Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

It's not possible that a term used by some for one thing can be different from a term used by others for another thing? Or that people could use a phrase to describe different things?

When my son was 12, he and his friends were joking about "4:20". I asked him what "4:20" meant, and he told me it was when his group of friends did their homework. He wasn't going to tell me they were making a pot reference. Amusingly, they do use it as both, even years later. Is he lying, if he testifies under oath that 4:20 means you're supposed to be doing your homework?

Don't be stupid. Kavanaugh is lying about Devil's Triangle. Do you deny this?

I have no evidence that he is lying about Devil's Triangle. Do you?

Yeah. Devil's Triangle isn't a drinking game. It's a sex act. He's lying.

Do you believe ralphing was referring to his weak stomach?

Where is your evidence re: Devil's Triangle.
"I say so" isn't evidence.

I have no evidence that "ralphing" wasn't used in reference to his weak stomach. Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans have managed to redefine or establish the meaning of "corroborating evidence" to include *only* eyewitness testimony or a confession—a definition "corroborating evidence" has never had in the history of the American criminal justice system.

Many people apparently think corroborating evidence should include "I knew people like him and they were jerks, so he's guilty."

I don't think you can point to very many stellar actors in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that Ford made an allegation without any support to corroborate what she said. Her version was full of holes.

The Democrats realized this and switched the attack to his year book, his drinking in college and his anger when he testified the second time.

The Democrats have nothing to rely on when it comes to the Ford allegation which is what started the whole thing after the hearings so they can only fall back on other accusations unrelated to the alleged sexual assault on Ford.

The yearbook corroborates her story, as does the calendar. It isn't that they changed tactics, the fact patterns warrant more scrutiny - scrutiny that the White house has shielded Kavanaugh from.

If her story was that Kavanaugh was a crude young man who drank, then yes, the yearbook and calendar corroborates her story. The most important part of her story is the sexual assault. The yearbook does not corroborate that, and we're waiting to see what the investigation turned up to see if the calendar could have helped corroborate that. Although, at best, it would help, not completely corroborate.

Just because someone was a crude young man who drank does not mean he engaged in sexual assault. Yes, many crude young men who drink engaged in sexual assault. Many did not.
If the calendar can place him where she places him, with the people she placed him with, and interviews with or statements from the potential witnesses also suggest at the least there was such a gathering, her claim will have some corroboration. The most helpful would of course be a witness who saw the assault.

But 1) there appears to have been a conscious decision to prevent the FBI from attempting to corroborate her claims, since they weren't even allowed to interview her, much less review any additional information she had

2) if Kavanaugh is lying about whether he was a crude hard drinking teen -- which most people agree he is-- then it is perfectly fair to wonder whether he is lying whether he can reliably remember not assaulting her.

1) Do you have the FBI report? I don't, so I can't say who the FBI interviewed or what details they followed up on.

2) I don't care about your claims about what "most people agree." I care about facts. Please show me the quotes where he lied. My recollection of his testimony was that he admitted to drinking when he was a teen. I can't recall off the top of my head if he was asked if he was crude. I'm sure you can provide the supporting quotes, if your claim is factual.

ng
I don't have the FBI report but I have seen the letter Dr Ford's lawyers wrote to the FBI saying they were having problems contactig the SAIC and saying no one had interviewed them.

There is plenty of evidence he lied about his behavior in HS but just to take one he claimed that the Renate alumni club was a way of paying tribute to a friend. I can't believe anyone over the age of 10 believes that.

Don't you think Ford's lawyers have a vested interest in presenting information in a particular way? And why do you think the FBI should interview her lawyers? And finally, without having the report, how do we know who was ultimately interviewed or what claims were followed up on?

Please provide evidence for him lying about the Renate Alumni club.

DP...if you were on Twitter, you would see the actual signed affidavits, under penalty of perjury, of 40+ witnesses in this matter. Links have been posted here numerous times. It has been made clear who was interviewed, and more importantly, who wasn't.

And w/r to the Renate thing, see the New Yorker article that dropped last night (posted here around 11:00pm) - her reactions to what the Prep boys said is all you should need to know. It was horrific.

[Anonymous]

Powerful speech by McConnell on the Senate floor right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

It's not possible that a term used by some for one thing can be different from a term used by others for another thing? Or that people could use a phrase to describe different things?

When my son was 12, he and his friends were joking about "4:20". I asked him what "4:20" meant, and he told me it was when his group of friends did their homework. He wasn't going to tell me they were making a pot reference. Amusingly, they do use it as both, even years later. Is he lying, if he testifies under oath that 4:20 means you're supposed to be doing your homework?

