Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, your description of “Resistance activities” is creepy and authoritarian. We have First Amendment speech and assembly rights, as much as that bothers you.

Are you as bothered by the seemingly irrefutable evidence that Brett lied and tried to create a false story about what he did to Debbie aorez? Does perjury bother you as much as peaceful, lawful, marching?

Please cite where he lied.

He said he drank too much. He said he didn't blackout.

Did you read The New Yorker story? It was not corroborated at all. NYT refused to run the story. It was basically her accusation.

And, yes, perjury bothers me. And, just because Ford comes across as pitiful, does not mean she did not commit perjury. At first, I thought she believed what she was saying. After reading the holes in her story, I'm not so sure--especially where she crossed out "early" in "early 1980s" for the polygraph. Remember, her first story to the therapist was that she was in her "late teens." The floor plan of the party house has changed, the number of people at the party has changed, and the number of the people in the room has changed. We never heard about the Safeway incident until her testimony--and, that could be bogus, too.

As for Ramirez story--Kavanaugh testified that he knew she was calling around for dirt on him. That is different from knowing what her allegation was. Not perjury.

And, the Swetnick story is absolutely insane. It has changed and it is horrible. She has a very dubious and litigious background. One thing that she said yesterday when asked how she knew he went to Georgetown Prep was to say they wore their uniforms. Which is interesting, since the "uniform" was coat and tie. (Yes, I looked at the yearbook.) Her story is a waste of time for the FBI.

I inadvertently heard part of this on the radio. What she was referring to was sports uniforms. They apparently loved to parade around in GP gear. Not surprising or inconsistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So if multiple FBI background checks would have already found everything about Kavanaugh, why didn’t we know the police were called because of a bar fight he started?

Because when there are federal background checks and you (the person being investigated) identify people for the FBI to talk to, you do not identify people that were with you when you got into a bar fight. You identify good friends who know better than to talk about the bar fight or refer the FBI agent to someone that was there for the bar fight.

I never got into a bar fight, but I certainly was thoughtful about who I put on the list for the investigators to talk to. I have both had background investigations and spoken to the FBI re someone else's background investigation, as I suspect many in DC have. This is not surprising.

Oh, I know that, don't get me wrong. But he Kavanaugh defenders including Trump continue to cite these 5,6, 7 background checks as some sort of panacea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, your description of “Resistance activities” is creepy and authoritarian. We have First Amendment speech and assembly rights, as much as that bothers you.

Are you as bothered by the seemingly irrefutable evidence that Brett lied and tried to create a false story about what he did to Debbie aorez? Does perjury bother you as much as peaceful, lawful, marching?

Please cite where he lied.

He said he drank too much. He said he didn't blackout.

Did you read The New Yorker story? It was not corroborated at all. NYT refused to run the story. It was basically her accusation.

And, yes, perjury bothers me. And, just because Ford comes across as pitiful, does not mean she did not commit perjury. At first, I thought she believed what she was saying. After reading the holes in her story, I'm not so sure--especially where she crossed out "early" in "early 1980s" for the polygraph. Remember, her first story to the therapist was that she was in her "late teens." The floor plan of the party house has changed, the number of people at the party has changed, and the number of the people in the room has changed. We never heard about the Safeway incident until her testimony--and, that could be bogus, too.

As for Ramirez story--Kavanaugh testified that he knew she was calling around for dirt on him. That is different from knowing what her allegation was. Not perjury.

And, the Swetnick story is absolutely insane. It has changed and it is horrible. She has a very dubious and litigious background. One thing that she said yesterday when asked how she knew he went to Georgetown Prep was to say they wore their uniforms. Which is interesting, since the "uniform" was coat and tie. (Yes, I looked at the yearbook.) Her story is a waste of time for the FBI.

You lie like it’s your cardio.

Two SEPARATE friends are on record with NBC that Brett’s team was in touch in July regarding Ramirez. Two months before the unimpeachable Farrow and Mayer story in The New Yorker. No retraction, correction, or emendation from the publication. Please address this calmly and without falsehood.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna915566


One of the now multiple accounts regarding Brett lying about drinking.

