Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else troubled by the fact that a PROSECUTOR is picking apart a crime victim and seemingly giving cover to an alleged perpetrator? I suppose it’s not a big deal, but it bugs me. If I were assaulted in Maricopa County next week, I’d feel especially vulnerable thinking she was the one who was supposed to get justice for me.

She was hired to stand in for the Republicans since the Dems made a big issue about the old white men stuff. So of course she's speaking for them. She's not acting as a prosecutor. Her job was to discredit Ford, just as the Dems tried to discredit (I'd say humiliate) Kavanaugh.

He humiliated himself. He knew darn well every little skeleton comes out to dance and he went forward anyway.

Because of drinking in high school? Please. You know there's no evidence of Ford's accusation so you've reduced this to talk of high school boys' antics 40 years ago. He's led an exemplary life for decades and has passed six FBI investigations. Democrats are grasping at straws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the Republicans were big on impeachment for lying under oath. Which they should be. Well, Kavanaugh lied under oath. So, where is the outrage?

I'm a republican leaning independent. I believe he lied under oath and am outraged. I believe that this precludes him from consideration for the supreme court. I do not think he assaulted Christine Ford and believe she is probably lying.

This is why the process is a National Disgrace filled with political hacks. Kavanaugh is the most experienced justice that has ever been nominated with over 300 opinions. After conducting coordinated character assassination with the liberal media and watching it boomerang, resisters are now trying to go to the "temperment" argument, or "outrage" claiming that he "lied under oath" about his high school yearbook. Get out of the gutter people! The Dems were opposed minutes after the nomination was announced - this is a total SCAM.

Merrick Garland has much more experience than Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else troubled by the fact that a PROSECUTOR is picking apart a crime victim and seemingly giving cover to an alleged perpetrator? I suppose it’s not a big deal, but it bugs me. If I were assaulted in Maricopa County next week, I’d feel especially vulnerable thinking she was the one who was supposed to get justice for me.

I had the same thought, and I’m shocked she even agreed to do it.

It was a terrible move but she may have plans to transition in to politics and go up for election.

So, the GOP hired someone who prosecutes--which means that she prosecutes the perpetrator, not the victim--and, you think that is a problem?

Read what she wrote. I was wondering if someone would point out the inconsistencies in her testimony and earlier statements. The one she did not point out, but which is interesting to me was the stairwell:
statement to Feinstein: "short" stairwell.
statement on polygraph: "small" stairwell.
statement in testimony: "narrow" stairwell.

For those not following, it appears they were trying to shift the residence, maybe from a "split level" to a "townhouse" because of a party listed on Kavanaugh's calendar?

But to me:
what 15 year old would not tell a friend--this did not end in a rape where shame might keep you from telling.
What 15 year old leaves without her purse? Did she go to the party empty handed.

She said she had one beer. Where did she drink it?

But, the absolute worst was the apparent behavior of the lawyers: 1. Implying that she would drive to DC 2. Not realizing that the committee would have come to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else troubled by the fact that a PROSECUTOR is picking apart a crime victim and seemingly giving cover to an alleged perpetrator? I suppose it’s not a big deal, but it bugs me. If I were assaulted in Maricopa County next week, I’d feel especially vulnerable thinking she was the one who was supposed to get justice for me.

She was hired to stand in for the Republicans since the Dems made a big issue about the old white men stuff. So of course she's speaking for them. She's not acting as a prosecutor. Her job was to discredit Ford, just as the Dems tried to discredit (I'd say humiliate) Kavanaugh.

He humiliated himself. He knew darn well every little skeleton comes out to dance and he went forward anyway.

Because of drinking in high school? Please. You know there's no evidence of Ford's accusation so you've reduced this to talk of high school boys' antics 40 years ago. He's led an exemplary life for decades and has passed six FBI investigations. Democrats are grasping at straws.

LYING ABOUT DRINKING IN HIGH SCHOOL.

[Anonymous]

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.

She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility.

Words have meaning, bub.

