Not surprisingly, Tucker Carlson claims it's about race. Liberals are out to punish white people. Tucker Carlson claims Kavanaugh reports are about punishing white people
I realize that this is somewhat technical but a conviction for perjury requires more than just lying under oath. The subject matter of the false statement must be relevant and material to the subject matter of the litigation. The subject matter was alleged sexual harassment by Bill Clinton of Paula Jones when Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, it wasn't his relationship of Monica Lewinsky, or any sexual acts related to that relationship. At the time of Clinton's impeachment in the House and subsequent trial in the Senate, several former US Attorneys or Assistant US attorneys stated that they would have never filed charges given the facts in Clinton's case. Edit: This may be helpful Federal law defines two types of perjury, each of which has multiple elements. The first type of perjury involves statements made under oath, and requires proof that: A person took an oath to truthfully testify, declare, depose, or certify, verbally or in writing; The person made a statement that was not true; The person knew the statement to be untrue; The person made the false statement willfully; and The subject matter of the statement was material to the proceeding in which it was made. Perjury Overview :: Justia
We've got to contrast the situations you are comparing. For one, the Senate is providing advice and consent on a lifetime seat to the USSC. There is no expiration to his term. There is no voting him out. You're comparing that to impeachment of a President well in his second term, because he got caught denying consensual sex. That's the perjury. It is in no way relevant to doing his job as POTUS and it was in no way relevant to any accusations of any criminal behavior (for that case at least). In the case of Kavanaugh, he was under oath responding to accusations of criminal behavior. And his potential list of intentional lies and misstatements potentially relevant to that accusation is pretty long. - he intentionally misrepresented the affidavits for three other witnesses to the alleged assault, and he did it several times. - he intentionally lied about his knowledge of sexual terms in common usage at the time - he intentionally lied about his knowledge of drinking terms in common usage at the time - he intentionally lied about his boasting of having bedded Renate - he may have also lied about his knowledge of the Ramirez accusations - he probably lied about his drinking... in between bragging about it and accusing a senator with an alcoholic father of drinking - he probably lied about getting aggressive when he drinks as is evidenced by his roommate's claims and the police reports coming out - in another article linked earlier in the thread, there was a claim that he should be impeached from his current appointment for lying in his 2006 confirmation hearings... that came out in early September, well before his "adventure" on Friday So it wasn't just one lie about not having sex... although he most likely lied about that too. And again, as we look at lie after lie after lie, this is in regards to confirmation for a lifetime seat on the USSC.
IMO, lying under oath is or should be an impeachable offense. Don't care if it was a democrat or republican. Bill deserved to get impeached for lying under oath. Don't really care about the affair tbh. Also how do you know what will or won't ever be proven? Where'd you get your crystal ball, and why aren't you playing the lottery rather than arguing on a forum?
I'll point you to what I already stated: There is a difference in being aware of what a specific allegation is and hearing that someone is calling around to old classmates asking them about something that may/may not have happened. It's up to you to prove that Kavanaugh knew what the specific charge was prior to the story coming out. Not me. I have Kavanaugh's explicit testimony on my side as well. He stated that he heard about Ramirez calling around about something and stated so before the JC. What would he mentioned that if it happened after the allegation became public in the New Yorker? What would be the point about calling around about this after the story came out? Unless you can prove that Kavanugh knew what the specific allegation was prior to when he said he did, he can state that he mentioned this in his testimony.
So can we all agree that Kavanaugh would have been an awful choice to the Supreme court when Reagan was president.
In the absence of evidence we reach conclusions based on patterns of behavior. This pattern of behavior establishes Bkav as a habitual liar. The only thing close for Dr. Ford is the questions about her fear of flying; her answers may seem to be lies, but actually aren't once someone understands the psychology of sexual assault survivors (and, really, anyone with chronic phobias). We have a credible source accusing an established liar of sexual assault. Without more evidence we shouldn't convict, but we definitely shouldn't appoint him to the SCOTUS. However, we absolutely should convict based on his perjury of himself, if it can be proven that he did--in fact--perjure himself. Seems very likely that he did.
