Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Testimony = evidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Testimony = evidence

And, when Ford’s testimony is weighed against the contradictory testimony of 4 others, it is not credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testimony = evidence

And, when Ford’s testimony is weighed against the contradictory testimony of 4 others, it is not credible.

And when you put it all together, her testimony was probably a lie. She wrote a letter "hoping" to stay anonymous but all in the same moment: took down all social media which had a lot of information related to her party and political bent past; contacted attorneys and then the papers instead of law enforcement, lied about going back to California in order to confer with attorneys and take a lie detector test; tried and failed to convince family and friends to lie for her in order to corroborate the false story; and gave false testimony regarding the construction of the home and false claustrophobia.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I'm afraid she did more harm than good for the metoo movement. And the following allegations by Ramirez, Swetnick and Rhode Island led to a ridiculous and not needed FBI follow up. If the dems had let it alone and not insisted on the investigation, perhaps BK wouldn't have been nominated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I'm afraid she did more harm than good for the metoo movement. And the following allegations by Ramirez, Swetnick and Rhode Island led to a ridiculous and not needed FBI follow up. If the dems had let it alone and not insisted on the investigation, perhaps BK wouldn't have been nominated.

What are you talking about? He was already nominated when all those allegations were made (except for Ford, but nobody else knew). Do you mean appointed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Testimony = evidence

If you choose to only look at some of the evidence, then the claims about Kavanaugh, Warren, and Obama all have some merit.

If you look at the totality of the evidence, the claims about Kavanaugh, Warren, and Obama have no merit.

It's possible that someone's going to eventually provide more evidence against them. A corroborated accusation against Kavanaugh, a job application with an incriminating checkbox filled out by Warren, evidence that Obama applied to college as a foreign student. But until that happens, Kavanaugh isn't an attempted or actual rapist, Warren has not traded on family lore in order to get prestige jobs, and Obama is and always has been an american citizen.

Anyone who thinks the evidence against Kavanaugh doesn't hold up needs to consider the evidence against Warren with the same thoughtfulness. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Anyone who thinks the evidence against Warren doesn't hold up needs to consider the evidence against Kavanaugh with the same thoughtfulness. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I'm afraid she did more harm than good for the metoo movement. And the following allegations by Ramirez, Swetnick and Rhode Island led to a ridiculous and not needed FBI follow up. If the dems had let it alone and not insisted on the investigation, perhaps BK wouldn't have been nominated.

What are you talking about? He was already nominated when all those allegations were made (except for Ford, but nobody else knew). Do you mean appointed?

Correction. Appointed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

If Bart were innocent I am sure you would not be so defensive.

Sad to be you.

Wait. So when you think someone is being smeared by lies you just walk away, oh well? Or do you correct people who are spreading lies?

Do you feel the same way about people who say Warren used her claims of NA heritage to get jobs? Hey, people can say whatever they want, right? No worries. They can cast Warren as a lying jerk who did whatever she needed to do in order to get the best job she could get. That Warren, what a liar, am I right?!

And Obama and his followers. Geez. Give it up. Stop trying to pretend he was born in the US. I mean really. He was accused of being born outside the country. That's enough. All those people defending him? Clearly proof that he was really a foreigner. So sad that people felt compelled to defend him like that.

I understand now. Because the GOP took a smear campaign and ran with it for years - even elected the clown who pushed the smear most publicly of all - you think that that’s what the Democrats are doing. Much like how Bretty was a troll to the Clintons, so too does he see trolls everywhere.

As a party, you need to understand that some of us have morals and your projection says volumes about you, not us.

If you insist on seeing everything through a thick lens of partisanship, that's on you.

The smear campaign against Kavanaugh is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.
The smear campaign against Warren is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.
The smear campaign against Obama is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.

I think any reasonable human being is going to tell people when they're mistaken, and perhaps be more forceful when someone is outright lying.

That you, apparently, would only be interested in correcting lies or mistakes when they hurt "your side" says everything about you, and nothing about anyone else.

