Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Kavanaugh the first nominee so obviously politically active/partisan? I knew previous nominees have signaled their thoughts on various issues, but were any of them this politically active? Seems shocking to me.

RGB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

So you are literally attacking a rape victim by how she dresses and does her hair for something that is going to be televised all over the world? I usually wear jeans with paint on them, tshirts so faded you can't even read them, and only wear makeup when I have a meeting or a party (so maybe once a month) - if I were in this position I would not show to the senate judiciary hearing looking like I usually do.

Way to attack the victim there. Pat yourself on the back.

No I am not attacking the "alleged" victim. You don't get what I am saying. They had her dress and have her hair done in a certain way to make her look like disheveled, like someone who had just been attacked -- it was very intentional.

Look again at the photos from the beginning of the hearing. Her hair did not look disheveled at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

Ignore the Haters; you nailed this PP.

I’m really upset about the Georgetown Prep alumni who put out a call for alumni to betray their class even worse than Blasey Ford did. These guys, freshmen when Brett was a senior, now want Georgetown Prep people to snitch on Brett, “even if speaking out comes at some personal cost.”

Yeah. “at some personal cost.” Ya think, “Fikri” and “Barbot”? I’m supposed to jeopardize my clients’ leverage in the DC Circuit and even at the Supreme Court, bearing “personal cost”. I’m supposed to make myself a social pariah to support this woman.

Look, if you guys got stuffed in a locker, I’m sorry. Maybe you’re not worried about your job as “Research Analyst II”, or your work between punk rock gigs

But that’s no reason to turn on your fellow Little Hoya. You got your 15 minutes. But you’re not worthy of shaking Brett’s hand. So focus on your own problems.

THIS is the reason to come to this board. Wow. Is this a real post? GP grad admonishing efforts to snitch on the great amd powerful Brett, comparing his big law job against their fed ones. Awesome insight into the real Washington. Still quite alive and well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You people need to quite calling her a victim. She is an "alleged" victim.

You people need to stop trying to minimize the violence involved in this attack.

[Anonymous]

Maybe someone should have done a better job of getting him to look and act like a supreme Court Justice. He threw a temper tantrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

So you are literally attacking a rape victim by how she dresses and does her hair for something that is going to be televised all over the world? I usually wear jeans with paint on them, tshirts so faded you can't even read them, and only wear makeup when I have a meeting or a party (so maybe once a month) - if I were in this position I would not show to the senate judiciary hearing looking like I usually do.

Way to attack the victim there. Pat yourself on the back.

As Diane Feinstein should as well, she is the one who brought her out of the darkness against her wishes.

....as well as her own attorney, who didn't present her option of testifying privately. After all, what good is allowing your pawn privacy when the idea is to use her to humiliate and condemn someone sans evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

So you are literally attacking a rape victim by how she dresses and does her hair for something that is going to be televised all over the world? I usually wear jeans with paint on them, tshirts so faded you can't even read them, and only wear makeup when I have a meeting or a party (so maybe once a month) - if I were in this position I would not show to the senate judiciary hearing looking like I usually do.

Way to attack the victim there. Pat yourself on the back.

No I am not attacking the "alleged" victim. You don't get what I am saying. They had her dress and have her hair done in a certain way to make her look like disheveled, like someone who had just been attacked -- it was very intentional.

WTF? No.

100% -- it is a strategy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe someone should have done a better job of getting him to look and act like a supreme Court Justice. He threw a temper tantrum.

+100. His taking Trump’s advice was moronic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people need to quite calling her a victim. She is an "alleged" victim.

You people need to stop trying to minimize the violence involved in this attack.

Nobody knows if the the alleged attack even happened, so their is no minimization of violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She has so many holes in her story. But how about her "makeover" for the hearing. They darkened her hair, styled it so it would fall in her face and look disheveled, wore oversized glasses and ill fitting clothes. All of this was done specifically to make her look weak and get sympathy. I call BS.

So you are literally attacking a rape victim by how she dresses and does her hair for something that is going to be televised all over the world? I usually wear jeans with paint on them, tshirts so faded you can't even read them, and only wear makeup when I have a meeting or a party (so maybe once a month) - if I were in this position I would not show to the senate judiciary hearing looking like I usually do.

Way to attack the victim there. Pat yourself on the back.

No I am not attacking the "alleged" victim. You don't get what I am saying. They had her dress and have her hair done in a certain way to make her look like disheveled, like someone who had just been attacked -- it was very intentional.

WTF? No.

Of course it's a strategy. Lawyers tell their clients how to dress all the time. I remember a wealthy woman suing someone, and her attorney told her not to wear her 3-carat diamond ring or designer clothes.
100% -- it is a strategy

[Anonymous]

Blab on about the vast left wing conspiracy.

Fact is, the pussy grabber in chief getting this particular justice is infuriating. How much it will affect the election trmains to be seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the Mitchell memo. No one is asking for charges to be brought. No one is contending that she met the reasonable doubt standard.