And I point you to what I already stated: You can't arrange a defense to an allegation if you don't know what it is. Further, if Kavanaugh was told that she was calling around about that specific allegation, why would he not be told what she was alleging? You're asking us to jump through a lot of hoops to get to an explanation that doesn't make sense. Apply Occam's Razor. If NBC's reporting is accurate, the proof is already there. Why would he call around after the story came out? To verify that she was doing it, line up witnesses to testify to that fact, and see what she said. Are you joking with me? It would be legal malpractice not to call around and investigate it yourself if you were representing a client. You don't have Kavanaugh's explicit testimony. You don't have specificity. He didn't specify when he heard or from whom he heard. I have specificity. That's the difference. If you're going to argue that two statements conflict with each other (both under oath), you need specificity proving that. Instead, you ask us to jump through a bunch of hoops to get to the point where the statements do conflict. People who aren't conservatives aren't going to do that. I refer you back to my previous comment. If NBC's reporting is accurate, the proof is already there.
@gator_lawyer - You might want to go read that article again and see if anything has changed, like this new paragraph that was not in the original: In now-public transcripts from an interview with Republican Judiciary Committee staff on September 25, two days after the Ramirez allegations were reported in the New Yorker, Kavanaugh claimed that it was Ramirez who was “calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it,” adding that it “strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people? Is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound — good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out.” Funny how that was left out of the original article and was inserted without NBC News noting that the article had been updated.
And Jake Tapper points out: Kavanaugh is quoted in the New Yorker story denying the allegation so of course he had heard about it prior to publication. https://t.co/oVWmyC3lcv — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) October 2, 2018
I don't need to read the article again. That was in the transcripts that we already discussed. It doesn't lend credence to your story. It's on page 20.
I call BS on that. Calling around to see if any classmates remember things is a far cry from "coaching" a bunch of classmates in some wide-reaching conspiracy to take him down. Very unreasonable conclusion.
Which is not what he said while under oath. You're only making an argument that he perjured himself. At least with Tapper's claim, Kavanaugh can sort of claim what he said was accurate (that he first heard about it from the New Yorker story . . . he'll just claim they asked him for a comment).
You've succinctly recapped posts from democrats and never-trumpsters over the last 283 pages of this thread.
I'm sorry but it is very easy to arrange a defense to something you don't know if you know who it is coming from. It was known Ramirez was trying to accuse him of something. So you can arrange a defense against her. Since it was all coming through 2nd and third hand sources, it is clearly a game of telephone at that point, especially as strange as Ramirez's allegation turned out to be. Why would she be calling around after the story came out? At that point the cat is out of the bag. Additionally, Kavanaugh's questioning happened shortly after her allegation came out, so how would he know that she was calling around after the story came out?
@GatorBen BTW, after seeing some excerpts of the Swetnick interview, you're right, and I was wrong. That affidavit was purposefully misleading. I'm writing her off unless she brings forward some actual corroboration. However, that doesn't change how I see the first two accusers.
No, it was what he chose for his descriptions. He wrote the "Renate Alumnae," "Devil's Triangle," "And "Have you boofed yet?" entries as (some of) his memories from that year in high school.
Good points. I fly 2-3 times a year and I have a fear of flying...well as George Carlin quipped, it's a fear of crashing. Doesn't make me a liar. It's that I have an anxiety disorder. I have a bunch of xanax at the ready but even then, too easy to overdo it and doesn't always help. Years ago (2002, to be exact), wife and I were flying back to G'ville by way of Charlotte. I had a massive anxiety attack on the first trip that I wouldn't get on the second flight. She did. I rented a car and drove home. I've had attacks on other flights as well so now, where possible, I fly direct even if it costs me more. Heck, I even fly 1st or biz sometimes just so I can try to feel more comfortable. It's holy hell on my nerves basically every single time.
So the fact that NBC had to go back and update their reporting and did not make it clear that they had to updated, doesn't matter to you? I thought you were just saying something like: Does that not make you wonder about their accuracy?
