Accuser of U.S. high-court nominee Kavanaugh goes public

[BobBKK]

3 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

So...abandoning the “he was (just) 17” argumant are we?

 

There has to be an investigation before there can be any meaningful testimony. Kavanaugh’s FBI background checks file was closed once he was nominated. Only The WH can order the reopening of that FBI investigation, and they have yet to do so.

Not at all he was just 17 is part of the observed commentary and we all do silly things even if this were true. Personally I think she has mental issues, as many psychologists do, and has got confused and seen a 'moment in the spotlight' as a way to boost her fragile ego.

 

Still she told her therapist 2 guys but the 'therapist' said, in her contemporaneous notes, 4 right?  YET another inaccuracy. 

[Thakkar]

13 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Not at all he was just 17 is part of the observed commentary and we all do silly things even if this were true. Personally I think she has mental issues, as many psychologists do, and has got confused and seen a 'moment in the spotlight' as a way to boost her fragile ego.

 

Still she told her therapist 2 guys but the 'therapist' said, in her contemporaneous notes, 4 right?  YET another inaccuracy. 

“We all do silly things” —violent sexual assault is not “a silly thing”. You may be speaking for yourself, but I, and I’m sure many here, can state categorically that I have never—not at 17, not ever—engaged in sexual assault.

 

So your contention is that the person asking for an investigation is the one lying?

 

Does it occur to you that she is actually inviting closer scrutiny of her claims? Surely it’s more logical to believe her than the people resisting an investigation?

 

Also, Kavanaugh claims he wasn’t at the party. Hmm...Nothing suspicious about claiming you weren’t at a party that nobody has told you the date of.

 

[sebastion]

Twists and turns.

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case rulled [sic] on by Brett Kavanaugh [sic] mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case…Isn’t it kind of amazing that all the media reports today didn’t mention this little conflict of interest for Blasey-Ford?


Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk

[Srinivas]

13 minutes ago, sebastion said:

Twists and turns.

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case rulled [sic] on by Brett Kavanaugh [sic] mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case…Isn’t it kind of amazing that all the media reports today didn’t mention this little conflict of interest for Blasey-Ford?


Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk
 

Nyt Exclusive: Judge Kavanaugh kicks 15 year old rape victim and her family out on to the streets.

[sebastion]

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryByCaseNum.jis

Type in case number 156006V

Blasey-Ford foreclosure with Martha Kavanaugh the presiding judge.

Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk

[Jingthing]

Twists and turns.

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case rulled [sic] on by Brett Kavanaugh [sic] mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case…Isn’t it kind of amazing that all the media reports today didn’t mention this little conflict of interest for Blasey-Ford?


Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk

If true its irrelevant. Brett is a different person than his mother.

Next...

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sebastion]

If true its irrelevant. Brett is a different person than his mother.

Next...

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

It's true alright. The link to the court and case number provided.

Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk

[Thakkar]

24 minutes ago, sebastion said:

Twists and turns.

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case rulled [sic] on by Brett Kavanaugh [sic] mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case…Isn’t it kind of amazing that all the media reports today didn’t mention this little conflict of interest for Blasey-Ford?

 

Martha Kavanaugh actually ruled in favor of Ford’s parents, so that they were able to keep the house.*

 

Ford must hate her parents so much that she waited decades to take revenge on the son of the person that ruled in favor of them. Women, eh? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

*Links to court records at this site:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaugh-foreclosure-accuser-parents/

[Slip]

26 minutes ago, sebastion said:

Twists and turns.

Martha G. Kavanaugh, the mother of Brett Kavanaugh was a Maryland district judge in 1996. In an amazing coincidence, Martha Kavanaugh was the judge in a foreclosure case in which Christine Blasey-Ford’s parents were the defendants. Now it all becomes clear. Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh, not because of what he did in high school. Instead, Christine Blasey-Ford is going after Brett Kavanaugh out of spite and revenge for a case rulled [sic] on by Brett Kavanaugh [sic] mother. Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother was Montgomery County Circuit Court judge from 1993 until she retired in 2001. During a 1996 foreclosure case, Martha Kavanaugh ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey-Ford in a foreclosure case…Isn’t it kind of amazing that all the media reports today didn’t mention this little conflict of interest for Blasey-Ford?


Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk
 

More Bullsh*t from the magaTs. 

 

Quote

Martha Kavanaugh did preside for certain parts of a 1996 foreclosure case involving Ralph and Paula Blasey, who are indeed Christine Blasey Ford’s parents. However, Kavanaugh actually ruled favorably toward the Blaseys, who ended up keeping their home. These two facts cause the logic of the conspiracy theory, such as it ever was, to collapse.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaugh-foreclosure-accuser-parents/

Edited September 19, 2018 by Slip
added link

[Thakkar]

3 minutes ago, Slip said:

More Bullsh*t from the magaTs. 

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaugh-foreclosure-accuser-parents/

 

Oops! Looks like you beat me to it. Kudos and thanks.

[Slip]

1 minute ago, Thakkar said:

 

Oops! Looks like you beat me to it. Kudos and thanks.

Actually, you beat me, so straight backachyer.  ? ?

[sebastion]

Hahaha. Snopes. The democrat party sycophants.

They debunk anything against their own.


Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk

[sebastion]

 
Martha Kavanaugh actually ruled in favor of Ford’s parents, so that they were able to keep the house.*
 
Ford must hate her parents so much that she waited decades to take revenge on the son of the person that ruled in favor of them. Women, eh? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
 
*Links to court records at this site:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaugh-foreclosure-accuser-parents/

She ruled to the plaintiff, not the defendants.
Try reading the court paper before replying.

Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk

[Srinivas]

Just now, sebastion said:

Hahaha. Snopes. The democrat party sycophants.

They debunk anything against their own.


Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk
 

remember the cnn buys washing machine story FALSE!

[Thakkar]

1 minute ago, Slip said:

Actually, you beat me, so straight backachyer.  ? ?

 

Court proceedings are public records and easily verifiable. “They” must know this, so it says a lot that they would try this shenanigan. It shows several things:

1. Their utter disregard for facts

2. They have no real arguments

3. Their utter disdain for the Trump base they hope to fool, convinced that the idiots will buy this uncritically.

[Slip]

7 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Court proceedings are public records and easily verifiable. “They” must know this, so it says a lot that they would try this shenanigan. It shows several things:

1. Their utter disregard for facts

2. They have no real arguments

3. Their utter disdain for the Trump base they hope to fool, convinced that the idiots will buy this uncritically.

Indeed.  I did a full text search on the text and guess what the top hit was (apart from the snopes debunk):

 

https://www.pacificpundit.com/2018/09/16/christine-blasey-ford-revenge-parents-foreclosure/

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pacific-pundit/

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Slip
forgot link again

[sebastion]

 
Court proceedings are public records and easily verifiable. “They” must know this, so it says a lot that they would try this shenanigan. It shows several things:
1. Their utter disregard for facts
2. They have no real arguments
3. Their utter disdain for the Trump base they hope to fool, convinced that the idiots will buy this uncritically.

Typical deflection when confronted with facts.
Belittling opinions doesn't make you right.

Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk

[Becker]

1 minute ago, sebastion said:

Typical deflection when confronted with facts.
Belittling opinions doesn't make you right.

No, facts make us right.

[sebastion]

Indeed.  I did a full text search on the text and guess what the top hit was (apart from the snopes debunk):
 
https://www.pacificpundit.com/2018/09/16/christine-blasey-ford-revenge-parents-foreclosure/
 

http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryByCaseNum.jis

Type in case number 156006V

It's plain as day.
Motion was filed by the plaintiff and the status was granted.

She ruled against them.

Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk

[sebastion]

No, facts make us right.

You aren't stating any facts.
Just links to liberal news.

Try looking up actually factual records.

Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk

[Thakkar]

11 minutes ago, sebastion said:

She ruled to the plaintiff, not the defendants.
Try reading the court paper before replying.

Yes, she ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s SECOND motion which was to ask the courts to dismiss their first motion to foreclose as the defendants had arranged for a refinance. By agreeing to dismissing the first motion, the court allowed Ford’s parents to keep their house. This was a ruling in EVERYONE’S favor.

 

But, pkease, keep embarrassing yourself for our entertainment, thanks.

[Slip]

Oh dear...

[sebastion]

Yes, she ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s SECOND motion which was to ask the courts to dismiss their first motion to foreclose as the defendants had arranged for a refinance. By agreeing to dismissing the first motion, the court allowed Ford’s parents to keep their house. This was a ruling in EVERYONE’S favor.
 
But, pkease, keep embarrassing yourself for our entertainment, thanks.

They lost their house when they agreed with the bank to sell. They lost the case and made a deal with the bank so they got something out of it.
How hard is that to understand.

Stop reading brainwashing MSNBC.

Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk

[Becker]

3 minutes ago, sebastion said:

They lost their house when they agreed with the bank to sell. They lost the case and made a deal with the bank so they got something out of it.
How hard is that to understand.

Stop reading brainwashing MSNBC.

Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk
 

MSNBC is a television network. One doesn't read TV one watches it.

[Thakkar]

16 minutes ago, sebastion said:

They lost their house when they agreed with the bank to sell. They lost the case and made a deal with the bank so they got something out of it.
How hard is that to understand.

Stop reading brainwashing MSNBC.

 

“They lost the house”

 

Then I guess it was a pretty neat trick for them to be able to transfer the lost house to the Blasey family trust in 2014. This is a matter of public record.

 

Please see item -3- in my post # 165.

[sebastion]

 
“They lost the house”
 
Then I guess it was a pretty neat trick for them to be able to transfer the lost house to the Blasey family trust in 2014. This is a matter of public record.
 
Please see item -3- in my post # 165.

Show me the link.


Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk

[watcharacters]

31 minutes ago, sebastion said:

Stop reading brainwashing MSNBC.

 

What do you suggest he "read"?

 

[Thakkar]

4 minutes ago, sebastion said:

Show me the link.

 

Ask nicely, then maybe I will.

[Slip]

8 minutes ago, sebastion said:

Show me the link.


Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk
 

You claim they lost the house.  The onus is on you to provide the link.  I know for a fact that Thakkar can, but you can't as you are not telling the truth.

[brucec64]

1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

“We all do silly things” —violent sexual assault is not “a silly thing”. You may be speaking for yourself, but I, and I’m sure many here, can state categorically that I have never—not at 17, not ever—engaged in sexual assault.

 

So your contention is that the person asking for an investigation is the one lying?

 

Does it occur to you that she is actually inviting closer scrutiny of her claims? Surely it’s more logical to believe her than the people resisting an investigation?

 

Also, Kavanaugh claims he wasn’t at the party. Hmm...Nothing suspicious about claiming you weren’t at a party that nobody has told you the date of.

 

 

Nobody has been convicted of anything at this point. It is all alleged. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but doesn't mean it did.

 

If he is innocent, then quite easy to make that claim. I can easily state that I was never at any party where I was assaulting a woman in a room. I don't need times or places to make that statement.