Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

One credible one would suffice. We have not seen that.

You haven’t seen Dr. Christine Blasey Ford? I envy you the tropical island you found to hide on these last few weeks.

Emotional testimony does not equal credible. A 36-year old allegation with no corroborating evidence presented is not credible. The people she claims were present all having no knowledge of the event is not credible. Her best friend stating she doesn’t know Kavanaugh is not credible. Not knowing where, when, how she got there and how she got home is not credible.

Several memory/trauma experts have weighed in on this and said that this is actually plausible. Kavanaugh supporters have chosen to ignore or dismiss the opinion of subject matter experts.

Plausible? Maybe. Tell me why nobody has come forward to say they drove her home. Tell me why none of those in attendance have any memory of the event. Tell me why Leland, her best friend at the time, doesn’t know Kavanaugh. Tell me why she could leave Leland alone with 4 boys, two of which allegedly just tried to rape/accidentally kill her. Tell me why she can remember running to the street and thinking how happy she was that she got away but was not bothered enough with thinking about how in the hell she was going to get home. Tell me why Leland and she never discussed this event after she left so abruptly.
There are just way too many holes in her story to make it credible.

I repeat: not remembering these details is entirely consistent with traumatic events, in which some aspects are remembered and even reexperienced (smells, sensations, etc.) in full detail, and others are forgotten or blocked out. Please read the accounts of experts if you're interested (although I know you won't).

And, some of us are a bit tired of this excuse as a way to rationalize her total lack of evidence and corroboration.
Convenient that she herself has some background about trauma and how the memory fails sometimes, wouldn’t you say?

Testimony is evidence, have you ever been to a trial? Or perhaps the FBI could contact the 8 people she identified.

Not credible evidence when there are so many holes in the story and those who “star” in the story all say they have no knowledge of the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

One credible one would suffice. We have not seen that.

You haven’t seen Dr. Christine Blasey Ford? I envy you the tropical island you found to hide on these last few weeks.

Emotional testimony does not equal credible. A 36-year old allegation with no corroborating evidence presented is not credible. The people she claims were present all having no knowledge of the event is not credible. Her best friend stating she doesn’t know Kavanaugh is not credible. Not knowing where, when, how she got there and how she got home is not credible.

Several memory/trauma experts have weighed in on this and said that this is actually plausible. Kavanaugh supporters have chosen to ignore or dismiss the opinion of subject matter experts.

Plausible? Maybe. Tell me why nobody has come forward to say they drove her home. Tell me why none of those in attendance have any memory of the event. Tell me why Leland, her best friend at the time, doesn’t know Kavanaugh. Tell me why she could leave Leland alone with 4 boys, two of which allegedly just tried to rape/accidentally kill her. Tell me why she can remember running to the street and thinking how happy she was that she got away but was not bothered enough with thinking about how in the hell she was going to get home. Tell me why Leland and she never discussed this event after she left so abruptly.
There are just way too many holes in her story to make it credible.

Well, it is on Kavanaugh’s calendar. Besides, no one else was almost raped, why would they remember a party three decades ago? You seem not that logical.

It is NOT on his calendar. The July 1 party at Timmy’s was in Rockville—11 miles from CCC. This has been established. Her boyfriend at the time was also there. How does that fly??

Well, according to you crazies , he was the rapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one forgets where they were raped.

Neither did Ford - it was in an upstairs bedroom in a Bethesda house she could draw the floor plan of.

So then, it matched up with the townhouse that Timmy lived in where the alleged attack happened on July 1st? The one that is 10 miles from the country club where they swam beforehand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

One credible one would suffice. We have not seen that.

You haven’t seen Dr. Christine Blasey Ford? I envy you the tropical island you found to hide on these last few weeks.

Emotional testimony does not equal credible. A 36-year old allegation with no corroborating evidence presented is not credible. The people she claims were present all having no knowledge of the event is not credible. Her best friend stating she doesn’t know Kavanaugh is not credible. Not knowing where, when, how she got there and how she got home is not credible.

