Yes, why would one lie under oath if it advanced you and there were very little chances of negative consequences for doing it? These ideas seem to be in opposition.
"it's just bad form to publicly humiliate someone like that" Oh.... the irony kills me... The yearbook references had nothing to do with Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh... Drinking excessively + Puking due to excessive drinking + having a threesome with another guy + bragging about sleeping with a girl does not mean that he sexually assaulted Ford or anybody.... So why did the Democrats bring this up if not as a perjury trap, or to humiliate him? They were looking for a "gotcha" moment, not learning the truth... EDIT: Also, if one part of that part of the year book, particularly that he bedded her, isn't true.... which seems to be the case based on both Kavanaugh's account as well as the alleged woman, doesn't that undermine the rest of the yearbook piece of him? It also goes to show... that high school boys lie about their sexual experiences... It's a horrible thing to do... but I wouldn't say that's a disqualifier, either. If you do, there was no way Kavanaugh left the hearing with a positive opinion from you.
And you just proved why he will never ever ever be charged for perjury for that. Because no one can possibly prove what his understanding of the term boofing in 1982 was. If you don't understand this, I don't know what to tell you. I can sit here and go on all day long about how Hillary perjured herself in the Benghazi hearings. By your definition, she clearly did. Gowdy proved that, but it's a useless endeavor as she will never be brought to justice for perjuring herself there because it's next to impossible to charge someone with, let alone get a conviction for it. An exercise in futility.
Connie Chung details sexual assault from 50 years ago she never spoke about. Connie Chung is a broadcast journalist. Opinion | Dear Christine Blasey Ford: I, too, was sexually assaulted — and it’s seared into my memory forever
Regardless of what you think boofing meant, I think we can all agree it didn't mean farting. And everything that he tried to make false claims about adds up. If he only missed on boofing, nobody cares. But he "missed" on the other things too. Kinda like the 2003 FSU game where the officials missed all the calls in FSU's favor. One or two can be a coincidence, but you can't miss them all like that.
More Than 500 Law Professors Condemn Kavanaugh For ‘Lack Of Judicial Temperament’ More than 500 law professors from nearly 100 law schools around the nation have signed a letter to the U.S. Senate to say that the volatile temperament Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed on Thursday as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee disqualifies him from sitting on the nation’s highest court. “We regret that we feel compelled to write to you to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Thursday, September 27, 2018, the Honorable Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land,” the letter says. The letter is signed by many high-profile law professors, including eight from Yale Law School, where Kavanaugh obtained his law degree. The letter remains open for additional signatures through Thursday, when it will be presented to the Senate.
I hired a guy years ago who, on his application form where it asks "have you ever been convicted of a felony" checked the "yes" box. When I asked him about it in the interview, he was completely up front about it. He had been in the navy medical corps in the early '80's, and had access to all the good drugs pharmaceutical style. He was basically Dr. Feelgood for the fellas on the base. He committed a major party foul, and got popped by the MP's with a stash of merchandise, a wad of cash, and a loaded weapon. OOOPPPPSS!!! I hate when that happens. He did a year in the brig. Having been quite familiar with the party habits of the times, I understood. I appreciated that he was completely upfront and honest about it, and that he did't go all realtor on me and lie about it. I hired him, trained all the way through to his state certification. Honesty is kind of important in the appraisal biz. To this date he is one of the most trustworthy people I've ever known, and we're still good friends to this day. Point being, if he'd gone all Kavanaugh on me, building security would have escorted him out. But he told the truth. That's all he had to do, explain his youthful dumbshittery. I guess that was too much to ask of B Kav. Edit : If he had lied about it, and it came up later, he would have been immediately fired, and that would have been corporate's call.
Do you know how you avoid a "perjury trap?" You tell the truth. Isn't expecting a SCOTUS nominee to tell the truth while under oath reasonable? It seems like the bare minimum you expect from them.
After examining his judicial record, he would not have had my vote. However, I would not have been able to say Republicans were wrong to vote for him at that point. I can now say they are wrong to vote for him.
I expect them to tell the truth.... But that's not the point... stop making this about me... The point is the Democrats could care less about the truth, they were just trying to get him in a perjury trap and/or humiliate him... Either he lies under oath, or completely humiliates himself with irrelevant information about alleged stuff he did in high school with hundreds of millions of people to see... That's exactly the scenario the Democrats wanted... and it just so happens to take the focus off the Ford allegations, simultaneously...
Because "Party before country," right? You're basically calling us bad people... And quite frankly, I encourage you to keep doing it... you're just motivating people to come out and vote... I expect these midterms to have ridiculously high voter turnout from both parties...
Either he calmly explains his juvenile/youthful excesses honestly, even apologizing for any harm he caused, or he lies. He chose the latter. Maybe that is what the dems wanted, but he gave it to them.
Wrong.... You quoted "drunk" as a noun but you gave us the definition of a verb and adjective. Totally useless post. Ugh.
