Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the vote will be moved to Sunday now. They can't afford to lose even one vote.

Yowzzaa. There will be a million people protesting in DC Saturday.

Seriously? I have kids to drive around on Saturday afternoon in NW DC.

Have you seen the pictures from the middle of the workday today? On a pretty Saturday, protestors will shut down the White zhouse, mall, Capital area and Supreme Court area.

They really do a late Saturday night vote. When less people are looking. ACA in reverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you and those ladies can't understand why lying and misrepresenting oneself while under oath to the Senate is not OK,
I can't help you.

He didn’t. She (Ford) may have.

He lied. He lied about things large and small. He lied about receiving stolen goods. He lied. And you are okay with him lying.

You are simply wrong. I know you believe everything that Rachel Maddow and the other hacks at MSNBC tell you, but if you actually watched the testimony, you cannot claim he lied. He just didn’t.

Well either he lied. Or the 2 Yale alumni in this New Yorker story are lying. One of whom is a professor of religion at Princeton Theological Seminary.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates

So, I choose to believe the man with a ph.d. in religious studies. You choose to believe Kavanaugh, a man whose past as a heavy drinker you cannot deny because he himself admitted it.

Kavanaugh supporters are too chicken to address this article.

I’m not. It is not an article worthy of discussion, really. And, it is sad the Mayer and Farrow saw fit to print this article, given that it is nothing more than hearsay and rumors.
Example:

Kenneth Appold did not witness the alleged incident. But he says he was told about it either that same night or the next day. Appold told the New Yorker that he was “100 percent certain” that Brett Kavanaugh was the person who was said to have exposed himself to Ramirez. Appold said he recently reached out to the person who allegedly told him about the Ramirez incident, but never heard back. That unnamed person, however, reportedly told the New Yorker he did not remember the incident.

I love that this is what liberals consider "evidence." Too funny.

By itself, it is only evidence that the story was not made up recently as a part of an Clinton-backed plot. But Ramirez gave the FBI a list of people who could corroborate her story. Kavanaugh should be insisting that the FBI talk to those people so he can clear his name. Instead, he is apologizing for acting like an asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can see a narrow staircase in a picture on Zillow below:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3333-Tennyson-St-NW-Washington-DC-20015/452556_zpid/

Picture 5 is a narrow staircase. The description of the house says the Family Rom is on 1st Floor.

I lived in a carbon copy of this house in the early 1990's down the street. The layout is exactly as Ford had described it.

If this is for sure Timmy's house--wow. This is bad for Kavanaugh..

It is not timmy's house ffs it is the house that Mark Judge's grandparents lived in at the time and bizarrely Mike Pence rented it during the transition in 2016-17

so effing do your research before you comment on this sht ok????

Article by the current occupant of the house - https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/my-house-could-be-home-of-kavanaugh-party/news-story/691ee06c01cd15a7a0e0ec6304ba1c66

Subscriber only article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you and those ladies can't understand why lying and misrepresenting oneself while under oath to the Senate is not OK,
I can't help you.

He didn’t. She (Ford) may have.

He lied. He lied about things large and small. He lied about receiving stolen goods. He lied. And you are okay with him lying.

You are simply wrong. I know you believe everything that Rachel Maddow and the other hacks at MSNBC tell you, but if you actually watched the testimony, you cannot claim he lied. He just didn’t.

Well either he lied. Or the 2 Yale alumni in this New Yorker story are lying. One of whom is a professor of religion at Princeton Theological Seminary.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates

So, I choose to believe the man with a ph.d. in religious studies. You choose to believe Kavanaugh, a man whose past as a heavy drinker you cannot deny because he himself admitted it.

Kavanaugh supporters are too chicken to address this article.

I’m not. It is not an article worthy of discussion, really. And, it is sad the Mayer and Farrow saw fit to print this article, given that it is nothing more than hearsay and rumors.
Example:

Kenneth Appold did not witness the alleged incident. But he says he was told about it either that same night or the next day. Appold told the New Yorker that he was “100 percent certain” that Brett Kavanaugh was the person who was said to have exposed himself to Ramirez. Appold said he recently reached out to the person who allegedly told him about the Ramirez incident, but never heard back. That unnamed person, however, reportedly told the New Yorker he did not remember the incident.

I love that this is what liberals consider "evidence." Too funny.

By itself, it is only evidence that the story was not made up recently as a part of an Clinton-backed plot. But Ramirez gave the FBI a list of people who could corroborate her story. Kavanaugh should be insisting that the FBI talk to those people so he can clear his name. Instead, he is apologizing for acting like an asshole.

Burden of proof is never on the accused. Not even in dem cuckoo world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the July 1 party folks, time to change your theories:

Christine Blasey Ford lawyer says FBI wrongly focused on July 1, 1982 party
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/4/christine-blasey-ford-lawyer-says-fbi-wrongly-focu/

A member of Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team says FBI interviewers are focusing on the wrong date.

The FBI has interviewed people who, calendar entries show, were present for a July 1, 1982, gathering of high school students, including Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

But Ford has never believed the assault occurred that night because some of those listed as having been present are people she knew well and would have remembered.

Why would ford or ford’s lawyers know what date the FBI focused on, unless they we’re trying to meddle in an investigation? Should investigate ford for evidence tampering.

Everybody knows the date that the FBI focused on.

