Kavanaugh Hearing

There are easier to prove lies that have been discussed here.

 

He's had several background investigations done on him, but I didn't think any of the information was available, which is what they seem to be citing.

Curious.

 

They probably won't release specifics until the 50th "yea" vote is about to be cast.

 

Will go out on a limb and claim those 500 law professors are all leftists.

 

Lol ..... Ford may not be accurate or thruthful in her allegation ..... but Kavanaugh was wrong in his definition of “boofing” so he’s not qualified to serve on the SCotUS???????

This is now beyond absurd ..... beyond the usual leftie and never-trumpeter lunacy!!!

 

I'm waiting for the first argument to be presented regarding his perjury which is not a straw man based on very selective choice of what he perjured himself on.

IOW, the first honest argument about his perjury.

Again, aside from the near impossibility of a partying jock misunderstanding every sexual and drinking reference in his yearbook, and making extremely questionable claims of his own virginity, and lack of a drinking problem, we have the fact that he repeatedly, materially misrepresented the affidavits of the alleged witnesses to the Ford sexual assault. That's perjury.

Notably, not a single supporter of Kavanaugh has addressed his intentional misrepresentation of those affidavits. Which speaks for itself. Loudly.

He is also accused of lying in his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings, and he has yet to explain how and when he obtained the stolen emails (while working on the Whitewater investigation), that he reportedly lied about. This could well be more a pattern of behavior than some exceptional circumstance.

If something won't sound good to the public, just lie about it to make it sound better.

Which explains why he doesn't want anyone to know what boofing meant... wouldn't want to leave your straw man "bent over" as it were.

 

You won't get one, since he did not perjure himself. What is the point in arguing over something that didn't occur?

 

Feel free to address his intentional repeated misrepresentations of the witness affidavits.

 

May not be accurate? LOL! He lied. Under oath. He knows damn well boofing is a sexual reference.

He’s the one trying out for the Supreme Court, not Ford.

 

Mind reader, I see...

 

Okay. Let me give you something concrete:
MITCHELL: Did you ever tell — did anyone ever tell you about something that happened in your presence that you didn’t remember during a time that you had been drinking?

KAVANAUGH: No, the — the — we drank beer, and you know, so — so did, I think, the vast majority of — of people our age at the time. But in any event, we drank beer, and — and still do. So whatever, you know.

KLOBUCHAR: OK. Drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness, and in your written testimony, you said sometimes you had too many drinks. Was there ever a time when you drank so much that you couldn’t remember what happened, or part of what happened the night before?

KAVANAUGH: No, I — no. I remember what happened, and I think you’ve probably had beers, Senator, and — and so I…

Here's an email sent by Kavanaugh:

What do you think "Apologies to all for . . . growing aggressive after blowing still another game of dice (don't recall)" means?

 

So now he lied to the JC about affidavits that he knew the JC had sitting right in front of them? C'mon, man. Really?

 

Really. It's in the transcript.
COONS: Let — let me focus, I’m trying to get this question if I (ph) — if I could.

KAVANAUGH: I know, but you made a — you made a point, and I just want to reemphasize: all four witnesses who were allegedly at the event have said it didn’t happen, including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, who said she’s never…

COONS: Put yourself in our shoes for a moment if you would, Judge, and I know that’s asking a lot of you in this setting. But suppose you’d gone through a process to select someone for an incredibly important job in a position, you had a lot of qualified candidates, and as you’re finishing the hiring process you learn of a credible allegation that, if true, would be disqualifying.

Wouldn’t you either take a step back and conduct a thorough investigation or move to a different candidate? And why not agree to a one-week pause to allow the FBI to investigate all these allegations and allow you an opportunity a week from now to have the folks present in front of us for us to assess their credibility and for us to either clear your name or resolve these allegations by moving to a different nominee?

KAVANAUGH: All four witnesses who are alleged to be at the event said it didn’t happen. Including Dr. Ford’s long-time friend, Ms. Keyser, who said that she didn’t know me and that she does not recall ever being at a party with me with or without Dr. Ford.

COONS: It was a four day delay.

KAVANAUGH: has been a lifetime. And you know, yes, and it’s been investigated and all four witnesses say it didn’t happen. And they’ve said it under penalty of felony, and I’ve produced my calendars which show, you know, a lot — that’s important evidence and you act like — I mean, the last 10 days I asked for a hearing the day after the allegation.

BLUMENTHAL: False in one thing, false in everything. Meaning in jury instructions that we — some of us as prosecutors have heard many times, is — told the jury that they can disbelieve a witness if they find them to be false in one thing.

So the core of why we’re here today really is credibility. Let me talk…

KAVANAUGH: But (ph) the core of why we’re here is an allegation for which the four witnesses present have all said it didn’t happen.

BOOKER: That — that’s not my question, sir. Could you try to answer my question, sir? Do you wish she never came forward?

KAVANAUGH: … The witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen.

BOOKER: OK, sir. Do you wish she would’ve just remained silent then?

KAVANAUGH: I wish — the witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen. All allegations should be taken seriously.

BOOKER: … Forgive me. You were talking about us and not her. So she was not — she was not doing this for a political effort in 2012 when talked to her therapist about this attack. She was not coordinating about this painful — when she made — painful experience when she made revelations to her husband.

She did coordinate in 2013, ’16, 2017, before you were even nominated when she revealed that it was you — with three different people — that had sexually assaulted her. That wasn’t coordination. And (inaudible)…

KAVANAUGH: All the witnesses who were there say it didn’t happen. Ms. Keyser’s her longtime friend, said she never saw me at a party with or without Dr. Ford…

I bolded it for you. I underlined where his testimony regarding Ms. Keyser changed from the truth to a lie.

 

I think it means he was a belligerent alcoholic who spent his spare time in high school "gang raping" women...

 

So you're not going to offer a defense? Are you conceding that he lied?

 

He didnt perjure himself.

Hence no argument is needed.

 

The "C'mon, man. Really?" should be directed at Kavanaugh.

He did it. That's a fact on record many times.

The only question now is why he should be confirmed knowing that he did it. Along with the other lies. And the inappropriate behavior. And the paranoid partisan rant.

Tell me why he did any of those things that are unfit for a Supreme Court Justice.

He certainly had no need to do any of them. Yet he did it.

 

No I am not going to dignify this insanity with continued responses...

No, I'm not conceding that he lied...

By all means, keep ranting... just wanted to give my 2 cents for the day.

 

What he did is the exact definition of perjury. He intentionally lied under oath.

Ignoring it doesn't change it.

 

If a judge lied on national television while under oath and everyone was there to witness it, the tree indeed did make a sound.