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/yale-classmate-says-kavanaugh-has-not-told-the-truth-about-his-drinking


Lying doesn’t mean you bested someone else, not that you won an argument. Now deep breaths, and try to stop lying. Do your best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, your description of “Resistance activities” is creepy and authoritarian. We have First Amendment speech and assembly rights, as much as that bothers you.

Are you as bothered by the seemingly irrefutable evidence that Brett lied and tried to create a false story about what he did to Debbie aorez? Does perjury bother you as much as peaceful, lawful, marching?

Please cite where he lied.

He said he drank too much. He said he didn't blackout.

Did you read The New Yorker story? It was not corroborated at all. NYT refused to run the story. It was basically her accusation.

And, yes, perjury bothers me. And, just because Ford comes across as pitiful, does not mean she did not commit perjury. At first, I thought she believed what she was saying. After reading the holes in her story, I'm not so sure--especially where she crossed out "early" in "early 1980s" for the polygraph. Remember, her first story to the therapist was that she was in her "late teens." The floor plan of the party house has changed, the number of people at the party has changed, and the number of the people in the room has changed. We never heard about the Safeway incident until her testimony--and, that could be bogus, too.

As for Ramirez story--Kavanaugh testified that he knew she was calling around for dirt on him. That is different from knowing what her allegation was. Not perjury.

And, the Swetnick story is absolutely insane. It has changed and it is horrible. She has a very dubious and litigious background. One thing that she said yesterday when asked how she knew he went to Georgetown Prep was to say they wore their uniforms. Which is interesting, since the "uniform" was coat and tie. (Yes, I looked at the yearbook.) Her story is a waste of time for the FBI.

They aren’t investigating her case. As I have repeatedly posted here, she mentioned it 3 years ago to me. Also victims of trauma can have messy lives due to the trauma.

She did not accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her. She said that she saw him in line to rape other women. No one is corroborating her story that these things actually happened. Until one of the victims alleged by Swetnick comes out and actually accuses Kavanaugh what is there to investigate?

[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:

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?

You are just lying. They have said they support her. Just because she isn't parading them in front of you for "credibility," or talking about them doesn't mean what you are lying about is true. LIARS, all of you Dumpy trolls.

Christine Blasey Ford didn’t shove her husband and sons behind her to prove she has largely excellent relationships with boys and men and thus no incentive to lie.

Brett Kavanaugh....um.

Yes, Brett has no problem using a whole team of girls for his own benefit. Instead of protecting his friends and family, he uses them. Fits with the character descriptions from his younger years.

Descriptions of his younger years by feminists who are political activists? You can not expect people to believe you if you site witnesses who are dead, do not know you and/or dispute your account. The charges were taken seriously and investigated. Now your witnesses do not back up your claim. This seems like UVA all over again. I image in your world UVA did happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, your description of “Resistance activities” is creepy and authoritarian. We have First Amendment speech and assembly rights, as much as that bothers you.

Are you as bothered by the seemingly irrefutable evidence that Brett lied and tried to create a false story about what he did to Debbie aorez? Does perjury bother you as much as peaceful, lawful, marching?

Please cite where he lied.

He said he drank too much. He said he didn't blackout.

Did you read The New Yorker story? It was not corroborated at all. NYT refused to run the story. It was basically her accusation.

And, yes, perjury bothers me. And, just because Ford comes across as pitiful, does not mean she did not commit perjury. At first, I thought she believed what she was saying. After reading the holes in her story, I'm not so sure--especially where she crossed out "early" in "early 1980s" for the polygraph. Remember, her first story to the therapist was that she was in her "late teens." The floor plan of the party house has changed, the number of people at the party has changed, and the number of the people in the room has changed. We never heard about the Safeway incident until her testimony--and, that could be bogus, too.

As for Ramirez story--Kavanaugh testified that he knew she was calling around for dirt on him. That is different from knowing what her allegation was. Not perjury.

And, the Swetnick story is absolutely insane. It has changed and it is horrible. She has a very dubious and litigious background. One thing that she said yesterday when asked how she knew he went to Georgetown Prep was to say they wore their uniforms. Which is interesting, since the "uniform" was coat and tie. (Yes, I looked at the yearbook.) Her story is a waste of time for the FBI.

