Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Ford has more evidence backing up her allegation. a friend who said she mentioned it a long time ago and emailed him kavanaugh's name before he was nominated to name him as her attacker

That’s what SHE says. This “evidence” was never presented to the SJC nor presented with her testimony. I wonder why?

Meanwhile, the evidence she DID present exonerated Kavanaugh. Not one person she said was there had any knowledge of such a party. Not one. Not even her dear friend, who also said that she does not know Kavanaugh.

You are smoking crack. Nothing exonerated him. NOt his demeanor, not his calendar, not his yearbook, not the conversations she had way before he was a SC nominee.

And all we know about the FBI investigation is that it DID NOT EXONERATE HIM. Warren told us this. She said it was incomplete, uncovered things that he had told the committee at the hearing that were FALSE, and it DID NOT EXONERATE HIM.

All of that doesn't even matter. His own speech disqualified him. And he lied under oath about drinking.What a prize, you got there, republicans

It's impossible to exonerate him when you don't have a specific date and time for the allegation. The most that can be said is that there was no corroborating evidence for CBF's allegations and at best there was very weak circumstantial evidence. In addition, there were significant weaknesses to her allegation and circumstantial evidence that undermined her and the entire process.

All of that doesn't even matter. His own speech disqualified him. And he lied under oath about drinking.What a prize, you got there, republicans

His speech no more disqualified him than RBG's pre-2016 election comments about Trump disqualified her from hearing Trump-related issues at SCOTUS. Had law school professors spoken up then, perhaps the temperament and impartiality argument would mean something now....

"I love beer, wah!" LOL, what a little, deplorable man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Ford has more evidence backing up her allegation. a friend who said she mentioned it a long time ago and emailed him kavanaugh's name before he was nominated to name him as her attacker

That’s what SHE says. This “evidence” was never presented to the SJC nor presented with her testimony. I wonder why?

Meanwhile, the evidence she DID present exonerated Kavanaugh. Not one person she said was there had any knowledge of such a party. Not one. Not even her dear friend, who also said that she does not know Kavanaugh.

You are smoking crack. Nothing exonerated him. NOt his demeanor, not his calendar, not his yearbook, not the conversations she had way before he was a SC nominee.

And all we know about the FBI investigation is that it DID NOT EXONERATE HIM. Warren told us this. She said it was incomplete, uncovered things that he had told the committee at the hearing that were FALSE, and it DID NOT EXONERATE HIM.

All of that doesn't even matter. His own speech disqualified him. And he lied under oath about drinking.What a prize, you got there, republicans

It's impossible to exonerate him when you don't have a specific date and time for the allegation. The most that can be said is that there was no corroborating evidence for CBF's allegations and at best there was very weak circumstantial evidence. In addition, there were significant weaknesses to her allegation and circumstantial evidence that undermined her and the entire process.

All of that doesn't even matter. His own speech disqualified him. And he lied under oath about drinking.What a prize, you got there, republicans

His speech no more disqualified him than RBG's pre-2016 election comments about Trump disqualified her from hearing Trump-related issues at SCOTUS. Had law school professors spoken up then, perhaps the temperament and impartiality argument would mean something now....

"I love beer, wah!" LOL, what a little, deplorable man.

2016: Cheers on and defends RBG's comments betraying poor temperament and lack of impartiality.

2018: Wonders why the other side is not persuaded by arguments about institutional norms.

[Anonymous]

What time is the vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more we hear about the Ford story, the less believable it is vis a vis Kavanaugh.

The problem is not Ford but those who exploited her to try and bring down Kavanaugh. It is utterly shameful.

The more I hear the more I believe her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Ford has more evidence backing up her allegation. a friend who said she mentioned it a long time ago and emailed him kavanaugh's name before he was nominated to name him as her attacker

That’s what SHE says. This “evidence” was never presented to the SJC nor presented with her testimony. I wonder why?

Meanwhile, the evidence she DID present exonerated Kavanaugh. Not one person she said was there had any knowledge of such a party. Not one. Not even her dear friend, who also said that she does not know Kavanaugh.

You are smoking crack. Nothing exonerated him. NOt his demeanor, not his calendar, not his yearbook, not the conversations she had way before he was a SC nominee.

And all we know about the FBI investigation is that it DID NOT EXONERATE HIM. Warren told us this. She said it was incomplete, uncovered things that he had told the committee at the hearing that were FALSE, and it DID NOT EXONERATE HIM.

All of that doesn't even matter. His own speech disqualified him. And he lied under oath about drinking.What a prize, you got there, republicans

It's impossible to exonerate him when you don't have a specific date and time for the allegation. The most that can be said is that there was no corroborating evidence for CBF's allegations and at best there was very weak circumstantial evidence. In addition, there were significant weaknesses to her allegation and circumstantial evidence that undermined her and the entire process.

