Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[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I hope his nomination gets withdrawn, but I also hope that his house was not actually vandalized.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Why should it get withdrawn?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.

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?

Stop repeating this lie. Her family answered the phone and said they 100% believe and support their daughter. They don’t wish to be part of the circus. They still have to live near where all this happened and many involved still live.

No, they never said they “believed” here. Here is their statement:

Reached by phone on Tuesday, Ford’s father, Ralph Blasey Jr., offered a brief endorsement of his daughter. “I think all of the Blasey family would support her. I think her record stands for itself. Her schooling, her jobs and so on,” he said before hanging up. Moments later, after picking up the phone a second time, he added: “I think any father would have love for his daughter.”

In fact, their statement screams, “We love her, but can’t say we believe her.”

[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.

They are now and you should come forward. I say this as someone who was inclined to believe her initial sworn statement (and who agrees with your messy lives point) but who would be reassured by the promised but not yet forthcoming corroboration from other witnesses. Avenatti was a fool to let her make that claim if he hadn’t spoken with those people (at which point he’d presumably have discovered one was dead). His client looks less credible now because of apparent overpromising, but that could be remedied if corroborative evidence was produced.

[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?

The douchey jock is micro aggression against men. So no I do not agree on your terminology. I believe he has shown himself to unfit for the bench based on his history of not telling the truth under oath and outright partisanship. No judge would put up with his responses in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And how do you know that? Is that just your feminist world view?

[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.

Vinneccy, who said he dated Swetnick off-and-on for seven years, maintained that Swetnick never once mentioned to him her extraordinary claims, apparently made for the first time last month, that Kavanaugh had engaged in systemic gang rapes decades ago. He said the relationship spanned from 1994 to 2001.

"Never, never once [did] she mention that to me," he told host Laura Ingraham. "We used to talk about everything. She never once mentioned that at all. ... If you ask me personally if I believe her, I don't believe her. I really don't believe her. Nobody knows Julie Swetnick better than me."

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

Guess you know her better vs the boyfriend?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The douchey jock is micro aggression against men. So no I do not agree on your terminology. I believe he has shown himself to unfit for the bench based on his history of not telling the truth under oath and outright partisanship. No judge would put up with his responses in court.

You keep saying this.

When he was in front of the SJC, and all of America, he wasn’t there in his role as a judge. He was there as a human being who had been ridiculously slandered by horrible, false allegations that have destroyed his reputation, his livelihood, and his family. His response was human. Anyone criticizing his anger is not being honest about the impact such false allegations have on one’s life.
It sickens me that the Democrats have stooped to this level. I am certain that relationships within the Senate have been destroyed because of how the Dems have handled this. The Republicans in Congress cannot believe how low they have gone. It’s shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The douchey jock is micro aggression against men. So no I do not agree on your terminology. I believe he has shown himself to unfit for the bench based on his history of not telling the truth under oath and outright partisanship. No judge would put up with his responses in court.

You keep saying this.

When he was in front of the SJC, and all of America, he wasn’t there in his role as a judge. He was there as a human being who had been ridiculously slandered by horrible, false allegations that have destroyed his reputation, his livelihood, and his family. His response was human. Anyone criticizing his anger is not being honest about the impact such false allegations have on one’s life.
It sickens me that the Democrats have stooped to this level. I am certain that relationships within the Senate have been destroyed because of how the Dems have handled this. The Republicans in Congress cannot believe how low they have gone. It’s shameful.

Was Clinton not the President when he angrily lied about not having sexual relations with THAT woman? Come on. Have higher expectation of your most senior public officials no matter the party. He attacked Senator Klobuchar and she kept calm. Try harder.

[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.

They are now and you should come forward. I say this as someone who was inclined to believe her initial sworn statement (and who agrees with your messy lives point) but who would be reassured by the promised but not yet forthcoming corroboration from other witnesses. Avenatti was a fool to let her make that claim if he hadn’t spoken with those people (at which point he’d presumably have discovered one was dead). His client looks less credible now because of apparent overpromising, but that could be remedied if corroborative evidence was produced.

To clarify to other PPs, I don’t think her trauma is because Kavanaugh raped her. She never said that. I think she’s been through a lot. All she said to me 3 years ago, “is I could tell you horrible stories about ...”

[Anonymous]

NBC has “stealthily” edited their story that you all find so damning. Interesting this wasn’t in their first edition of this story.

First version:


Now:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are now and you should come forward. I say this as someone who was inclined to believe her initial sworn statement (and who agrees with your messy lives point) but who would be reassured by the promised but not yet forthcoming corroboration from other witnesses. Avenatti was a fool to let her make that claim if he hadn’t spoken with those people (at which point he’d presumably have discovered one was dead). His client looks less credible now because of apparent overpromising, but that could be remedied if corroborative evidence was produced.

To clarify to other PPs, I don’t think her trauma is because Kavanaugh raped her. She never said that. I think she’s been through a lot. All she said to me 3 years ago, “is I could tell you horrible stories about ...”

Want to add, I don’t think it’s a real investigation. The GOP has decided that Kavanaugh will be on the SCOTUS. They don’t care what anyone says.

[Anonymous]

The lying about when he knew about Ramirez, the photo of them at the wedding, the apparent instigation by Kav of a bar fight, the multiple Yale friends who say he got messed up when he drank - when is e going to care about his own family and current appointment?

[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: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.

He is literally a partisan hack and not a respected jurist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The douchey jock is micro aggression against men. So no I do not agree on your terminology. I believe he has shown himself to unfit for the bench based on his history of not telling the truth under oath and outright partisanship. No judge would put up with his responses in court.

You keep saying this.

When he was in front of the SJC, and all of America, he wasn’t there in his role as a judge. He was there as a human being who had been ridiculously slandered by horrible, false allegations that have destroyed his reputation, his livelihood, and his family. His response was human. Anyone criticizing his anger is not being honest about the impact such false allegations have on one’s life.
It sickens me that the Democrats have stooped to this level. I am certain that relationships within the Senate have been destroyed because of how the Dems have handled this. The Republicans in Congress cannot believe how low they have gone. It’s shameful.

First off I have not said this before. He fell apart under questioning, was hostile to the questions and the questioners(which is rich because he was the lead against bill Clinton), did not answer truthful under oath(the foundation of our system), showed he is an out and out partisan and showed the inability to think and react in a calm rational way. Totally unsuitable for the bench and should be impeached. Would you want to go before him if you were a Democrat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The douchey jock is micro aggression against men. So no I do not agree on your terminology. I believe he has shown himself to unfit for the bench based on his history of not telling the truth under oath and outright partisanship. No judge would put up with his responses in court.

You keep saying this.

When he was in front of the SJC, and all of America, he wasn’t there in his role as a judge. He was there as a human being who had been ridiculously slandered by horrible, false allegations that have destroyed his reputation, his livelihood, and his family. His response was human. Anyone criticizing his anger is not being honest about the impact such false allegations have on one’s life.
It sickens me that the Democrats have stooped to this level. I am certain that relationships within the Senate have been destroyed because of how the Dems have handled this. The Republicans in Congress cannot believe how low they have gone. It’s shameful.

Relationships within the Senate should have been destroyed because of the way Republicans handled Merrick Garland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The lying about when he knew about Ramirez, the photo of them at the wedding, the apparent instigation by Kav of a bar fight, the multiple Yale friends who say he got messed up when he drank - when is e going to care about his own family and current appointment?

Neither he nor Trump care. They are cut from the same cloth.