Law Justice Brett Kavanaugh Megathread - Megathread for Brett Kavanaugh, US Supreme Court Justice

they're good justices, brentt

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/trump-picks-brett-kavanaugh-for-supreme-court.html

President Donald Trump has picked Brett Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge with extensive legal credentials and a lengthy political record, to succeed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, NBC News reported.

Kavanaugh, 53, is an ideological conservative who is expected to push the court to the right on a number of issues including business regulation and national security. The favorite of White House Counsel Donald McGahn, Kavanaugh is also considered a safer pick than some of the more partisan choices who were on the president’s shortlist.

A graduate of Yale Law School who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh has the traditional trappings of a presidential nominee to the high court.


If confirmed, the appellate judge would become the second young, conservative jurist Trump has put on the top U.S. court during his first term. Kavanaugh's confirmation would give the president an even bigger role in shaping U.S. policy for decades to come. The potential to morph the federal judiciary led many conservatives to support Trump in 2016, and he has not disappointed so far with the confirmation of conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and numerous federal judges.

At times, he has diverged from the Republican party’s ideological line on important cases that have come before him, including on the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 health care law which Kavanaugh has declined to strike down on a number of occasions in which it has come before him.

Anti-abortion groups quietly lobbied against Kavanaugh, pushing instead for another jurist on Trump’s shortlist, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett, ABC News reported in the run-up to Trump’s announcement.

Kavanaugh received his current appointment in 2006 after five years in the George W. Bush administration, where he served in a number of roles including staff secretary to the president. He has been criticized for his attachment to Bush, as well as his involvement in a number of high-profile legal cases.

For instance, Kavanaugh led the investigation into the death of Bill Clinton’s Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, and assisted in Kenneth Starr’s 1998 report outlining the case for Clinton’s impeachment.

Democrats criticized Kavanaugh’s political roles during his 2006 confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Your experience has been most notable, not so much for your blue chip credentials, but for the undeniably political nature of so many of your assignments,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said at the time.

“From the notorious Starr report, to the Florida recount, to the President’s secrecy and privilege claims, to post-9/11 legislative battles including the Victims Compensation Fund, to ideological judicial nomination fights, if there has been a partisan political fight that needed a very bright legal foot soldier in the last decade, Brett Kavanaugh was probably there,” Schumer said.

Kavanaugh's work on the Starr report has been scrutinized by Republicans who have said it could pose trouble for the president as he negotiates with special counsel Robert Mueller over the terms of a possible interview related to Mueller's Russia probe. The 1998 document found that Clinton's multiple refusals to testify to a grand jury in connection with Starr's investigation were grounds for impeachment.

In later years, Kavanaugh said that Clinton should not have had to face down an investigation during his presidency. He has said the indictment of a president would not serve the public interest.

Like Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh clerked for Kennedy. If he is confirmed, it will mark the first time ever that a current or former Supreme Court justice has two former clerks become justices, according to an article by Adam Feldman, who writes a blog about the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh teaches courses on the separation of powers, the Supreme Court, and national security at Harvard Law School and Yale Law School, and does charitable work at St. Maria’s Meals program at Catholic Charities in Washington, D.C., according to his official biography.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ett-kavanaugh-nomination-by-a-28-point-margin

After a blistering confirmation battle, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will take his seat for oral arguments on the U.S. Supreme Court with a skeptical public, a majority of which opposed his nomination. However, Democrats may not be able to exploit this fact in the upcoming elections as much as they hope, because the independent voters overwhelmingly disapprove of their own handling of the nomination by a 28-point margin, a new CNN/SSRS poll finds.

Overall, just 41 percent of those polled said they wanted to see Kavanaugh confirmed, compared to 51 percent who said they opposed his confirmation. In previous CNN polls dating back to Robert Bork in 1987, no nominee has been more deeply underwater.

What's interesting, however, is even though Democrats on the surface would seem to have public opinion on their side, just 36 percent approved of how they handled the nomination, compared to 56 percent who disapproved. (Republicans were at 55 percent disapproval and 35 percent approval). A further breakdown finds that 58 percent of independents disapproved of the way the Democrats handled the nomination — compared to 30 percent who approved. (Independents also disapproved of Republicans handling of the matter, but by a narrower 53 percent to 32 percent margin).

