Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that Ford made an allegation without any support to corroborate what she said. Her version was full of holes.

The Democrats realized this and switched the attack to his year book, his drinking in college and his anger when he testified the second time.

The Democrats have nothing to rely on when it comes to the Ford allegation which is what started the whole thing after the hearings so they can only fall back on other accusations unrelated to the alleged sexual assault on Ford.

The yearbook corroborates her story, as does the calendar. It isn't that they changed tactics, the fact patterns warrant more scrutiny - scrutiny that the White house has shielded Kavanaugh from.

If her story was that Kavanaugh was a crude young man who drank, then yes, the yearbook and calendar corroborates her story. The most important part of her story is the sexual assault. The yearbook does not corroborate that, and we're waiting to see what the investigation turned up to see if the calendar could have helped corroborate that. Although, at best, it would help, not completely corroborate.

Just because someone was a crude young man who drank does not mean he engaged in sexual assault. Yes, many crude young men who drink engaged in sexual assault. Many did not.
If the calendar can place him where she places him, with the people she placed him with, and interviews with or statements from the potential witnesses also suggest at the least there was such a gathering, her claim will have some corroboration. The most helpful would of course be a witness who saw the assault.

[Anonymous]

Jamie Roche. Just saw his interview...enough said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford unwilling to turn over therapist's notes to the SJC. These notes were leaked to Post and were referenced by Ford as corroborating her story under oath (though after the fact) to the SJC -- THE CON IS OVER

She offered to provide the notes to the FBI but they never showed up to interview her. If she provided them to the SJC, they would immediately be selectively leaked.

Because they weren't going to interview her and her lawyers knew it. Nor should they because, as you all keep saying, this isn't a criminal trial.

She can file a report and give them to the local police who have said over and over again they would be glad to help even if the statue of limitations has run out.

You can't have it both ways. If Grassley thinks the therapist's notes and other documents are important enough to request, they should are important enough for the FBI to review as part of its background investigation. It makes no sense that an investigation instigated by Ford's testimony wouldn't include an interview with her. It is clear to everyone that the White House restricted this investigation in order to achieve its desired outcome.

She shared them with the Washington Post, but not the senators, because you say they might be leaked? Leaked to who? She already shared them.

I think, frankly, her lawyers are lying (again). They have no intention of sharing those notes with the FBI, or anyone else, but favorable press.

Obviously she didn't share everything that the Committee wants. Otherwise they could just read them in the Post.

The Post has the notes. Why the secrecy unless they don't help her story?

Certainly you aren’t this dumb in real life? Because the SJC would not bother with leaking them. They’d pick the most salacious bits and post them on their website.

She was in couples therapy. Talking about a rape attempt. So the notes contain a discussion of hers — and her husband’s— private martial problems. And if the attempted rape came up, this likely has something to do with sexual problems. She has kids. She’s a professor The notes contain her husband’s information and issues too. And, oh yeah, the SJC just posted ON THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE very selectively edited excerpts of a letter by a bipolar MAGAtt talking about how one abuse victim liked group sex.

So just spitballing here. Maybe she doesn’t want the SJC’s next post to be a therapists notes from when her husband had an affair and said it was her fault because she could only have sex in some weird, kinky way which she attributes to an attempted rape? For her husband’s colleagues and kids and students to read and us to pick apart on DCUM? Just a thought... Idiot.

DP. Wow. But I guess it's perfectly ok for Kavanaugh's wife, kids, parents, friends, and colleagues to read all kinds of salacious information about his private life and for DCUM loonies, like yourself, to pick it all apart online, for all to see? Just a thought.. idiot, indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP. Wow. But I guess it's perfectly ok for Kavanaugh's wife, kids, parents, friends, and colleagues to read all kinds of salacious information about his private life and for DCUM loonies, like yourself, to pick it all apart online, for all to see? Just a thought.. idiot, indeed.

