Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s unbelievable that the left feels intimidation is a legitimate political tactic and not an immoral and disgusting technique reserved for dictators, banana republics, and the mob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That certainly explains Flake's actions, why so many GOP governors and others have come out against Kavanaugh. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Strangely, they're not worried about that. I wonder why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s unbelievable that the left feels intimidation is a legitimate political tactic and not an immoral and disgusting technique reserved for dictators, banana republics, and the mob.

What is unbelievable is that Trump is daring women like you not to vote for him, by saying shitty things, and you do nevertheless.

[Anonymous]

I suppose it's just a "coincidence" that the example just happens to cite a Brett. Not fair!

li·ar
?l?(?)r
noun
a person who tells lies.
synonyms: deceiver, fibber, perjurer, false witness, fabricator, equivocator; fabulist
example: "Even under oath, Brett was a shameless liar"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

QFT. Unlike the SJC, the FBI will make a criminal referral for mis-speaking on something. Anybody remember Scooter Libby? You Dems sure enjoyed demonizing him over nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a thing in that affidavit relates to her credibility, just a pretty gross attempt at slut shaming by our Republican Senators who set a new low each day.

Her interview must be airing soon, seems like it has them scared.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

There is sworn credible testimony that contradicts his sworn testimony. There is no other sworn testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suppose it's just a "coincidence" that the example just happens to cite a Brett. Not fair!

li·ar
?l?(?)r
noun
a person who tells lies.
synonyms: deceiver, fibber, perjurer, false witness, fabricator, equivocator; fabulist
example: "Even under oath, Brett was a shameless liar"

And, your picture should be right next to the definition. This is what it really says:

li·ar
?l?(?)r/Submit
noun
noun: liar; plural noun: liars
a person who tells lies.
synonyms: deceiver, fibber, perjurer, false witness, fabricator, equivocator; fabulist;
informalstoryteller
"even in a court of law, Jeff was a shameless liar"

[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.

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.

There is sworn credible testimony that contradicts his sworn testimony. There is no other sworn testimony.

Is that your new line?
The statements submitted by the 3 people identified as being present at the alleged party are subject to the same laws of perjury as sworn testimony. But, you know that.
NOTHING Ford has provided, other than her account, has indicated guilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is sworn credible testimony that contradicts his sworn testimony. There is no other sworn testimony.

Is that your new line?
The statements submitted by the 3 people identified as being present at the alleged party are subject to the same laws of perjury as sworn testimony. But, you know that.
NOTHING Ford has provided, other than her account, has indicated guilt.

Actually they didn't. Judge only submitted a sworn statement after the hearing.

You know when your guy was there, lying his ass off that they had said it never happened? OVER AND OVER? He was full of crap because they never said it never happened. They said they did not remember it. Same with judge's later sworn statement as well - judge said he did not recall it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is sworn credible testimony that contradicts his sworn testimony. There is no other sworn testimony.

Is that your new line?
The statements submitted by the 3 people identified as being present at the alleged party are subject to the same laws of perjury as sworn testimony. But, you know that.
NOTHING Ford has provided, other than her account, has indicated guilt.

Actually they didn't. Judge only submitted a sworn statement after the hearing.

You know when your guy was there, lying his ass off that they had said it never happened? OVER AND OVER? He was full of crap because they never said it never happened. They said they did not remember it. Same with judge's later sworn statement as well - judge said he did not recall it.

As a lawyer, he knew he was lying. As a judge, he knew he was lying. He just didn't care.

His is a pathetic grasping ambitious fool. History will not be kind to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Love the response back to Avenatti.

[Anonymous]

that was a joke, lowbrow dimwit Republican.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose it's just a "coincidence" that the example just happens to cite a Brett. Not fair!

li·ar
?l?(?)r
noun
a person who tells lies.
synonyms: deceiver, fibber, perjurer, false witness, fabricator, equivocator; fabulist
example: "Even under oath, Brett was a shameless liar"

And, your picture should be right next to the definition. This is what it really says:

li·ar
?l?(?)r/Submit
noun
noun: liar; plural noun: liars
a person who tells lies.
synonyms: deceiver, fibber, perjurer, false witness, fabricator, equivocator; fabulist;
informalstoryteller
"even in a court of law, Jeff was a shameless liar"

[Anonymous]

And, this might be one reason, among many others, that Swetnick is not seen as at all credible.........

From Senator Hatch’s Twitter feed:

A Utah man named Dennis Ketterer reached out to the Hatch office this week with information about accuser Julie Swetnick, and her allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

His full statement made under pentaly of felony to @senjudiciary can be found here --> https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/judiciary-committee-receives-statement-regarding-swetnick-allegations …