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:

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.

A party at Timmy's was on his calendar for a particular date. But if you go way back to the initial account, Ford did not know the date, the month, or even the year. During summer was exact as she got. Therapist notes said 80's and late teens. On the written note for the polygrapher she initially wrote early 80s and then scratched out early.

No, the calendar is not corroborating evidence.

Just a coincidence that she knew exactly who he was partying with that summer? Only to closed minds.

Omg, what the hell does that prove?

That she is unlikely to be making up baseless accusations about someone she supposedly didn't even know, because if she were she wouldn't have known who to place him with that summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a possible wild card:

https://twitter.com/MaritsaNBCMT/status/1047980282446409729

#BREAKING @SteveDaines has a scheduling conflict this weekend. He says he'll be walking his daughter down the aisle at her Montana wedding, regardless of the #KavanaughVote that could take place this weekend. #NBCMontana #mtpol #mtnews #Kavanaugh

So a "yes" vote might be at his daughter's wedding instead of voting for Kavanaugh.

I’m sure he’s all broken up about missing this vote...

How unfortunate.

P.S.
Trump and Grassley were adamant that the vote must take place Saturday and there would be no other delays.

Don't kid yourself.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Here is a possible wild card:

https://twitter.com/MaritsaNBCMT/status/1047980282446409729

#BREAKING @SteveDaines has a scheduling conflict this weekend. He says he'll be walking his daughter down the aisle at her Montana wedding, regardless of the #KavanaughVote that could take place this weekend. #NBCMontana #mtpol #mtnews #Kavanaugh

So a "yes" vote might be at his daughter's wedding instead of voting for Kavanaugh.

Can't they vote remotely?

[Anonymous]

Not a fan of this publication, but I agree with this article....

We are now in a time of chronic national convulsions, and the latest, over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, has resulted in the wrenching public and private testimony of women who have been sexually assaulted and who have never before spoken about it. Of course, this outpouring has a hashtag: #BelieveSurvivors. Women who tell their stories should have the support, and belief, of loved ones, friends, and a therapeutic community.

But when a woman, in telling her story, makes an allegation against a specific man, a different set of obligations kick in.

Even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity, we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully, and recognize the potential lifetime consequences that such an allegation can bring. If believing the woman is the beginning and the end of a search for the truth, then we have left the realm of justice for religion.

Whether an investigation takes place at a school, at a workplace, or in the criminal-justice system, neutral fact-finding must apply, regardless of how disturbing we find the offense, the group identity of the accused, or the political leanings of those involved. History demonstrates that ascribing honesty or dishonesty, criminality or righteousness solely on the basis of gender or race doesn’t increase the amount of equity in the world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-and-problem-believesurvivors/572083/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is a possible wild card:

https://twitter.com/MaritsaNBCMT/status/1047980282446409729

#BREAKING @SteveDaines has a scheduling conflict this weekend. He says he'll be walking his daughter down the aisle at her Montana wedding, regardless of the #KavanaughVote that could take place this weekend. #NBCMontana #mtpol #mtnews #Kavanaugh

So a "yes" vote might be at his daughter's wedding instead of voting for Kavanaugh.

Luckiest b@stard ever

Breaking news: Trump announces that absentee voting is totally a thing.

Maybe Senator Daines will be distracted and not cast an absentee ballot- it would certainly be understandable if that were to happen. Senator Daines should just focus as planned on his daughter and family this weekend.

[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.

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.

Was at Timmy's grandmothers house that was empty...3333 Tenneyson Street, NW, about a mile from the club.

[Anonymous]

He’s getting confirmed.

This lying partisan hack will be in the SCOTUS, undermining its credibility and sullying our democratic institutions.

And I will not forget. I will vote and I will contribute generously to the opposition of any senator who votes this guy in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Funny, he couldn't remember so many things from 6 months earlier, like who paid his credit card debt. And he couldn't remember so much from 10 years ago, like what spying meant as it related to emails he received. Ya, a genius mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Interesting, the "what happens at georgtown prep, stays at georgetown prep" football teammates directly contradict the contents of their friend and teammate Mark Judge, who referred to Quarters and Quarters in his book, and referred to devils triangle as what it is. These guys are all liars.

[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.

Wow, is she devious! So, she must have a history of being devious, right? What else has she schemed? Or is this what she's been waiting her entire life to do? I wonder why she hates BK so much? Why didn't she pick Gorsuch for example? I mean, way back when she first devised a plan to take down a future Supreme Court nominee, she could have told people she was attacked by Gorsuch. I wonder if her family and friends knew just how devious and wiley and powerful she is that she could scheme to take down a SCOTUS judge.

But I'm so confused. You said she knew Kavanaugh and Judge. BK has testified he didn't know her. Don't you believe him?

[Anonymous]

Statement from Kavanaugh via an editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822?mod=hp_opin_pos1

[Anonymous]

He could have been a moderate swing vote but the disrespect shown to him by dems means the court will be instead hard right way to go dems.

[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.

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.

Was at Timmy's grandmothers house that was empty...3333 Tenneyson Street, NW, about a mile from the club.

That was Mark Judge’s grandmother’s house. 1 mile from Columbia, older colonial that definitely could have had the narrow staircase, bathroom bedroom at top of stairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Interesting, the "what happens at georgtown prep, stays at georgetown prep" football teammates directly contradict the contents of their friend and teammate Mark Judge, who referred to Quarters and Quarters in his book, and referred to devils triangle as what it is. These guys are all liars.

“founder of the name” is a really odd way to phrase it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He could have been a moderate swing vote but the disrespect shown to him by dems means the court will be instead hard right way to go dems.

You can keep spinning fiction, but he was never going to be a moderate swing vote. He was picked because he’d already demonstrated he wouldn’t be a moderate swing vote.