Don't be stupid. Kavanaugh is lying about Devil's Triangle. Do you deny this?

I have no evidence that he is lying about Devil's Triangle. Do you?

Yeah. Devil's Triangle isn't a drinking game. It's a sex act. He's lying.

Do you believe ralphing was referring to his weak stomach?

Where is your evidence re: Devil's Triangle.
"I say so" isn't evidence.

I have no evidence that "ralphing" wasn't used in reference to his weak stomach. Do you?

You don't need "evidence" to define words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

It's not possible that a term used by some for one thing can be different from a term used by others for another thing? Or that people could use a phrase to describe different things?

When my son was 12, he and his friends were joking about "4:20". I asked him what "4:20" meant, and he told me it was when his group of friends did their homework. He wasn't going to tell me they were making a pot reference. Amusingly, they do use it as both, even years later. Is he lying, if he testifies under oath that 4:20 means you're supposed to be doing your homework?

Don't be stupid. Kavanaugh is lying about Devil's Triangle. Do you deny this?

I have no evidence that he is lying about Devil's Triangle. Do you?

Yeah. Devil's Triangle isn't a drinking game. It's a sex act. He's lying.

Do you believe ralphing was referring to his weak stomach?

Where is your evidence re: Devil's Triangle.
"I say so" isn't evidence.

I have no evidence that "ralphing" wasn't used in reference to his weak stomach. Do you?

It's not a criminal trial so his meaning doesn't have to be definitively proven. If this were to come up in a trial, though, common usage and understanding of a word or phrase can be introduced as evidence bearing on the witness's credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans have managed to redefine or establish the meaning of "corroborating evidence" to include *only* eyewitness testimony or a confession—a definition "corroborating evidence" has never had in the history of the American criminal justice system.

Many people apparently think corroborating evidence should include "I knew people like him and they were jerks, so he's guilty."

I don't think you can point to very many stellar actors in this case.

But corroborating evidence should include people who can verify that they knew of the Ramierez event at the time that it happened. It should also include others (presumably other Holton alumni) who know both Ford and Stweneck who can verify their claims, have signed statements under penalty of perjury who yet were not interviewed by the FBI.

Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

It's not possible that a term used by some for one thing can be different from a term used by others for another thing? Or that people could use a phrase to describe different things?

When my son was 12, he and his friends were joking about "4:20". I asked him what "4:20" meant, and he told me it was when his group of friends did their homework. He wasn't going to tell me they were making a pot reference. Amusingly, they do use it as both, even years later. Is he lying, if he testifies under oath that 4:20 means you're supposed to be doing your homework?

Yes, he would be lying. When you take an oath to tell the truth, you take an oath to tell the full truth, not just select portions of the truth that support your case. Your son knows the expression has two meanings, and further that those two meanings aren't unrelated -- the innocent meaning arose out of trying to cover for the not-so-innocent meaning. If, when asked what it means, he shares only one of them, he is lying by omission.

It is troubling to me that this is something that needs to be explained.

I've never testified in court, but I've watched several (real, not tv) court cases, and while what you're saying is theoretically true, it does not seem to play out in practice. People seem provide the most concise answer they can to a particular question. They do not elaborate, they do not provide multiple versions of an answer.

In simple cases, for example
"Is so and so your coworker?"
They say "yes." They don't say "yes, but so and so is also my friend. We met 4 years before I took the job and it was on their suggestion that I applied."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The truth is that Ford made an allegation without any support to corroborate what she said. Her version was full of holes.

The Democrats realized this and switched the attack to his year book, his drinking in college and his anger when he testified the second time.

The Democrats have nothing to rely on when it comes to the Ford allegation which is what started the whole thing after the hearings so they can only fall back on other accusations unrelated to the alleged sexual assault on Ford.

The yearbook corroborates her story, as does the calendar. It isn't that they changed tactics, the fact patterns warrant more scrutiny - scrutiny that the White house has shielded Kavanaugh from.

If her story was that Kavanaugh was a crude young man who drank, then yes, the yearbook and calendar corroborates her story. The most important part of her story is the sexual assault. The yearbook does not corroborate that, and we're waiting to see what the investigation turned up to see if the calendar could have helped corroborate that. Although, at best, it would help, not completely corroborate.

