The Past is the Past | Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Nomination | Know Your Meme

SO KAVANAUGH'S A SEXUAL ABUSER NOW. SHE IS ONLY NOW REMEMBERING THIS? WHY DIDN'T SHE GO TO POLICE AT THE TIME? THESE ALLEGATIONS, THEY'RE FROM DECADES AGO. S0 ANYONE WHO CLAIMS ABUSE WE'RE JUST SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE NOW? WHERE WOULD WE BE AS A SOCIETY IF WE USED MISTAKES YOU MAKE AS A TEEN TO RUIN YOUR WHOLE LIFE? WE LIVE IN A CULTURE OF OVER- REACTION NOW. ONE CLAIM AND YOUR LIFE IS OVER. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS MAN'S FUTURE! 02 TRAYVON MARTIN 1995- 2012 BORS

Share Pin Download More

matt bors brett kavanaugh sexual assault the nib trayvon martin prison text bubble

Origin Entry: Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court Nomination

Notes:

Submitted on The Nib September 27, 2018

Cartoon by Matt Bors

File type: png

Resolution: (1604px x 1376px)

File size: 2.25 MB

RBG at Kavanaugh's swearing in is a BIG OL' MOOD

Honestly, same girl. #RBG #Kavanaugh #SCOTUS #Trump use EAKING NEWS EAKING NEWS UMP HOSTS CEREMONIAL SWEARING IN FO RLIER CALLED CHRISTINE BLASEY

Brett Kavanagh @Brett_Kavanagh This is a terrible time to be named Brett Kavanagh 10/5/18, 19:20 63.2K Retweets 411K Likes Mike Pence @goodmlkepence-10h Replying to @Brett_Kavanagh Welcome to the club, brother. 、v 39 t0787 13.7K 787 13.7K

View All 121 Images

Load 3 Comments

More:

Grassley letter to Feinstein (part 2)

it was reportedly Senate Democratic staff who conveyed the allegations to the media rather than alert Republican staff to conduct a bipartisan investigation. Finally, you ask that the FBI investigate Ms. Ramirez's claims. As you know, Judge Kavanaugh has gone through six FBI background investigations over the past 25 years. The FBI's investigations covered his time at Yale and uncovered nothing remotely similar to the misconduct alleged by Ms. Ramirez. Additionally, as the New Yorker story itself states, the publication could "not confirm] with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party." And the New York Times spoke to several dozen people to corroborate Ms. Ramirez's allegations but "could find no one with firsthand knowledge." Indeed, the Times reports that Ms. Ramirez herself said she could not be sure Judge Kavanaugh did what she alleged in the New Yorker article. It's not clear how the FBI could further illuminate what transpired at a dormitory party 35 years ago. Even the liberal New York Times did not find these allegations "fit to print.'" As of now, the only allegations of which the Committee is aware with respect to Ms. Ramirez are the allegations described in the New Yorker. As you know, false statements made to the press are not subject to criminal penalty, but false statements to Congress are. If Ms. Ramirez submit:s testimony and evidence to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Committee investigators have requested, we can decide how to proceed. But, at this time, Democratic staff has not shared any such evidence it has with Republican staff. And, because Ms. Ramirez's allegations are unrelated to Dr. Ford's, there is no reason at all to delay the hearing on Thursday in light of these new allegations. Sincerely, Chuck Grassley Chairman

Pin

Grassley letter to Feinstein

September 25, 2018 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Ranking Member United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: I write regarding your request that I postpone the hearing scheduled for Thursday, September 27, during which we will hear Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's testimony regarding her allegations of Judge Brett Kavanaugh's conduct in high school. I respectfully decline your request. I am not going to silence Dr. Ford after I promised and assured her that I would provide her a safe, comfortable, and dignified opportunity to testify Both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have, over the last week, requested the opportunity to testify to Congress regarding Dr. Ford's allegations. After protracted negotiations with Dr. Ford's attorneys, during which we postponed the hearing we had originally scheduled, Dr. Ford's attormeys agreed to a hearing this Thursday. There is no reason to delay the hearing any further. Besides being unfair to Dr. Ford, whose attorneys asked for a public hearing one week ago, delaying the hearing further would be unfair to Judge Kavanaugh and his family. He has asked the Committee repeatedly for the chance to testify as soon as possible. He has categorically denied the allegations that have been made public. He did this in a transcribed interview with several Senate investigators, under penalty of up to five years' imprisonment for lying. We can no longer stand in the way of him presenting his testimony before the Committee. It is unforgivable that Dr. Ford and her family have been subjected to threats and intimidation. But Judge Kavanaugh and his family, including his two young daughters, have also faced threats and intimidation. We must take his family's safety, and the trauma this is causing to his young daughters, into account no less than we must account for the threats and intimidation suffered by Dr. Ford and her family You suggest that Dr. Ford's testimony should be further delayed because of allegations made in the New Yorker by Deborah Ramirez. I am unclear why Ms. Ramirez's claims should have any bearing on Dr. Ford's testimony. In fact, the obvious connection between the two claims is that Senate Democrats hid both allegations of misconduct from the Committee and the public. Indeed.

