Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leland Keyser can be problematic for this whole thing, if she sheds some light on why this story got concocted.

She has said she believes Dr. Ford.

Dr. Ford said Laland was a witness.

No -- she says she was at the gathering. And Leland does not recall it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI is going to question Judge, who will deny this event with Dr. Ford took place, and then Kavanaugh will get confirmed. Despite his out of control temperament and partisan railing.

Yup. Though how anyone could believe Judge over Ford is beyond me.

Ford was wholly unbelievable, in a sad spacey sort of way. The prosecutor who interviewed her, who specialized in this area said that she would not prosecute the case based on the evidence she heard.

Here are a couple of facts for you. The prosecutor only interviewed Dr. Ford. GOP interrupted her interview of Kavanaugh. GOP did not subpoena Mark Judge to be questioned by the prosecutor. GOP refused to let her lie detector technician or her therapist to testify.

So, it is a little pretentious for the prosecutor to say she wouldn’t prosecute and it is really dishonest for GOP and republicans Kavanaugh supporter to claim there is no case.

[Anonymous]

Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.

This is highly unlikely. Not investigating Avenetti's client is understandable. It was out of reality. The FBI will interview the others and let it lead them. Including Ford and the Yale classmates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leland Keyser can be problematic for this whole thing, if she sheds some light on why this story got concocted.

She has said she believes Dr. Ford.

And, she also says she never met Brett Kavanaugh--and does not remember the party. She doesn't want to call her lifelong friend a liar.

I have a lifelong friend - grade school through college, including study abroad. We often notice that we don't remember the same things about our experiences, or sometimes one remembers and the other has no recollection. My memory is generally better, but still there are some things that I don't recall. We laugh about it, but never do we think the other is lying.

[Anonymous]

Ford's 'second front door' tale is blown:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/breaking-christine-ford-caught-in-major-lie-photos-prove-house-updates-occurred-much-earlier-than-senate-testimony/

[Anonymous]

"In case you missed it, this not a trial, much less a trial of her. No relevance whatsoever. "


It impugns her supposed sterling background, so therefore her credibility as a witness is affected. Completely relevant!

[Anonymous]

Since Avenatti's client seems as though she's being discounted by the majority of people, including the SJC Democrats at the hearing, how will this bode for Avenatti? Will he still continue to be lauded and respected by those Democrats who had been singing his praises?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI is going to question Judge, who will deny this event with Dr. Ford took place, and then Kavanaugh will get confirmed. Despite his out of control temperament and partisan railing.

Yup. Though how anyone could believe Judge over Ford is beyond me.

Ford was wholly unbelievable, in a sad spacey sort of way. The prosecutor who interviewed her, who specialized in this area said that she would not prosecute the case based on the evidence she heard.

Here are a couple of facts for you. The prosecutor only interviewed Dr. Ford. GOP interrupted her interview of Kavanaugh. GOP did not subpoena Mark Judge to be questioned by the prosecutor. GOP refused to let her lie detector technician or her therapist to testify.

So, it is a little pretentious for the prosecutor to say she wouldn’t prosecute and it is really dishonest for GOP and republicans Kavanaugh supporter to claim there is no case.

A prosecutor only needs to interview the accuser to see if there is a winnable case. That’s how it works. Based on the evidence, is there enough to move forward with a case? She says no.

[Anonymous]

Kavanaugh even lied about having no advantage getting into Yale Law School. 1 in 6 YLS students from that era came from Yale undergrad. He was a legacy at Yale Undergrad. His grandfather Edward Everett Kavanaugh went to Yale.

Kavanaugh was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ford's 'second front door' tale is blown:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/breaking-christine-ford-caught-in-major-lie-photos-prove-house-updates-occurred-much-earlier-than-senate-testimony/

Bombshell revelation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the FBI not investigating Swetnick?

As in, her testimony and its implications for the nomination.

They probably have judged it not worth their time. She was three years older and the period she said the parties happened she was in community college and BK and friends were in HS. On the face of it, this has credibility problems.

Avenatti tried to make the best of it by saying they were multi-age parties attended by people ages 16 to 22. And yet her contention was that BK and Judge supplied the alcohol, even though there were apparently people there who, unlike the GP boys, could legally buy the alcohol in MD.

Doesn't help that the IRS has gone after her twice for back taxes and her DH filed a restraining order against her.

None of what you wrote is true. Esp with the restraining order. You got yourself all worked up to lie.

Real talk - I never have posted here to deliberately lie. May I ask: why do you do this?