How many dozen women ON THIS SITE have said that something very similar to what Dr Ford describes happened to them? So it doesn’t stretch all plausibility in the slightest. You’re just determined not to believe her.

It stretches plausibility that she ran out of the house, somehow got home seven miles away, but conveniently doesn't remember how she got home. It stretches plausibility that she didn't have a conversation with her lifelong best friend who was supposedly at the party with her as to why she suddenly left early and how she managed to get home.

When something similar happened to me, I don't remember how I got home. I remember the boys kicking me out of the car, and then I remember walking into the kitchen at home and trying to act natural in front of my mom.

Oh yes. Teen age girls are masters of not sharing when they don't want too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not you believe Ford or Kavanaugh (and this isn't a criminal investigation - despite the memo from the Republicans hired prosecutor), his performance last week clearly shows he's of an unfit temperament to be a SC justice. He lied about numerous things under oath - grandpa went to Yale so yes, he did have legacy status, Devil's Triangle and boofing, drinking in college and so on.

Furthermore, those of us that grew up with alcoholic parents see right through his boastful claims, lies, deep anger and rage and his narcissism stemming from both his personality and his UMC entitlement.

+1.

Did you go to GP and hang out with Kavanaugh and his friends? You have no idea what they meant when they said devil's triangles and booting.

[Anonymous]

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.

She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility.

Words have meaning, bub.

How many dozen women ON THIS SITE have said that something very similar to what Dr Ford describes happened to them? So it doesn’t stretch all plausibility in the slightest. You’re just determined not to believe her.

It stretches plausibility that she ran out of the house, somehow got home seven miles away, but conveniently doesn't remember how she got home. It stretches plausibility that she didn't have a conversation with her lifelong best friend who was supposedly at the party with her as to why she suddenly left early and how she managed to get home.

When something similar happened to me, I don't remember how I got home. I remember the boys kicking me out of the car, and then I remember walking into the kitchen at home and trying to act natural in front of my mom.

I am sorry that happened to you.

I was in 4th or 5th grade and not remembering exactly when it happened or what happened before or after does not mean it did not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else troubled by the fact that a PROSECUTOR is picking apart a crime victim and seemingly giving cover to an alleged perpetrator? I suppose it’s not a big deal, but it bugs me. If I were assaulted in Maricopa County next week, I’d feel especially vulnerable thinking she was the one who was supposed to get justice for me.

I had the same thought, and I’m shocked she even agreed to do it.

Just to clarify... Here is some info about Rachel Mitchell...

Rachel Mitchell, the deputy Maricopa County attorney expected to have a major role in a hearing featuring Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, is described by those who know her as a fair-minded attorney who has made it her life's work to bring to justice those accused of sex crimes.

Her role in the proceedings was announced late Tuesday by U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. Mitchell will serve as Republican members’ nomination investigative counsel.

In her role as a lead questioner of Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford, and Kavanaugh himself, Mitchell's questioning of Ford will be intensely scrutinized.

It could test the reputation she has cultivated as an impartial prosecutor who seeks only the truth.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2018/09/26/rachel-mitchell-arizona-prosecutor-who-question-christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/1432244002/

In other words, she is a prosecutor who has spent her career prosecuting those accused of sex crimes. The GOP was taking a risk having her come in. In a courtroom, she would be the one going after Kavanaugh.
When a prosecutor determines whether to take a case to court, they look at the evidence they have. In this situation, she is saying that based on the information to which Dr. Ford testified, she would not take it to court.
So, it is her job to “pick apart” a victim’s statement. I don’t understand why you people don’t get this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not you believe Ford or Kavanaugh (and this isn't a criminal investigation - despite the memo from the Republicans hired prosecutor), his performance last week clearly shows he's of an unfit temperament to be a SC justice. He lied about numerous things under oath - grandpa went to Yale so yes, he did have legacy status, Devil's Triangle and boofing, drinking in college and so on.

Furthermore, those of us that grew up with alcoholic parents see right through his boastful claims, lies, deep anger and rage and his narcissism stemming from both his personality and his UMC entitlement.