Hey genius bar - he wrote that stuff in his yearbook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that Ford made an allegation without any support to corroborate what she said. Her version was full of holes.

The Democrats realized this and switched the attack to his year book, his drinking in college and his anger when he testified the second time.

The Democrats have nothing to rely on when it comes to the Ford allegation which is what started the whole thing after the hearings so they can only fall back on other accusations unrelated to the alleged sexual assault on Ford.

The yearbook corroborates her story, as does the calendar. It isn't that they changed tactics, the fact patterns warrant more scrutiny - scrutiny that the White house has shielded Kavanaugh from.

If her story was that Kavanaugh was a crude young man who drank, then yes, the yearbook and calendar corroborates her story. The most important part of her story is the sexual assault. The yearbook does not corroborate that, and we're waiting to see what the investigation turned up to see if the calendar could have helped corroborate that. Although, at best, it would help, not completely corroborate.

Just because someone was a crude young man who drank does not mean he engaged in sexual assault. Yes, many crude young men who drink engaged in sexual assault. Many did not.
If the calendar can place him where she places him, with the people she placed him with, and interviews with or statements from the potential witnesses also suggest at the least there was such a gathering, her claim will have some corroboration. The most helpful would of course be a witness who saw the assault.

But 1) there appears to have been a conscious decision to prevent the FBI from attempting to corroborate her claims, since they weren't even allowed to interview her, much less review any additional information she had

2) if Kavanaugh is lying about whether he was a crude hard drinking teen -- which most people agree he is-- then it is perfectly fair to wonder whether he is lying whether he can reliably remember not assaulting her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

T

his cracks me up. Attack a man by accusing him of attempted rape. Have activists make his family's life a living hell. The say he doesn't have the temperament for a judge because he came in swinging to protect himself and his family.

When an innocent man is wrongly accused, that's usually how they react. Ask any police officer as it's one of the things they look for in a suspect when someone is murdered. Guilty people tend to act more like Ford did, i.e. story changes all the time, can't pin down details, say someone can vouch and they can't, etc.

This is exactly correct. Thank you.

Wrong. Coming from a long line of police officers. COMPLETELY wrong. BIGLY WRONG.

Sheesh. I can't keep up with this thread but the first poster above is wrong. I have 22 years of experience with interviewing suspects and the innocent ones do not behave like cornered animals. I think many people commenting on his demeanor did not see all his testimony. The media cherry picked the fairly mild parts. The crying about his father's calendars was bizarre. As if his dad were long dead. There he was sitting with his second wife three seats down from Brett. Between the easily rebutted lies and his courtroom demeanor I think he is not a good candidate for the highest court. He should be above all reproach

.

I will never understand how some of you insist his crying about "the calendars" was bizarre. Obviously, it wasn't literally the calendars he was crying over; he was devastated mentioning his father because HE HAD TO SIT THERE IN FRONT OF HIS FATHER KNOWING HIS FATHER WAS HEARING ALL OF THESE DISGUSTING THINGS ALLEGED ABOUT HIM. Have you people no empathy at all? His dad is probably someone he's always looked up to, and here is his entire family, utterly disgraced and mortified because of these 35+ year old allegations - which he has no way of defending himself from. My God, I'd be crying too! He cried when mentioning his beloved daughters and wife, too. This has got to be the worst time in his entire life, and you're criticizing him for crying?? Unbelievable.

This is so interesting - not - but it is clear you have never been involved in anything of any significance - like LIFE significance. My husband has had clients who were truly facing the end to their lives as they knew it, hearing people say terrible things about them, in front of their families, and they did not act this way. My father has seen the same things. You are seeing what you want to see, and it does not have any relation to what people actually do in those situations. He was doing a huge show and you lapped it up.

This is utter B.S. If anything, YOU are seeing what you want to see. Who the hell are you to claim that someone you've never even met before has not been "involved in anything of LIFE significance"? Just those words prove what an arrogant a-hole you are. You know nothing about me or my life or what I've "been involved in." Honestly, thank you. People like you simply prove every stereotype about you is true. You make it so easy to dismiss everything you say.