Many people have strong opinions on the way the Kavanaugh nomination will play out in November and who it will benefit. The conventional wisdom is that it will help Democrats in the House, where there are a number of vulnerable Republicans in suburban districts where losses among educated women could be devastating, and that it will help Republicans in the Senate, where the tossup races are in red states where Trump and Kavanaugh are more popular.

That said, it's clear that the nomination energized both sides, and that the tactics pursued by the parties turned off independent voters in a way that makes it much harder to predict how this will end up affecting election outcomes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Next we're gonna hear about how he used to take a piss without raising the seat beforehand and how that disqualifies him. Or perhaps the next allegation will be he eats Oreo cookies whole instead of licking the cream off before eating the cookies separate.

We'll find out soon if he's the only other guy out there who gets two scoops.
 
Ok, I don't think this was posted and I wasn't going too because i thought it was a joke, but now...
upload_2018-10-4_17-5-31.png

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1047206565441404928

Apparently Grassley responded to it :story:
upload_2018-10-4_17-3-12.png upload_2018-10-4_17-3-57.png
https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1047206992081813507
 
Agreed. If it's any consolation, republicans like McConnell and Ryan seem just as shocked. For some reason they are winning and they don't know why. There is a massive political realignment in progress. All those working class people that got chased out of the Democratic party are taking over the Republican party. Trumps win was as much a disaster for them as it was the democrats. The republicans are turning into the party of the American worker. For their part, establishment republicans seem content to ride the tiger, and you are starting to see them reflect the sentiments of the rank and file.

The democrats by comparison have lost their minds.

Because of the excesses of the post war state and the "easy" route of throwing people on welfare when jobs go there's been a slow shift of working people from obstensibly left wing to more social conservativism.

The people who go generations of welfare then vote overwhelming ly left wing because they don't want their free shit stopped. Eventually the left cultivates these votes almost exclusively without realizing as to why the other "working class" abandons them. Conservatives meanwhile are fusing into a more genuine third way of social conservativism with elements of liberal spending.

Even in Jamais's apocalyptic civil war 2 scenario simply isn't going to work in the us. The areas in rebellion would be almost entirely city states. Cities which have spent the past 45 years purging heavy industry from their environs and dumping them in new towns or suburbs far away when they haven't wrecked it entirely.

Meanwhile any area outside of said cities now has roving militia bands in F150s more than willing to shoot up any vehicle that looks a bit off or shoot any official which comes out of the city demanding (because they'd be that fucking stupid) food and water.

You could end rebellion in NYC or california in days by simply stopping the flow of fresh water to those areas and who a majority of reservoirs and other supplies are far, far outside in the redneck territory.

Military wise you're in the same boat. You'd get a few national guard units and military units in rebellion but the military is acutely Republican. You'd get bits of units sticky taped together and good luck getting resupplied too. Very quickly those units would have to use unfamiliar black market kit and ammo to keep going because there's hardly any city ammo dumps due to safety.

Your soy warriors and "fighting grrls" will try and sign up to finally fight Nazis only to find all but the most basic of training hard. They will quickly lose interest in actual fighting and instead turn on the population as a new "safer" police force. They will shoot random people for their skin colour or for being too privileged as they live out their moronic fantasy only to be purged in turn when even more extreme and nasty people rise up.

The hood gangs and cartels will fucking love the Bonanza and help supply weapons in exchange for outright annexation of neighbourhoods and turf then proceed to shoot at each other and behead anyone who speaks out. They eventually will get into fights with the social justice militia who will demand help from the already poorly equipped and demoralized professional units on their side. They're already losing men at a horrific rate thanks to Bud and his militia buddies who take a few pot shots and race off. Let alone what the pro units who support the Republicans would be up to.

End result would be nasty street fighting almost entirely of their own fucking making and a humanitarian crisis as people try to flee the "tolerant and progressive" cities.
 
If we keep getting shitflinging like this with every new Supreme Court justice, I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years there's a genuine bipartisan movement for term limits on Supreme Court justices. Maybe 16 or 20 years would be good.
 
It depresses the hell out of me that we are even having this conversation.
I can't help but feel like, maybe when a civilization has gotten so backwards that people sit around mocking retards on the internet as a LIFESTYLE because they have no other life, we have failed ourselves.
 
Because of the excesses of the post war state and the "easy" route of throwing people on welfare when jobs go there's been a slow shift of working people from obstensibly left wing to more social conservativism.