Huh? The restraining order is well known. There are ways of saying it isn't that important because divorcing couples do this to each other, but it definitely existed.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/ex-boyfriend-filed-restraining-order-against-kavanaugh-accuser-845348

He. Was. Not. Her. Husband. See, the title of your ‘evidence’ was trying to help you! Back to the brain trust!

Married ex-BF, DH--whatever. Restraining order still filed.

Filed and never issued for her not a husband who didn’t pursue it at all, ever, but don’t let any actual facts stop you...you never do!

Argument isn’t your forte. Or close reading, or, reading things in bold or titles. That must be hard.

Wow! You are fighting hard for this Swetnick chick. My original posted on this said the restraining order was filed. I never said it was issued. Kind of immaterial that it was a married ex-BF with a kid or a DH, although the former does evoke the Glen Close character in Fatal Attraction.

But go ahead and nitpick away. Doesn't make her charges any more credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is so interesting that DCUM posters usually sneer at anyone who uses the "Dr." title who is not a medical doctor. Yet Ms. Ford's supporters refer to her as Dr. Ford constantly. Why is this?

Because she is a professor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You people need to put down the Kool aid. Are you willfully stupid or outright crazy? Or just a garden variety troll? As soon as you start talking about "liberals" as though they are a monolith, you lose all credibility. There are crazy posts on these Kavanaugh threads, to be sure, but so is yours. You "know" he's innocent. There are a limited set of people who "know" that, and you ain't one of em.

LOL! Kool aid? Go watch the opening of the first hearing on Kavanaugh. Almost choreographed and staged. Ridiculous, unprofessional performance by Dems.

Then, go listen to Feinstein the afternoon of K's last hearing--all the attacks. All the stupid questions about high school yearbooks. Personal attacks. Kavanaugh has had years on the bench and yet high school is the best they have? And, the assault accusations. Look at how Ford was handled by her lawyers--either she is lying or they deceived her.

No. It's not Kool Aid. The spiked punch came from Feinstein, et.al--not Kavanaugh.

And then watch this and try to convince me that this guy is owed a Supreme Court seat.

Not sure if I’m missing something, but that seems pretty uneventful.

Well, I guess you missed all the LIES the guy who wants to be on the SCOTUS said. Boofing means using drugs/alcohol anally, Devil’s Triangle is a threesome, Kav refused to admit that ralphing referred to puking when drunk, etc.
Review the tape and you’ll find more. Oh, and he claimed the ralphing had to do with his “weak stomach.”

All these stupid small lies were completely unnecessary. He could have said the things in his yearbook were sensational exaggerations typical of a teenager, and that he’sd put them in for the benefit of his friends because he wanted to look cool. Instead, he lied, which is far more suspicious. If he’s lying about small things, he’s surely lying about big things.

OMG. I guess you have never known any teenage boys. They exaggerate, brag and dissemble about this kind of stuff all the time. Are you taking all this literally???

These were teen kids who pretended to act tough, talk tough but I would be extremely surprised if any of them actually did any of these things. Not sure how he "lied" about it.

I am not pro Kavanaugh or pro his accusers, just trying to use a little common sense. I agree with whoever said this is like the Salem witch trials.

Understood -- so why lie about what the words mean 30 years later?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI is going to question Judge, who will deny this event with Dr. Ford took place, and then Kavanaugh will get confirmed. Despite his out of control temperament and partisan railing.

Yup. Though how anyone could believe Judge over Ford is beyond me.

Ford was wholly unbelievable, in a sad spacey sort of way. The prosecutor who interviewed her, who specialized in this area said that she would not prosecute the case based on the evidence she heard.

Here are a couple of facts for you. The prosecutor only interviewed Dr. Ford. GOP interrupted her interview of Kavanaugh. GOP did not subpoena Mark Judge to be questioned by the prosecutor. GOP refused to let her lie detector technician or her therapist to testify.

So, it is a little pretentious for the prosecutor to say she wouldn’t prosecute and it is really dishonest for GOP and republicans Kavanaugh supporter to claim there is no case.

A prosecutor only needs to interview the accuser to see if there is a winnable case. That’s how it works. Based on the evidence, is there enough to move forward with a case? She says no.

Montgomery County police also said that they would not prosecute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are running pro Kav ads on CNN now. Just watched one, it's sick. "Look at all the women I haven't raped! Just look at 'em!! We're breezily walking now."

What in the everloving f***? Like he's running for elected office. No.

He has over $52 million of dark money behind him and he complains about the smear campaign against him.

May be there should be an anti-Kavanaugh ad run to show how much money was spent on other SCJ nominees.