They aren’t investigating her case. As I have repeatedly posted here, she mentioned it 3 years ago to me. Also victims of trauma can have messy lives due to the trauma.

She did not accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her. She said that she saw him in line to rape other women. No one is corroborating her story that these things actually happened. Until one of the victims alleged by Swetnick comes out and actually accuses Kavanaugh what is there to investigate?

She claims to have filed a police report at the time. Let's see if they can dig it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, your description of “Resistance activities” is creepy and authoritarian. We have First Amendment speech and assembly rights, as much as that bothers you.

Are you as bothered by the seemingly irrefutable evidence that Brett lied and tried to create a false story about what he did to Debbie aorez? Does perjury bother you as much as peaceful, lawful, marching?

Please cite where he lied.

He said he drank too much. He said he didn't blackout.

Did you read The New Yorker story? It was not corroborated at all. NYT refused to run the story. It was basically her accusation.

And, yes, perjury bothers me. And, just because Ford comes across as pitiful, does not mean she did not commit perjury. At first, I thought she believed what she was saying. After reading the holes in her story, I'm not so sure--especially where she crossed out "early" in "early 1980s" for the polygraph. Remember, her first story to the therapist was that she was in her "late teens." The floor plan of the party house has changed, the number of people at the party has changed, and the number of the people in the room has changed. We never heard about the Safeway incident until her testimony--and, that could be bogus, too.

As for Ramirez story--Kavanaugh testified that he knew she was calling around for dirt on him. That is different from knowing what her allegation was. Not perjury.

And, the Swetnick story is absolutely insane. It has changed and it is horrible. She has a very dubious and litigious background. One thing that she said yesterday when asked how she knew he went to Georgetown Prep was to say they wore their uniforms. Which is interesting, since the "uniform" was coat and tie. (Yes, I looked at the yearbook.) Her story is a waste of time for the FBI.

They aren’t investigating her case. As I have repeatedly posted here, she mentioned it 3 years ago to me. Also victims of trauma can have messy lives due to the trauma.

You might want to contact the FBI then. Because all her other “witnesses” have fallen apart. Seems her story has fallen apart too. What she related in her interview was different then what she wrote in her official complaint.

Seems you might be the ONLY one to provide any kind of corroboration. Good luck with that. She is simply not credible. She comes across as an attention getter and a liar.
I only hope charges are filed against her and her “lovely” attorney for filing false charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, your description of “Resistance activities” is creepy and authoritarian. We have First Amendment speech and assembly rights, as much as that bothers you.

Are you as bothered by the seemingly irrefutable evidence that Brett lied and tried to create a false story about what he did to Debbie aorez? Does perjury bother you as much as peaceful, lawful, marching?

Please cite where he lied.

He said he drank too much. He said he didn't blackout.

Did you read The New Yorker story? It was not corroborated at all. NYT refused to run the story. It was basically her accusation.

And, yes, perjury bothers me. And, just because Ford comes across as pitiful, does not mean she did not commit perjury. At first, I thought she believed what she was saying. After reading the holes in her story, I'm not so sure--especially where she crossed out "early" in "early 1980s" for the polygraph. Remember, her first story to the therapist was that she was in her "late teens." The floor plan of the party house has changed, the number of people at the party has changed, and the number of the people in the room has changed. We never heard about the Safeway incident until her testimony--and, that could be bogus, too.

As for Ramirez story--Kavanaugh testified that he knew she was calling around for dirt on him. That is different from knowing what her allegation was. Not perjury.

And, the Swetnick story is absolutely insane. It has changed and it is horrible. She has a very dubious and litigious background. One thing that she said yesterday when asked how she knew he went to Georgetown Prep was to say they wore their uniforms. Which is interesting, since the "uniform" was coat and tie. (Yes, I looked at the yearbook.) Her story is a waste of time for the FBI.

They aren’t investigating her case. As I have repeatedly posted here, she mentioned it 3 years ago to me. Also victims of trauma can have messy lives due to the trauma.