[Anonymous]

Kavanaugh created all this drama himself. Had he behaved honorablely in the past, we wouldn’t be here today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that Ford made an allegation without any support to corroborate what she said. Her version was full of holes.

The Democrats realized this and switched the attack to his year book, his drinking in college and his anger when he testified the second time.

The Democrats have nothing to rely on when it comes to the Ford allegation which is what started the whole thing after the hearings so they can only fall back on other accusations unrelated to the alleged sexual assault on Ford.

The yearbook corroborates her story, as does the calendar. It isn't that they changed tactics, the fact patterns warrant more scrutiny - scrutiny that the White house has shielded Kavanaugh from.

If her story was that Kavanaugh was a crude young man who drank, then yes, the yearbook and calendar corroborates her story. The most important part of her story is the sexual assault. The yearbook does not corroborate that, and we're waiting to see what the investigation turned up to see if the calendar could have helped corroborate that. Although, at best, it would help, not completely corroborate.

Just because someone was a crude young man who drank does not mean he engaged in sexual assault. Yes, many crude young men who drink engaged in sexual assault. Many did not.
If the calendar can place him where she places him, with the people she placed him with, and interviews with or statements from the potential witnesses also suggest at the least there was such a gathering, her claim will have some corroboration. The most helpful would of course be a witness who saw the assault.

But 1) there appears to have been a conscious decision to prevent the FBI from attempting to corroborate her claims, since they weren't even allowed to interview her, much less review any additional information she had

2) if Kavanaugh is lying about whether he was a crude hard drinking teen -- which most people agree he is-- then it is perfectly fair to wonder whether he is lying whether he can reliably remember not assaulting her.

1) Do you have the FBI report? I don't, so I can't say who the FBI interviewed or what details they followed up on.

2) I don't care about your claims about what "most people agree." I care about facts. Please show me the quotes where he lied. My recollection of his testimony was that he admitted to drinking when he was a teen. I can't recall off the top of my head if he was asked if he was crude. I'm sure you can provide the supporting quotes, if your claim is factual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh created all this drama himself. Had he behaved honorablely in the past, we wouldn’t be here today.

You're kidding, right? If Feinstein hasn't held on to the letter and then leaked it at the last minute, and steered Ford to the activist liberal lawyer, we wouldn't be here today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that Ford made an allegation without any support to corroborate what she said. Her version was full of holes.

The Democrats realized this and switched the attack to his year book, his drinking in college and his anger when he testified the second time.

The Democrats have nothing to rely on when it comes to the Ford allegation which is what started the whole thing after the hearings so they can only fall back on other accusations unrelated to the alleged sexual assault on Ford.

The yearbook corroborates her story, as does the calendar. It isn't that they changed tactics, the fact patterns warrant more scrutiny - scrutiny that the White house has shielded Kavanaugh from.

If her story was that Kavanaugh was a crude young man who drank, then yes, the yearbook and calendar corroborates her story. The most important part of her story is the sexual assault. The yearbook does not corroborate that, and we're waiting to see what the investigation turned up to see if the calendar could have helped corroborate that. Although, at best, it would help, not completely corroborate.

Just because someone was a crude young man who drank does not mean he engaged in sexual assault. Yes, many crude young men who drink engaged in sexual assault. Many did not.
If the calendar can place him where she places him, with the people she placed him with, and interviews with or statements from the potential witnesses also suggest at the least there was such a gathering, her claim will have some corroboration. The most helpful would of course be a witness who saw the assault.

But 1) there appears to have been a conscious decision to prevent the FBI from attempting to corroborate her claims, since they weren't even allowed to interview her, much less review any additional information she had

2) if Kavanaugh is lying about whether he was a crude hard drinking teen -- which most people agree he is-- then it is perfectly fair to wonder whether he is lying whether he can reliably remember not assaulting her.

