Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was Julie Swetnick's false claim of Kavanaigh's involvement in gang rape parties given under penalty of forgery? If so, shouldn't she be prosecuted and jailed?

Penalty of forgery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Julie Swetnick's false claim of Kavanaigh's involvement in gang rape parties given under penalty of forgery? If so, shouldn't she be prosecuted and jailed?

Penalty of forgery?

Autocorrect. Should be penalty of FELONY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm still worried about manchin and collins.

Flake and murkowski, hopefully will vote no.

Manchin (D-West Virginia) is probably going to be a yes. He is in a contested battle for his seat in November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Julie Swetnick's false claim of Kavanaigh's involvement in gang rape parties given under penalty of forgery? If so, shouldn't she be prosecuted and jailed?

Penalty of forgery?

Autocorrect. Should be penalty of FELONY.

No it shouldn't. It should be penalty of perjury. Just because some staffers have started saying that, doesn't mean it's correct.

[Anonymous]

Penalty of felony is correct bc lying to congress is a different felony than perjury.

[Anonymous]

I have no idea what's going on with Swetnick and I think it's perfectly fair to disregard her allegations for the moment, but even doing so it's perfectly clear the R's think Kavanaugh did more than he has admitted to.

They wouldn't even interview Ford as part of the investigation! That, plus the ovvious lies that Kavanaugh was telling (which most people acknowledge I think-- they just dispute whether it was justified) tells you pretty much all you need to know about his credibility and whether he has anything to hide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her allegation was unsupported.
She was sympathetic in her testimony.
When you read the testimony--especially Mitchell's paper--it is clear that her testimony was seriously flawed, especially compared to her earlier statements. She couldn't remember what she told WAPO two months ago--how can you trust what she says happened 30+ (that is one of the issues) years ago. Particularly, when she initially said her "late teens" and changed it to"15."

If you look at the facts, the only reason anyone believes her is because they want to do so. The Dems mostly came out saying that they "believed her" even before we heard from her.

If this is what the Democrats represent, and, if they get the power, then we are in very serious trouble.

+1

They believe her because, well, they believe her. There has not been a single piece of hard evidence that corroborates her story. There have been a mountain of inconsistencies in her ever changing accounts surrounding this case. 1) Did she coach anyone for polygraph; 2) Did she take a polygraph on the same day of her grandmother's funeral 3) Did she share notes with the Post 4) Did she put in a second door for google interns or herself 5) Did she live in a 500 sq ft studio 6) Was she afraid of flying 7) Did she know who paid for her poly 8) Did she know her lawyers work for free 9) Did she know senate staffers were willing to come to her 10) 4 boys, or 2 boys; late teens, early 1980s, mid 1980s, 1980s, or 1982.

Honestly I don't know why Dr. Ford is not investigated for perjury.

Your nonstop attacking of Dr Ford does not change the fact that Brett Kavanaugh is not the right person for the job.
Sorry if you thought it would help. Or are you just a crazy misogynist fool? Or both perhaps..

Fact: Ford could not put together a comprehensive enough story with enough verifiable fact. She accused a man publicly of attempted rape, which resulted in absolute crucification in the media. He then had to come out and not only defend himself, but protect his family from the fallout. And he did just that. I would say he's not the right man for the job had he NOT come out swinging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Julie Swetnick's false claim of Kavanaigh's involvement in gang rape parties given under penalty of forgery? If so, shouldn't she be prosecuted and jailed?

The general outlines of her story - that girls were often drugged and raped at parties - have been corroborated. Mark Judge even admitted it.

But you know this.

Didn't she originally say she saw him spiking the punch, and that he helped arrange the rape parties and participated in the rapes?

Wouldn’t it have been great if the FBI hadn’t had their hands tied and had interviewed relevant people? I think that would have been great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still worried about manchin and collins.

Flake and murkowski, hopefully will vote no.

Manchin (D-West Virginia) is probably going to be a yes. He is in a contested battle for his seat in November.

What's the point of even calling Manchin a Democrat anymore if all he does is vote against them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FBI interviewed only six people. Hid from / ignored several witnesses.

What a sham. Just when I think the GOP couldn't sink any lower.

Disgusting.

This must be what it feels like to live in countries where corrupt parties and leaders take over the government.

Hopefully our system of checks and balances prevails

Also Leahy's Twitter thread that others linked to quite plainly lays out another big set of lies

https://mobile.twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/1047610549100580869

Absolutely! I cannot understand why or how anyone of conscience can stomach this kind of obvious deceit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not only was Kavanaugh's roommate freshman year not interviewed this week. He has never been interviewed for ANY of Kavanaugh's background checks. How is that possible?

He confirms that Kavanaugh lied and was a black out drunk. He confirmed Kavnaugh used the terms Boof and Devil's Triangle as they commonly known and not for what he testified under oath.

He provides contemperaneous confirmation of the seual misconduct with Ms. Ramierez.

He wasn't interviewed because any good cop knows that someone saying 'black out drunk' about someone else doesn't make it true. He also can't prove the terms were used all the time in the context he thinks. It's opinion, not fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fact: Ford could not put together a comprehensive enough story with enough verifiable fact. She accused a man publicly of attempted rape, which resulted in absolute crucification in the media. He then had to come out and not only defend himself, but protect his family from the fallout. And he did just that. I would say he's not the right man for the job had he NOT come out swinging.

No, that’s your opinion. Ford’s story was fine. Brett isn’t a suitable judge. Frankly he sounded like he needed intensive therapy. He just wants power and glory. Giving him the benefit of he doubt, that he’s mean drunk who doesn’t remember assaulting any women, he had to know how much he drank (drinks?). If he had any sense at all, he would have declined to nom. But he’s a power hungry freak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still worried about manchin and collins.

Flake and murkowski, hopefully will vote no.

Manchin (D-West Virginia) is probably going to be a yes. He is in a contested battle for his seat in November.

Manchin is a definite yes. K only needs one more from Collins, Flake, Murkowski and Heitkemp. The goose is cooked.

[Anonymous]

Betting odds now at 80.5% in favor of confirmation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still worried about manchin and collins.

Flake and murkowski, hopefully will vote no.

Manchin (D-West Virginia) is probably going to be a yes. He is in a contested battle for his seat in November.

Manchin is a definite yes. K only needs one more from Collins, Flake, Murkowski and Heitkemp. The goose is cooked.

Your fantasy doesn't make it true

Think BK is going down