Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To be honest? I could've cared less whether the judge was Kavanaugh or another conservative. The reason I am defending him now is because these tactics on the left cannot stand.

Wow. You must REALLY hate the right if you don’t like “tactics”.

Oh wait. You don’t because you’re a hypocritical, amoral sack o’ poo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not surprising. I would be surprised though if the deplorables woke up one day and decided to have morals. Not happening today. Or any day.

My morality doesn't involve accusing a man of sexual assault, gang rape, alcoholism and pedophilia without fact. I'm damn proud of that, thank you.

A lot of us do not believe he is most of those things (well except an alcoholic, I mean, come ON...) However he is waaaaay too openly partisan to sit on the court. It was a cheap move and McConnell knows it. I’m sorry it turned out this way but if the GOP had picked someone more appropriate I don’t think this would have happened. Oh, and Merrick Garland.

[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.

His college classmates and roommates are saying the FBI never contacted them in any of the previous background checks. You know, the ones the Kavanaugh defenders claim are so exhaustive?

[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.

His college classmates and roommates are saying the FBI never contacted them in any of the previous background checks. You know, the ones the Kavanaugh defenders claim are so exhaustive?

The FBI is beyond reproach!! Damn you traitors who would suggest otherwise.

[Anonymous]

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.

To be fair, he has known about her allegation for 30 years because it happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not surprising. I would be surprised though if the deplorables woke up one day and decided to have morals. Not happening today. Or any day.

My morality doesn't involve accusing a man of sexual assault, gang rape, alcoholism and pedophilia without fact. I'm damn proud of that, thank you.

A lot of us do not believe he is most of those things (well except an alcoholic, I mean, come ON...) However he is waaaaay too openly partisan to sit on the court. It was a cheap move and McConnell knows it. I’m sorry it turned out this way but if the GOP had picked someone more appropriate I don’t think this would have happened. Oh, and Merrick Garland.

Yep, all the partisanship is on the side of the Republicans. We'll just not talk about how only 3 Democrats voted to confirm Gorsuch, who is used as the preferred example of a conservative-leaning judge in these threads.

Look, when we're at the point when an acceptable choice either doesn't come up for a vote (Garland) or gets Democrat in Republican stronghold votes (Gorsuch), it's partisanship all the way down.

[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.

To be fair, he has known about her allegation for 30 years because it happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To be honest? I could've cared less whether the judge was Kavanaugh or another conservative. The reason I am defending him now is because these tactics on the left cannot stand.

Merrick Garland never threw ice at someone in a bar in a drunken stupor.

[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.

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.

But there was ICE involved. ICE! So it all MUST be true. LOL

Yep. It’s all fun and games until someone starts throwing ice! This is a game changer for me. Anyone who throws ice MUST be a sexual assaulter, an alcoholic, and a perjurer!

You guys were apoplectic when somebody threw water at Tomi Lahren. Guess it's no big deal when one of your own does the same thing. Keep up with the hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not surprising. I would be surprised though if the deplorables woke up one day and decided to have morals. Not happening today. Or any day.

My morality doesn't involve accusing a man of sexual assault, gang rape, alcoholism and pedophilia without fact. I'm damn proud of that, thank you.

A lot of us do not believe he is most of those things (well except an alcoholic, I mean, come ON...) However he is waaaaay too openly partisan to sit on the court. It was a cheap move and McConnell knows it. I’m sorry it turned out this way but if the GOP had picked someone more appropriate I don’t think this would have happened. Oh, and Merrick Garland.

Yep, all the partisanship is on the side of the Republicans. We'll just not talk about how only 3 Democrats voted to confirm Gorsuch, who is used as the preferred example of a conservative-leaning judge in these threads.

Look, when we're at the point when an acceptable choice either doesn't come up for a vote (Garland) or gets Democrat in Republican stronghold votes (Gorsuch), it's partisanship all the way down.

So why didn’t they hold a vote for Garland and vote him down along party lines? Because they knew he was qualified and would actually be confirmed and they couldn’t have that. It was different and you know it.

[Anonymous]

If this has not been pointed out already, he is a PATHOLOGICAl liar. That would disqualify any person from any job, it's a terrible character trait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It sounds like the story about Kavanaugh getting drunk, throwing ice on a guy, and getting in a fight might be true:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-bar-fight.html

As an undergraduate student at Yale, Brett M. Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a local bar during which he was accused of throwing ice on another patron, according to a police report.

The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him “for some unknown reason.”

Oh, dear Lord. He threw ice at someone??? That is so disqualifying!!! No way, no how should anyone who has done such an egregious thing be on SCOTUS!!!

Yah I know, anything less than a video of him raping a child should be Okay for a GOP nominated SCJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It sounds like the story about Kavanaugh getting drunk, throwing ice on a guy, and getting in a fight might be true:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-bar-fight.html

As an undergraduate student at Yale, Brett M. Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a local bar during which he was accused of throwing ice on another patron, according to a police report.

The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him “for some unknown reason.”

Oh, dear Lord. He threw ice at someone??? That is so disqualifying!!! No way, no how should anyone who has done such an egregious thing be on SCOTUS!!!

Yah I know, anything less than a video of him raping a child should be Okay for a GOP nominated SCJ.

And even that, as long as it wasn’t recently it’s fine. Because, you know, teenagers.

[Anonymous]

It’s interesting to note, by comparison, Merrick Garland’s yearbook page! https://mobile.twitter.com/MarkZJia/status/1046550315120635904

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It sounds like the story about Kavanaugh getting drunk, throwing ice on a guy, and getting in a fight might be true:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-bar-fight.html

As an undergraduate student at Yale, Brett M. Kavanaugh was involved in an altercation at a local bar during which he was accused of throwing ice on another patron, according to a police report.

The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him “for some unknown reason.”

The horror!! A college-aged man drank and got into a fight?

And lied about it in 2018 under oath, before the Senate Judicial Committee.

Is it a lie if you don't remember it because you were blackout drunk?

It would be lie though to claim you never had blackout!