So you didn’t actually watch Bretty immolate himself on a pyre of his own idiocy. Do you know what he did in regards to the Clintons? Do you remember what he said in his weak kneed defense, blaming the Clintons. Oh, you don’t remember that? You don’t want to admit that he got hired because he is bought and paid for.

[Anonymous]

Hate is a nasty thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

If Bart were innocent I am sure you would not be so defensive.

Sad to be you.

Wait. So when you think someone is being smeared by lies you just walk away, oh well? Or do you correct people who are spreading lies?

Do you feel the same way about people who say Warren used her claims of NA heritage to get jobs? Hey, people can say whatever they want, right? No worries. They can cast Warren as a lying jerk who did whatever she needed to do in order to get the best job she could get. That Warren, what a liar, am I right?!

And Obama and his followers. Geez. Give it up. Stop trying to pretend he was born in the US. I mean really. He was accused of being born outside the country. That's enough. All those people defending him? Clearly proof that he was really a foreigner. So sad that people felt compelled to defend him like that.

I understand now. Because the GOP took a smear campaign and ran with it for years - even elected the clown who pushed the smear most publicly of all - you think that that’s what the Democrats are doing. Much like how Bretty was a troll to the Clintons, so too does he see trolls everywhere.

As a party, you need to understand that some of us have morals and your projection says volumes about you, not us.

If you insist on seeing everything through a thick lens of partisanship, that's on you.

The smear campaign against Kavanaugh is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.
The smear campaign against Warren is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.
The smear campaign against Obama is unwarranted and unfounded, based on the evidence.

I think any reasonable human being is going to tell people when they're mistaken, and perhaps be more forceful when someone is outright lying.

That you, apparently, would only be interested in correcting lies or mistakes when they hurt "your side" says everything about you, and nothing about anyone else.

So you didn’t actually watch Bretty immolate himself on a pyre of his own idiocy. Do you know what he did in regards to the Clintons? Do you remember what he said in his weak kneed defense, blaming the Clintons. Oh, you don’t remember that? You don’t want to admit that he got hired because he is bought and paid for.

You weren't actually talking about his testimony. You were talking about people here defending him, based on the facts. You might find his frustration at the hearing disqualifying. But that has nothing to do with people, here, pointing out lies and mistruths.

But keeping moving the conversation around, it just shows your ridiculous partisanship. You were probably on board with that initial letter opposing him -- you know, the one that was written before he'd been announced that didn't even have his name on it because it was a generic notice intended for any nominee made by Trump.

The more you talk, the more you demonstrate how partisan some Democrats are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow.

If Bart were innocent I am sure you would not be so defensive.

Sad to be you.

Wait. So when you think someone is being smeared by lies you just walk away, oh well? Or do you correct people who are spreading lies?

Do you feel the same way about people who say Warren used her claims of NA heritage to get jobs? Hey, people can say whatever they want, right? No worries. They can cast Warren as a lying jerk who did whatever she needed to do in order to get the best job she could get. That Warren, what a liar, am I right?!

And Obama and his followers. Geez. Give it up. Stop trying to pretend he was born in the US. I mean really. He was accused of being born outside the country. That's enough. All those people defending him? Clearly proof that he was really a foreigner. So sad that people felt compelled to defend him like that.

I understand now. Because the GOP took a smear campaign and ran with it for years - even elected the clown who pushed the smear most publicly of all - you think that that’s what the Democrats are doing. Much like how Bretty was a troll to the Clintons, so too does he see trolls everywhere.

As a party, you need to understand that some of us have morals and your projection says volumes about you, not us.

DP. Kavanaugh was a "troll" to the Clintons?? I've heard it all now!

I guess you haven't read Bart's memo he wrote to Ken Starr on how to proceed with Bill. Dud is a disgusting troll who will say any disgusting thing imaginable to bring his prey down:

From the US Archives, where they keep the US Constitution, ya know? :

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/kavanaugh/releases/kavanaugh8.15.98.pdf



Your boy grubs down deep for his dirt. He made it so kids could hear the word "blow job" on the evening news at dinner with their parents. He brought the SALACIOUS DETAILS out (yes a bad thing happened, but he was getting off on going over the actual sexual details and making them public--he didn't have to be so graphic!) But he's a freak--a deviant--and he wanted to titillate himself and others. HE IS A PIG. And always will be.