Several memory/trauma experts have weighed in on this and said that this is actually plausible. Kavanaugh supporters have chosen to ignore or dismiss the opinion of subject matter experts.

Plausible? Maybe. Tell me why nobody has come forward to say they drove her home. Tell me why none of those in attendance have any memory of the event. Tell me why Leland, her best friend at the time, doesn’t know Kavanaugh. Tell me why she could leave Leland alone with 4 boys, two of which allegedly just tried to rape/accidentally kill her. Tell me why she can remember running to the street and thinking how happy she was that she got away but was not bothered enough with thinking about how in the hell she was going to get home. Tell me why Leland and she never discussed this event after she left so abruptly.
There are just way too many holes in her story to make it credible.

I repeat: not remembering these details is entirely consistent with traumatic events, in which some aspects are remembered and even reexperienced (smells, sensations, etc.) in full detail, and others are forgotten or blocked out. Please read the accounts of experts if you're interested (although I know you won't).

And, some of us are a bit tired of this excuse as a way to rationalize her total lack of evidence and corroboration.
Convenient that she herself has some background about trauma and how the memory fails sometimes, wouldn’t you say?

Testimony is evidence, have you ever been to a trial? Or perhaps the FBI could contact the 8 people she identified.

Not credible evidence when there are so many holes in the story and those who “star” in the story all say they have no knowledge of the story.

The one who consistently has lied iis Kavanaugh. And the one who is terrified of a full investigation—same. He definitely did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I repeat: not remembering these details is entirely consistent with traumatic events, in which some aspects are remembered and even reexperienced (smells, sensations, etc.) in full detail, and others are forgotten or blocked out. Please read the accounts of experts if you're interested (although I know you won't).

And, some of us are a bit tired of this excuse as a way to rationalize her total lack of evidence and corroboration.
Convenient that she herself has some background about trauma and how the memory fails sometimes, wouldn’t you say?

And yet you STILL have not provided a rationale for why and how she decided to target a man named Brett Kavanaugh and knew he had a best friend named Mike Judge and started the ruse up more than 6 years ago.

Well, we have no evidence of this claim.
Why target Kavanaugh? SCOTUS.
How she knew he had a best friend? She testified that she had been to other parties where Kavanaugh was. Likely Judge was there.

[Anonymous]

I think he lied so much bevasiser he does remember.

I also think that this was a huge mistake for him. Basically a red flag being waived in front of journalists. There is going to be a book and they will turn over every ugly detail. He will be the matt lauer of politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

One credible one would suffice. We have not seen that.

You haven’t seen Dr. Christine Blasey Ford? I envy you the tropical island you found to hide on these last few weeks.

Emotional testimony does not equal credible. A 36-year old allegation with no corroborating evidence presented is not credible. The people she claims were present all having no knowledge of the event is not credible. Her best friend stating she doesn’t know Kavanaugh is not credible. Not knowing where, when, how she got there and how she got home is not credible.

Several memory/trauma experts have weighed in on this and said that this is actually plausible. Kavanaugh supporters have chosen to ignore or dismiss the opinion of subject matter experts.

Plausible? Maybe. Tell me why nobody has come forward to say they drove her home. Tell me why none of those in attendance have any memory of the event. Tell me why Leland, her best friend at the time, doesn’t know Kavanaugh. Tell me why she could leave Leland alone with 4 boys, two of which allegedly just tried to rape/accidentally kill her. Tell me why she can remember running to the street and thinking how happy she was that she got away but was not bothered enough with thinking about how in the hell she was going to get home. Tell me why Leland and she never discussed this event after she left so abruptly.
There are just way too many holes in her story to make it credible.

I repeat: not remembering these details is entirely consistent with traumatic events, in which some aspects are remembered and even reexperienced (smells, sensations, etc.) in full detail, and others are forgotten or blocked out. Please read the accounts of experts if you're interested (although I know you won't).