Pin

Bromwich's letter to Grassley (part 2)

Mr. Davis's comparison of the hearing on Thursday to the Watergate or Iran-Contra hearings is disingenuous. As you know, neither occurred in the Judiciary Committee. The Watergate hearings were conducted by the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities; they lasted for months resulting in over 319 hours being televised. The Iran-Contra hearings were conducted by a ioint committee of the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran and the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition that lasted 41 days. The outside counsel hired to those Committees did not come on board to ask questions of witnesses three davs before the hearings started. The central point is that there s no precedent for this Committee to bring in outside counsel for the sole purpose of shielding the members of the Committee from performing their responsibility to question witnesses. Mr. Davis still has not responded to a number of outstanding questions about the hearing, including an explanation of the role of the experienced sex crimes prosecutor" in the Committee format, Please identifv this person and ask vour staff to send us her resume immediately. We respectfully request to meet with her tomorrow. We are available for a call with the Maiority and Minority staff to discuss the remaining questions anytime. Thank vou for vour consideration of these important matters. ery truly yours, Michael R. Bromwich

Pin

Bromwich's letter to Grassley (part 1)

Dear Chairman Grasslev: We write in response to the email sent by Michael Davis this afternoon and the letter from vou that he included We are finding it difficult to reconcile your letter and Mr. Davis's note with the Majority Leader's speech this afternoon on the Senate floor. As Dr. Blasey Ford has been clear since her experience was first made public, she came forward because she believes it is her civic dutv to tell the truth about the sexual assault she experienced. She is coming to Washington at your invitation to share her experience with senators as they consider a lifetime appointment to our nation's highest court. You said in your letter that you intend to provide a "fair and credible process" that provides Dr. Blasey Ford "fair and respectful treatment." Yet earlier today the Majority Leader dismissed Dr. Ford's experience as a "smear campaign," claiming mistakenly that the witnesses' statements to the Committee constitute "a complete lack of evidence," implving that there has been a thorough investigation, This and statements he has made previously are flatly inconsistent with your letter. The refusal of the White House to request that the FBI reopen Judge Kavanaugh's background check precluded a thorough non-partisan investigation of this matter. And the hearing plan that Mr. Davis described does not appear designed to provide Dr. Blasey Ford with fair and respectful treatment. In our view, the hiring of an unnamed "experienced sex crimes prosecutor," as Mr. Davis described in his email, is contrary to the Majority's repeated emphasis on the need for the Senate and this Committee's members to fulfill their constitutional obligations. It is also inconsistent with your stated wish to avoid a "circus," as well as Dr. Blasey Ford's repeated requests through counsel that senators conduct the questioning. This is not a criminal trial for which the involvement of arn experienced sex crimes prosecutor would be appropriate Neither Dr. Blasey Ford nor Judge Kavanaugh is on trial. The goal should be to develop the relevant facts, not try a case

Pin

Kavanaugh's letter to the Judiciary Committee (part 2)

drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The last minute character assassination will not succeed. I have devoted my career to serving the public and the cause of justice, and particularly to promoting the equality and dignity of women. Women from every phase of my life have come forward to attest to my character. I am grateful to them. I owe it to them, and to my family, to defend my integrity and my name. I look forward to answering questions from the Senate on Thursday Sincerely Bot m. Brett M. Kavanaugh

Pin

Kavanaugh's letter to the Judiciary Committee (part 1)

