Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using "Democrat" as an adjective instead of "Democratic" is a verbal gang sign.

Russell Baker, writing in 1976:

"The origin of this illiterate phrase, goes back, I believe to the era of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy ... The chief trouble with 'the Democrat party' is that it makes the Republicans saying it sound both illiterate and coy, and, so, is like a shotgun that is all kick and no fire."

I’m going out on a limb here, but I am betting you weren’t even alive in 1976. I am betting most of the people on this site weren’t.
Who seriously cares about these things?

Really? You're not allowed to quote anything written before you were born???!!! Whoah, that's such an incisive argument. I give in already. You're way too intelligent for me. (FWIW different poster here, born in 55 but godd@mmit I'll still quote books published in 1916 if I feel like it!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford's ex-boyfriend has no reason to lie.

What's his name?

Let's remember that Ford's father was a career CIA employee.

You've cracked the case! I'll bet the plot was hatched in the Comet Ping-Pong basement. First, we place birth announcements for a Kenyan boy in August 1961 editions of the Honolulu Advertiser & the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Next we recruit a Ph.D. in educational psychology to falsely report an assault to her therapist in 2012. We'll promise her a *free* polygraph test if she cooperates. Diabolical!

+1,000,000

Finally, someone is making sense! Don't forget the lovebirds, Strzok and Page, used their FBI knowledge to coach her how to pass a polygraph. It's their "insurance policy"!

By the way, I have voted Democrat for the last 50 years, but after seeing how Kavanaugh has been treated, I'm never voting Democrat again. I will vote Republican all the way down the ballot. There are millions of others like me and it's all your fault!

No one who says "I have voted Democrat" has actually voted for the Democratic party. We hear you loud and clear.

DP. How in the world would you know that? Are you saying that someone who usually votes for the Republican has never voted for the Democrats? I'm one. I have in the past, and I plan to again this cycle. (Kaine.)

No, I'm saying we all recognize that shortening of the proper term Democratic to Democrat (as in "the Democrat party" or "I will not vote Democrat again") has a long history among partisan Republicans as a way of passively agressively thumbing their noses at Democrats and the Democratic party (see how those two words are used properly?). Grassley did it at the hearings last week. Republicans think they're being so subversive but they sound childish.

But do you recognize satire when you see it?

[Anonymous]

I hope he is rejected . It is better for republicans for mid terms. Will invigorate voters after seeing how Democrats destroyed this man for politics

Be like the health care law. It was better that Obamacare was not overturned

Same thing here , best thing that can happen for republicans is that report shows nothing and Kavanaugh withdraws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using "Democrat" as an adjective instead of "Democratic" is a verbal gang sign.

Russell Baker, writing in 1976:

"The origin of this illiterate phrase, goes back, I believe to the era of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy ... The chief trouble with 'the Democrat party' is that it makes the Republicans saying it sound both illiterate and coy, and, so, is like a shotgun that is all kick and no fire."

I’m going out on a limb here, but I am betting you weren’t even alive in 1976. I am betting most of the people on this site weren’t.
Who seriously cares about these things?

Really? You're not allowed to quote anything written before you were born???!!! Whoah, that's such an incisive argument. I give in already. You're way too intelligent for me. (FWIW different poster here, born in 55 but godd@mmit I'll still quote books published in 1916 if I feel like it!)

PP here.
You go ahead. I quote older books as well.
My point was.... This was something that was pertinent in the mid-70’s, maybe (I was an adult then and I don’t remember it being a big deal). I just don’t see it as an issue today. And, if you are that bothered by it, it’s really your problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I think she was assaulted, but not by Kavanaugh. She confabulated two separate stories, used elements of the truth and attached made up parts about Kavanaugh. She merged Kavanaugh into her existing story. She happened to have dated Squi and knew some details about Kavanaugh and his friends. She was absolutely gleeful during her testimony.

I think you and the other pro-Kavanaugh contingent are sounding nuttier and more desperate with each passing day.

Agreed. They are desperate to figure out some way to acknowledge what happened to her but not make it about their hero.

For the record, I was in no way sure that her attacker was Kavanaugh. And if it had been Kavanaugh, it was possible he wouldn't have remembered due to his drinking. But after watching the defensiveness (You mean blackouts? I don't know - have you ever had a black out, Senator?), prevarication (Devil's Triangle is a drinking game) and evasiveness (I don't know - does the committee want an FBI investigation?) in the hearing, I've come to the conclusion that he did it and he remembers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using "Democrat" as an adjective instead of "Democratic" is a verbal gang sign.

