Kavanaugh Hearing

If it is done by the first weekday after it started, it is a bit hard to argue that it wasn't a farce.

 

Thomas/Hill took three days.

We already know what all the witness named by Dr. Ford have to say through their lawyers. Seems like the FBI was easily able to get in touch with them all and see if they wanted to add anything to the record. This one may take about as long as the Thomas/Hill.

 

The exact quote is: "I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine."

We went through this on Page 244 of the thread. She is allowed to make that claim because she works as a research psychologist for a college in California, which doesn't require a license. Section 2909 (c) of the licensure requirement.

 

Be nice if she told the truth and stop lying

 

Who determines what is the truth?

 

She would still be guilty of lying under Oath to Congress, which is a Federal offense punishable by imprisonment. Nice try, though..

 

So she did recall those things and lied about it?

 

Never knew that "Devil's Triangle" was a drinking game. I should ask if anyone wants to play the next time I host a party for my middle aged suburban friends.

 

Not really, as everyone kept noting when Democrats were howling for it, an FBI background investigation consists pretty much solely of interviewing people and preparing interview summaries.

Given that Flake asked for one that was "limited in scope" (and presumably discussed with McConnell what he wanted that limited scope to be), the idea that they could manage to interview <10 people in three or four days does not seem particularly far fetched.

 

If you do, be prepared for a bunch of strange looks and one guy that you wouldn't have guessed who seems to be interested but playing it off because he really likes....drinking games.

 

I have explained the dozens of lies that Kavanaugh told under oath. And some are just repetition of the same lie so you could probably get it down to single digit lies, told repetitively.

It appears that some of you want to prosecute Ford for lying under oath for calling herself a research psychologist (which is actually what she is... irony, eh?). And something else?

But in the interest of justice, I think every single lie told in that hearing should be prosecuted. Everybody in?

 

Which things? She's told a lot of different versions on various matters in writing and under Oath. Inconsistencies that would lead an experienced sex crimes prosecutor to say "I don't believe this woman." That is why Mitchell's memo is so damning. Someone who is trained to flesh things things out has weighed in and put her professional reputation on the line in doing so.

 

How about all the things which led Mitchell to say 'I wouldn't touch this one with a ten-foot pole' in her memo? You've read the memo, right? It's not LouisvilleGator's opinion. This is a trained, experience sex crimes prosecutor basically telling you her story is rife with inconsistencies.

 

So you don't have any specific claims about lies, just generalized complaints but not a specific thing on which you can prove that she lied (not recalling is not a lie unless she actually does recall)? Let me know when that changes.

Meanwhile, on the other side, you have classmates saying that Kavanaugh lied under oath about at least 3 of his yearbook entries (Renate Alumnae, Devil's Triangle, and boofing), while supporting him on "FFFFFFourth of July." In addition, you have a set of classmates that have said he lied about his history with drinking. This is also backed by Judge's writings and, most importantly, by his own statements which suggest blackouts.

 

Smith; Jones.

 

Yeah this was covered already. Of course it has to be brought back up as if not already debunked

It is disingenuous and silly to not only misrepresent what Ford called herself but to pretend that she cannot justifiably and legally call herself a psychologist.

 

Yup. She raises a ton of inconsistencies in addition to the he said / she said nature of the allegation. The early inconsistency in what year it took place is clearly alarming in terms of taking her case seriously, even without the other holes in her story.

There is clearly no prosecutable case there for sexual assault against Kavanaugh.

If you think any of those inconsistencies can be affirmed as perjury, then by all means, we should go ahead.

As we should with Kavanaugh's demonstrable lies under oath. Right?

 

Good try Democrats but it did not work. Wonder why Ford did not do this

 

LOL!! "which suggests??" And you're going to try to school me on proving perjury?

As for Ford.. if I really have to recount every single inconsistency for you, then you've not been paying attention and so it's a waste of time.

What we do know: an experienced sex crimes prosecutor said that Ford's allegations don't pass the smell test. I.e. Ford could be lying about the ENTIRE thing. Which would obviously rise waaaaay above not remembering what the term "boofing" means from your HS yearbook. Would you not agree? False attempt rape allegation > not remembering what "boofing" means? Right?

 

This is interesting:


Possible reference to Quaaludes and Bacardi 151, which would support the third accuser's claims. He also lists "Renate Alumnus" and 100 kegs or bust club (which Kavanaugh also listed).