September 24, 2018 The Honorable Charles Grassley Chairman Committe United States Senate 135 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Ranking Member Co mmittee on the Judiciary United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 e on the Judiciary Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: When I testified in front of the Senate three weeks ago, I explained my belief that fair process is foundational to justice and to our democracy At that time, I sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than 31 hours and answered questions under oath. I then answered more que stions at a confidential session. The following week, I responded to more than 1,200 written questions, more than have been submitted to all previous Supreme Court nominees combined Only after that ex haustive process was complete did I learn, through the news media, about a 36- year-old allegation from high school that had been asserted months earlier and withheld from me throughout the hearing process. First it was an anonymous allegation that I categorically and unequivocally denied. Soon after the accuser was identified, I repeated my denial on the record and made clear that I wished to appear be fore the Committee. I then repeated my denial to Committee investigators-under criminal penalties for false statements. All of the witnesses identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party she describes are on the record to the Committee saying they have no recollection of any such party happening. I asked to testi before the Committee again under oath as soon as possible, so that both Dr. Ford and I could both be heard. I thank Chairman Grassley for scheduling that hearing for Thursday Last night, another false and uncorroborated accusation from 35 years ago was published. Once again, those alleged to have been witnesses to the event deny it ever happened. There is now a frenzy to come up with something anything that will block this process and a vote on my confirmation from occurring These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious character assassination-if allowed to succeed-will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions from service. As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not

Pin

Brett lied about his virginity again?

Steve Kantrowitz @skantrow Followv Perhaps Brett Kavanaugh was a virgin for many years after high school. But he claimed otherwise in a conversation with me during our freshman year in Lawrance Hall at Yale, in the living room of my suite. 7:37 AM - 25 Sep 2018 23,396 Retweets 63,085 Likes00

Pin

Brett Kavanaugh shoved a dick in someone's face

A third male student then exposed himself to her. "I remember a penis beirn in front of my face," she said. "I knew that's not what I wanted, even in that state of mind." She recalled remarking, "That's not a real penis," and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to kiss it." She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. "I wasn't going to touch a penis until I was married," she said. "I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated." She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. "Brett was laughing," she said."I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants." She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. "Somebody yelled down the hall, 'Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie's face," she said. "It was his full name. I don't think it was just 'Brett.' And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there."

Pin

Two classmates withdraw from list of people disputing Ramirez's claims

This story was updated with comments from two former classmates of Kavanaughs, Louisa Garry and Dino Ewing, who initially signed a statement of support for Kavanaugh, provided by his attorneys. They approached The New Yorker after this story was published and asked that their names be removed from the statement, saying they did not wish to dispute Ramirez's claim s.

Pin

"It was just horse play"

Brett wonders why these women from his past want to ruin his life. S. DAs che HUSH" do "no means yes, yes means a---" Friends would saJy

Pin

James Roche comes forward in support of Deb Ramirez

Statement from James Roche I was Brett Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale University in the Fall of 1983. We shared a two- bedroom unit in the basement of Lawrence Hall on the Old Campus. Despite our living conditions, Brett and I did not socialize beyond the first few days of freshman year. We talked at night as freshman roommates do and I would see him as he returned from nights out with his friends. It is from this experience that I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk. I did not observe the specific incident in question, but I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk I became close friends with Debbie Ramirez shortly after we both arrived at Yale. She stood out as being exceptionally honest, with a trusting manner. As we got to know one another, I discovered that Debbie was very worried about fitting in. She felt that everyone at Yale was very rich, very smart and very sophisticated and that as a Puerto Rican woman from a less privileged background she was an outsider. Her response was to try hard to make friends and get along. Based on my time with Debbie, I believe her to be unusually honest and straightforward and I cannot imagine her making this up. Based on my time with Brett, I believe that he and his social circle were capable of the actions that Debbie described. I do not consider myself to be a political person and I have no political agenda. I have shared this information with a small number of reporters who reached out to me directly because Debbie has a right to be heard and I believe her. I have been asked for more detail and additional stories, but this is all that I am comfortable sharing. If I could contribute more first-hand information, I would, but I will not be granting any more interviews or answering any more questions at this time. 卌#

Pin

Like honestly, put your story back in the oven as soon as you type this.

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or

Pin

Know Your Meme

Like Page 1.8M likes