Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much for Julie Swetnick:

During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.

I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to-time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.

A.I.D.S. was a huge issue at the time. And I had children. Due to her having a directly stated penchant for group sex, I decided not to see her anymore. It put my head back on straight. That was the last conversation we had.

Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will. She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-02%20Signed%20Ketterer%20Statement%20-%20Swetnick%20Allegations.pdf

The author of this piece of fiction has been diagnosed as bi-polar. He is mentally ill. He is not trustworthy at all.

Have you seen Ford's clean bill of (mental) health?
Me neither.

Is a public information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. Waiting is not helping. Every day that goes by gives them more ammunition to trash the women. But it also turns over more people contacting the FBI, and fresh new revelations and accusations against him. Harvard stepped away. The churches are stepping away. The legal community is long gone. His team is tossing mud on the women, but he is also losing support— and he was already less popular than Miers or Bork.

People are stepping away due to a mere allegation that has no facts? sad day.

They are stepping away for a lot of reasons, including his behavior at the hearing last Thursday. He lied repeatedly about small things, he was rude to the people questioning him, he refused to answer questions, he made that very odd claim that the allegations against him are part of a conspiracy on behalf of the Clintons and that left wing groups are funding it with millions of dollars!!

He sounded very off, and not Supreme Court material. And that's on top of the accusations against him. Oh, and he lied repeatedly about his drinking. All of the sexual allegations against him involve heavy drinking, which he denied, despite his yearbook and statements by multiple Yale and Yale Law and Georgetown Prep classmates.

honestly, i think he was beyond pissed off at all this. I think Ford's allegations are BS in terms of Brett Kavanaugh. I believe something happened to her but she has the wrong dude. He could see right through through this whole charade and was calling it out. I cannot blame him for getting worked up. I think that is very real especially if you are being accused of something that you didn't do that is potentially going to ruin your entire career/ life. Now he clearly leans right and maybe that is mostly what people don't want to see for SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much for Julie Swetnick:

During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.

I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to-time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.

A.I.D.S. was a huge issue at the time. And I had children. Due to her having a directly stated penchant for group sex, I decided not to see her anymore. It put my head back on straight. That was the last conversation we had.

Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will. She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-02%20Signed%20Ketterer%20Statement%20-%20Swetnick%20Allegations.pdf

The author of this piece of fiction has been diagnosed as bi-polar. He is mentally ill. He is not trustworthy at all.

Have you seen Ford's clean bill of (mental) health?
Me neither.

Have you seen Trump’s

[Anonymous]

The woman seems to suffer from early-onset demetia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am a liberal and have no idea what you are saying. But I think its pretty clear that everyone is long past passive aggressive and has moved full on into aggressive aggressive.

The word 'democrat' is commonly understood and known. I always intentionally stayed away from 'Democratic' party because it felt a little bit like co-opting the word democratic which has a robust and important meaning that has nothing to do with the political parties.

EXACTLY. I say "I am (or am not) voting Democrat in this year's election, and everyone I know says the same thing. It's not a supposed to be a slight of any kind, it's just the way many of us this word. Like you, I wouldn't say "I'm voting for the Democratic party" because that implies the other party is not Democratic in nature. I think the PP is just itching for an argument.

[Anonymous]

Dershowitz says people should be protected from
deliberate false accusations, without evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you PP for writing this. I agree +Million - "Amen. For all the Devils Triangles and spiked punch talk, what he did in the 80s is irrelevant. Because his behavior at the hearing was absolutely disqualifying. The rudeness, the contempt of members of Congress, his inability to keep his cool, the Cliton conspiracy crap— all of it. And maybe you have to be a member of the legal community to understand it. But if you are going to be a federal judge, you agree to certain guidelines. One is to have a judicial temperament— to be the calmest person in the room, to be the one who diffuses tense situations and reigns people in, and not lose your temper. Another is to avoid even the appearance of partiality or impropriety.

I have seen people say they would be upset too. So would I. But if you can’t hold it together, you are not qualified to be a judge. It’s like being a therapist and not being empathetic. Being a judge is a job the requires certain personality traits.

I have never heard that K has the reputation for being a hot head. So his temper tantrum was shocking. And stupid. I have seen it reported that McGann cleared the room after Fords testimony and told him he had to come out swinging. If true it was terrible advice and complete amateur hour. And it sank the nomination. He would have been hearing cases this week if he had kept his cool.

I work with lawyers from the Federalist society to Berniefan club. And everyone agrees that seating him would seriously damage the legitimacy of the Court and that he should withdraw.

To say the legal community is really upset is an understatement."

Were those his true colors or was he just putting on a show based on (mis)advice from his White House team? He has been a judge for a long time now. Have questions been raised about his temperament in court?

These are all great questions. And my understanding is he gets along well with his peers and has an even temperament in Court. But that’s irrelevant. In the most high profile setting imaginable, he blew in bigly. It is the one and only time most Americans will see him speak. He treated members of a co-equal branch of government with contempt on national TV. Even if this is the only bad two hours of his professional career, the appearance is that he cannot be impartial and cannot control is temper. This is a one strike offense.

Well said. Unfortunately, certain careers only allow for one strike and this is one of them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A YLS grad reviews Mark Judges book, Wasted. There’s a lot in the book that matches Bart’s testimony and many of the notes in the yearbook and not in a good way.

https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-investigation-i-read-mark-judges-book-wasted-heres-what-fbi-1151447

direct link to free pdf download:

https://ia902900.us.archive.org/30/items/Wasted_20181003/Wasted.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. Waiting is not helping. Every day that goes by gives them more ammunition to trash the women. But it also turns over more people contacting the FBI, and fresh new revelations and accusations against him. Harvard stepped away. The churches are stepping away. The legal community is long gone. His team is tossing mud on the women, but he is also losing support— and he was already less popular than Miers or Bork.

