Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

NP. I haven't read anything about his family. Kavanaugh himself dragged his family into it during the hearing. He mentioned his 10 year old daughter "suggesting" that they pray for "the woman". Sorry, not believable. His wife appears to dutifully support him (likely with her own doubts and confusion). But she is protecting her kids first. Do you actually think that a 10 year old is aware of the specific details? Did dad have a heart to heart with his 10 year old daughter about a woman accusing him of a heinous attempted rape? Did his wife have that conversation with their DD? Highly unlikely! A mother will buffer and protect their children first and foremost, to their death.

Kavanaugh used his daughter in that hearing scenario to portray his "alter boy" profile. Shame on him. He should not have mentioned his family, at all. This in addition to all of the other bullshit coming out of his mouth.

However, this will be a vote based on his past indiscretions during his political career and prior. No witnesses to the assault. The judgement will be based on his character, integrity, and proof or not of perjury, despite plenty of unheard accounts of alleged victims, those that support the unheard and those that drank/lived with him. Serious mistakes on both party sides. Demeaning mockery of Ford by Trump. Senators who might be swayed one way or the other. Americans who will protest the decision, regardless. 'Murcia!

My guess is they told their daughters the woman accusing their dad is “ill.” Hence the need to pray for her. I’m anti-Kavanaugh, but that’s what I would have done in Ashley’s position.

Stop calling her Ashley, like you know her. She's Mrs. Kavanaugh.

I don’t have to know her to call her by HER NAME.

If we were referring to Ford as "Christine," your head would explode. And you know it. You're incredibly disrespectful.

No I’m lazy. And I’m effing tired of typing out Kavanaugh. Too many letters. Take some deep breaths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI should have questioned the GP football player who lived 4 blocks from Columbia Country Club.

There are over 40 people who *should* have been interviewed, but weren't. And somehow there are people here who think that is acceptable.

You clearly don't understand what the FBI is tasked to do in these "investigations" (not just Kavanaugh's).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will we get a sense of what “the 5” are thinking before they actually vote? Do they really not know yet? This seems unnecessarily dramatic to me.

After what happened to Flake being confronted in the elevator by the two women, I would think those who want to vote in favor of Kavanaugh's confirmation will just keep quiet about it to the end and then just cast their vote.

Those two protesters were idiots. They should never have been allowed near the senators, much less in the building. This extrapolating of sexual assault experiences onto every situation is not helpful. Every situation should be evaluated on its own merits (or lack thereof), and not judged based on what has happened to various other women.

So now you want to restrict the rights of Americans to enter the US Capitol?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI should have questioned the GP football player who lived 4 blocks from Columbia Country Club.

There are over 40 people who *should* have been interviewed, but weren't. And somehow there are people here who think that is acceptable.

You clearly don't understand what the FBI is tasked to do in these "investigations" (not just Kavanaugh's).

You realize the FBI wanted to interview all of these people and were barred from doing so, right?

[Anonymous]

He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It nobody posted Kavanaughs medical records on other PII online. The discussion is about acts that took place in public. We expect provactpy with our doctor, lawyer, therapist and priest. Not with our Bros.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

NP. I haven't read anything about his family. Kavanaugh himself dragged his family into it during the hearing. He mentioned his 10 year old daughter "suggesting" that they pray for "the woman". Sorry, not believable. His wife appears to dutifully support him (likely with her own doubts and confusion). But she is protecting her kids first. Do you actually think that a 10 year old is aware of the specific details? Did dad have a heart to heart with his 10 year old daughter about a woman accusing him of a heinous attempted rape? Did his wife have that conversation with their DD? Highly unlikely! A mother will buffer and protect their children first and foremost, to their death.

Kavanaugh used his daughter in that hearing scenario to portray his "alter boy" profile. Shame on him. He should not have mentioned his family, at all. This in addition to all of the other bullshit coming out of his mouth.

However, this will be a vote based on his past indiscretions during his political career and prior. No witnesses to the assault. The judgement will be based on his character, integrity, and proof or not of perjury, despite plenty of unheard accounts of alleged victims, those that support the unheard and those that drank/lived with him. Serious mistakes on both party sides. Demeaning mockery of Ford by Trump. Senators who might be swayed one way or the other. Americans who will protest the decision, regardless. 'Murcia!