You might want to contact the FBI then. Because all her other “witnesses” have fallen apart. Seems her story has fallen apart too. What she related in her interview was different then what she wrote in her official complaint.

Seems you might be the ONLY one to provide any kind of corroboration. Good luck with that. She is simply not credible. She comes across as an attention getter and a liar.
I only hope charges are filed against her and her “lovely” attorney for filing false charges.

So much animosity towards the "lovely" attorney. How about showing the same love for the President, who had sex with the porn star, lied about it and illegally paid money to cover it up. I mean, it looks like Eric Trump is in the barrel now for his activities related to this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, your description of “Resistance activities” is creepy and authoritarian. We have First Amendment speech and assembly rights, as much as that bothers you.

Are you as bothered by the seemingly irrefutable evidence that Brett lied and tried to create a false story about what he did to Debbie aorez? Does perjury bother you as much as peaceful, lawful, marching?

Please cite where he lied.

He said he drank too much. He said he didn't blackout.

Did you read The New Yorker story? It was not corroborated at all. NYT refused to run the story. It was basically her accusation.

And, yes, perjury bothers me. And, just because Ford comes across as pitiful, does not mean she did not commit perjury. At first, I thought she believed what she was saying. After reading the holes in her story, I'm not so sure--especially where she crossed out "early" in "early 1980s" for the polygraph. Remember, her first story to the therapist was that she was in her "late teens." The floor plan of the party house has changed, the number of people at the party has changed, and the number of the people in the room has changed. We never heard about the Safeway incident until her testimony--and, that could be bogus, too.

As for Ramirez story--Kavanaugh testified that he knew she was calling around for dirt on him. That is different from knowing what her allegation was. Not perjury.

And, the Swetnick story is absolutely insane. It has changed and it is horrible. She has a very dubious and litigious background. One thing that she said yesterday when asked how she knew he went to Georgetown Prep was to say they wore their uniforms. Which is interesting, since the "uniform" was coat and tie. (Yes, I looked at the yearbook.) Her story is a waste of time for the FBI.

They aren’t investigating her case. As I have repeatedly posted here, she mentioned it 3 years ago to me. Also victims of trauma can have messy lives due to the trauma.

She did not accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her. She said that she saw him in line to rape other women. No one is corroborating her story that these things actually happened. Until one of the victims alleged by Swetnick comes out and actually accuses Kavanaugh what is there to investigate?

Think she did accuse him of raping her(her story changes a lot). Also of spiking/making a punch bowl(highschool kid do not do punch bowls that is a stereotypical frat thing). Now he was just hanging around the punch bowl and hanging around a party with other boys(who must have been raping girls because you know they are boys). Keep pushing this woman’s story and it will take down Ford credibility.

[Anonymous]

Can we all just agree that Kavanaugh was that stereotypical douchey horndog jock and he did awful lot to conceal or fudge his words during the testimony resulting him coming off overly defensive?

[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.

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.

See the conservatives behave differently, they nominate him to SC.

[Anonymous]

Right after I broke up with her, she basically called me many times and at one point she basically said, 'You will never, ever see your unborn child alive,'" Richard Vinneccy said on "The Ingraham Angle."

According to Vinneccy, Swetnick told him at the time, 'I'm just going to go over there and kill you guys.'"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-boyfriend-says-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-threatened-to-kill-his-unborn-child-was-exaggerating-everything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we all just agree that Kavanaugh was that stereotypical douchey horndog jock and he did awful lot to conceal or fudge his words during the testimony resulting him coming off overly defensive?

I wouldn't go with "horndog." Having sex wasn't his goal when he was abusing women -- rather, he was using women as a prop to impress his friends.

[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

For that matter the GOP can also compare even Neil Gorsuch's yearbook if they want:

[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:

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.

They could have, but they decided to be partisan and not let him out of committee.
Just like all but 3 of the Democrats decided to be partisan and not vote to confirm Gorsuch even though they knew he was a good candidate.
Just like Trump decided to pick Kavanaugh instead of a less partisan choice.
Just like Feinstein decided to wait until the very last second to play her final card.

Partisanship all the way down. From all of them.