Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we know who administered Ford's polygraph? I cannot find a signature. Isn't that odd?
Also, in her typed statement it says: "me and four others" (were at the party). Does that sound like a statement by a PhD and a graduate of a fancy private girl's school?

Christ, listen to yourself.

Where are all the PPs saying victims aren’t criticized to high heaven? Ford is now getting scrutinized for her grammar while providing a statement of the traumatic sexual assault she says she suffered.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though I find Ford’s account credible (and don’t want Kavanaugh on SC), Swetnick is suspect. Makes no sense that she was at high school parties and beach week when she was in college. Plus, she knew drinks were being spiked and gang rapes going on but she went back to 10 parties? Swetnick owes MD Comptroller $62K, presumably in back taxes. I don’t understand how she has been able to keep her security clearance. Things aren’t making sense.

Where does it say she graduated in 1980? I know her socially and there is no way she’s that old!

She is 55 and graduated in 1980. Use google if you don’t believe me.

What do you know about the $62K she owes in taxes? How does she still have a security clearance?

She doesn't owe anything in taxes.

[Anonymous]

>i know women were being raped in 1981
>i kept going to the same parties until 1982 when i was raped
>i got too drunk, which means i was secretly drugged
>i kept going to the same parties after i was raped until 1983
>i'm credible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

Eh. Kavanaugh seems to be the dirty boy here.

And "seems" is all many Democrats want because they think "seems" is enough to keep Kavanaugh off the SC.

[Anonymous]

Why is Avenatti the CreepyPornLawyer, but Trump is not the CreepyPornPresident?

I mean, it was Trump who decided to get with Stormy, which is what launched Avenatti into the spotlight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

Eh. Kavanaugh seems to be the dirty boy here.

And "seems" is all many Democrats want because they think "seems" is enough to keep Kavanaugh off the SC.

Actually all the democrats are calling for FBI investigations. All the victims are too. The only ones who don't want a FBI investigation are trump and kavanaugh and ... trump's lackeys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is Avenatti the CreepyPornLawyer, but Trump is not the CreepyPornPresident?

I mean, it was Trump who decided to get with Stormy, which is what launched Avenatti into the spotlight.

Because it was coined by a fox character and fox is up trump's butt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

Eh. Kavanaugh seems to be the dirty boy here.

And "seems" is all many Democrats want because they think "seems" is enough to keep Kavanaugh off the SC.

The appearance of impropriety?

[Anonymous]

Were it not for #MeToo, the Kavanaugh vote would not have been delayed to allow Ford’s testimony to be heard. Kavanaugh would have been confirmed last week. Hell, Ford probably wouldn’t have come forward at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is no longer about Kavanaugh. It is about questioning how much evidence, or lack thereof, is necessary to convict someone. Are mere allegations enough to bring down a SCOTUS nominee, or anyone for that matter? Or, do we demand some type of credible evidence? CREDIBLE evidence.

And, to those of you who say this is not a “court of law,” you are correct. However, that does not mean that the standard in our country is no longer innocent until PROVEN guilty. The standard is that there must be some evidence of misconduct or a crime.

One more thing... if Democrats are successful at preventing Kavanaugh from getting a SCOTUS seat, don’t think they will stop there. They will go after him on the Court of Appeals. You KNOW that to be the case. They are ruthless and dirty.

Eh. Kavanaugh seems to be the dirty boy here.

And "seems" is all many Democrats want because they think "seems" is enough to keep Kavanaugh off the SC.

Actually all the democrats are calling for FBI investigations. All the victims are too. The only ones who don't want a FBI investigation are trump and kavanaugh and ... trump's lackeys.

Well, of course they're calling for FBI investigations after accusations with huge holes are presented that make it "seem" that Kavanaugh is a "dirty boy" (per that bolded post above) who should be investigated. Mission accomplished!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though I find Ford’s account credible (and don’t want Kavanaugh on SC), Swetnick is suspect. Makes no sense that she was at high school parties and beach week when she was in college. Plus, she knew drinks were being spiked and gang rapes going on but she went back to 10 parties? Swetnick owes MD Comptroller $62K, presumably in back taxes. I don’t understand how she has been able to keep her security clearance. Things aren’t making sense.

Where does it say she graduated in 1980? I know her socially and there is no way she’s that old!

She is 55 and graduated in 1980. Use google if you don’t believe me.

What do you know about the $62K she owes in taxes? How does she still have a security clearance?

She doesn't owe anything in taxes.

According to MD Judiciary Case Search / Circuit Court Judgments and Liens, the Comptroller of Maryland entered a judgment against her on 10/2/15 for $62,822.03. It does not show it was satisfied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is Avenatti the CreepyPornLawyer, but Trump is not the CreepyPornPresident?

I mean, it was Trump who decided to get with Stormy, which is what launched Avenatti into the spotlight.

people are wondering this on twitter too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though I find Ford’s account credible (and don’t want Kavanaugh on SC), Swetnick is suspect. Makes no sense that she was at high school parties and beach week when she was in college. Plus, she knew drinks were being spiked and gang rapes going on but she went back to 10 parties? Swetnick owes MD Comptroller $62K, presumably in back taxes. I don’t understand how she has been able to keep her security clearance. Things aren’t making sense.

Where does it say she graduated in 1980? I know her socially and there is no way she’s that old!

She is 55 and graduated in 1980. Use google if you don’t believe me.

What do you know about the $62K she owes in taxes? How does she still have a security clearance?

She doesn't owe anything in taxes.

According to MD Judiciary Case Search / Circuit Court Judgments and Liens, the Comptroller of Maryland entered a judgment against her on 10/2/15 for $62,822.03. It does not show it was satisfied.

According to WaPo, she does not currently owe any taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though I find Ford’s account credible (and don’t want Kavanaugh on SC), Swetnick is suspect. Makes no sense that she was at high school parties and beach week when she was in college. Plus, she knew drinks were being spiked and gang rapes going on but she went back to 10 parties? Swetnick owes MD Comptroller $62K, presumably in back taxes. I don’t understand how she has been able to keep her security clearance. Things aren’t making sense.

Where does it say she graduated in 1980? I know her socially and there is no way she’s that old!

She is 55 and graduated in 1980. Use google if you don’t believe me.

What do you know about the $62K she owes in taxes? How does she still have a security clearance?

She doesn't owe anything in taxes.

According to MD Judiciary Case Search / Circuit Court Judgments and Liens, the Comptroller of Maryland entered a judgment against her on 10/2/15 for $62,822.03. It does not show it was satisfied.

According to WaPo, she does not currently owe any taxes.

When were they paid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Avenatti the CreepyPornLawyer, but Trump is not the CreepyPornPresident?

I mean, it was Trump who decided to get with Stormy, which is what launched Avenatti into the spotlight.

people are wondering this on twitter too.

because it would make our president an international laughing stock. Oh wait, he already is so that can’t be it.