Russell Baker, writing in 1976:

"The origin of this illiterate phrase, goes back, I believe to the era of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy ... The chief trouble with 'the Democrat party' is that it makes the Republicans saying it sound both illiterate and coy, and, so, is like a shotgun that is all kick and no fire."

I’m going out on a limb here, but I am betting you weren’t even alive in 1976. I am betting most of the people on this site weren’t.
Who seriously cares about these things?

Really? You're not allowed to quote anything written before you were born???!!! Whoah, that's such an incisive argument. I give in already. You're way too intelligent for me. (FWIW different poster here, born in 55 but godd@mmit I'll still quote books published in 1916 if I feel like it!)

PP here.
You go ahead. I quote older books as well.
My point was.... This was something that was pertinent in the mid-70’s, maybe (I was an adult then and I don’t remember it being a big deal). I just don’t see it as an issue today. And, if you are that bothered by it, it’s really your problem.

Ohhhh, so it's okay to cite things written in 1976. Thanks for the permission to do that. No, you're not condescending at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope he is rejected . It is better for republicans for mid terms. Will invigorate voters after seeing how Democrats destroyed this man for politics

Be like the health care law. It was better that Obamacare was not overturned

Same thing here , best thing that can happen for republicans is that report shows nothing and Kavanaugh withdraws

He destroyed himself. He should be rejected, because he is a partisan liar and unfit to hold a lifetime appointment. That is the best thing for everyone.

But how nice that all you care about is what is best for Republicans in mid-term elections and not what is right or just or fair. All about power and money.

People like you are trying so damn hard to destroy the country.

[Anonymous]

If you're too drunk to avoid being accused of committing sexual assault, you're kind of asking for it. Guys should watch what they drink.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ignoring the loons:

Do you think that the name "Brett" will descend on the SS ranking below the 749 it was this year? It has been on steady decline, will it decline even faster?

Do you think women will be more concerned with marrying men with questionable backgrounds now? He was 10 yrs older than his wife, and still a 'bro' with weekend trips with his friends, and obviously still a lot of alcohol.

I don't think anyone thinks they are marrying someone who raped or tried to rape someone, but a lot of women overlook hard partying in the past. I wonder if this will change.

None of the local women or those from college were interested in him. He's lucky he found anyone at all.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the other poster who doesn't believe he will be confirmed and this is a ruse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what I think.

I think the 8 justices currently on SCOTUS are horrified at what is going on. I think that each one of them are thinking... “Geez. I’m glad nobody searched deep into my high school years because there are things there that they would certainly consider disqualifying.” I think they are disgusted that the argument is coming down to what was written in his HS yearbook and the fact that he likes beer.

It’s a travesty. Nobody is a saint. Nobody has made Kavanaugh out to be a saint. He’s human - just like the other 8 justices who have been confirmed. And, simply because people have leveled false allegations at him, we have come to this. It’s pathetic.

I agree that they are likely horrified. I disagree about why. I doubt any of them had this kind of background (even Thomas) that warranted such scrutiny. The issue is the nominee.

He never should have lied about the drinking. He was trying to avoid any possibility that he could have attacked Ford and not remembered, but he just looks ridiculous now. I mean, FFS, he pledged a fraternity and was involved in bar fights. Did he really think nobody would speak up?

Yep, this.

#LeftyLies
He was not “involved in bar fights.” He happened to be present.
He never lied about his drinking.
He did not attack Ford.

The only truth you have stated is that he pledged a fraternity.

You sound desperate. You are just making stuff up. And adding hashtags.

I'm still waiting for your summary of CBFs lies, by the way.

I wasn’t the one who said she lied. But, since you asked. I do believe she made up the whole story. I didn’t believe that at first, but as more is revealed, I do now.
And, given her former boyfriend’s letter to officials, it seems she did lie regarding her fear of flying and her coaching of a friend on a polygraph. She lied to her former boyfriend about credit card charges. Why not now?

Can you explain how she knew that 1) Brett Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker/hard partier in high school/college and 2) that Mike Judge was a heavy drinker/hard partier and 3) that BK and MJ were best friends -- how did she figure this all out years ago so that she could start telling her story about the two in case BK ever got nominated for SCOTUS and she got called to testify against him?

Not one single pro-BK poster has come here to eplain how Ford figured all this out. Because otherwise it's a great coincidence, is it not, that the person she picked to lie about just happened to be a hard-drinking lout in high school and college and had a best buddy who was also a hard-drinking lout. She had to have done serious research to find this out so that she could make her lies ring true. Please explain. The notion that she saw his name in the paper in 2012 when he was nominated for a judgeship, saw he was about her age and went to GT Prep, and then started researching and somehow discovered he was a huge drinker and had a best friend named Mike Judge who was also a drinker, so then she started telling her tale in the event she could use it, is too incredible to believe. She would have had to talk to others whom BK acknowledges he knows to find all this out. Where are those people saying she called or wrote them asking for dirt on him? So far haven't heard anyone come forward and say, hey CBF contacted me in 2012 asking if I knew BK and what was he like.

