Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[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?

If she were in shock, she may not remember that part of the evening. I'm assuming you haven't spoken to anyone who's gone through a traumatic event, but this definitely is plausible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe someone should have done a better job of getting him to look and act like a supreme Court Justice. He threw a temper tantrum.

+100. His taking Trump’s advice was moronic.

Dunno

Got Trump the presidency.

[Anonymous]

So the NY Times reported that the FBI investigation is limited to only 4 people. Why isn't Tim Gaudette one of them? It has been suggested that the July 1, 1982 calendar entry of "Timmy's House" could have been the gathering Ford remembers. Why not ask Tim if he recalls hosting this get together. If he regularly hosted get-togethers he might not remember this. But if he rarely hosted events or was having friends over to drink when he mom wasn't home and was nervous about it, he might remember this event. The artificial limits applied to this so-called investigation are ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe someone should have done a better job of getting him to look and act like a supreme Court Justice. He threw a temper tantrum.

+100. His taking Trump’s advice was moronic.

Dunno

Got Trump the presidency.

Do you dispute he’d already be confirmed if he just answered politely?

[Anonymous]

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

Feinstein installs Dem operative Katz as Ford's lawyer:

The Katz lawyers and Ms. Ford then boldly lie to the US Senate claiming Ford is unable to fly due to PTSD and therefore the US Senate must further delay the hearing.
a. In fact, Ford confirms she is an AVID global traveler and FREQUENTLY FLIES BY AIRPLANE
b. In fact, Ford is a short drive from DC in Rehobeth, DE beach (where she flew by airplane) and is flying up and down the East Coast while nominee is being vetted by US Senate in nearby Washington DC

The Katz lawyers and Ms. Ford then boldly lie to the US Senate about Ford’s being unaware of an offer to meet in her home state to further stall the confirmation process.
a. In her oral testimony, Ford claims she has was upset seeing info about her on social media and TV confirming she is an active user of online news sources
b. Meanwhile the Senate’s public offer of a prompt, confidential private meeting with Ford is offered to her in writing and reported everywhere on social media, the Internet and cable TV.

Ford, a PhD with multiple educational credentials, is a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If she were in shock, she may not remember that part of the evening. I'm assuming you haven't spoken to anyone who's gone through a traumatic event, but this definitely is plausible.

Not really.

[Anonymous]

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.

Consider yourself lucky that is it stretches credulity for you. Know what that tells me? It has never happened to you. The other 1/4 of us know and understand exactly. Listen when people talk to you.

[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.

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.

Yeah, I know that. Her day job is a prosecutor, but she was acting as a defense attorney. Dems should refer to her that way, not as a prosecutor. Calling her a prosecutor undermines Ford because the implicit message is “See, even a prosecutor, who job is to be on the side of the victim, believes Kavanaugh over Ford.”

[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.

Yeah, I know that. Her day job is a prosecutor, but she was acting as a defense attorney. Dems should refer to her that way, not as a prosecutor. Calling her a prosecutor undermines Ford because the implicit message is “See, even a prosecutor, who job is to be on the side of the victim, believes Kavanaugh over Ford.”

Dems see exactly what she was.

[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.

Consider yourself lucky that is it stretches credulity for you. Know what that tells me? It has never happened to you. The other 1/4 of us know and understand exactly. Listen when people talk to you.

So no one remembers driving a girl who would have been extremely upset and shaken, seven miles back to her house? Christine and her BFF didn't discuss why she suddenly left the party or how she got home? How is it plausible that her friend didn't ask her how she got home when she couldn't drive, and she would have had to find another way home than how she would presumably have gotten there?

[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.

Why didn’t you tell your mother? You were forced into a car by boys and sexually assaulted and didn’t think your
mother should know? If raped, how wound you have explained a oregnancy?

[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.

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.

Actually he did a fine job of doing that on his own. He lied at the questions thrown to him by Mitchell. And he lied to questions asked by senators on both sides of the aisle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post a copy of the Rachel Mitchell memo that was released last night?

You can read it at this link.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/evidence-doesn-t-support-claims-against-kavanaugh-judiciary-committee-prosecutor-n915236

. Blatantly partisan. The witnesses did NOT adequately refute the allegations. I don’t recall, via a letter your lawyer signed, does not equal “refute”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If she were in shock, she may not remember that part of the evening. I'm assuming you haven't spoken to anyone who's gone through a traumatic event, but this definitely is plausible.

Not really.

"Whether it's sexual assault victims or soldiers in combat or survivors of an earthquake, people who have experienced traumatic events tend to remember the most essential and frightening elements of the events in vivid detail for life, says McNally.

However, this doesn't mean that these memories include every detail of the event. The brain holds on to the most important stuff at the expense of the peripheral details."

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/09/28/652524372/how-trauma-affects-memory-scientists-weigh-in-on-the-kavanaugh-hearing

[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.

Why didn’t you tell your mother? You were forced into a car by boys and sexually assaulted and didn’t think your
mother should know? If raped, how wound you have explained a oregnancy?

Do you remember the 80s? The 90s?