stood up on the table at the hearing and dropped his pants. The GOP - and Trump - have already sold their souls to the devil for this SCOTUS seat. They are ALL IN. No backing out now.

I think the Dems have sold their souls to the devil for this smear campaign.

It's going to be interesting as to how they use the same playbook against a woman.

I’m investing in red capes and white caps. The handmaids will be chockablock in Washington!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sure there are lots and lots and lots of really big big big things

If Kavanaugh said he first heard of Ramirez's accusation after the New Yorker story in Sept. 23rd, and it turns out he knew about it in July and was actively contacting friends from back then to try to get stories straight...

this is a BIG BIG lie. This is a RECENT lie.

If he can't remember accurately what he was doing 6 months ago, that disqualifies him automatically.

This isn't misremembering that 35 years ago there were 5 boys or 4 boys at a party. This is telling a lie specifically to make yourself look better. Specifcally to cover up actions that you took to neutralize an accusation. (or assure yourself there were no witnesses so you could deny the accusations.)

Perjury. Plain and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the Dems have sold their souls to the devil for this smear campaign.

Other way around.

The Republicans have sold their souls repeatedly. Evidence will show that they knew about the allegations against Kavanaugh very early on and ignored it for some reason -- they wanted him on the Supreme Court so desperately they were willing to cover up that they knew about it and didn't care.

Vile and disgusting. Kavanaugh is no choir boy and wasn't back then.

I am so disgusted with the Democrats and the posters here defending this obvious smear campaign that I'm about to lose my breakfast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the Dems have sold their souls to the devil for this smear campaign.

Other way around.

The Republicans have sold their souls repeatedly. Evidence will show that they knew about the allegations against Kavanaugh very early on and ignored it for some reason -- they wanted him on the Supreme Court so desperately they were willing to cover up that they knew about it and didn't care.

Vile and disgusting. Kavanaugh is no choir boy and wasn't back then.

I am so disgusted with the Democrats and the posters here defending this obvious smear campaign that I'm about to lose my breakfast.

It’s not Democrats you should be disgusted at. It’s Kavanaugh himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the Dems have sold their souls to the devil for this smear campaign.

Other way around.

The Republicans have sold their souls repeatedly. Evidence will show that they knew about the allegations against Kavanaugh very early on and ignored it for some reason -- they wanted him on the Supreme Court so desperately they were willing to cover up that they knew about it and didn't care.

Vile and disgusting. Kavanaugh is no choir boy and wasn't back then.

I am so disgusted with the Democrats and the posters here defending this obvious smear campaign that I'm about to lose my breakfast.

Why do posters make stupid hyperbolic comments like this? Reading DCUM makes you throw up? Really? I doubt it. And if it does you should stop, and see a doctor because that’s not normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. Lied under oath? According to who? Twitter and the liberal press? Yeah. Good luck with that.

He said before Congress under oath, "

Kavanaugh told Congress he heard of the Ramirez allegation *after September 23*—when according to NBC, we now have *text messages proving* that that was a lie.

ORRIN HATCH: When did you first hear of [Deborah] Ramirez’s allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story.

(Sept 23)

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett’s guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

….The texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.

The preceeding information can be verified through an FBI investigation of texts, emails and phone records.

If true, Kavanaugh knew about the Ramirez allegation as early as July and therefore life under oath.

Perjury.

Here's the problem with this. There are actual legal allegations and there is catching wind of a rumor and trying to figure out whether or not what you are hearing is true, i.e. that someone is trying to find dirt on you.

From Webster: specifically : a statement by a party to a legal action of what the party undertakes to prove

Kavanaugh is a lawyer and a judge, and was referring to the actual legal definition of allegation when he gave the date.

^^hoo-buddy! you are really grasping at the tiniest straws here with this argument. Come on now, this ludicrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think the Dems have sold their souls to the devil for this smear campaign.

Other way around.