The people who go generations of welfare then vote overwhelming ly left wing because they don't want their free shit stopped. Eventually the left cultivates these votes almost exclusively without realizing as to why the other "working class" abandons them. Conservatives meanwhile are fusing into a more genuine third way of social conservativism with elements of liberal spending.

Even in Jamais's apocalyptic civil war 2 scenario simply isn't going to work in the us. The areas in rebellion would be almost entirely city states. Cities which have spent the past 45 years purging heavy industry from their environs and dumping them in new towns or suburbs far away when they haven't wrecked it entirely.

Meanwhile any area outside of said cities now has roving militia bands in F150s more than willing to shoot up any vehicle that looks a bit off or shoot any official which comes out of the city demanding (because they'd be that fucking stupid) food and water.

You could end rebellion in NYC or california in days by simply stopping the flow of fresh water to those areas and who a majority of reservoirs and other supplies are far, far outside in the redneck territory.

Military wise you're in the same boat. You'd get a few national guard units and military units in rebellion but the military is acutely Republican. You'd get bits of units sticky taped together and good luck getting resupplied too. Very quickly those units would have to use unfamiliar black market kit and ammo to keep going because there's hardly any city ammo dumps due to safety.

Your soy warriors and "fighting grrls" will try and sign up to finally fight Nazis only to find all but the most basic of training hard. They will quickly lose interest in actual fighting and instead turn on the population as a new "safer" police force. They will shoot random people for their skin colour or for being too privileged as they live out their moronic fantasy only to be purged in turn when even more extreme and nasty people rise up.

The hood gangs and cartels will fucking love the Bonanza and help supply weapons in exchange for outright annexation of neighbourhoods and turf then proceed to shoot at each other and behead anyone who speaks out. They eventually will get into fights with the social justice militia who will demand help from the already poorly equipped and demoralized professional units on their side. They're already losing men at a horrific rate thanks to Bud and his militia buddies who take a few pot shots and race off. Let alone what the pro units who support the Republicans would be up to.

End result would be nasty street fighting almost entirely of their own fucking making and a humanitarian crisis as people try to flee the "tolerant and progressive" cities.
This scenario falls apart because it has the liberals using guns, which are yucky
 
This scenario falls apart because it has the liberals using guns, which are yucky

Oh, the liberals will pick up guns when they start channeling their inner Che Gueveras. Unlike Che, however, most of them won't be all that competent with them, or at anything else in particular. Heck, the Weathermen would probably be more competent than today's hipster liberals.
 
Because of the excesses of the post war state and the "easy" route of throwing people on welfare when jobs go there's been a slow shift of working people from obstensibly left wing to more social conservativism.

The people who go generations of welfare then vote overwhelming ly left wing because they don't want their free shit stopped. Eventually the left cultivates these votes almost exclusively without realizing as to why the other "working class" abandons them. Conservatives meanwhile are fusing into a more genuine third way of social conservativism with elements of liberal spending.

Even in Jamais's apocalyptic civil war 2 scenario simply isn't going to work in the us. The areas in rebellion would be almost entirely city states. Cities which have spent the past 45 years purging heavy industry from their environs and dumping them in new towns or suburbs far away when they haven't wrecked it entirely.

Meanwhile any area outside of said cities now has roving militia bands in F150s more than willing to shoot up any vehicle that looks a bit off or shoot any official which comes out of the city demanding (because they'd be that fucking stupid) food and water.

You could end rebellion in NYC or california in days by simply stopping the flow of fresh water to those areas and who a majority of reservoirs and other supplies are far, far outside in the redneck territory.

Military wise you're in the same boat. You'd get a few national guard units and military units in rebellion but the military is acutely Republican. You'd get bits of units sticky taped together and good luck getting resupplied too. Very quickly those units would have to use unfamiliar black market kit and ammo to keep going because there's hardly any city ammo dumps due to safety.

Your soy warriors and "fighting grrls" will try and sign up to finally fight Nazis only to find all but the most basic of training hard. They will quickly lose interest in actual fighting and instead turn on the population as a new "safer" police force. They will shoot random people for their skin colour or for being too privileged as they live out their moronic fantasy only to be purged in turn when even more extreme and nasty people rise up.

