Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Which Republican is going to vote no? Manchin's probably going to join them. The FBI report has provided the fig leaf.

[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.

Because that's the normal procedure when you investigate something. You take the accuser into a room and get her full story, with as many details as she can remember. You don't just go with a half-assed job done in five minute chunks on national TV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again this country club set today was saying very unkind things about Dr. Ford from her youth.

AND THEY ARE WOMEN.

I simply cannot believe the women in this town.

Tear down other women. Boost up a$$holes like Kavanaugh. Simply because your husband's pay the bills and you cannot take care of yourselves.

PATHETIC.

Did the things they said have any relevance to the situation at hand? If so, why would they not be worthy of consideration?

No, the things they said only disparaged Dr. Ford because they are "afraid for their sons." None of whom will EVER be considered for SCOTUS.

Sadly, I think the lout will make it. Makes me sick. AGAIN, he is not fit for the position regardless of what happened with Dr. Ford.

BUT! I believe her!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Links are so nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Links are so nice.

Don't be lazy. It comes right up on Twiitter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Links are so nice.

Here it is.

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1048038819709288448

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I doubt the GOP will vote against him, all seems like a set up, with a rushed investigation.

We're talking about the people who said a SC justice could not be confirmed 10 months from the last presidential election, so I doubt they will take an ethical stand now.

[Anonymous]

BREAKING: Politicians lie

[Anonymous]

And Grassley et. al. can’t rely on the “corroborating” Devil’s Triangle letter from Kavsnaugh’s buddies without taking into consideration or even acknowledging the (earlier submitted) statements of Yale and Prep classmates that come down on the other side. Just more hypocrisy and evidence that the FBI investigation was a sham and the fix was in. I definitely noticed that the Prep buddies who came out in favor of Devils Triangle-is-a-drinking-game never mentioned s word backing up Brett on his lies about Renate Alumni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't blasey ford come back here and tour various houses or be shown pictures by her lawyers?

I don’t think she could say anything about those houses that would change anyone’s mind.

What right would she have to ‘tour’ someone else’s house?

Not a right. Just something that could be granted to her should she desire to recollect her thoughts from that date, or alleged date, dependin on who you beleve or are beholden to

[Anonymous]

Given the WSJ piece, clearly he did not learn from Thursday. He can't go on that Court and behave like this. His team advised him incorrectly when they instructed him to do the WSJ article.

I bet admissions to Yale from Georgetown Prep will be zilch for some time to come.

Tonight, I am praying for Gardner and Sasse along with the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because that's the normal procedure when you investigate something. You take the accuser into a room and get her full story, with as many details as she can remember. You don't just go with a half-assed job done in five minute chunks on national TV.

No. You hear the lies, then you go see if someone can back up the lies. When no one can corroborate the lie, you know it’s a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Grassley et. al. can’t rely on the “corroborating” Devil’s Triangle letter from Kavsnaugh’s buddies without taking into consideration or even acknowledging the (earlier submitted) statements of Yale and Prep classmates that come down on the other side. Just more hypocrisy and evidence that the FBI investigation was a sham and the fix was in. I definitely noticed that the Prep buddies who came out in favor of Devils Triangle-is-a-drinking-game never mentioned s word backing up Brett on his lies about Renate Alumni.

YOu are talking about two different sets of people just give it up and let Trump be Trump for once

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't blasey ford come back here and tour various houses or be shown pictures by her lawyers?

With all due respect, this is the most outlandish suggestion

Logistically, how would you identify the properties and gain access to each?

Do you believe there have been no changes to the houses in 30 years?

If Ford's memory is scant around important details, what important info would emerge from her visits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That was another Kavanaugh moment that is disqualifying. When he said that witnesses "refuted" Ford's account, he was either lying or betraying a lack of legal acumen. They said they didn't remember. If Kavanaugh can't distinguish between "didn't happen" and "don't remember," we certainly don't want him overseeing important cases. If he was mischaracterizing evidence, we certainly don't want him overseeing important cases.

If someone "can't remember," that isn't to be taken as corroboration. You know that, right? It's not somehow "in favor" of her testimony. It's completely neutral.