The report just makes me more sympathetic to Ford. She is being criticized and torn apart and now a prosecutor has torn through and prepared a report for nothing. And there is no report on Kavanaugh. And we all saw his performance and know where the inconsistencies are. Not to mention his conduct.

How bizarre.

She's not being torn apart for nothing. She makes some claims that stretch all plausibility.

After the bright lights of the hearing have faded away people are questioning substance of Ford's story as not passing the common sense test:

In the alleged assault, Ford says in her oral testimony she went upstairs to use the bathroom and her assailants came up from “behind her” and pushed her into a bedroom where “there was music playing in the bedroom”. Who turned on the music? If the assailants came in from behind her, it would not have been the assailants who turned the music on. Who leaves music playing in a bedroom that is empty?

Ford says in her testimony that there was no music or TV playing in the first floor living room where the main gathering was taking place and where everybody was drinking beer. How many teenage summer parties have you been to where there is NO music playing (esp in the 80's)?

And yet, she has NO REASON to lie. The Democrats do, but she personally has no reason to make this up and destroy her life. I don’t care how much the gofundme is.

FBI now cross examining the timing of Ford's allegation which apparently shows politics at play. The FBI's interviews are apparently dismantling the notion that Ford was not acting in a "political" manner regarding these allegations.

1. In her oral testimony, Ford says she does not tell anyone about the alleged incident until May 2012 when in a therapy session with her husband she says she “recalls saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the Supreme Court.” However, there is no reference to the nominee in the therapist’s notes.

2. Referring to one’s assailant in a therapy session in such striking political terms about the Supreme Court nomination has drawn scrutiny as not normal. At the time of the therapy session in 2012 Obama was a popular DEMOCRATIC President and was expected to trounce Romney to win a second term in the fall of 2012. Also, the US Senate was under the control of the DEMOCRATS at this time so there was no logical reason for Ford to be worried about a staunch Republican being nominated to the SCOTUS in the spring of 2012. Ford is superimposing Kavanaugh’s name to this therapy session, after the fact, to fit her lie.

3. It was not until JULY 6, 2018 that Ford had ever named Brett Kavanaugh as her alleged attacker outside of therapy. There is ZERO corroborating evidence (other than her husband’s oral statements about therapy reference). It appears the therapy reference to Kav was made up to create a false narrative.

4. Trump makes his choice of Kavanagh privately during the first week of July 2018 and this information is leaked to the Dems by civilian governmental employees. This information is passed onto Ford.

5 According to her oral testimony, on Friday, July 6, 2018 Ford calls Representative Eshoo’s office and does not talk with anyone directly. Instead, Ford states she leaves a message on the receptionist’s unsecure voice mail that “someone on Trump’s list had attacked her.” Ford leaves this on an unsecured receptionist's voice mail as a marker to give false appearance she does not yet know Kavanaugh is the nominee, but this has already been leaked.

6. FBI question: Why would someone who wants to remain anonymous about a highly sensitive personal matter (the most traumatic thing that ever happened to her in her life) that has not been shared publicly with anyone in over 35 years leave this information on a receptionist’s unsecured voice mail on Friday, July 6? A normal person would not leave such sensitive and personal information on a receptionist’s voice mail.

7. The date of July 6, 2018 was a Friday in the middle of the summer on a week most people were on their Independence Day family vacation. Trump was preparing to announce Kavanaugh the following Monday, July 9. Interesting timing!

8. Ford’s timing was planned purely to give the appearance that she was unaware of Kavanaugh’s selection by Trump when, in fact, she was bringing the story forward purely for political reasons in reaction to the fact that Kavanaugh’s nomination had already been made privately.

9. On July 6 Ford sends encrypted anonymous message to WashPost naming Kavanaugh and Judge as her attackers. Again, why would someone who wants to remain anonymous go to the media which will surely blow this up into a major story? Answer: Ford is leaving a contrived marker to give the appearance that she made her allegation before the public announcement of Kavanagh as the nominee. In reality, Kavanagh had already been picked and this has been leaked to Ford.

10. In her oral testimony Ford (after 35 years of keeping this all bottled up inside her) suddenly becomes very chatty. She says the weekend before Trump names Kavanaugh on July 9, Ford begins talking to a few of her friend’s on the beach near her home about Kavanagh. This is contrived - she is leaving more breadcrumbs to support her future narrative that her allegation is not driven by politics.

The FBI is well trained to interrogate witnesses and it appears Ford's story is being discredited.

[Anonymous]

Is anyone else troubled by the fact that a PROSECUTOR is picking apart a crime victim and seemingly giving cover to an alleged perpetrator? I suppose it’s not a big deal, but it bugs me. If I were assaulted in Maricopa County next week, I’d feel especially vulnerable thinking she was the one who was supposed to get justice for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people need to quite calling her a victim. She is an "alleged" victim.

You people need to stop trying to minimize the violence involved in this attack.

Nobody knows if the the alleged attack even happened, so their is no minimization of violence.

True. And we have someone upthread calling her a "rape victim." Even she herself isn't claiming that.

[Anonymous]

I believe women.

No matter what.