The hood gangs and cartels will fucking love the Bonanza and help supply weapons in exchange for outright annexation of neighbourhoods and turf then proceed to shoot at each other and behead anyone who speaks out. They eventually will get into fights with the social justice militia who will demand help from the already poorly equipped and demoralized professional units on their side. They're already losing men at a horrific rate thanks to Bud and his militia buddies who take a few pot shots and race off. Let alone what the pro units who support the Republicans would be up to.

End result would be nasty street fighting almost entirely of their own fucking making and a humanitarian crisis as people try to flee the "tolerant and progressive" cities.

I wasn't the one who suggested we were gonna have civil war 2, fucking @Bass was.
Excellent points overall in any case.
 
CNN is currently running “breaking news” that a Yale roommate is claiming Kavanaugh lied under oath.
Kavanaugh's Yale classmates say they've struggled to connect with FBI
By Lauren Fox, Curt Devine, Scott Bronstein and Evan Perez, CNN



Updated 1153 GMT (1953 HKT) October 4, 2018


(CNN)As the FBI races to finish its supplemental background check into Judge Brett Kavanaugh, individuals who believe they have useful information about Kavanaugh's behavior or experience have tried with varying degrees of success to share their information with the FBI.

The efforts have led to a frustration that information some classmates posit as important is not being included in the FBI probe, but may reflect the reality that as a supplemental background check, the FBI's focus may be narrower than they would be in a criminal investigation.
Carrie Cordero, a CNN legal analyst and former counsel to the US assistant attorney general for national security, told CNN that it is also not unusual that someone would contact the FBI with information and then not hear back.
"As a general matter, if the FBI is conducting an investigation," Cordero said. "They decide who they need to talk to."
A series of individuals who attended Yale with Brett Kavanaugh say they have either not been contacted by the FBI as part of their renewed background investigation or have tried to make contact with the FBI as the agency continues its supplemental background check into Kavanaugh.
Trying to make contact
In interviews with several classmates -- none of whom claim they were direct witnesses to the incident in which Deborah Ramirez alleges in The New Yorker that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a freshman party -- former Yale students tell CNN they still believe they have some information and either have not been contacted at all or have tried to reach out and have not been contacted back by the FBI.
As of Tuesday evening, Liz Swisher, a former classmate of Kavanaugh's who had appeared on CNN and questioned Kavanaugh's truthfulness about his drinking at Yale in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, told CNN she had not been contacted by the FBI. Chad Ludington, another former classmate who said he often drank with Kavanaugh during their early years at Yale, also filled out a form, but had not been contacted back by the FBI as of Wednesday afternoon. Jamie Roche, Brett Kavanaugh's Yale freshman roommate, has not been contacted by the FBI as of Wednesday morning, his spokesman, Peter Kauffman said.
Kerry Berchem, who graduated Yale in 1988 and knew both Kavanaugh and Deborah Ramirez, said the FBI has not contacted her as of Wednesday even though she sent multiple emails to FBI agent J.C. McDonough beginning Sunday.
Berchem said she has texts messages with a college friend who described communications with Kavanaugh in September regarding The New Yorker article that detailed Ramirez's allegations, according to Berchem's emails.
McDonough advised Berchem to contact her local field office and submit her information to the FBI's tip system, and Berchem responded that she did both.
"I have made no accusations nor have I drawn any conclusions (about) what the texts may or may not mean," Berchem said. "I only requested that the FBI contact me."
Mark Krasberg, an assistant professor of neurosurgery at the University of New Mexico who was also a classmate of Kavanaugh's and Ramirez's without direct knowledge of the alleged incident, had also not heard back from the FBI despite numerous attempts to reach out to lawmakers' offices and FBI offices directly.
According to The New Yorker in September, Krasberg had recounted how "Kavanaugh's college behavior had become a topic of discussion among former Yale students soon after Kavanaugh's nomination" and he tried repeatedly to contact the FBI.
In a lengthy statement to CNN, Krasberg said that he'd reached out to New Mexico Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich's DC office over the phone as soon as he learned the FBI investigation would be opened up.
He says Heinrich's staff forwarded his information to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he then said was forwarded to the FBI. Krasberg also said he became increasingly concerned by news reports that the investigation would occur over just one week and felt he needed to try and contact the FBI directly. He called the Colorado office where he said he did talk to someone over the phone after a long wait, but was only able to get through "approximately 10% of the evidence" he had.
"She asked me to summarize the remaining information, and I told her that I could help identify the location of the incident, and that I knew the names of other witnesses who would contemporaneously back up Debbie Ramirez's story," he said.
On Sunday, he said he reached out to staff for Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a key swing vote and undecided Republican, as well as Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee and close friend to Flake, to discuss what he knew. They again forwarded his information to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but as of Tuesday night, Krasberg said he had still not heard back from the FBI.
Another fellow Yale alum who lived in the same dorm as Kavanaugh told CNN that he knew Kavanaugh and Ramirez, and also knew exactly where the alleged party occurred. Speaking to CNN on background he explained that, while he lived on the opposite side of the building, there was a common entrance near the suite where the party occurred and he, along with many others, used that entrance. This person said he certainly believed Ramirez's story, and said he knew that Kavanaugh was someone "who partied" with people who drank a lot. He said he had no direct knowledge of the alleged incident.
