Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Op-Ed actually hurts him. I don't know who has been advising him, between this and the Fox interview and his demeanor when he testified, but all three have put him in a worse position than he would have been had he followed his likely instincts.

Agree. Trotting out the women in his life like a shield. He didn’t apologize and proved that he has learned nothing.

And, Fox News and WSJ seems pretty partisan in the era of the GOP’s fake news.

[Anonymous]

The op-ed was a dumb move. He’s showing himself to be a partisan hack. If McConnell was sure had the votes, there was no need for the editorial. It’s still up in air. Expect more surprises tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Op-Ed actually hurts him. I don't know who has been advising him, between this and the Fox interview and his demeanor when he testified, but all three have put him in a worse position than he would have been had he followed his likely instincts.

Agree. Trotting out the women in his life like a shield. He didn’t apologize and proved that he has learned nothing.

And, Fox News and WSJ seems pretty partisan in the era of the GOP’s fake news.

Are you new to Earth?

[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.

Are you saying she didn’t tell the full truth? I don’t know what she could add.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His WSJ op-ed is tepid and pathetic.

So tries-too-hard.

He's acting as if he's never been told No. If he just keeps asking, maybe they'll say Yes.

You are both idiotic. The op-ed was well-written and contrite for his argumentative tone during the hearing. Which was perfectly understandable to normal people who can put themselves in his shoes and realize that's how anyone would act when faced with these horrible and wrongful allegations - and in front of his family, no less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His WSJ op-ed is tepid and pathetic.

So tries-too-hard.

He's acting as if he's never been told No. If he just keeps asking, maybe they'll say Yes.

You are both idiotic. The op-ed was well-written and contrite for his argumentative tone during the hearing. Which was perfectly understandable to normal people who can put themselves in his shoes and realize that's how anyone would act when faced with these horrible and wrongful allegations - and in front of his family, no less.

LOL NO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one thought his dad was dead and that was why he was crying over his dad's calendars? His dad was there behind him! NOT DEAD!

Does this have to be explained *yet again*?? He was crying at the mention of his dad's name because he was mortified to have to defend himself against wrongful allegations - IN FRONT OF HIS FAMILY. If you have family members you love (do you??), you'd be devastated too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This all feels like typical fake posturing on both sides. He'll be confirmed, he was always going to be confirmed. Distract the population with this crap theater while both sides of the same coin do nothing but help their 9, 10, 11, and 12 figure net worth puppetmasters loot the nation.

This all feels typical to you?

Typical phony hysteria nobody will care about in 2 weeks. Pretty par for the course since about 2015.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one thought his dad was dead and that was why he was crying over his dad's calendars? His dad was there behind him! NOT DEAD!

Does this have to be explained *yet again*?? He was crying at the mention of his dad's name because he was mortified to have to defend himself against wrongful allegations - IN FRONT OF HIS FAMILY. If you have family members you love (do you??), you'd be devastated too.

He was full of crap. Sorry you bought it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This all feels like typical fake posturing on both sides. He'll be confirmed, he was always going to be confirmed. Distract the population with this crap theater while both sides of the same coin do nothing but help their 9, 10, 11, and 12 figure net worth puppetmasters loot the nation.

This all feels typical to you?

Typical phony hysteria nobody will care about in 2 weeks. Pretty par for the course since about 2015.

Yeah, no. The National Council of Churches, the Benedictine Sisters, 2400 law school professors, the WaPo editorial board, retired Justice Stevens, GOP governors, and all the rest did not come out against Gorsuch. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:His WSJ op-ed is tepid and pathetic.

So tries-too-hard.

He's acting as if he's never been told No. If he just keeps asking, maybe they'll say Yes.

You are both idiotic. The op-ed was well-written and contrite for his argumentative tone during the hearing. Which was perfectly understandable to normal people who can put themselves in his shoes and realize that's how anyone would act when faced with these horrible and wrongful allegations - and in front of his family, no less.

You make it sound like this was unique - not the specific allegations, but the general adversity. I respectfully disagree. People face adversity every day. Exceptional people deal with it in exceptional ways. Kavanaugh is not exceptional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This all feels like typical fake posturing on both sides. He'll be confirmed, he was always going to be confirmed. Distract the population with this crap theater while both sides of the same coin do nothing but help their 9, 10, 11, and 12 figure net worth puppetmasters loot the nation.

This all feels typical to you?

Typical phony hysteria nobody will care about in 2 weeks. Pretty par for the course since about 2015.

Yeah, no. The National Council of Churches, the Benedictine Sisters, 2400 law school professors, the WaPo editorial board, retired Justice Stevens, GOP governors, and all the rest did not come out against Gorsuch. Try again.

Oh my gosh!

Yeah, I stand by what I said. He'll be confirmed and in 2 weeks everyone will be focused on something else. It's a charade on both sides, with the media fanning the flames for web clicks and eyeballs.

[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.

Honestly, I've about lost my patience with all of this. She should have come forward years ago when her memory of the alleged events was better. Sniffing around 36 years later is a futile and pointless endeavor.

[Anonymous]

https://archive.org/details/cupola-1983/page/n143

This is one of Brett's pals.

Mentions Renate. Mentions some poor gal Whitney.

AND . . . how about the "Ridge Klux Klan?"

Many dismiss this yearbook as garbage but it is worth a study. Lot's of Brett's pals make reference to "Ridge Klux Klan" and Renate and Whitney.

I mean . . . was there REALLY an FBI investigation???? FFS!!!

[Anonymous]

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.

Oh, the irony. You do realize some "very unkind things" have been said about Judge Kavanaugh from his youth, right?

And, as a woman - I have no obligation to believe someone simply because we share the same gender. Has feminism taught you nothing??