1) Do you have the FBI report? I don't, so I can't say who the FBI interviewed or what details they followed up on.

2) I don't care about your claims about what "most people agree." I care about facts. Please show me the quotes where he lied. My recollection of his testimony was that he admitted to drinking when he was a teen. I can't recall off the top of my head if he was asked if he was crude. I'm sure you can provide the supporting quotes, if your claim is factual.

+ 1 He admitted that he drank too much. As far as crude, nobody ever asked him that.

[Anonymous]

It appears GOP micromanaging of the FBI probe made it a sham in three ways:

1. Lots of witnesses not interviewed - including Blasey Ford herself

2. WH limits on scope prevented FBI from looking into whether Kavanaugh lied, like about his drinking

3. GOP wont make findings public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem here. I'm on the fence about whether I hope Kavanaugh isn't confirmed which means Republicans are energized and Dems lose (polls now pointing at this plus Repubs historically vote in higher numbers than Dems in midterms) or he is confirmed, energizing Dems for midterms even though we get stuck with decades of this temperamentally unfit alcoholic abuser on the SCOTUS. Given his behavior he shouldn't but it's d@mned if you do and if you don't.

You will be lucky to have a very qualified justice on SCOTUS.

I stated days ago, after the FBI investigation was started, that there would be nothing in this report that would be a game changer. The only sad thing about the investigation is that it won’t exonerate Kavanaugh. It can’t. When someone brings charges that are 36 years old, had no date or place of the alleged crime, and all the named individuals allegedly there have no knowledge of either the party of the allegations, how can you expect this report to be any game changer? I still cannot believe that people are actually believing the crap that has been alleged.
Think about it - NOTHING has corroborated her story.

Liberals know that. That's why they've pivoted to the fact that he got angry about being accused of a heinous crime as part of a political smear campaign.

And all this focus on high school yearbooks and teen boys' slang terms for farting is ridicluous. Normal people see it.

Every teen who never heard if boofing, FFFFF, Devil’s Triangle is now using the terms.
I can wait until South Park has an episode dedicated to Bart and the lads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem here. I'm on the fence about whether I hope Kavanaugh isn't confirmed which means Republicans are energized and Dems lose (polls now pointing at this plus Repubs historically vote in higher numbers than Dems in midterms) or he is confirmed, energizing Dems for midterms even though we get stuck with decades of this temperamentally unfit alcoholic abuser on the SCOTUS. Given his behavior he shouldn't but it's d@mned if you do and if you don't.

You will be lucky to have a very qualified justice on SCOTUS.

I stated days ago, after the FBI investigation was started, that there would be nothing in this report that would be a game changer. The only sad thing about the investigation is that it won’t exonerate Kavanaugh. It can’t. When someone brings charges that are 36 years old, had no date or place of the alleged crime, and all the named individuals allegedly there have no knowledge of either the party of the allegations, how can you expect this report to be any game changer? I still cannot believe that people are actually believing the crap that has been alleged.
Think about it - NOTHING has corroborated her story.

Liberals know that. That's why they've pivoted to the fact that he got angry about being accused of a heinous crime as part of a political smear campaign.

And all this focus on high school yearbooks and teen boys' slang terms for farting is ridicluous. Normal people see it.

I agree with both of you. I never imagined we'd see something so wholly absurd as this confirmation process. And the people calling him an "alcoholic" - obviously he is not. He's had SIX prior FBI investigations, and all of them were clean as a whistle. He is a highly respected judge. His behavior as a teenager has nothing to do with his decades of experience on the bench and good works as a citizen. The whole thing is truly disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop asking why it was such a short timeframe! All throughout, Democrats cried that it could take "just 3 days!!" And then the agreement made last Friday was for it to be a maximum of one week. Pay attention!

It would take 3 days if the White House allowed agents to, you know, interview the known witnesses. They chose not to. Sham.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1,000,000
I was ambivalent until I saw him defend himself. Finally, someone who's not going to back down when wrongly accused.