Did Judge Kavanaugh

[Starbuck1975]

I didn’t say there was anything wrong with him getting wasted in college, I said it was wrong of him to lie about it.

But the basis for your assessment of perjury is gossip and hearsay that you accept as truth.

Did you not read the article? They said they were willing to speak to the FBI about it and lying to the FBI is a felony. So they were willing to swear to it but Republicans were too scared. Why? Because they aren’t stupid, they knew Kavanaugh was likely lying just as well as you do.

I did. His roommate threw out accusations to the media based on his personal relationship with Ramirez and bias against Kavanaugh. The FBI went as far as they needed to demonstrate this as political theater.

 

[fskimospy]

But the basis for your assessment of perjury is gossip and hearsay that you accept as truth.

You’re so desperate not to admit you’re wrong that you’re now lying about Kavanaugh’s roommate in order to protect Kavanaugh’s lying.

Hearsay is someone testifying to facts they were not present for. Ie: ‘starbuck told me that fskimospy said he robbed the bank’. What we have here is eyewitness testimony: ‘I saw fskimospy rob the bank’ as Kavanaugh’s roommate is speaking directly of his own observations of Kavanaugh’s behavior. These observations indicate Kavanaugh lied.

I did. His roommate threw out accusations to the media based on his personal relationship with Ramirez and bias against Kavanaugh.

Ironically you’re now leveling baseless accusations against this guy’s character - something I heard you don’t like - all because you don’t like what he’s saying.

He offered to provide his evidence at risk of committing a felony if he was caught lying.

The FBI went as far as they needed to demonstrate this as political theater.

No, the FBI’s investigation was forcibly limited to a week and harsh restrictions placed on what they could do because of political reasons.

Details of F.B.I.’s Kavanaugh Inquiry Show Its Restricted Range (Published 2018)

The F.B.I. will interview four witnesses about accusations of sexual assault against President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee as part of a background check.

www.nytimes.com

None of those who contacted the bureau to say they had evidence Kavanaugh perjured himself about his drinking habits were even interviewed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You’re so desperate not to admit you’re wrong that you’re now lying about Kavanaugh’s roommate in order to protect Kavanaugh’s lying.

Hearsay is someone testifying to facts they were not present for. Ie: ‘starbuck told me that fskimospy said he robbed the bank’. What we have here is eyewitness testimony: ‘I saw fskimospy rob the bank’ as Kavanaugh’s roommate is speaking directly of his own observations of Kavanaugh’s behavior. These observations indicate Kavanaugh lied.

Semantics. I used to wrong term. Doesn’t change the fact that you so desperately need to accept as truth the roommates’s account.

Ironically you’re now leveling baseless accusations against this guy’s character - something I heard you don’t like - all because you don’t like what he’s saying.

See how that works!

He offered to provide his evidence at risk of committing a felony if he was caught lying.

There is no evidence. Evidence of a drinking problem would include DUIs, police reports of disorderly conduct, visits to hospitals...you know, real evidence.

No, the FBI’s investigation was forcibly limited to a week and harsh restrictions placed on what they could do because of political reasons.

The investigation was limited to sexual assault, not whether or not the guy partied in college.

None of those who contacted the bureau to say they had evidence Kavanaugh perjured himself about his drinking habits were even interviewed.

Because his drinking habits are irrelevant and subjective.

 

[dank69]

...

See how that works!

...

Their is no point arguing with a person so dishonest that when he gets caught saying something stupid he will pretend he did it to teach you a lesson. Just fuck right off, enabler.

 

[fskimospy]

Semantics. I used to wrong term. Doesn’t change the fact that you so desperately need to accept as truth the roommates’s account.

I don’t need to accept anything. We have an eyewitness who is willing to speak with authorities under pain of felony conviction that Kavanaugh lied. That’s significant evidence you’re desperately trying to deny.

See how that works!

If you have eyewitness testimony indicating that this person is being untruthful due to bias against Kavanaugh then by all means present it. If not, then you’re just being a hypocrite.

There is no evidence. Evidence of a drinking problem would include DUIs, police reports of disorderly conduct, visits to hospitals...you know, real evidence.

Now you’re being completely ridiculous and you know it. There are many, many people in this world who are alcoholics and have never had a DUI, a disorderly conduct arrest, or any visit to a hospital.

You’re now reduced to saying that eyewitness testimony of repeated occasions over many months of Kavanaugh being so drunk he was incoherent, stumbling, and vomiting is not real evidence that he drank to the extent he might not remember things.

Are you fucking kidding me. This should be embarrassing.

The investigation was limited to sexual assault, not whether or not the guy partied in college.

