Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The police said they were looking for the record, which had been requested by the media. Do you think the police are lying?

What's preventing her from filing a police report now, and seeking a police investigation now?

[Anonymous]

[quote=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,[b] Jane Mayer, now admits she wrote the story out of empathy towards the metoo movement and not with any real journalistic merit[/b]. She, along with Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick did all real victims a disservice. [/quote]

Do you have a cite for this? One thing that happened here is that a number of good journalists set aside their devotion to the craft in favor of more emotional goals. It's too bad. Of the large respected news sources, the WSJ seems to be only one that didn't do this.

[Anonymous]

[quote=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. [/quote]
The poundmetoo movement has jumped the shark—thank god. All of this “believe women” bs detracts from the presumption of innocence. This is one thing I thank Chrissy liar ford for.

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe this is still going on. Go out and vote and knock on doors to get others to do same. Nobody here is convinced by this ongoing banter. Either you are Russian trolls or breathtakingly bored. Or both.

[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.

I agree.

+2
Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The "school uniform" point has been argued over many pages of this thread - she did NOT mean a football jersey or sweatshirt. She specifically said his "school uniform" - which doesn't exist in any identifying way at Georgetown Prep. Her video interview made it crystal clear that she was fumbling anything that might make her sound more credible. She failed.

[Anonymous]

[quote=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. [/quote]

+1,000,000
I still find it unbelievable that Jackie faced no repercussions for lying and smearing the reputations of the men in the fraternity. There should be stiff penalties involved for false accusations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe this is still going on. Go out and vote and knock on doors to get others to do same. Nobody here is convinced by this ongoing banter. Either you are Russian trolls or breathtakingly bored. Or both.

And yet... here you are, popping in to check up on this thread. And I don't knock on people's doors to tell them who to vote for.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote]

+1,000,000
I still find it unbelievable that Jackie faced no repercussions for lying and smearing the reputations of the men in the fraternity. There should be stiff penalties involved for false accusations. [/quote]
+2,000,000

[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.

We will never really know because it was never really investigated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testimony = evidence

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

We will never really know because it was never really investigated.

What there was to investigate would have opened her up for greater doubt. After all, what was there to investigate about the alleged event? Named individuals didn't corroborate. Those she told was 30 years after the fact.

Perhaps your ''it was never really investigated'' helps you hold on to what you want to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testimony = evidence

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

We will never really know because it was never really investigated.

What there was to investigate would have opened her up for greater doubt. After all, what was there to investigate about the alleged event? Named individuals didn't corroborate. Those she told was 30 years after the fact.

Perhaps your ''it was never really investigated'' helps you hold on to what you want to believe.

I wonder what people want investigated.

Her statement that she is a psychologist? (She isn't.)

Her statement about two doors in her master bedroom that led her to therapy in 2012. (An addition meant as a rental unit--Google interns!--permitted in 2008.)

Her statement that she never advised anyone on taking a polygraph. (Forgot about Monica McLean.)

Her beach friends who gave her legal/political advice. (Monica makes a second appearance.)

Etc., etc., etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree.

+2
Well said.

-1
What a load of BS. Talk about a partisan lens. The fact that you equate the Kavanaugh hearings with the easily refuted lies about Obama completely discredits you. There is no comparison. Some people just can't face that he's a shitty guy, because they are too desperate to push through their agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testimony = evidence

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

We will never really know because it was never really investigated.

What there was to investigate would have opened her up for greater doubt. After all, what was there to investigate about the alleged event? Named individuals didn't corroborate. Those she told was 30 years after the fact.

Perhaps your ''it was never really investigated'' helps you hold on to what you want to believe.

I wonder what people want investigated.

Her statement that she is a psychologist? (She isn't.)

Her statement about two doors in her master bedroom that led her to therapy in 2012. (An addition meant as a rental unit--Google interns!--permitted in 2008.)

Her statement that she never advised anyone on taking a polygraph. (Forgot about Monica McLean.)

Her beach friends who gave her legal/political advice. (Monica makes a second appearance.)

Etc., etc., etc.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testimony = evidence

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

We will never really know because it was never really investigated.

What there was to investigate would have opened her up for greater doubt. After all, what was there to investigate about the alleged event? Named individuals didn't corroborate. Those she told was 30 years after the fact.

Perhaps your ''it was never really investigated'' helps you hold on to what you want to believe.

DP. This is it, entirely. As long as it wasn't "really investigated," they can continue to claim there was something there to actually investigate. And there wasn't. How could there be, when none of her witnesses corroborated her allegation, and no one else has come forward to do so? It's not like the entire country didn't know this was going on. If anyone had additional information to add, they would have already come forward. All the FBI would wind up doing is wasting time rehashing her story full of no address and no date. Ridiculous.