I'm sure his wife is well aware of how he behaves when under the influence.

Oh, you mean when he was a teenager?

regardless of your thoughts on the “alleged” assaults, you are an idiot if you don’t think BK drinks “to excess” in front of his wife on the regular. GMAFB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When the Democrats and their surrogates came up with Julie Swetnick, it was sheer desperation.

Throw anything at Kavanaugh and see if it sticks.

Then why not interview the multiple people who have come forward to corroborate her story? What are you afraid of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI should have questioned the GP football player who lived 4 blocks from Columbia Country Club.

There are over 40 people who *should* have been interviewed, but weren't. And somehow there are people here who think that is acceptable.

You clearly don't understand what the FBI is tasked to do in these "investigations" (not just Kavanaugh's).

You realize the FBI wanted to interview all of these people and were barred from doing so, right?

And once these 40 people were interviewed, the Democrats would open the clown car door and 40 more would come out wanting to be interviewed too. Enough already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

Agree. That and the elaborate lie he concocted about FFFF - kind of disturbingly pathological if you think about it. If you don't think that type of behavior casts serious doubt on his character and fitness to sit on our SUPREME court...I don't know what to tell you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will we get a sense of what “the 5” are thinking before they actually vote? Do they really not know yet? This seems unnecessarily dramatic to me.

After what happened to Flake being confronted in the elevator by the two women, I would think those who want to vote in favor of Kavanaugh's confirmation will just keep quiet about it to the end and then just cast their vote.

Those two protesters were idiots. They should never have been allowed near the senators, much less in the building. This extrapolating of sexual assault experiences onto every situation is not helpful. Every situation should be evaluated on its own merits (or lack thereof), and not judged based on what has happened to various other women.

So now you want to restrict the rights of Americans to enter the US Capitol?

I want to restrict the "rights" of Americans to get up in the faces of other Americans and scream at them. They should have been escorted out as soon as they pulled that on Flake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When the Democrats and their surrogates came up with Julie Swetnick, it was sheer desperation.

Throw anything at Kavanaugh and see if it sticks.

Then why not interview the multiple people who have come forward to corroborate her story? What are you afraid of?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI should have questioned the GP football player who lived 4 blocks from Columbia Country Club.

There are over 40 people who *should* have been interviewed, but weren't. And somehow there are people here who think that is acceptable.

You clearly don't understand what the FBI is tasked to do in these "investigations" (not just Kavanaugh's).

You realize the FBI wanted to interview all of these people and were barred from doing so, right?

And once these 40 people were interviewed, the Democrats would open the clown car door and 40 more would come out wanting to be interviewed too. Enough already.

THIS. There are always going to be nutcases waiting in the wings for their 15 min. Maybe someone can say they were at a strip club once and Kavanaugh *may* have been there because he lived within ten miles. I mean, it's plausible, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will we get a sense of what “the 5” are thinking before they actually vote? Do they really not know yet? This seems unnecessarily dramatic to me.

After what happened to Flake being confronted in the elevator by the two women, I would think those who want to vote in favor of Kavanaugh's confirmation will just keep quiet about it to the end and then just cast their vote.

Those two protesters were idiots. They should never have been allowed near the senators, much less in the building. This extrapolating of sexual assault experiences onto every situation is not helpful. Every situation should be evaluated on its own merits (or lack thereof), and not judged based on what has happened to various other women.

So now you want to restrict the rights of Americans to enter the US Capitol?

Only the “wrong” Americans, clearly. Saying the wrong things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will we get a sense of what “the 5” are thinking before they actually vote? Do they really not know yet? This seems unnecessarily dramatic to me.

After what happened to Flake being confronted in the elevator by the two women, I would think those who want to vote in favor of Kavanaugh's confirmation will just keep quiet about it to the end and then just cast their vote.

Those two protesters were idiots. They should never have been allowed near the senators, much less in the building. This extrapolating of sexual assault experiences onto every situation is not helpful. Every situation should be evaluated on its own merits (or lack thereof), and not judged based on what has happened to various other women.

So now you want to restrict the rights of Americans to enter the US Capitol?

Only the “wrong” Americans, clearly. Saying the wrong things.

You mean screaming the wrong things. In other people's faces.