Because his drinking habits are irrelevant and subjective.

The idea that he could not perjure himself over his drinking habits because they are subjective is facially ridiculous. Also, whether or not he could accurately remember the events in question is 100% relevant. I mean, how could anyone even attempt to question that.

‘Were you too drunk to operate that back hoe?’

‘No, I was fine’

‘Well, you were incoherent and vomiting’

‘Yeah, but fine is subjective.’

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don’t need to accept anything. We have an eyewitness who is willing to speak with authorities under pain of felony conviction that Kavanaugh lied. That’s significant evidence you’re desperately trying to deny.

You have someone willing to testify that he drank and partied in college. Kavanaugh admitted to drinking in college. The perjury argument is based on semantics and desperation.

If you have eyewitness testimony indicating that this person is being untruthful due to bias against Kavanaugh then by all means present it. If not, then you’re just being a hypocrite.

Like I said, funny how that works, huh

Now you’re being completely ridiculous and you know it. There are many, many people in this world who are alcoholics and have never had a DUI, a disorderly conduct arrest, or any visit to a hospital.

I am sure many of those people held office without facing impeachment. Hell, one even drove a car off a bridge and killed a woman and he had an illustrious career. Another is now running for President.

You’re now reduced to saying that eyewitness testimony of repeated occasions over many months of Kavanaugh being so drunk he was incoherent, stumbling, and vomiting is not real evidence that he drank to the extent he might not remember things.

Subjective and irrelevant

Are you fucking kidding me. This should be embarrassing.

Not really

The idea that he could not perjure himself over his drinking habits because they are subjective is facially ridiculous. Also, whether or not he could accurately remember the events in question is 100% relevant. I mean, how could anyone even attempt to question that.

The entire case against Kavanaugh is like the Monty Python Holy Grail witch sketch.

‘Were you too drunk to operate that back hoe?’
‘No, I was fine’
‘Well, you were incoherent and vomiting’
‘Yeah, but fine is subjective.’

That’s a silly analogy.

There’s been no sustained or widely supported call for Kavanaugh’s impeachment because the entire case for it is a house of cards. The most recent NY Times nothingburger created a momentary spark that has now gone cold. That is the truth.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Their is no point arguing with a person so dishonest that when he gets caught saying something stupid he will pretend he did it to teach you a lesson. Just fuck right off, enabler.

lol

 

[fskimospy]

You have someone willing to testify that he drank and partied in college. Kavanaugh admitted to drinking in college. The perjury argument is based on semantics and desperation.

Like I said, funny how that works, huh

I am sure many of those people held office without facing impeachment. Hell, one even drove a car off a bridge and killed a woman and he had an illustrious career. Another is now running for President.

Subjective and irrelevant

Not really


The entire case against Kavanaugh is like the Monty Python Holy Grail witch sketch.

That’s a silly analogy.

There’s been no sustained or widely supported call for Kavanaugh’s impeachment because the entire case for it is a house of cards. The most recent NY Times nothingburger created a momentary spark that has now gone cold. That is the truth.

I don’t what to say man, you’re just so vested in this that you’re blatantly and repeatedly lying about Kavanaugh’s many accusers. I don’t know why you feel the need to lie to me but I guess that’s your business.

If you feel good about your behavior here there’s nothing more to say other than you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Pohemi]

I don’t what to say man, you’re just so vested in this that you’re blatantly and repeatedly lying about Kavanaugh’s many accusers. I don’t know why you feel the need to lie to me but I guess that’s your business.

If you feel good about your behavior here there’s nothing more to say other than you should be ashamed of yourself.

Nothing attractive about entrenched denialism.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don’t what to say man, you’re just so vested in this that you’re blatantly and repeatedly lying about Kavanaugh’s many accusers. I don’t know why you feel the need to lie to me but I guess that’s your business.

If you feel good about your behavior here there’s nothing more to say other than you should be ashamed of yourself.

You’re the one vested in a false narrative, which is the reason why there’s been no momentum around Kavanaugh’s impeachment over beergate. Those are the facts. I will accept your ad hominem as a concession.

 

[interchange]

What I think did occur is that something happened to her many years ago at a party and she was pressed into advancing this towards Kavanaugh by others for political purposes.

How does this fit with her reporting the incident in marital therapy years earlier? Or her attempts to keep her identity private until the story leaked to the media and her name was going to be exposed anyway? Or her passing a polygraph with the FBI? Or the limitations placed on who the FBI was allowed to interview including Kavanaugh and Ford during the investigation? And the witnesses contacting the FBI saying they had information that had to be turned away?