+1.

Did you go to GP and hang out with Kavanaugh and his friends? You have no idea what they meant when they said devil's triangles and booting.

If you are male and grew up in Bethesda in the early 1980's, even if you didn't hang out with Kavanaugh, you understood what these terms meant, and it wasn't what Kavanaugh claimed under oath.

[Anonymous]

Hais practiced lies to those year book questions were really disturbing. Too slick. Yuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

So you are literally attacking a rape victim by how she dresses and does her hair for something that is going to be televised all over the world? I usually wear jeans with paint on them, tshirts so faded you can't even read them, and only wear makeup when I have a meeting or a party (so maybe once a month) - if I were in this position I would not show to the senate judiciary hearing looking like I usually do.

Way to attack the victim there. Pat yourself on the back.

She's not a rape victim.

She was sexually assaulted and thought she was going to be killed.

That is not rape

[Anonymous]

My last post on this thread for a while

The detailed current affairs article that lays out all of Kavanaugh's lies was not written by some crazy liberal

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

Nathan J. Robinson is also the author of "Superpredator: Bill Clinton's Use and Abuse of Black America"

BK's lies under oath alone disqualify him for the job

[Anonymous]

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.

She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility.

Words have meaning, bub.

How many dozen women ON THIS SITE have said that something very similar to what Dr Ford describes happened to them? So it doesn’t stretch all plausibility in the slightest. You’re just determined not to believe her.

It stretches plausibility that she ran out of the house, somehow got home seven miles away, but conveniently doesn't remember how she got home. It stretches plausibility that she didn't have a conversation with her lifelong best friend who was supposedly at the party with her as to why she suddenly left early and how she managed to get home.

When something similar happened to me, I don't remember how I got home. I remember the boys kicking me out of the car, and then I remember walking into the kitchen at home and trying to act natural in front of my mom.

I am sorry that happened to you.

I was in 4th or 5th grade and not remembering exactly when it happened or what happened before or after does not mean it did not happen.

She would have had to have someone drive her the seven miles home. There were no cell phones. It wasn't anyone at the gathering with her because she says she ran out of the house without telling anyone. She would have had to put considerable effort into finding someone to give her a ride home. This person would be a key witness since he or she would be able to attest to her demeanor at the time. But conveniently, Christine Ford says she doesn't know how she got home from the party?

[Anonymous]

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.

She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility.

Words have meaning, bub.

How many dozen women ON THIS SITE have said that something very similar to what Dr Ford describes happened to them? So it doesn’t stretch all plausibility in the slightest. You’re just determined not to believe her.

It stretches plausibility that she ran out of the house, somehow got home seven miles away, but conveniently doesn't remember how she got home. It stretches plausibility that she didn't have a conversation with her lifelong best friend who was supposedly at the party with her as to why she suddenly left early and how she managed to get home.

When something similar happened to me, I don't remember how I got home. I remember the boys kicking me out of the car, and then I remember walking into the kitchen at home and trying to act natural in front of my mom.

I am sorry that happened to you.

I was in 4th or 5th grade and not remembering exactly when it happened or what happened before or after does not mean it did not happen.

She would have had to have someone drive her the seven miles home. There were no cell phones. It wasn't anyone at the gathering with her because she says she ran out of the house without telling anyone. She would have had to put considerable effort into finding someone to give her a ride home. This person would be a key witness since he or she would be able to attest to her demeanor at the time. But conveniently, Christine Ford says she doesn't know how she got home from the party?

Wasn't it walking distance from her club where she had just been swimming that day? Not so hard to believe she just walked back to the club. Not really memorable either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My last post on this thread for a while

The detailed current affairs article that lays out all of Kavanaugh's lies was not written by some crazy liberal

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

Nathan J. Robinson is also the author of "Superpredator: Bill Clinton's Use and Abuse of Black America"

BK's lies under oath alone disqualify him for the job

Those lies were very disquieting.