People are stepping away due to a mere allegation that has no facts? sad day.

They are stepping away for a lot of reasons, including his behavior at the hearing last Thursday. He lied repeatedly about small things, he was rude to the people questioning him, he refused to answer questions, he made that very odd claim that the allegations against him are part of a conspiracy on behalf of the Clintons and that left wing groups are funding it with millions of dollars!!

He sounded very off, and not Supreme Court material. And that's on top of the accusations against him. Oh, and he lied repeatedly about his drinking. All of the sexual allegations against him involve heavy drinking, which he denied, despite his yearbook and statements by multiple Yale and Yale Law and Georgetown Prep classmates.

honestly, i think he was beyond pissed off at all this. I think Ford's allegations are BS in terms of Brett Kavanaugh. I believe something happened to her but she has the wrong dude. He could see right through through this whole charade and was calling it out. I cannot blame him for getting worked up. I think that is very real especially if you are being accused of something that you didn't do that is potentially going to ruin your entire career/ life. Now he clearly leans right and maybe that is mostly what people don't want to see for SCOTUS.

He DID admit to drinking a lot. He said “sometimes I had too much to drink,” maybe not exact words. I have seen people claim he denied drinking, and I have seen others claim “he admitted he was always drinking!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dershowitz says people should be protected from
deliberate false accusations, without evidence.

showflake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Amen

I don't think they have the votes. It will end the same way Harvard did. He really upset the legal community. He will get counseling from his team, then the announcement will follow.

Amen. For all the Devils Triangles and spiked punch talk, what he did in the 80s is irrelevant. Because his behavior at the hearing was absolutely disqualifying. The rudeness, the contempt of members of Congress, his inability to keep his cool, the Cliton conspiracy crap— all of it. And maybe you have to be a member of the legal community to understand it. But if you are going to be a federal judge, you agree to certain guidelines. One is to have a judicial temperament— to be the calmest person in the room, to be the one who diffuses tense situations and reigns people in, and not lose your temper. Another is to avoid even the appearance of partiality or impropriety.

I have seen people say they would be upset too. So would I. But if you can’t hold it together, you are not qualified to be a judge. It’s like being a therapist and not being empathetic. Being a judge is a job the requires certain personality traits.

I have never heard that K has the reputation for being a hot head. So his temper tantrum was shocking. And stupid. I have seen it reported that McGann cleared the room after Fords testimony and told him he had to come out swinging. If true it was terrible advice and complete amateur hour. And it sank the nomination. He would have been hearing cases this week if he had kept his cool.

I work with lawyers from the Federalist society to Berniefan club. And everyone agrees that seating him would seriously damage the legitimacy of the Court and that he should withdraw.

To say the legal community is really upset is an understatement.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Justice Kavanaugh. Nice ring to it.

Sweet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. Waiting is not helping. Every day that goes by gives them more ammunition to trash the women. But it also turns over more people contacting the FBI, and fresh new revelations and accusations against him. Harvard stepped away. The churches are stepping away. The legal community is long gone. His team is tossing mud on the women, but he is also losing support— and he was already less popular than Miers or Bork.

People are stepping away due to a mere allegation that has no facts? sad day.

They are stepping away for a lot of reasons, including his behavior at the hearing last Thursday. He lied repeatedly about small things, he was rude to the people questioning him, he refused to answer questions, he made that very odd claim that the allegations against him are part of a conspiracy on behalf of the Clintons and that left wing groups are funding it with millions of dollars!!

He sounded very off, and not Supreme Court material. And that's on top of the accusations against him. Oh, and he lied repeatedly about his drinking. All of the sexual allegations against him involve heavy drinking, which he denied, despite his yearbook and statements by multiple Yale and Yale Law and Georgetown Prep classmates.

honestly, i think he was beyond pissed off at all this. I think Ford's allegations are BS in terms of Brett Kavanaugh. I believe something happened to her but she has the wrong dude. He could see right through through this whole charade and was calling it out. I cannot blame him for getting worked up. I think that is very real especially if you are being accused of something that you didn't do that is potentially going to ruin your entire career/ life. Now he clearly leans right and maybe that is mostly what people don't want to see for SCOTUS.

Trust the 9 million lawyers on DCUM. He can be pissed off. But he can’t act pissed off at an SJC meeting the whole country is watching and become a federal judge. Let alone a SC Justice. Full stop. His behavior was disqualifying, apart from whether allegations against him are true. And they would be every bit as disqualifying if he shared RBG’s legal philosophy. And his being on SCOTUS would be a disaster because it would bring the one branch if government most people still respect down to the level of Trump and McTurtle and Schumer. It’s like the anger over Bush v. Gore x1000, on steroids, and continuing forever.

I would be shocked if you could find a lawyer in DCUM land who would say otherwise. Even the most conservative lawyers I know say he blew it.

[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).

Also his corroborating evidence (his calendar) also shows that his statements were not truthful.
He said he wasn't even in Maryland on the weekends, and that he only drank on the weekends.

Right there on his calendar, it shows him at a party on a week day in Maryland.

If he's such a perjurer, and was caught by his calendar, he could have left the damn thing in his parent's basement, no?

+1
This is what makes no sense. If he had something to hide, he certainly wouldn't have *voluntarily* supplied his calendars to back up his forceful denial of the assault. Clearly, there is nothing in those calendars that he was trying to keep hidden.

[Anonymous]

20:39 is wrong.