Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

WOW! Shocking! Kavanaugh and his team were trying to get out in front of what they believed were false rumors being circulated by Deborah Ramirez amongst mutual friends of his and Ramirez. I'm trying to find the evidence of bad behavior. Was he/his team directing people to lie to congressional investigators?

He said under oath that he didn't talk to anyone about the event Ramirez described before it went public. See a few pages back

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

WOW! Shocking! Kavanaugh and his team were trying to get out in front of what they believed were false rumors being circulated by Deborah Ramirez amongst mutual friends of his and Ramirez. I'm trying to find the evidence of bad behavior. Was he/his team directing people to lie to congressional investigators?

Look at the transcript. He said under oath that the first time he heard of the claim was when he saw it in the New Yorker article.

That was a lie.

I am beginning to sense a pattern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this talk of the process being akin to a job interview are so ridiculous. Tell me about the job interviews you've had where half of the people who are interviewing you have publicly stated that there is zero chance that they will consider hiring you.

And no job interview I ever had asked asked my drinking in college. ESPECIALLY when I was 30 years past college.

No, but if you are asked about it and lie, then that could be an issue, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

WOW! Shocking! Kavanaugh and his team were trying to get out in front of what they believed were false rumors being circulated by Deborah Ramirez amongst mutual friends of his and Ramirez. I'm trying to find the evidence of bad behavior. Was he/his team directing people to lie to congressional investigators?

This is something he should have let his team handle, should have stayed out of. Another demonstration of his poor judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this talk of the process being akin to a job interview are so ridiculous. Tell me about the job interviews you've had where half of the people who are interviewing you have publicly stated that there is zero chance that they will consider hiring you.

Genius point.

[Anonymous]

Red, red, whine.

So perfect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

WOW! Shocking! Kavanaugh and his team were trying to get out in front of what they believed were false rumors being circulated by Deborah Ramirez amongst mutual friends of his and Ramirez. I'm trying to find the evidence of bad behavior. Was he/his team directing people to lie to congressional investigators?

He said under oath that he didn't talk to anyone about the event Ramirez described before it went public. See a few pages back

You're going to have to point me to that quote because his testimony was as follows:

Questioner: All right. My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?

Judge Kavanaugh: No.

And

Questioner: Well, actually, are you aware that the New York Times passed up on this story before the New Yorker ran the story? Judge Kavanaugh. That’s what I read in the New York Times. What’s your reaction to that?

Judge Kavanaugh: They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that. And you know, that just strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people, is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out. That’s what it sounds like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Julie Swetnick just said on MSNBC that she filed a report with the Montgomery County Police after her assault. The police say it will take a month fo find the report. Perhaps the FBI can speed things up?

I just saw a clip of her interview on NBC Nightly News. She does not come across as remotely believable. The excerpt pointed out that of the four people she provided as witnesses who could back up her claims, one said he didn't recall anyone named Julie Swetnick, the other friend is dead, and the other 2 have not responded.

This is why the contemporaneous report is important. I don't know if it names anyone, but it would obviously add to her credibility.

I agree. Same goes for Ford. There is nothing to add to her credibility so far.

Okay if you think ford was not credible then I trust your opinion about Swetnick's credibility even less then I would trust Brett Kavanaugh to not put Rohypnol in a girl's drink. Which is to say, not at all.

Her story was deemed not credible by a prosecutor who specializes in the field.

What did the prosecutor say about his story? Since she is a prosecutor she should be an expert in cross-examining the accused, no?

The prosecutor spoke to both of them. The burden of proof is on the accuser and she was not able to remember enough information, nor was she able to get anyone else to step forward to back her side of things.

What did the prosector say about his story?

See above. The prosecuter's job was to determine whether or not she felt Ford's story held water, as backed up by her own details of the events, as well as the information in the statements from those she named as witnesses. Since it was not credible as it was told, what his story is, is not even important.

Whatever you are smoking, I think you should share with the class.

[Anonymous]

The next one on the list will be more conservative.
Karma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More evidence of bad behavior by Kavanaugh...

In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

WOW! Shocking! Kavanaugh and his team were trying to get out in front of what they believed were false rumors being circulated by Deborah Ramirez amongst mutual friends of his and Ramirez. I'm trying to find the evidence of bad behavior. Was he/his team directing people to lie to congressional investigators?

Look at the transcript. He said under oath that the first time he heard of the claim was when he saw it in the New Yorker article.

That was a lie.

I am beginning to sense a pattern.

He said that was the first time he heard the allegation of the incident described by Deborah Ramirez, but that he had heard Ramirez was calling around their mutual friends trying to refresh people's memories/dig up dirt. Read the excerpt above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The next one on the list will be more conservative.
Karma.

If they have staked an anti-Roe claim, they won't pass Murkowski and Collins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The next one on the list will be more conservative.
Karma.

That will be RBG’s seat. Kavanaugh will get the confirmation. Despite the most despicable actions of the left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next one on the list will be more conservative.
Karma.

If they have staked an anti-Roe claim, they won't pass Murkowski and Collins.

Hmmm... if the Republicans pick up more seats in Nov., we won’t need Murkowski and Collins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor said she couldn't prosecute the case, not that it wasn't credible. She also made no comment whatsoever about his own testimony, even though she was pulled just after he perjured himself.

If you can't prosecute a case based on the details from the accuser, it's over. Unless it's about politics.

Wait, was this a criminal trial or a job interview?

Most rape cases do not get prosecuted, btw. My cousin immediately reported hers, and had bruises and other marks of evidence, but because it was a date rape and a small town out west where everyone knows each other, nothing happened. Prosecutor wouldn't do anything because 1) they had been dating and 2) it was he-said, she said. This was just 2 years ago.

Doesn't mean her rape didn't happen. Or that I would ever hire the creep who did it, just because he wasn't prosecuted for it.

It doesn't matter. An expert in the field determined that Ms. Ford recollection of events is full of holes. Imagine going on a job interview' where when asked about an alleged crime, you presented a report as extensive as the one Mitchell prepared to the employer, only to have that potential employer say "well I think you are guilty anyway!". You'd feel pretty angry.

And if you were the interviewer and told the interviewee you were not hiring him because you believe he is guilty of the crime, get ready for a world of legal hurt. There's a difference between whether or not an attack happened and whether or not your interviewee was the attacker

And, by the way? It's not a job interview. It's a constitutional process, and there's a huge difference between the two.

Nope nope nope

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next one on the list will be more conservative.
Karma.

If they have staked an anti-Roe claim, they won't pass Murkowski and Collins.

Hmmm... if the Republicans pick up more seats in Nov., we won’t need Murkowski and Collins.

Was that a joke?