Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

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

Love it!
Thanks for sharing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope. He gave testimony that he knew she was calling around to get dirt on him. He did not know what the allegation was until it was published in The New Yorker. This is documented.

[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.

Trump specifically wanted him because he will be helpful with Mueller. Neither the Federalist Society nor McConnell wanted him. At this point, they are in too deep though.

I think that is overplayed. How do the other judges view presidential power? I have no idea. It is an honest question. All the judges have to rule on the case. If Brett's opinion is going to matter, it would have to be shared by 4 other judges.

[Anonymous]

To be a good judge…it’s important to have the proper demeanor…. To keep our emotions in check. To be calm amidst the storm…demonstrate civility…avoid any semblance of…partisanship.”

-B. Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh fails his own test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Nope. He gave testimony that he knew she was calling around to get dirt on him. He did not know what the allegation was until it was published in The New Yorker. This is documented.

It is still witness tampering. I guess you are okay with that?

[Anonymous]

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

But but boys will be boys.

[Anonymous]

“False exculpatory statements are evidence–often strong evidence–of guilt.”

-Brett Kavanaugh

[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.

Are you also a member of the Ralph Club due to your weak stomach? How unfortunate for you. And Bart.

[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.

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.

I’ve had alcohol. I’ve gotten drunk. I’ve never thrown anything at anyone, let alone a stranger, let alone in public. Are you serious in acting like Brett’s conduct was normal? Are you serious in acting like in interviews and testimony, Brett hasn’t acted like he never got wasted enough to act like that? Brawling Brett is worth that much to you, when even the Federaliat Society president thinks all 20+ justices are equally good for their purposes?

What am I missing? Please help!

I think even being mentioned in a police report should be an automatic DQ. Between this, trying to tamper with potential witnesses, going on a boys trip where you can't even tell the spouses what happened, who IS this person? What a morally repugnant person. Get someone else whose opinion I may not agree with, but who I won't be ashamed to talk about when teaching kids about members of the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Love it!
Thanks for sharing

Where is Dr. Ford's? oh they scrubbed it, I wonder why.

Difference: she didn’t perjure herself about the contents. Brett did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Love it!
Thanks for sharing

Freaking overachiever.

[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.

So you're saying that if your daughter or best friend came to you and told you they'd been assaulted by a man, but had no "fact" to back it up beyond their tears and their memory of it, you'd toss them out with a shrug? Wow.

[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.

So you're saying that if your daughter or best friend came to you and told you they'd been assaulted by a man, but had no "fact" to back it up beyond their tears and their memory of it, you'd toss them out with a shrug? Wow.

That is just stupid. Someone you know very, very well telling you something is very different than taking the word of someone you don't know at all. Duke and UVA false accusations show why you can't blindly believe just anyone without corroborating evidence.

Why doesn't her family support her? Is everyone else supposed to believe and support her when her own family does not? Why were they not in the court room?

[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 agree.

And the GOP will lay for the sins of these old white men.

They will lay in November and they will lay in the years ahead when they are replaced by young women who won’t put up with their misogyny and their dirty tricks and their candidates and nominees who sexually abuse women.

The GOP should be very afraid. There will be political consequences for supporting a man who abuses women.

If your last sentence is true how do you explain the sitting POTUS?

Do you think the Blue Wave isn't coming?

I don't. I think it will be the day after election all over again with Democrats asking "what happened". People keep telling you that the Democrats pushed this thing too far, but you don't want to hear it

[Anonymous]

So you're saying that if your daughter or best friend came to you and told you they'd been assaulted by a man, but had no "fact" to back it up beyond their tears and their memory of it, you'd toss them out with a shrug? Wow.

DP here. If it were 36 years later, I would question the memory. If it were this morning, I would have her report it. If it were my friend who constantly exaggerates stories (not a best friend), I would ask a lot more questions.

What do Ford and Ramirez have in common? Uncertain memories. And, Resistance activities.