This alum said that he knew a lot of the people who lived closer to that side of dorm and who likely could have known about it, and who likely knew them both. He said he believed many of them would or should be able to corroborate the incident. He also said he and a number of his friends from the dorm back then were all talking and emailing together about the alleged incident. This alum told CNN on Sunday that he contacted the FBI by phone, first near his home, and then he was forwarded on to agents in in DC. He told the agents on the phone that he had names of people who would likely know about whether alleged party took place and what happened. He said the FBI seemed very interested on phone, and said they would get back to him. But as of Tuesday he had not heard back from anyone at the FBI, and now "fears" the investigation "could be a joke."
Alan Abramson, a lawyer representing a client who was a friend of Ramirez's, said that his client had also not been contacted. According Abramson, Ramirez told his client in the early 90s about an incident that happened during Ramirez's freshman year at Yale.
"I immediately contacted Ms. Ramirez's attorney and gave him this information including my client's name. He advised me that he gave my client's name to the FBI on Sunday, as someone with pertinent information who was willing to speak the FBI," Abramson said. "Having not heard from the FBI, I personally contacted them and spoke to two agents. I have not heard from the FBI yet, but I am hopeful that they will still contact me."
CNN also tried to contact several others involved, including potential witnesses to the alleged incident between Ramirez and Kavanaugh, who have not returned calls or declined to comment to CNN about whether they had been contacted by the FBI.
Democrats have concerns
That fact that several people say they have either not been contacted or have not heard back from the FBI after making initial contact, may indicate a limited scope to of the FBI's supplemental background investigation, a fact that is creating growing concern among Senate Democrats as the timeline for the investigation draws to an end.
"A number of Democratic senators have expressed private concerns about the problem of constituents not getting call backs and not knowing how to direct them to the right place in the FBI," a Democratic senator said.
New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room" that she passed on a letter to the FBI "of someone who wants to be interviewed, who has relevant information and has asked to be part of this further background check." Gillibrand said she does not know the contents of the letter, or how serious the details may be.
The senator added she has also heard of other witnesses who say they have relevant information who have not been followed up with by the FBI.
Gillibrand told CNN she does not believe the FBI is doing a thorough investigation.
"That doesn't sound like the complete, thorough investigation that frankly senators deserve and would be due if you had a thorough background check," she said.
The FBI has been working very closely with the White House and has been keeping White House counsel Don McGahn updated on their work. The details of the first interviews were shared with the White House and that is how some of the additional interviews then came about.
One of those interviewed by the FBI was Ramirez, who alleged that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her and others in a dorm room when they were Yale freshmen. Ramirez's lawyers provided the FBI with the names of more than 20 individuals who they say can help corroborate Ramirez's story. Only a small number of those, however, may have witnessed the alleged incident. It is those individuals to whom the FBI may also be talking. Those interviews would require the White House's approval.
Ramirez's lawyer John Clune said in a tweet on Tuesday that they are "not aware of the FBI affirmatively reaching out to any of those witnesses."
Why the FBI may have a limited scope
In high-profile investigations, it is not uncommon for the FBI to receive large volumes of tips from the public, which must be independently vetted to determine their credibility and applicability to a particular investigation, says CNN law enforcement analyst Josh Campbell.
With the clock ticking on the Senate's expected vote on Kavanaugh by week's end, it remains to be seen whether the FBI will have sufficient time to conduct a comprehensive review.
The bureau has declined to comment on the record about the ongoing background investigation, however, a US government official familiar with the Kavanaugh review tells CNN the FBI remains in "information collection mode" and is sorting through a number of leads from the public submitted via its online tip portal, toll-free call center and various field offices.
James Gagliano, a retired FBI supervisory special agent and CNN law enforcement analyst, said the FBI examines every single tip it receives, so if individuals have submitted information but have not been contacted, that doesn't mean the FBI has ignored their information.
"The mantra of the FBI is turn over every stone and don't miss anything," Gagliano said. "If they are not returning calls, there is a reason for it."
Republicans in Congress maintain they have confidence in the FBI investigation.
In a statement Tuesday evening, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley spoke out about the FBI's ongoing investigation saying he was "confident that the FBI agents tasked with this responsibility will not succumb to public political pressure or politicians telling the agency how to do its job."
"Respectfully, the career public servants and professionals at the FBI know what they're doing and how best to conduct a background investigation. The FBI's business should be carried out independent of political or partisan considerations. I hope my Democratic colleagues do not attempt to interfere in that process," Grassley said.
It's unclear when the FBI's investigation will be completed although the agreement was that it would be finished within one week when Flake asked for it last week. It's also not certain whether the findings would be released publicly. Traditionally, information obtained through background investigations are not revealed publicly although some lawmakers have argued that the Kavanaugh investigation was not typical and that it could be important to make some pieces of it public.
CNN's Scott McLean, MJ Lee, Ariane de Vogue and Kate Sullivan contributed to this report.