To me the simple solution to this question is the one that makes the most sense: she did know BK, she did know MJ, this did happen to her, she is telling the truth.

To follow up on this post: Gorsuch is ALSO a GP alumnus her age. She could have picked him to lie about, right? She could have named him way back when she told her husband about this, in the event Gorsuch got nominated. He was also in the news, someone who worked for a Republican president in the DOJ. But then her story wouldn't have rung true, because there is no evidence he was a hard drinker with a pattern of loutish behavior.

So how did she zero in on BK to lie about, if you believe she lied?

I want to hear Kavanaugh supporters come here and explain this.

I think this is the strongest argument for Ford.

Still, even the "strongest" argument is uncorroborated testimony, including from the witnesses who were present at the house.

I view it as unproven, and unprovable. Thus, I give benefit of doubt/presumption to Kavanaugh.

You are using corroboration like you know what it means. Her testimony is NOT uncorroborated.

You can see you still aren't sure but her testimony WAS corroborated. Not just with HER corroboration, but also with his (his calendar).

I do know what the word means.

You are free to believe what you want, but that calendar does not prove her allegations even remotely. It doesn't corroborate them either insofar as they witnesses deny she was at that event.

You need to acknowledge the arguments on both sides. Otherwise, you are just a hack.

Okay now I know you are just nuts. No witnesses deny she was at the event. They say they do not recall - that is NOT the same thing.
She has extensive corroborating evidence - the therapy appts where she spoke of the attack, words to her husband years ago, her polygraph.

All of these things are corroborating evidence. These things would be considered if this were a criminal trial. They EXACTLY are corroborating evidence.

Which he knew, as a judge. He knew all of this and he still said it over and over again at the hearing for his soundbites. He was not remotely honest on there.

The net result is the same. If they don't recall, there is nothing that ties him to that place and that time and that event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the other poster who doesn't believe he will be confirmed and this is a ruse.

I think he'll be confirmed. Trump never backs down from a fight. Manchin and Beitkamp aren't going to risk their necks if it comes down to the wire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Akin Gump partner who has text messages that may show that Bart lied about his knowledge of Debbie Ramirez and a wedding they both attended, STILL has not heard from the FBI.
This is her letter of this morning that was shared with me on FB.

From: Kerry Berchem
Date: October 3, 2018 at 6:23:28 AM EDT
To: "--------. (DO) (FBI)"
Subject: FOLLOWING UP AGAIN Urgent: Ramirez Allegations
Agent ---------,
I appreciate your email below advising me to call the field office. Indeed, in addition to my sending you several emails below and logging into the PAL portal twice and having a representative speak with the New Haven CT field office (which advised that they had no jurisdiction), I called the Bridgeport CT FBI field office Monday at 9:45 am. I spoke with and left messages with three (3) different people.
I suppose you know this already but no one called me back. Really? The FBI is so busy that it cannot spare one agent to call me back? How can th]}e FBI - or anyone else for that matter - conclude that the information that I have and the questions they pose are without merit if they have not been answered? I do not know what the texts I have may mean or may not mean. But, then again, neither does the FBI. It hasn’t reviewed them.
In my professional capacity, I have been part of teams that have conducted internal and SEC investigations for public companies. Litigation hold notices go out. Emails and texts are reviewed. People questioned. No stone is unturned.
All I wanted when I reached out to the FBI on Sunday was to perform my civic duty, to have a private discussion with the FBI and to possibly assist in the investigation ordered by President Trump. I believed in “the process.” It is now Wednesday morning, almost three full days since I sent you my draft memorandum, which was subsequently leaked to the press without my permission. Can you offer any explanation - any explanation whatsoever - as to why the FBI has refused to follow up on a “tip” from me, a law abiding, tax paying private citizen?
Regards,
Kerry E. Berchem

I have attended many weddings where people went to my high school/college and I simply knew OF them, but did not KNOW them.

[Anonymous]

Not sure if this has been discussed else where in the previous pages, but did he not lie when he said he never went buy Bart' when asked during his testimony? He signed off his beach week note as Bart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what I think.

I think the 8 justices currently on SCOTUS are horrified at what is going on. I think that each one of them are thinking... “Geez. I’m glad nobody searched deep into my high school years because there are things there that they would certainly consider disqualifying.” I think they are disgusted that the argument is coming down to what was written in his HS yearbook and the fact that he likes beer.

