Au contraire....it is you, and the Lefties, who continuously jump through hoops and extrapolate perjury, from some of the most dubious points. Hell, the desperate flailing from the left is undeniable.
I guess I'm assuming that people like our Nole friend don't believe Kavanaugh did lie, because it's unbelievable to me that they could believe he lied and still support his nomination.
The only slang I remember hearing was ludes. They were taken to get stoned not as a date rape drug. This was my experience in the early 80s at Lake Brantley. Punch bowls got spiked all the time with grain or Bacard 151. The purpose was for everyone to get drunk. Someone doing it may have been planning on raping someone but if so I was unaware.
That's not at all what the impeachment was about, correct? Jones more than likely had a valid complaint against Clinton, as most women do. But she did make a claim about him having a distinguishing mark on his penis, which his doctors refuted. And apparently Monica also refuted. So as with Ford in this case, we have a he said / she said with conflicting evidence that doesn't support the accuser.
Yes, part of his impeachment was directly dealing with his perjury. The bottom line is he lied under Oath to provide cover to himself in a sexual harassment case and apparently that's okay, because he had a (D) next to his name. (no pun intended)
Here is what I have heard from liberal congresspersons and tv “experts” this week concerning the Kavanaugh confirmation: 1. We need an FBI investigation. 2. We need a longer FBI investigation. 3. The FBI investigation will not be fair. 4. It does not matter what the FBI finds. Just the fact that he was accused is enough to keep him out of the Supreme Court. 5. It does not matter what the FBI finds. This is not a court of law, it is a job application. 6. It does not matter what the FBI finds. This is not just about what he did or did not do when he was 15 and 18—it is about his showing his anger about being accused. 7. Because he is angry about being accused he does not have the temperament necessary to be a Supreme Court Justice. Does this mean the FBI has already reached a conclusion of innocence?
Yep she basically changed her story from her deposition. I am not shocked but she is a troubled person. I dont think this attention is healthy for her.
The problem with the argument you're making is that nobody here has said it was okay for him to lie under oath. Yet, we are faced with Kavanaugh doing the same thing in the PRESENT. Are you condemning him for it? No. Are you criticizing him for it? No. You are desperately trying to use a tu quoque fallacy here to deflect from the fact that you can't adequately defend Kavanaugh or practice what you're now trying to preach.
And actually has some normal levels of testosterone. Seems a lot of men on here just can't seem to relate.
I might be misremembering, but his impeachment was over perjury in the Lewinsky affair, wasn't it? And there was no evidence of perjury in the Jones case as far as I recall, any more than there was evidence that Kavanaugh perjured himself when he said he didn't sexually assault Ford. They were both he said / she said.
Which is quite problematic after he said, "Basically, no" when asked if he ever acted aggressively while drunk. It's not the action that's the problem. It's the deception. Have you ever applied to work for Uncle Sam? You can get away with having youthful indiscretions, but you can't get away with lying about it.
Interesting that some of the same folks (not necessarily danmann65) who want to dismiss the incident in which Kavanaugh threw ice in a bar fight as no big deal were calling for the prosecution of the jerk who threw water at Tomi Lahren in a restaurant, a very similar incident. By the way the importance of the incident isn't that Kavanaugh threw ice at someone which I agree is no big deal, in and of itself, but rather it illustrates his tendency to become aggressive when drunk.
Oaktown just said he didn't think it warranted Clinton losing the presidency. The problem with both of your arguments is lumping in what you think (based on hearsay) are lies under Oath by Kavanaugh with REAL, CORROBORATED AND PROVEN perjury by William Jefferson Clinton. Accusing someone, anyone of perjury until the cows come home is pretty useless when said supposed perjury can never be proven in a court of law. I'm honestly shocked that someone who claims to be a real lawyer would actually spend any time on something like this that will never be proven, let alone charges brought. If you're a lawyer who has enough time in his/her day to do this, you're not a very good lawyer, because you'd have more important things to be dealing with at noon on a Tuesday.
You gotta laugh at the irony here: Friend Who Said Kavanaugh Wasn’t Aggressive When Drunk Was Arrested in Bar Fight Kavanaugh Allegedly Started
If NBC's reporting is accurate, Kavanaugh either perjured himself or is guilty of what the second accuser alleges. There's no other legitimate explanation. You can't defend it, so you are using the tu quoque logical fallacy. It's transparent. The nice part about being a successful professional is that I have a lot of control over when I do my work. Also, I don't live on the East Coast, so it's not noon where I am. But please, continue to expose your ignorance.
If you're trying to say that Kavanaugh hadn't heard the exacting detail of Ramirez's specific allegations, why wouldn't he have responded to that question with something to the effect of "I generally heard that she had made allegations against me X days/weeks/months before the New Yorker story, but didn't know the specifics of those allegations until after the article was published." In fact, nothing in the question relates to the detail of the allegations, it simply queried when Kavanaugh had first "heard of the allegations." If he's calling his classmates to set up a rebuttal, character or otherwise, he had clearly heard of the allegations. To answer otherwise is just intentionally deceptive without further clarification. It's like saying that Clinton wasn't lying about his whole "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," because he had really just received a BJ and didn't actually have sex with Lewinsky. It's nonsense. You don't get to lie by omission, and you don't get to invent your own undisclosed interpretations of words for the purpose of giving materially misleading answers to questions that are otherwise plain on their face.
