Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

2

I've got a question about these allegations. Wasn't it Ramirez who spent six days calling, texting, emailing her Yale buddies to try and decide whether it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself? And in doing so, isn't it obvious that she actually had no real memory of Kavanaugh doing this?
I'm sure Kavanaugh was alerted by mutual friends to Ramirez's intent to smear him. How is it fair to say it's perfectly fine for her to drum up friends' support about something that may (or may not) have occurred (she isn't even positive herself, for crying out loud), but that Kavanaugh is not to talk to *his* friends about supporting him?

What an incredible double standard.

Because he's applying for the highest court of the land, so his behavior should be impeccable, unquestionable. Not problematic.

How is it problematic for him to speak to his Yale friends about a mutual friend who plans on accusing him of exposing himself? Hasn't he every right to prepare himself for these allegations? Yes, he does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In times of uncertainty, when the world just seems to have gone off its axis, I often reach out to an old neighbor of mine. He's a wise old guy, almost always clad in dusty overalls, drives a beat-up red pick-up with an old bloodhound (named Veteran) usually lounging in the back. He's the real deal. You lay something out for him, something you're struggling with and, why, he'll think on it a spell and then look up at you with those rheumy old eyes and just knock you over with his simple, earthy wisdom.

Although he doesn't go in for all that big-city politicking (as he calls it), he keeps up with what's going on in the world, at least as it relates to town and his farm. Anyway, I ran into him at the general store the other day and we set to talking and after a bit I asked him what he made of all this Supreme Court hubbub. He thought for a second, cleared his throat (he's a gruff old coot) and said, just as clear as day: "Brett Kavanaugh is a sneering, sniveling, conniving, entitled, lying douchebag with a cheesy blow-wave hair-do and an alcoholic's complexion."

And with that he and Veteran took off down the road. Just wanted to share the perspective.

Thanks for sharing Lefty's take...silly old me, I am going with the professionals that have worked in the U.S. judicial system over the last three decades...

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_kavanaugh_testimony/

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh earned the highest rating of unanimously “well qualified,” members of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday.
“We concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence met the highest standards for appointment to the court,” said Paul T. Moxley of Salt Lake City, the chair of the committee. “Our rating of unanimously well-qualified reflects the consensus of his peers who have knowledge of his professional qualifications.”

Standing Committee members solicited input from almost 500 people who were likely to have knowledge of the nominee’s professional qualifications, including federal and state judges, lawyers and bar representatives.

The Standing Committee reached out to 471 judges, lawyers, and professors for information regarding Judge Kavanaugh’s integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The committee received more than 120 responses, and the committee conducted interviews with those respondents who had personal knowledge of Kavanaugh through their professional or personal dealings with him.

Tarpley provided the committee with some of the written observations made about Kavanaugh.

“He has the highest personal morality and the highest ethics,” said one.

“He is what he seems, very decent, humble, and honest,” said another.

The Maryland Law school reading group observed that “Judge Kavanaugh is an excellent writer with a flair for making complicated facts understandable.”

As to Kavanaugh’s demeanor, one respondent observed, “He is easy to get along with and has a good sense of humor.”

Tarpley told the committee: “Can you imagine that, a judge with a good sense of humor?”

Noting the ABA’s more than 400,000 members across the country, Tarpley said: “We are a very diverse group of lawyers, and we agree that Judge Kavanaugh meets our highest standard and rated him unanimously well-qualified to serve as associate justice on the United States Supreme Court.”

(Note: As of course was under reported ABA President Bob Carlson was not authorized to speak for the ABA'a standing committee with his last minute hail mary).

Keep up DP - The ABA revoked it's support about 2 days ago. It was a full and comprehensive revocation.

The trouble with #FakeNews is that people like you get the initial, inaccurate or blatantly false reports and then you never hear about the corrected reports, largely because the MSM fails to report it.

The only person who wrote the letter that got so much press was the president of the ABA. The committee that issues these declarations had no knowledge of his rogue behavior.
The official letter issued by the committee can be found at this link:

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/09/28/wow-it-turns-out-the-american-bar-association-story-on-brett-kavanaugh-was-fake-news/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

2

I've got a question about these allegations. Wasn't it Ramirez who spent six days calling, texting, emailing her Yale buddies to try and decide whether it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself? And in doing so, isn't it obvious that she actually had no real memory of Kavanaugh doing this?
I'm sure Kavanaugh was alerted by mutual friends to Ramirez's intent to smear him. How is it fair to say it's perfectly fine for her to drum up friends' support about something that may (or may not) have occurred (she isn't even positive herself, for crying out loud), but that Kavanaugh is not to talk to *his* friends about supporting him?