It’s a travesty. Nobody is a saint. Nobody has made Kavanaugh out to be a saint. He’s human - just like the other 8 justices who have been confirmed. And, simply because people have leveled false allegations at him, we have come to this. It’s pathetic.

I agree that they are likely horrified. I disagree about why. I doubt any of them had this kind of background (even Thomas) that warranted such scrutiny. The issue is the nominee.

He never should have lied about the drinking. He was trying to avoid any possibility that he could have attacked Ford and not remembered, but he just looks ridiculous now. I mean, FFS, he pledged a fraternity and was involved in bar fights. Did he really think nobody would speak up?

Yep, this.

#LeftyLies
He was not “involved in bar fights.” He happened to be present.
He never lied about his drinking.
He did not attack Ford.

The only truth you have stated is that he pledged a fraternity.

You sound desperate. You are just making stuff up. And adding hashtags.

I'm still waiting for your summary of CBFs lies, by the way.

I wasn’t the one who said she lied. But, since you asked. I do believe she made up the whole story. I didn’t believe that at first, but as more is revealed, I do now.
And, given her former boyfriend’s letter to officials, it seems she did lie regarding her fear of flying and her coaching of a friend on a polygraph. She lied to her former boyfriend about credit card charges. Why not now?

Can you explain how she knew that 1) Brett Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker/hard partier in high school/college and 2) that Mike Judge was a heavy drinker/hard partier and 3) that BK and MJ were best friends -- how did she figure this all out years ago so that she could start telling her story about the two in case BK ever got nominated for SCOTUS and she got called to testify against him?

Not one single pro-BK poster has come here to eplain how Ford figured all this out. Because otherwise it's a great coincidence, is it not, that the person she picked to lie about just happened to be a hard-drinking lout in high school and college and had a best buddy who was also a hard-drinking lout. She had to have done serious research to find this out so that she could make her lies ring true. Please explain. The notion that she saw his name in the paper in 2012 when he was nominated for a judgeship, saw he was about her age and went to GT Prep, and then started researching and somehow discovered he was a huge drinker and had a best friend named Mike Judge who was also a drinker, so then she started telling her tale in the event she could use it, is too incredible to believe. She would have had to talk to others whom BK acknowledges he knows to find all this out. Where are those people saying she called or wrote them asking for dirt on him? So far haven't heard anyone come forward and say, hey CBF contacted me in 2012 asking if I knew BK and what was he like.

To me the simple solution to this question is the one that makes the most sense: she did know BK, she did know MJ, this did happen to her, she is telling the truth.

To follow up on this post: Gorsuch is ALSO a GP alumnus her age. She could have picked him to lie about, right? She could have named him way back when she told her husband about this, in the event Gorsuch got nominated. He was also in the news, someone who worked for a Republican president in the DOJ. But then her story wouldn't have rung true, because there is no evidence he was a hard drinker with a pattern of loutish behavior.

So how did she zero in on BK to lie about, if you believe she lied?

I want to hear Kavanaugh supporters come here and explain this.

I think this is the strongest argument for Ford.

Still, even the "strongest" argument is uncorroborated testimony, including from the witnesses who were present at the house.

I view it as unproven, and unprovable. Thus, I give benefit of doubt/presumption to Kavanaugh.

You are using corroboration like you know what it means. Her testimony is NOT uncorroborated.

You can see you still aren't sure but her testimony WAS corroborated. Not just with HER corroboration, but also with his (his calendar).

I do know what the word means.

You are free to believe what you want, but that calendar does not prove her allegations even remotely. It doesn't corroborate them either insofar as they witnesses deny she was at that event.

You need to acknowledge the arguments on both sides. Otherwise, you are just a hack.

Okay now I know you are just nuts. No witnesses deny she was at the event. They say they do not recall - that is NOT the same thing.
She has extensive corroborating evidence - the therapy appts where she spoke of the attack, words to her husband years ago, her polygraph.

All of these things are corroborating evidence. These things would be considered if this were a criminal trial. They EXACTLY are corroborating evidence.

Which he knew, as a judge. He knew all of this and he still said it over and over again at the hearing for his soundbites. He was not remotely honest on there.

That’s not evidence. Seriously she does not have any proof. This is why people doubt her. She really needs the people she listed as witnesses to affirm her story. She needs to release the therapy notes. Right now her witnesses do not back her story and who known what’s in the therapy notes.

With all the time that's elapsed, if the therapy notes get released tomorrow or Friday before the vote, would you actually believe they weren't recreated?