The Republicans have sold their souls repeatedly. Evidence will show that they knew about the allegations against Kavanaugh very early on and ignored it for some reason -- they wanted him on the Supreme Court so desperately they were willing to cover up that they knew about it and didn't care.

Vile and disgusting. Kavanaugh is no choir boy and wasn't back then.

I am so disgusted with the Democrats and the posters here defending this obvious smear campaign that I'm about to lose my breakfast.

Snowflake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Trolls who hate women.

These posts are beneath most trolls, but Trump trolls have no bottom to their moral abyss. Sick, sock people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It doesn’t matter if Brett stood up on the table at the hearing and dropped his pants. The GOP - and Trump - have already sold their souls to the devil for this SCOTUS seat. They are ALL IN. No backing out now.

I think the Dems have sold their souls to the devil for this smear campaign.

It's going to be interesting as to how they use the same playbook against a woman.

They'll come up with something else: someone who saw her selling drugs in high school or being in appropriate with a child. Or wait. I remember seeing her steal a piece of jewelry from a store! I can't remember which store, or when it was, but I am positive it was her.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. Lied under oath? According to who? Twitter and the liberal press? Yeah. Good luck with that.

He said before Congress under oath, "

Kavanaugh told Congress he heard of the Ramirez allegation *after September 23*—when according to NBC, we now have *text messages proving* that that was a lie.

ORRIN HATCH: When did you first hear of [Deborah] Ramirez’s allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story.

(Sept 23)

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett’s guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

….The texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.

The preceeding information can be verified through an FBI investigation of texts, emails and phone records.

If true, Kavanaugh knew about the Ramirez allegation as early as July and therefore life under oath.

Perjury.

Here's the problem with this. There are actual legal allegations and there is catching wind of a rumor and trying to figure out whether or not what you are hearing is true, i.e. that someone is trying to find dirt on you.

From Webster: specifically : a statement by a party to a legal action of what the party undertakes to prove

Kavanaugh is a lawyer and a judge, and was referring to the actual legal definition of allegation when he gave the date.

^^hoo-buddy! you are really grasping at the tiniest straws here with this argument. Come on now, this ludicrous.

Plus a million. What liars we have here in the Brett or Bust Club! And they lie with such confidence. Or shamelessness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The WaPo and other papers have twisted fact to the degree that reading anything is simply of no never mind. I know an attack when I see one.

Frankly? After that political cartoon about his daughter, any shred of credibility re: Democrats is gone.

LOL. You don’t to face the face that this guy isn’t SCOTUS material so you try to divert with the cartoon. Funny. Enjoy life with your head in the sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Belligerent drunk - did you see the article about the bar fight? There is a police report.
Did you note the statements of former roommates and classmates who indicate he was a belligerent drunk?
The lies? Not going to waste my time retyping them all here. There are plenty of articles out there now dissecting that. https://www.gq.com/story/all-of-brett-kavanaughs-lies

Bart O Kavanaugh has a long, documented history of having a drinking problem, and the evidence is mounting by the day. President Trump said yesterday the guy has a drinking problem. Did you see the President's remarks? https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/donald-trump-brett-kavanaugh-drinking/index.html


Look, I come from a long line of Irish alcoholics. We are all smart, respectable, hard working accomplished people, and alcoholism runs in our family. It is possible to go to Yale, be very educated and accomplshed, by a nice person and a good parent and *still* have a drinking problem. Alcoholism is the curse of the Irish. That and small penises. https://alcohol.addictionblog.org/why-do-irish-people-drink-a-lot/

ICE!! OMG, HE THREW ICE! Talk to me about the arrest record, not a police report that states he simply threw ice at a guy who was rude to him in a bar.

Speculation isn't becoming. Especially when it's speculation about the size of someone's member. New low, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You’re good at writing fiction. You should work for DJT!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sure there are lots and lots and lots of really big big big things

You wouldn’t care one way or the other. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm sure there are lots and lots and lots of really big big big things

You wouldn’t care one way or the other. Disgusting.

Not really