What an incredible double standard.

Ok for Kav to ask for support but not ok to deny he knew there was an effort to blame/exonerate him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This, right here in a nutshell, is why liberals are so rabid about Kavanaugh. He is a wealthy, connected, white guy and you want to see him go *down*. Doesn't matter if he's actually guilty or not - you just want to make an example of him.

Your silly conservative projection doesn’t frighten anyone. He is unfit. He is a perjurer. He has poisonous debt. He has a problem with women. He cannot be impartial about liberals.

[Anonymous]

Wealthy people don't get their six-figure debts paid off by mommy and daddy at 53 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1047226356831059970

URGENT: Below please find an email just sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, together with a declaration from another witness who confirms a number of Ms. Swetnick's claims. These women deserve to be heard & interviewed by the FBI before any vote on the nomination.

Why is FBI prohibited to talk to Swetnick when she is willing to talk under oath and give lie detector test? Why is this so hard for GOP to do right thing?

This guy is a freaking joke. He's so transparent it's sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

2

I've got a question about these allegations. Wasn't it Ramirez who spent six days calling, texting, emailing her Yale buddies to try and decide whether it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself? And in doing so, isn't it obvious that she actually had no real memory of Kavanaugh doing this?
I'm sure Kavanaugh was alerted by mutual friends to Ramirez's intent to smear him. How is it fair to say it's perfectly fine for her to drum up friends' support about something that may (or may not) have occurred (she isn't even positive herself, for crying out loud), but that Kavanaugh is not to talk to *his* friends about supporting him?

What an incredible double standard.

Because he's applying for the highest court of the land, so his behavior should be impeccable, unquestionable. Not problematic.

Agreed. Obama should never be allowed on the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor said she couldn't prosecute the case, not that it wasn't credible. She also made no comment whatsoever about his own testimony, even though she was pulled just after he perjured himself.

If you can't prosecute a case based on the details from the accuser, it's over. Unless it's about politics.

Wait, was this a criminal trial or a job interview?

Most rape cases do not get prosecuted, btw. My cousin immediately reported hers, and had bruises and other marks of evidence, but because it was a date rape and a small town out west where everyone knows each other, nothing happened. Prosecutor wouldn't do anything because 1) they had been dating and 2) it was he-said, she said. This was just 2 years ago.

Doesn't mean her rape didn't happen. Or that I would ever hire the creep who did it, just because he wasn't prosecuted for it.

It doesn't matter. An expert in the field determined that Ms. Ford recollection of events is full of holes. Imagine going on a job interview' where when asked about an alleged crime, you presented a report as extensive as the one Mitchell prepared to the employer, only to have that potential employer say "well I think you are guilty anyway!". You'd feel pretty angry.

And if you were the interviewer and told the interviewee you were not hiring him because you believe he is guilty of the crime, get ready for a world of legal hurt. There's a difference between whether or not an attack happened and whether or not your interviewee was the attacker

And, by the way? It's not a job interview. It's a constitutional process, and there's a huge difference between the two.

THANK YOU. Finally, some much-needed common sense.

+100
A Constitutional Process that has been corrupted because the Democrats thought throwing out ridiculous allegations at the last minute was the only way to achieve their goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

2

I've got a question about these allegations. Wasn't it Ramirez who spent six days calling, texting, emailing her Yale buddies to try and decide whether it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself? And in doing so, isn't it obvious that she actually had no real memory of Kavanaugh doing this?
I'm sure Kavanaugh was alerted by mutual friends to Ramirez's intent to smear him. How is it fair to say it's perfectly fine for her to drum up friends' support about something that may (or may not) have occurred (she isn't even positive herself, for crying out loud), but that Kavanaugh is not to talk to *his* friends about supporting him?

What an incredible double standard.

When you are so drunk you can't remember who it is and have to ask your friends if they remember? Your credibility is shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“My whole life, I've heard you're innocent until proven guilty. But now you're guilty until proven innocent....I say that it's a very scary time for young men in America"

-Donald J Trump ( the guy who still encourages chants of lock her up, who still thinks the Central Park 5 are guilty, and who insisted Obama was a fake American)

Why is it scary just for young men?