Just because someone was a crude young man who drank does not mean he engaged in sexual assault. Yes, many crude young men who drink engaged in sexual assault. Many did not.
If the calendar can place him where she places him, with the people she placed him with, and interviews with or statements from the potential witnesses also suggest at the least there was such a gathering, her claim will have some corroboration. The most helpful would of course be a witness who saw the assault.

But 1) there appears to have been a conscious decision to prevent the FBI from attempting to corroborate her claims, since they weren't even allowed to interview her, much less review any additional information she had

2) if Kavanaugh is lying about whether he was a crude hard drinking teen -- which most people agree he is-- then it is perfectly fair to wonder whether he is lying whether he can reliably remember not assaulting her.

1) Do you have the FBI report? I don't, so I can't say who the FBI interviewed or what details they followed up on.

2) I don't care about your claims about what "most people agree." I care about facts. Please show me the quotes where he lied. My recollection of his testimony was that he admitted to drinking when he was a teen. I can't recall off the top of my head if he was asked if he was crude. I'm sure you can provide the supporting quotes, if your claim is factual.

ng
I don't have the FBI report but I have seen the letter Dr Ford's lawyers wrote to the FBI saying they were having problems contactig the SAIC and saying no one had interviewed them.

There is plenty of evidence he lied about his behavior in HS but just to take one he claimed that the Renate alumni club was a way of paying tribute to a friend. I can't believe anyone over the age of 10 believes that.

Don't you think Ford's lawyers have a vested interest in presenting information in a particular way? And why do you think the FBI should interview her lawyers? And finally, without having the report, how do we know who was ultimately interviewed or what claims were followed up on?

Please provide evidence for him lying about the Renate Alumni club.

Happy to.

During his Senate hearing, Kavanaugh said that the reference was an endearment, saying, “she was a great friend of ours. We—a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group.” He said that a “media circus that has been generated by this, though, and reported that it referred to sex. It did not.”

But the classmate who submitted the statement said that he heard Kavanaugh “talk about Renate many times,” and that “the impression I formed at the time from listening to these conversations where Brett Kavanaugh was present was that Renate was the girl that everyone passed around for sex.” The classmate said that “Brett Kavanaugh had made up a rhyme using the REE NATE pronunciation of Renate’s name” and sang it in the hallways on the way to class. He recalled the rhyme going, “REE NATE, REE NATE, if you want a date, can’t get one until late, and you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE NATE.” He said that, while he might not be remembering the rhyme word-for-word, “the substance is 100 percent accurate.” He added, “I thought that this was sickening at the time I heard it, and it left an indelible mark in my memory.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates
(classmate's declaration under penalty of perjury at bottom of article)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Powerful speech by McConnell on the Senate floor right now.

McConnell couldn't give a powerful speech to save his life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Powerful speech by McConnell on the Senate floor right now.

Hmm, and here I am listening to it and wondering if he thinks we have a collective IQ of 12. Perhaps his base does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans have managed to redefine or establish the meaning of "corroborating evidence" to include *only* eyewitness testimony or a confession—a definition "corroborating evidence" has never had in the history of the American criminal justice system.

Nominees in the past were withdrawn with much less evidence than this. News reports of marijuana use did in Douglas Ginsburg, and he honorably withdrew himself. He didn’t lie, and cry, scream about conspiracies and then lie some more.

As an unaffiliated voter, I have to ask who on earth would want someone like Brett Kavanaugh on the court, pushed through by their party? Republicans should be the ones wanting him out, and now. The absolute lack of honor as a norm now is not what America is supposed to be about.

[Anonymous]

Sen. Grassley's statement is a lie on the face of it, given Ramierez alleges sexual impropriety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dem here. I'm on the fence about whether I hope Kavanaugh isn't confirmed which means Republicans are energized and Dems lose (polls now pointing at this plus Repubs historically vote in higher numbers than Dems in midterms) or he is confirmed, energizing Dems for midterms even though we get stuck with decades of this temperamentally unfit alcoholic abuser on the SCOTUS. Given his behavior he shouldn't but it's d@mned if you do and if you don't.

You will be lucky to have a very qualified justice on SCOTUS.

I stated days ago, after the FBI investigation was started, that there would be nothing in this report that would be a game changer. The only sad thing about the investigation is that it won’t exonerate Kavanaugh. It can’t. When someone brings charges that are 36 years old, had no date or place of the alleged crime, and all the named individuals allegedly there have no knowledge of either the party of the allegations, how can you expect this report to be any game changer? I still cannot believe that people are actually believing the crap that has been alleged.
Think about it - NOTHING has corroborated her story.