And, some of us are a bit tired of this excuse as a way to rationalize her total lack of evidence and corroboration.
Convenient that she herself has some background about trauma and how the memory fails sometimes, wouldn’t you say?

Testimony is evidence, have you ever been to a trial? Or perhaps the FBI could contact the 8 people she identified.

Not credible evidence when there are so many holes in the story and those who “star” in the story all say they have no knowledge of the story.

The one who consistently has lied iis Kavanaugh. And the one who is terrified of a full investigation—same. He definitely did it.

Nope. He has consistently said he welcomed any investigation the SJC saw fit.
And, no, he has not consistently lied. More #LeftyLies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I repeat: not remembering these details is entirely consistent with traumatic events, in which some aspects are remembered and even reexperienced (smells, sensations, etc.) in full detail, and others are forgotten or blocked out. Please read the accounts of experts if you're interested (although I know you won't).

And, some of us are a bit tired of this excuse as a way to rationalize her total lack of evidence and corroboration.
Convenient that she herself has some background about trauma and how the memory fails sometimes, wouldn’t you say?

And yet you STILL have not provided a rationale for why and how she decided to target a man named Brett Kavanaugh and knew he had a best friend named Mike Judge and started the ruse up more than 6 years ago.

Well, we have no evidence of this claim.
Why target Kavanaugh? SCOTUS.
How she knew he had a best friend? She testified that she had been to other parties where Kavanaugh was. Likely Judge was there.

So she has been planning this since 2012. You are insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one forgets where they were raped.

Neither did Ford - it was in an upstairs bedroom in a Bethesda house she could draw the floor plan of.

So then, it matched up with the townhouse that Timmy lived in where the alleged attack happened on July 1st? The one that is 10 miles from the country club where they swam beforehand?

10 miles by car is 10 minutes. They did have cars back then. Or same crew, different house, same summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think he lied so much bevasiser he does remember.

I also think that this was a huge mistake for him. Basically a red flag being waived in front of journalists. There is going to be a book and they will turn over every ugly detail. He will be the matt lauer of politics.

He has an impeccable memory. Ford? Not so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I repeat: not remembering these details is entirely consistent with traumatic events, in which some aspects are remembered and even reexperienced (smells, sensations, etc.) in full detail, and others are forgotten or blocked out. Please read the accounts of experts if you're interested (although I know you won't).

And, some of us are a bit tired of this excuse as a way to rationalize her total lack of evidence and corroboration.
Convenient that she herself has some background about trauma and how the memory fails sometimes, wouldn’t you say?

And yet you STILL have not provided a rationale for why and how she decided to target a man named Brett Kavanaugh and knew he had a best friend named Mike Judge and started the ruse up more than 6 years ago.

Well, we have no evidence of this claim.
Why target Kavanaugh? SCOTUS.
How she knew he had a best friend? She testified that she had been to other parties where Kavanaugh was. Likely Judge was there.

So she has been planning this since 2012. You are insane.

And prolific, Jeff really should cut this crazy off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one forgets where they were raped.

Neither did Ford - it was in an upstairs bedroom in a Bethesda house she could draw the floor plan of.

So then, it matched up with the townhouse that Timmy lived in where the alleged attack happened on July 1st? The one that is 10 miles from the country club where they swam beforehand?

10 miles by car is 10 minutes. They did have cars back then. Or same crew, different house, same summer.

That conflicts with her testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one forgets where they were raped.

Neither did Ford - it was in an upstairs bedroom in a Bethesda house she could draw the floor plan of.

So then, it matched up with the townhouse that Timmy lived in where the alleged attack happened on July 1st? The one that is 10 miles from the country club where they swam beforehand?

10 miles by car is 10 minutes. They did have cars back then. Or same crew, different house, same summer.

That conflicts with her testimony.

Yep. She said about a mile from the cc.

[Anonymous]

Ford was clearly confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one forgets where they were raped.

Who was raped in this case?