Because it has been the system for minorities and women and now it is being applied to white men and he wants to get angry white guys to the polls. You know the fathers that describe their son's drunken sexual assault of a women behind a dumpster as "20 minutes of action." It's scary for those guys because they believe (whether they realize it or not) in a system that relegates that their daughters to second class citizenship. We'll believe you if you say someone stole your car, tv, or robbed you at gun point but if you say a clean cut looking white guy sexually assaulted or harassed you we will believe him until you can prove with physical or eye witness evidence that you are telling the truth. That's America folks.

*Rich* or connected white guys have gotten away with these sorts of assaults for years; it looks like the tide is turning and they are afraid they will be held to the same standards as everyone else.

This, right here in a nutshell, is why liberals are so rabid about Kavanaugh. He is a wealthy, connected, white guy and you want to see him go *down*. Doesn't matter if he's actually guilty or not - you just want to make an example of him.

Do you think someone who has a bias against 55% of the country, maybe more, should be deciding judicial cases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

2

I've got a question about these allegations. Wasn't it Ramirez who spent six days calling, texting, emailing her Yale buddies to try and decide whether it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself? And in doing so, isn't it obvious that she actually had no real memory of Kavanaugh doing this?
I'm sure Kavanaugh was alerted by mutual friends to Ramirez's intent to smear him. How is it fair to say it's perfectly fine for her to drum up friends' support about something that may (or may not) have occurred (she isn't even positive herself, for crying out loud), but that Kavanaugh is not to talk to *his* friends about supporting him?

What an incredible double standard.

When you are so drunk you can't remember who it is and have to ask your friends if they remember? Your credibility is shot.

Yeah. Ramirez really didn't have much credibility to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This, right here in a nutshell, is why liberals are so rabid about Kavanaugh. He is a wealthy, connected, white guy and you want to see him go *down*. Doesn't matter if he's actually guilty or not - you just want to make an example of him.

Your silly conservative projection doesn’t frighten anyone. He is unfit. He is a perjurer. He has poisonous debt. He has a problem with women. He cannot be impartial about liberals.

liberals are rabid about Kavanaugh because liniting conservative seats on the Supreme Court aligns with their political agenda. many issues they disagree on. All of the other excuses are just excuses. At least when republicans delayed Merrick garland they had the civility to admit it was because they wanted to see a conservative judge in that seat instead of just trashing garland. Liberals don’t even have that decency to try and delay and say it’s because they want to try and win the senate to be able to confirm a judge that fits their agenda.

[Anonymous]

Did Trump basically just declare a war on women? My head is about to explode!

You know who doesn’t care about the good of the country: KAVANAUGH. I don’t care about the charges (though I care that he lied about his yearbook), but if he wasn’t partisan - wouldn’t he step down and stay in his already cushy job. But, he’s in if for himself and he says that he supports this raging partisan battle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“My whole life, I've heard you're innocent until proven guilty. But now you're guilty until proven innocent....I say that it's a very scary time for young men in America"

-Donald J Trump ( the guy who still encourages chants of lock her up, who still thinks the Central Park 5 are guilty, and who insisted Obama was a fake American)

Why is it scary just for young men?

Because it has been the system for minorities and women and now it is being applied to white men and he wants to get angry white guys to the polls. You know the fathers that describe their son's drunken sexual assault of a women behind a dumpster as "20 minutes of action." It's scary for those guys because they believe (whether they realize it or not) in a system that relegates that their daughters to second class citizenship. We'll believe you if you say someone stole your car, tv, or robbed you at gun point but if you say a clean cut looking white guy sexually assaulted or harassed you we will believe him until you can prove with physical or eye witness evidence that you are telling the truth. That's America folks.

What a cynical and totally false view of the world.

PP - this whole fiasco shows how scary it is for young men because it seems that we have moved the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.
We have a man who has proclaimed his innocence and who has 3 people who were reportedly present fail to corroborate the claims, yet he is expected to prove he was never at a party the never happened. How in the hell is he supposed to do that? Particularly since he has not been given the supposed date, the supposed house, or many of the details of the supposed assault.
When our standards, as a country, expect an accused person to prove their innocence (and NOT the accused proving his guilt) based on the total lack of evidence and facts in this case, young men should be scared of what they might be accused of in the future.

[Anonymous]

Ford's attorneys are upset that the FBI has not interviewed her. They should be thanking their lucky stars. She should be worried about her lies to the SJC, she doesn't need to add lying to the FBI on top of it.