Liberals know that. That's why they've pivoted to the fact that he got angry about being accused of a heinous crime as part of a political smear campaign.

And all this focus on high school yearbooks and teen boys' slang terms for farting is ridicluous. Normal people see it.

I agree with both of you. I never imagined we'd see something so wholly absurd as this confirmation process. And the people calling him an "alcoholic" - obviously he is not. He's had SIX prior FBI investigations, and all of them were clean as a whistle. He is a highly respected judge. His behavior as a teenager has nothing to do with his decades of experience on the bench and good works as a citizen. The whole thing is truly disgusting.

I agree with you that behavior during one's teens may not matter much in the grand scheme. What matters in this case is that he seems to have lied about it while under oath. If he lied about silly minutiae, like what different terms mean in his yearbook, what else might he lie about? It calls one's character in question when they are shown to be liars, per several of his former classmates/roommates.

Do we have evidence that he lied?

I mean, if HRC is an evil lizard person, she certainly should never be elected President. We can make all sorts of conjectures about ifs. What about evidence? Facts? Truth?

PP here. I have not commented much in politics, but I'll say this. I will grant that none of us can say with 100% certainty that either Dr. Blasey or Judge Kavanaugh were lying. But given the evidence that has come out from his contemporaries at GT Prep, former classmates, roomates, etc., I think it's reasonable to say that that there is a high likelihood that he did not tell the complete truth about everything.

I'm also a Ph.D.-trained research scientist. We're trained to never say with 100% certainty that we believe the data, but we talk in terms of likelihoods. I would say that in this case, based on the evidence, that there is a high likelihood that he is lying about at least some minor details.

Of course he didn't tell the complete truth about everything. Neither did Ford. That's a function of being human.

But if we're going to use his testimony to demonstrate that he assaulted a woman, it stands to reason we should actually have to present the parts of his testimony that demonstrate that. Not "I don't like the guy." Or "he drank too much." But actually "he said [X], and over here we have proof that he currently knows the truth to be [Y]." As far as I can tell, we don't have that. We just have people who don't like him criticizing him for past behavior, and saying that boys and men like him are the sorts of people who commit assault, therefore he must have done it.

If he seems to have lied, what did he seem to lie about? What is the evidence that is being used to show it is likely a lie?

He lied at his 2006 confirmation hearings about knowingly receiving illegally acquired emails in 2002 that were stolen from the Democrats in a partisan attempt to thwart the Democrats' questioning of judicial nominees.

That in and of itself is disqualifying. The man is either a liar (he lied about knowingly receiving stolen information) or he has terrible judgment (he couldn't tell that the information he was being fed was illegally acquired). Looks bad either way, though if he is as smart as conservatives are saying then it's more likely the 1st scenario - he lied -- is accurate.

When was the allegation that he lied at his 2006 confirmation hearings first made?

I don’t know but Feingold is walking through those lies here, well before last Thursday’s hearings.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff/amp

So, whether we like it or not, a majority of Senators didn't consider that alone a big issue, or disqualifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about Devil's Triangle. It's not a drinking game. So, I assume he's lying about everything else as well.

It's not possible that a term used by some for one thing can be different from a term used by others for another thing? Or that people could use a phrase to describe different things?

When my son was 12, he and his friends were joking about "4:20". I asked him what "4:20" meant, and he told me it was when his group of friends did their homework. He wasn't going to tell me they were making a pot reference. Amusingly, they do use it as both, even years later. Is he lying, if he testifies under oath that 4:20 means you're supposed to be doing your homework?

Yes, he would be lying. When you take an oath to tell the truth, you take an oath to tell the full truth, not just select portions of the truth that support your case. Your son knows the expression has two meanings, and further that those two meanings aren't unrelated -- the innocent meaning arose out of trying to cover for the not-so-innocent meaning. If, when asked what it means, he shares only one of them, he is lying by omission.

It is troubling to me that this is something that needs to be explained.

I've never testified in court, but I've watched several (real, not tv) court cases, and while what you're saying is theoretically true, it does not seem to play out in practice. People seem provide the most concise answer they can to a particular question. They do not elaborate, they do not provide multiple versions of an answer.

In simple cases, for example
"Is so and so your coworker?"
They say "yes." They don't say "yes, but so and so is also my friend. We met 4 years before I took the job and it was on their suggestion that I applied."

False parallel, that's not how Kavanaugh was asked about these phrases.