Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[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.

Exactly. What could she possibly add to her testimony that she hasn't already said? She doesn't remember. Ok, moving on...

[Anonymous]

Did you WATCH his testimony? You are a ninny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you WATCH his testimony? You are a ninny.

This was meant for 23:55!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They also said they never saw Kavanaugh acting that way . They were certain of that.

[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.

The "full story" has been told several times - in Ford's letter to Feinstein, to her lawyers, and in her hearing. What, exactly, do you think the FBI would get from her were they to interview her? She's got huge gaps in her memory. Talking to the FBI isn't going to change that.

[Anonymous]

Kavanaugh admits he screwed up again. Does he think he can keep screwing up on the SC too? He's an adult and the SC is not Georgetown Prep. Timmy and Squi aren't going to bail him out. He can't do a service project at little flower or blessed sacrament with msgr. Enzler to make up for his sins or mistakes. He cannot yell or blame others for his poor judgement. He should save himself and his family the embarrassment and withdrawal. The list of those who don't want him is growing by the hour,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Then post it yourself. Otherwise, you're just breathlessly rumor-mongering.
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm sure this won't be the first time Daines has let his daughter down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Good grief. Obviously, he wouldn't be on the SC, acting emotional, as he did in a hearing specifically called to address alleged sexual assault on his part, numbskull. Do any of you have ANY common sense?

And I disagree about the WSJ article. I'm glad he wrote it. Honestly, if he hadn't, you people would be complaining that he should write an op-ed and apologize!! You're not going to approve of anything he does because - shocker! - you want him destroyed.

[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.

The trolls seem to think they kNow something the rest of us don’t. They know Ford and Ramirez and the other woman who accused Kavanaugh are lying. How do they know this? I believe Ford because I do not see any reason for her to lie. I disbelieve Kavanaugh because he has every reason to lie about Ford’s allegation. But I freely admit that I do not know the truth. Does anyone? Surely not the trolls, yet they keep posting the lie that they know the allegations against Kavanaugh are false. They cannot know that, so they are posting lies. That doesn’t help your guy, folks, just adding to the lies we know he told under oath. If you posted the truth —that you do not know the truth any more than I do — and said you believe Kavanaugh for some other reason, we’ll that would be fine since it’s your opinion.

But you keep posting lies. Why must you lie? Clearly the truth does not support Kavanaugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I am saying that nothing replaces an in-person uninterrupted face-to-face interview for as long as it takes. Which is why it is a normal part of just about any investigation. Police do it. Lawyers do it. Grand juries do it. Judges do it. Private investigators do it. If you are accused of harrassment at work, your HR department would do it. When my kid gets sent the prinicipal's office, I do it. It's why we have police interrogations, depositions and witness stands. If you've had any experience with any investigation at all, even watching Judge Judy on TV, it's what they do. But for some strange reason, the FBI made an exception in this case. The normal, everyday procedure that the entire legal system does every day does not require some special justification because you think whatever she said in five minute snippets while being in front of 20 million people simply MUST be the full story, because you personally don't know what else she could add. I could think of a lot of questions if I had 3 or 4 uninterrupted hours.

And this goes for the accused as well. He should have talked to the FBI too. In fact, he should have insisted on it.

[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.

The op-ed was weak and sniveling. With a good dose of "I wouldn't hit you if you didn't make me."

[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.

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.

There is exactly one person out there who cares what you think. Go look in a mirror and you'll find them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!!![/quote
Oh that is despicable.

[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.

You are ridiculous. He did indeed apologize: “I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times,” Kavanaugh wrote. “I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said.”

And he hasn't "trotted out the women in his life" at all - they came together to support him on their own. Imagine that! These women can actually think for themselves and make up their own minds! They won't be told what to do and whom to support by anyone. How disappointing!

And as for partisan, why on earth should he have submitted his op-ed to the Post or the NYT - two clearly liberal biased publications? You can't possibly claim they are somehow neutral? The WSJ was a good choice for him. Why would he take his statement to media that clearly is fanning the flames of his "guilt"? How idiotic can you get?