You all are funny. They were prepping for interviewing the man who said "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
There was no ability to be pleasant or considerate. Clinton was going to parse words if at all possible. The way to deal with people like that is to ask them questions that are so precise there is no weaseling. Clinton was king of weaseling. Many trained lawyers are - which is why some people were so frustrated with Kavanaugh's responses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have zero sympathy for a guy who felt that had to urge Starr to ask a question like "did you stimulate her to climax with your finger"...He is a belly crawling creep. I'm glad he was dragged out into the light.

How much sympathy do you have for the man who argued he hadn't lied about what was between him and his intern because it hadn't continued to the exact moment of the interview?

Clinton could have been upfront. He wasn't. He did everything short of lying. So the questions he was being asked had to be disgustingly exact to prevent him from lying.

Now, whether or not he should have even been in the position of being questioned, you'll need to take that up with the politicians. Hmm. Sort of like what happened with Kavanaugh. Seems like politicians really enjoy publicly humiliating people.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Are MoCo Police still searching microfiche records for the report Swetnick says was filed when she was 19?[/quote]

Even if they were it would tell them nothing. His name wouldn't be listed. Her only accusation was accusing him of attending the party. Not sure why she doesn't understand that she's holding him accountable to the same thing she is saying herself. That she was there too.[/quote]

What if MoCo police find her complaint, and it jogs someone's memory and then another witness or two comes forward? What if Mark Judge has a twelve step moment and feels he has to come clean and confess to what he told his college girlfriend? Stranger things have happened...[/quote]

Do you write bad crime fiction for a living? :roll: [/quote]

Have you read this? https://www.amazon.com/Crash-Into-Me-Survivors-Justice/dp/1596915854

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are MoCo Police still searching microfiche records for the report Swetnick says was filed when she was 19?

Even if they were it would tell them nothing. His name wouldn't be listed. Her only accusation was accusing him of attending the party. Not sure why she doesn't understand that she's holding him accountable to the same thing she is saying herself. That she was there too.

THIS! He was (allegedly) at the same party she was. So?? That video interview of hers was hilarious in that it showed so clearly how she was making this all up as she went along. She thought she was clever by mentioning his "school uniform" and how "proud" he was of it. Even though there was no school uniform. Then she walked back her claims of him "spiking the punch" and changed it to just seeing him near the punch bowl. Then she back tracked on her claim that he was part of that wacko "train gang rape" by saying, well, maybe he wasn't - but he was definitely in the house!

And all the while, she admits she returned to those parties (which no one in Mont. Co. has ever corroborated) TEN times. Yeah, she's not a train wreck at all.

In the NBC interview, I think she means that he was wearing a football jersey or sweatshirt or something with the school name on it. She may not be credible at all, but unless police interview Judge's ex-girlfriend Elizabeth Rasor (which they DID NOT) and thoroughly search the records for the incident report Swetnick says was filed (which we don't know they are still doing), then how do we really know that she is not credible? The FBI investigation was not a thorough investigation of a very serious charge. She clearly comes across as a person with a lot of problems, and an aggressive lawyer will focus on the misspeaks and inconsistencies in her various statements, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a truth to be uncovered.

[Anonymous]

[/quote]

Have you read this? https://www.amazon.com/Crash-Into-Me-Survivors-Justice/dp/1596915854
[/quote]

Yes, and do you know this was the story the UVA subject, Jackie, appropriated as her own for the Rolling Stone article in which they hung a fraternity and then later had to pay millions because of their rush to get a story out. Also, do you know the real victim filed real reports and had real corroboration. Try actually reading the book and at the same time remember someone else tried to steal it at the same time.

The co-writer of the New Yorker story, Jane Mayer, now admits she wrote the story out of empathy towards the metoo movement and not with any real journalistic merit. She, along with Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick did all real victims a disservice.