Here's Kavanaugh's testimony: "All four witnesses who were alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen." "And you know, yeah, and it’s been investigated and all four witnesses say it didn’t happen." Both of those statements are lies. Lying under oath is . . . you guessed it, perjury. He is on the record telling us what they SAID. He is not on the record telling us what he believes it means. I do get to define truths. I get to define truths by what is on the record. Their sworn statements are on the record. Kavanaugh's testimony is on the record.
View attachment 35786 [/QUOTE] They look like joints to me @Speedofsand was being earnest in his inquiry. Though certainly infowars was grasping. This is one of those things where there are numerous people searching for whatever minutiae issue they can find to exploit, no matter how ridiculous. I mean it's the height of absurdity to suggest that a Professor of Psychology, with a PhD, MA, and BA in psychology "perjured" herself or did anything wrong by calling herself a psychologist...because that is exactly what she is and she earned that right (even though she called herself a Professor of Psychology in her opening statement). Only in batshit crazy land would this be an issue.
Yes, he's "all in" on the circular logic argument. "Whatever the committee wants", when in fact he knew the committee was heavily resisting a proper investigation of the allegations. He very carefully avoided answering, "yes I think there should be an FBI investigation", the majority was trying to avoid that at all costs. So even when he was getting asked "Should there be an FBI investigation", he didn't say yes to that specifically, he came back to "I'll do what the committee wants". Which to him was as good as committing to nothing. EVEN NOW, according to the tweet above your post, they are not interviewing Julie Swentik. How can they at least not interview HER as part of this? I mean the 3 people making the allegations really should be their first interviews, then they can go from there to track down whatever attendees they need to talk to at the various alleged incidents. To not interview Julie Swentik means they probably aren't even looking at that allegation, which strikes me as a bit ridiculous.
They look like joints to me @Speedofsand was being earnest in his inquiry. Though certainly infowars was grasping. This is one of those things where there are numerous people searching for whatever minutiae issue they can find to exploit, no matter how ridiculous. I mean it's the height of absurdity to suggest that a Professor of Psychology, with a PhD, MA, and BA in psychology "perjured" herself or did anything wrong by calling herself a psychologist...because that is exactly what she is and she earned that right (even though she called herself a Professor of Psychology in her opening statement). Only in batshit crazy land would this be an issue.[/QUOTE] Ask Brett and the Beavis and Butthead guy, I'm sure they know. They'll vehemently deny it, but they'll know.
Unless I am mistaken there are 3 women making the claim. One is the lady who says he attempted to rape her at a high school party. She is a shrink and has testified in front of the committee. The second says that Kavanaugh and his buddies basically got women drunk and gang raped everybody including her. She is the one I call crazy. The third says he exposed himself to her 30 years ago in college. What is the third going to report to the authorities? That someone indecently exposed himself to her decades ago? I dont know what happened 30 years ago between the woman who testified. She seems credible but she is an educated professional woman. The second reads as a nut and the third isnt making any sense.
Judge has sworn in an affidavite that he wasnt there. What else is there to ask him other than have him relate tittilating details from his books.
You do have a rather vivid imagination, although maybe you inadvertently revealed the new strategy of the right. If portraying Blasey Ford as a conniver who fabricated a story so that she can profit from writing a book hasn't been that effective maybe the new strategy is to portray her as a scorned teen out for revenge.
I watched it then read it, and she is not licensed. But that doesn't matter, I already got the answer from others last night, verifying exemptions in Calif law that I linked. Had to be sure Infowars wasn't on to something.
Don't know if this link has already been posted but it goes a long way in explaining why the victim of a sexual assault may have a vivid memory of the assault itself but cannot recall other details that occurred contemporaneously with the assault. Patti Davis - I was sexually assaulted. Here’s why I don’t remember many of the details.
Flake said he wanted an investigation of the credible allegations. Sounds like the White House is honoring that request.
She submitted a sworn affidavit. You can't even begin to argue that it's not credible enough to investigate. I hope Avenatti spends the next week with her on the news every night telling her story.
Why didnt finestein ask for one????? Why did she wait to release info ar 11th hour, then wait for hearing to ask BK to ask for a FBI investigstion?? You play stupid when u pretend not to know why he woukdnt WANT one. It would, as it will, serve to embarass him, his family, his friends, his classmates, his school, jis parish, his kids.... ...and thats EVEN IF it ultimately yields exculpatory evidence.
Yeah, that said "...I swear that some time, somewhere, between the early...no sorry, mid 80's...check that...early 80's... *INSERT NAME OF CURRENT SCOTS NOM=Bret Kavauagh.* raped me." That's credible. Or rather, INcredible.
btw, this one must have slipped through the cracks. No worries--I bookmarked the page, so I'll be happy to re-post as necessary, in case it should...'slip through the cracks' again. Good Lord...were YOU there??? ...and btw, how the hell do you belive Erica Kinsman is a bold faced perjuring liar wrt Repeis Winston, while biting hook line and sinker into every syllable uttered by Doc Ford??? K'man went to authorities the night of the incident, and submitted to a rape kit, and ID'd JW as soon as she saw him in class, less than a month later... Doc Ford sat on her laurels for 36 years, before deigning to even pretend to identify Kav to anyone. So, Leftist politics and your garnet and gold allegiance aside, what could possibly make Doc Ford's allegation more believable than Erika Kinsman's?
Found this interesting: Change Research Post Kavanaugh Hearing Toplines (1) The most significant one for me: 37% more likely to reelect their Senator if Kavanaugh is confirmed 51% less likely to reelect their Senator if Kavanaugh is confirmed