All of that doesn't even matter. His own speech disqualified him. And he lied under oath about drinking.What a prize, you got there, republicans

Citation please, for lying under oath about drinking.

His speech was eye-opening and distressing. If it had been unprovoked, I hope it would have been disqualifying. Unfortunately, due to how this process was handled, he was very provoked and that has been used to excuse his behavior and allow those who are going to vote for him to treat it as an unfortunate blip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more we hear about the Ford story, the less believable it is vis a vis Kavanaugh.

The problem is not Ford but those who exploited her to try and bring down Kavanaugh. It is utterly shameful.

The more I hear the more I believe her.

Here's a new, really well-written, even-handed piece by a man who knew both Kavanaugh and Judge. Because he knew Judge especially well, Ford's story sounds true to him.

Dr. Ford’s description of Mark Judge’s behavior on that night rings absolutely true. When I read it I thought to myself, “Yep. That’s Mark Judge. That’s exactly how it would have gone down. You couldn’t make that up.” He was like a slobbering, overgrown puppy, now that I think of it. And many of the boys at Prep—including me—were actually quite fond of him.

https://www.thenation.com/article/i-went-to-georgetown-prep-and-knew-mark-judge-and-i-believe-christine-blasey-ford/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know, when I've read over the hateful remarks and accusations that liberals level at conservatives on this forum, I've often thought.,,,"wow, if only voters could see Democrats for who they really are: vicious, nasty people who go on the attack against anyone with a different opinion."

Now, thanks to the actions of the Democrats in the Senate, along with the entitled, screaming banshees in the halls, the voters KNOW. See you at the polls next month.

Yours is the party under whose standard actual nazis and former KKK officials have been runing for office. So until you reject the votes you get from the alt-right Charlottesville murderers, don't lecture us about hate.

Also, we see you calling sexual assault survivors "banshees" -- yes, Donald Trump is definitely your perfect president. He represents your misogyny perfectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more we hear about the Ford story, the less believable it is vis a vis Kavanaugh.

The problem is not Ford but those who exploited her to try and bring down Kavanaugh. It is utterly shameful.

The more I hear the more I believe her.

From Susan Collin's speech on why she is voting "yes":

Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee. I found her testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling. I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life.

Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred. None of the individuals Prof. Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night. Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury. Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault. P.J. Smith, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony. Professor Ford’s lifelong friend, Leland Kaiser, indicated that under penalty of felony she does not remember that party. And Ms. Kaiser went further. She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.

In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence we also learn facts that have raised more questions. For instance, since these allegations have become public, Prof. Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say I was at the party that night.

Furthermore the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that because of the distance she would have needed a ride. Yet, not a single person has come forward to say that they were the ones who drove her home or were in the car with her that night.

And Prof. Ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly, and without saying goodbye, and distraught, none of them called her the next day or ever to ask why she left. “Is she okay?” Not even her closest friend, Ms. Kaiser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more we hear about the Ford story, the less believable it is vis a vis Kavanaugh.

The problem is not Ford but those who exploited her to try and bring down Kavanaugh. It is utterly shameful.

The more I hear the more I believe her.

+1

She wanted people to know about BK. She went to her MoC.

[Anonymous]

Democrats should tell Avenatti to go to hell.

His representation of Swetnick did not help matters at all: accusations of gang rape without any corroboration does not help and it detracted from the credible testimony of Ford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should tell Avenatti to go to hell.

His representation of Swetnick did not help matters at all: accusations of gang rape without any corroboration does not help and it detracted from the credible testimony of Ford.

She didn't accuse gang rape. Read again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should tell Avenatti to go to hell.

His representation of Swetnick did not help matters at all: accusations of gang rape without any corroboration does not help and it detracted from the credible testimony of Ford.

She didn't accuse gang rape. Read again.

She accused BK of being at parties where he gave girls Solo cups of punch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should tell Avenatti to go to hell.

His representation of Swetnick did not help matters at all: accusations of gang rape without any corroboration does not help and it detracted from the credible testimony of Ford.

She didn't accuse gang rape. Read again.

She did and then backtracked; she claimed that Kav and Judge spiked the punch bowl and then said she did not see them do it but they were hanging around the bowl. She detracted from Ford's testimony because it was just outlandish.

Avenatti is in it for himself - he was no help to blocking Kav.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the people who paid off BK’s credit card debt paid off mark judge and others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should tell Avenatti to go to hell.

His representation of Swetnick did not help matters at all: accusations of gang rape without any corroboration does not help and it detracted from the credible testimony of Ford.

She didn't accuse gang rape. Read again.

She did and then backtracked; she claimed that Kav and Judge spiked the punch bowl and then said she did not see them do it but they were hanging around the bowl. She detracted from Ford's testimony because it was just outlandish.

Avenatti is in it for himself - he was no help to blocking Kav.

+1

This was the point where it became a circus.