Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think he didn't quite deny it, but he definitely showed a lack of candor on the question. He gave some kind of non-responsive answer like "you'd have to ask him."

He was asked if he was the “Bart” in Mark Judge’s book. He said that they would have to ask Judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kavanuagh's interview with Senate staff on Sept 25 - https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted).pdf

Did you interact with Ms. Ramirez at the
wedding?

22 Judge Kavanaugh. I'm sure -- I'm sure I saw her
23 because it wasn't a huge wedding. And at any wedding, you
24 would see the people that you went to school with. But I
25 don't have a specific recollection.

******************

Berchem's texts with Yarasavage shed light on Kavanaugh’s personal contact with friends, including that he obtained a copy of a photograph of a small group of friends from Yale at a 1997 wedding in order to show himself smiling alongside Ramirez 10 years after they graduated. Both were in the wedding party: Kavanaugh was a groomsman and Ramirez a bridesmaid at the wedding.

On Sept, 22nd, Yarasavage texted Berchem that she had shared the photo with “Brett’s team.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566

Kavanaugh was quoted in the sep 23 article--so he knew New Yorker was working on the article. Not surprising that he would tell friends that Ramirez was going after him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanuagh's interview with Senate staff on Sept 25 - https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted).pdf

Did you interact with Ms. Ramirez at the
wedding?

22 Judge Kavanaugh. I'm sure -- I'm sure I saw her
23 because it wasn't a huge wedding. And at any wedding, you
24 would see the people that you went to school with. But I
25 don't have a specific recollection.

******************

Berchem's texts with Yarasavage shed light on Kavanaugh’s personal contact with friends, including that he obtained a copy of a photograph of a small group of friends from Yale at a 1997 wedding in order to show himself smiling alongside Ramirez 10 years after they graduated. Both were in the wedding party: Kavanaugh was a groomsman and Ramirez a bridesmaid at the wedding.

On Sept, 22nd, Yarasavage texted Berchem that she had shared the photo with “Brett’s team.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566

Kavanaugh was quoted in the sep 23 article--so he knew New Yorker was working on the article. Not surprising that he would tell friends that Ramirez was going after him.

Texts allegedly show that he was preparing a defense to this in July. Too early for this to be the explanation.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So she knew the bride and he knew the groom. You've never been in a wedding where you knew OF someone but didn't know them or consider them a friend?

Do you people even read? He knew her well enough to text the bride to ask for the photo in which they both appeared. He did that before her allegation was made public.

Where's the text? See that's the problem with a lot of this. Let me guess. No one wants to see the text right because...Trump?

The woman that has the texts has been begging the FBI to contact her. There was a copy of her email to the FBI earlier in this thread. Also, I don't think the issue is whether or not Kavanaugh knew her. The issue is whether he has spoke about the alleged incident prior to it being published. He testified that he hadn't but the = texts show that he did.

This is a perfect example of what I said in one of the prior Brett Kavanaugh threads. They ignored her so they don't have to have evidence that goes against the outcome they want to arrive at, so they just ignore her. Another tactic is they intentionally confuse the issues to make it look as though their decision is correct. In these situations you can have in disputable proof, but it's meaningless if they refuse to investigate it excluding it from the report and weigh it down with superficial issues that have no relevance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think he didn't quite deny it, but he definitely showed a lack of candor on the question. He gave some kind of non-responsive answer like "you'd have to ask him."

He was asked if he was the “Bart” in Mark Judge’s book. He said that they would have to ask Judge.

Thanks. So, if he's signing his name "Bart," it's not accurate that they would have to ask Judge. He could have told the committee that he went by "Bart" for whatever reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I love you!!!

Guys? Bunch of my gay guys are now coming out about their own sexual assaults — often at hands of therapists who were counseling them to come out.
So many piggy men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think he didn't quite deny it, but he definitely showed a lack of candor on the question. He gave some kind of non-responsive answer like "you'd have to ask him."

He was asked if he was the “Bart” in Mark Judge’s book. He said that they would have to ask Judge.

Thanks. So, if he's signing his name "Bart," it's not accurate that they would have to ask Judge. He could have told the committee that he went by "Bart" for whatever reason.

He's so clever. Lawyer lies.

[Anonymous]

The whole of Kavanaugh's testimony seems to violate Rule 1.2 (promoting confidence in the Judiciary) and Rule 2.8(B) (decorum, demeanor) of the Justice code.

Grounds for impeachment from the Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So she knew the bride and he knew the groom. You've never been in a wedding where you knew OF someone but didn't know them or consider them a friend?

Do you people even read? He knew her well enough to text the bride to ask for the photo in which they both appeared. He did that before her allegation was made public.

Where's the text? See that's the problem with a lot of this. Let me guess. No one wants to see the text right because...Trump?

The woman that has the texts has been begging the FBI to contact her. There was a copy of her email to the FBI earlier in this thread. Also, I don't think the issue is whether or not Kavanaugh knew her. The issue is whether he has spoke about the alleged incident prior to it being published. He testified that he hadn't but the = texts show that he did.

This is a perfect example of what I said in one of the prior Brett Kavanaugh threads. They ignored her so they don't have to have evidence that goes against the outcome they want to arrive at, so they just ignore her. Another tactic is they intentionally confuse the issues to make it look as though their decision is correct. In these situations you can have in disputable proof, but it's meaningless if they refuse to investigate it excluding it from the report and weigh it down with superficial issues that have no relevance.

*this clearer:

This is a perfect example of what I said in one of the prior Brett Kavanaugh threads. They ignored her so they don't have evidence that goes against the outcome they want to arrive at. Another tactic, they intentionally confuse the issues to make it look as though their decision is correct. In these situations you can have indisputable proof, but it's meaningless if they refuse to investigate excluding it from the report and weigh it down with superficial issues that have no relevance.

[Anonymous]

Trump is a horse's patoot but is edging Kavanaigh out and forcing him to withdraw on his own. Rumpus knew that making fun of Christine Blasey Ford would go over like a lead balloon so why did he do it if not to further aleniate Flake, Murkowski, and Collins. The turtle takes a final count and tells Trump the votes aren't there and Kavanaugh gets to kiss of death. They still blame the Dems but hope this will help in the midterm .

[Anonymous]

The White House has confirmed that the FBI investigation is limited and now the Committee is putting out partisan (wrong) information.

Our country is disintegrating before our eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole of Kavanaugh's testimony seems to violate Rule 1.2 (promoting confidence in the Judiciary) and Rule 2.8(B) (decorum, demeanor) of the Justice code.

Grounds for impeachment from the Court.

He was not the Judge in these proceedings, merely a nominee. What rules of ethics did members of the SJC violate?

[Anonymous]

Holy Moly

https://twitter.com/SenatorDurbin/status/1047592548351574016

The inference here is that there are flags in past background checks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole of Kavanaugh's testimony seems to violate Rule 1.2 (promoting confidence in the Judiciary) and Rule 2.8(B) (decorum, demeanor) of the Justice code.

Grounds for impeachment from the Court.

He was not the Judge in these proceedings, merely a nominee. What rules of ethics did members of the SJC violate?

He is a sitting judge on the US Court of Appeals, duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think he didn't quite deny it, but he definitely showed a lack of candor on the question. He gave some kind of non-responsive answer like "you'd have to ask him."

He was asked if he was the “Bart” in Mark Judge’s book. He said that they would have to ask Judge.

Thanks. So, if he's signing his name "Bart," it's not accurate that they would have to ask Judge. He could have told the committee that he went by "Bart" for whatever reason.

In the transcript, the question was whether he was the Bart in Judge's book. The answer to that is to ask Judge.