http://archive.is/1EPA2
 
Ok, I don't think this was posted and I wasn't going too because i thought it was a joke, but now...
View attachment 558544
https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1047206565441404928

Apparently Grassley responded to it :story:
View attachment 558540 View attachment 558541
https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1047206992081813507

Tad Low, the window-peeping perv, saw something that offended his perverted window-peeping sensibilities so profoundly, that he can't even say what he saw, and there's the barest glimmer of a chance that Brett Kavanaugh may have been present within a fifty mile radius at the time.

Therefore, dump Kavanaugh.

One more time...

Ladies and gentlemen, Tad Low.
 
Oh good, so they have evidence?
Lets look at the article

Haven't seen college classmate Liz Swisher before, her issue - drinking (who cares, not relevant) and I'm guessing no evidence.

Chad Ludigton prior roommate who already blew his load. Had a big media presence for his shocking announcement, that immediately disappeared out of the news cycle because it was a complete farce with no evidence.

I have been contacted by numerous reporters about Brett Kavanaugh and have not wanted to say anything because I had nothing to contribute about what kind of justice he would be. I knew Brett at Yale because I was a classmate and a varsity basketball player and Brett enjoyed socializing with athletes. Indeed, athletes formed the core of Brett’s social circle.

In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.

I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18- or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges.

I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth.

I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press. I have no desire to speak further publicly, and nothing more to say to the press at this time. I will, however, take my information to the F.B.I.

Charles (Chad) Ludington
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...e-friend-detail-violentdrunken-behavior-judge

James Roche - (found this no source though) roommate for less than three months. By his own admission, Roche said Kavanaugh stopped associating with him after the first couple of days. Can't connect with FBI??? My guess is because he is wasting their time.

Deborah Ramirez has declined 7+ attempts of cooperation with the committee, her 6 witnesses say it never happened and all friends say she never mentioned it.

Kerry Berchem - knew Ramirez and unnamed friend of a friend has texts with Kavanaugh about Ramirez statements (BTW my uncle works at Nintendo)

Mark Krasberg - No direct knowledge of Ramirez alledged incident (then fuck off), but can name the time, place and 'witnesses' (already denied)... hasn't given 90% of the evidence (i.e. his worthless rambling testimony)

Unnamed - lives opposite side of campus, says Kavanaugh was friends with people who drank a lot (who cares) no knowledge of incident. Knows of people who may have heard of incident ('witnesses' denied)

Alan Abramson - lawyer representing friend of Rameriez, says Rameriez in the 90s mentioned 'an incident' that happend at Yale (great specifics there, also no evidence)

'CNN also tried to contact several others involved, including potential witnesses to the alleged incident between Ramirez and Kavanaugh, who have not returned calls or declined to comment to CNN about whether they had been contacted by the FBI.' (because she is full of shit)

Article then goes on to fluff the democrats and say the FBI sucks and isn't doing it's job (despite performing this job for the 7th time now). The same FBI that's totally going to bring down that big old orange meanie Drumfler.

TL;DR FAKE NEWS
 
Back