Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[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.

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?

Unlike him I know what Julie told me. Not sure why you feel the need to discount my experience. I’m not here to say she doesn’t have other issues. Two things can be true. She can be problematic and also have made this claim three years ago,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People have given up a lot more than him to serve the country. And no one made him come to the hearing. He's always free to step down and not make this sacrifice. He will go back to a cushy job. The victim mentality here doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Did Trump pick Kavanaugh to further divide the country? Because it’s working. Most women I know are triggered and most men are angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People have given up a lot more than him to serve the country. And no one made him come to the hearing. He's always free to step down and not make this sacrifice. He will go back to a cushy job. The victim mentality here doesn't make sense.

Brett had sacrificed nothing but his dignity and his family.

[Anonymous]

My accountant, who grew up in Bethesda and worked at the Spencer's in White Flint Mall, says she remembers Kavanaugh when he was attending Georgetown Prep. She recalls that he once came into the store with several other young men, and milled around for a bit, then spent a lot of time looking at posters of pin-ups and semi-nude women.

What's that tell you ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When everyone's playing the partisan game, why would you expect anything else?
If choosing a respected jurist gets you only 3 votes from the other party, why not go all in?

I'd argue you don't go all in because your goal is to seat the best justice you can for the country. But clearly neither the Democrats or the Republicans give a crap about the country, what with refusing to vote on, and refusing to confirm good, qualified candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did Trump pick Kavanaugh to further divide the country? Because it’s working. Most women I know are triggered and most men are angry.

What are they angry about?

How Kavanaugh has been treated?

[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.

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?

Unlike him I know what Julie told me. Not sure why you feel the need to discount my experience. I’m not here to say she doesn’t have other issues. Two things can be true. She can be problematic and also have made this claim three years ago,

DP. The ex-boyfriend is a nut. Anyone who abuses the TRO system is bad news.

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/questions-surround-richard-vinneccy-ex-boyfriend-of-third-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-10774688

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My accountant, who grew up in Bethesda and worked at the Spencer's in White Flint Mall, says she remembers Kavanaugh when he was attending Georgetown Prep. She recalls that he once came into the store with several other young men, and milled around for a bit, then spent a lot of time looking at posters of pin-ups and semi-nude women.

What's that tell you ?

Definitely a serial killer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

President Obama was slandered throughout his whole term as a liar. His family was hung out to dry. Through it all, he stayed dignified and calm. He never showed himself "as a human being," as you say, despite being accused of horrible things. If the Republicans could have found dirt on him akin to what there is on Kavanaugh, they would have brought it. They couldn't find it. There is a person who, whether or not you agree with him, honored a higher calling in his behavior and demeanor. He never used the attacks on himself to disrespect others. I have a great deal of respect for that.

Moreover, he did not in his speeches play one party against another to divide this country and glorify himself. He showed a lot of self-restraint and humility despite people disrespecting him to his face. I think that shows character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did Trump pick Kavanaugh to further divide the country? Because it’s working. Most women I know are triggered and most men are angry.

What are they angry about?

How Kavanaugh has been treated?

Yes. They feel he’s been falsely accused....? Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People have given up a lot more than him to serve the country. And no one made him come to the hearing. He's always free to step down and not make this sacrifice. He will go back to a cushy job. The victim mentality here doesn't make sense.

Brett had sacrificed nothing but his dignity and his family.

Right, and let's be clear -- for a job promotion. There are others who could serve in this role. He doesn't have to do this, not for the institution, not for the country, and not for his family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Unlike him I know what Julie told me. Not sure why you feel the need to discount my experience. I’m not here to say she doesn’t have other issues. Two things can be true. She can be problematic and also have made this claim three years ago,

DP. The ex-boyfriend is a nut. Anyone who abuses the TRO system is bad news.

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/questions-surround-richard-vinneccy-ex-boyfriend-of-third-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick-10774688

I would never date either.

[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

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

Fascism Forever, wonderful.

Merrick Garland looks like a great pick. Wonder why he was passed over . . .

[Anonymous]

Ultimately, the WH is going to look at the report and make the call. But if it is leaked and inconsistencies found, that will tear this country apart even more.