The entire interweb is focused on that party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The people who don't know what proof and corroboration mean are incredibly frustrating. There is no corroboration or proof of Ford having been assaulted by Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh drinking in high school, Ford knowing his friend's names...none of that is proof of sexual assault.

Yes it is. Proof is evidence. Ford testified under oath that she was 100% certain it was Kavanaugh who sexually assaulted her. Her testimony is evidence. All of the other evidence that tends to support the details of her testimony -- that he got extremely drunk, that he ran with a certain group of guys, that those people tended to gather together at parties - is corroboration. "The testimony of a witness is said to be corroborated when it is shown to correspond with the representation of some other witnesses, or to comport with some facts otherwise known or established." If she's being honest about the surrounding details, it adds to an inference that the main assertion is also true.

Again, it may be too weak to establish, in your opinion, that Kavanaugh assaulted her. That's not irrational. But, "no proof" is simply not true. There is evidence.

Go back to school. Saying you are sure of something is NOT evidence. LOL.

Are you insane? Of course it's evidence. It's the sort of evidence that's admitted in courtrooms all day every day.

Yeah, along with real evidence.

So, testimony is fake evidence? You'd better alert the people who write the rules of evidence because, if you're right, they're getting it way wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the July 1 party folks, time to change your theories:

Christine Blasey Ford lawyer says FBI wrongly focused on July 1, 1982 party
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/4/christine-blasey-ford-lawyer-says-fbi-wrongly-focu/

A member of Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team says FBI interviewers are focusing on the wrong date.

The FBI has interviewed people who, calendar entries show, were present for a July 1, 1982, gathering of high school students, including Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

But Ford has never believed the assault occurred that night because some of those listed as having been present are people she knew well and would have remembered.

That would have been a good reason for the FBI to talk to the alleged victim, don't you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the vote will be moved to Sunday now. They can't afford to lose even one vote.

Yowzzaa. There will be a million people protesting in DC Saturday.

Seriously? I have kids to drive around on Saturday afternoon in NW DC.

Gee, sorry to inconvenience your sightseeing trip, but the future of the American justice system is on the line here

Oh no, I'd be more than happy to cancel! It's a music class.
Where's the info for the protest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the July 1 party folks, time to change your theories:

Christine Blasey Ford lawyer says FBI wrongly focused on July 1, 1982 party
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/4/christine-blasey-ford-lawyer-says-fbi-wrongly-focu/

A member of Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team says FBI interviewers are focusing on the wrong date.

The FBI has interviewed people who, calendar entries show, were present for a July 1, 1982, gathering of high school students, including Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

But Ford has never believed the assault occurred that night because some of those listed as having been present are people she knew well and would have remembered.

That would have been a good reason for the FBI to talk to the alleged victim, don't you think?

Please explain why they would talk to I don’t remember ford? They looked for corroborating evidence to her outrageous lie of a claim. Shocker. They found none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heitkamp is a NO

http://wday.com/

Damn. She’s good. I just donated.

Agree. That's an excellent statement.

IMO she's doing the right thing. Kavanaugh does not have the disposition to be a Supreme Court Justice. Take away the boozing and high school antics. He has lied under oath, has wonky finances, and became hysterical when he was supposed to testify last week. I was proud to donate to her campaign a few moments ago. If she loses, so be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catching up on the day just now. So it's a given that he's going to be confirmed? Reading the last page it seems like folks are resigned to the outcome

It was a given during that Roman circus of a hearing—the original one where Kamala came off as a blabbering idiot and Cory booker had his spongebob squarepants moment. All the heat lightning since then has just illuminated how crazed for power the left is. And it’s probably set back sexual assault victim advocacy by about 70 years.

Seriously, a 36 year old sexual assault allegation from a high school party? Ridiculous. Shame on Dianne Feinstein for letting the anarchists in her party drag that enfeebled misrememberer in front of a senate committee. Something happened to her perhaps, but it wasn’t Justice Kavanaugh.

He lied about Renate. He's an asshole.

Is part of the #metoo movement canonizing all the high school sluts like Renate?

He said it was all about affection, not calling her a slut. So was he lying about her then or lying about her now. If he is lying her about her now, is he lying about being virgin until well after high school? Not that I really care when he lost his virginity, but he did feel it important to let us know.
Maybe he thought the Pope was watching or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the July 1 party folks, time to change your theories:

Christine Blasey Ford lawyer says FBI wrongly focused on July 1, 1982 party
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/4/christine-blasey-ford-lawyer-says-fbi-wrongly-focu/

A member of Christine Blasey Ford’s legal team says FBI interviewers are focusing on the wrong date.

The FBI has interviewed people who, calendar entries show, were present for a July 1, 1982, gathering of high school students, including Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

But Ford has never believed the assault occurred that night because some of those listed as having been present are people she knew well and would have remembered.

That would have been a good reason for the FBI to talk to the alleged victim, don't you think?

Please explain why they would talk to I don’t remember ford? They looked for corroborating evidence to her outrageous lie of a claim. Shocker. They found none.

Are you the poster who doesn't want to hear anyone tell the FBI how to do their job?

Of course they should have spoken to Ford. And to Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Apparently Kavanaugh will be confirmed no matter what, so why should the FBI bother talking to either him or the accuser?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apparently Kavanaugh will be confirmed no matter what, so why should the FBI bother talking to either him or the accuser?

What makes you so sure he’ll be confirmed?

[Anonymous]

It seems Daines has gotten an earful. He's going to be back here on a red-eye, or something. He's going to get his Yes vote heard.