 

[fskimospy]

You’re the one vested in a false narrative, which is the reason why there’s been no momentum around Kavanaugh’s impeachment over beergate. Those are the facts. I will accept your ad hominem as a concession.

You should instead take it as a sign that I'm tired of repeating myself to a person who has decided lie about Kavanaugh's accusers because he was unable to find any other way to not change his mind.

I know you won't admit it today because your back is up and there's no way you can do that now but I hope next time you think back to it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You should instead take it as a sign that I'm tired of repeating myself to a person who has decided lie about Kavanaugh's accusers because he was unable to find any other way to not change his mind.

I know you won't admit it today because your back is up and there's no way you can do that now but I hope next time you think back to it.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I did just that when you corrected me on my use of vocabularly. I have no skin in this game. This thread is about the “new” accusations against Kavanaugh, which dead ended, and now you and others moved the goal posts to perjury over drinking habits, which is a subjective and tenuous foundation on which to build the case for impeachment.

You can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that the calls for impeachment are already silent.

I am tired of repeating myself as well.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. I did just that when you corrected me on my use of vocabularly. I have no skin in this game. This thread is about the “new” accusations against Kavanaugh, which dead ended, and now you and others moved the goal posts to perjury over drinking habits, which is a subjective and tenuous foundation on which to build the case for impeachment.

You can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that the calls for impeachment are already silent.

I am tired of repeating myself as well.

I don't care if calls for impeachment are silent and yes, you do have a problem admitting when you're wrong as this thread amply illustrates. When you were shown an eyewitness to Kavanaugh's behavior that indicated he was lying you just declared the witness himself a liar and biased against him based on nothing.

You can have the last word but again - you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't care if calls for impeachment are silent and yes, you do have a problem admitting when you're wrong as this thread amply illustrates. When you were shown an eyewitness to Kavanaugh's behavior that indicated he was lying you just declared the witness himself a liar and biased against him based on nothing.

You can have the last word but again - you should be ashamed of yourself.

I declared that testimony subjective and therefore irrelevant. You’re stubbornness is both surprising and disappointing, as you are one of the few liberals here capable of holding a conversation without foaming at the mouth. I would even go so far to say your synopsis of my posts are borderline dishonest, but that is uncharacteristic of you.

 

[hal2kilo]

Impeachment is a trial, and no one in their right mind would impeach a SCOTUS judge over lying about beer.

Oh, he needed to lie about a BJ. I get it.

You are like a fucking window.

 

[zinfamous]

You guys need to figure out when to quit. Kavanaugh is a supreme court justice, he isn't going to be impeached. You're fighting a battle that's already lost. All the impotent hand wringing on earth isn't going to change that. Time to move on.

Well, looks like first the president, then maybe we get to have a look at his corrupt, wholly unqualified appointments to lifetime positions?

 

[interchange]

I declared that testimony subjective and therefore irrelevant. You’re stubbornness is both surprising and disappointing, as you are one of the few liberals here capable of holding a conversation without foaming at the mouth. I would even go so far to say your synopsis of my posts are borderline dishonest, but that is uncharacteristic of you.

I'm a little confused. What makes you the authority on what is subjective and therefore irrelevant? Seems like if someone disagrees with that assessment there ought to be some attempt to reconcile the difference.

 

[dank69]

... but that is uncharacteristic of you.

That should be your first clue that you have made a mistake somewhere.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'm a little confused. What makes you the authority on what is subjective and therefore irrelevant? Seems like if someone disagrees with that assessment there ought to be some attempt to reconcile the difference.

I am simply stating an opinion, supported by the fact that no one of influence is actively pushing beergate perjury as a defendable justification for impeachment.

 

[interchange]

I am simply stating an opinion, supported by the fact that no one of influence is actively pushing beergate perjury as a defendable justification for impeachment.

Do you agree that people of influence pursue things when it is in their political advantage and don't pursue things when it isn't?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Do you agree that people of influence pursue things when it is in their political advantage and don't pursue things when it isn't?

Absolutely. It is to the political advantage of Democrats to impeach Kavanaugh, and they presently have the means to do so, which is why so many of them jumped the gun when this story broke.

However, it would be politically risky to impeach him on something that most reasonable people would perceive as subjective or inconclusive, which is where things currently sit since this story nothingburgered.

 

[interchange]

Absolutely. It is to the political advantage of Democrats to impeach Kavanaugh, and they presently have the means to do so, which is why so many of them jumped the gun when this story broke.

However, it would be politically risky to impeach him on something that most reasonable people would perceive as subjective or inconclusive, which is where things currently sit since this story nothingburgered.

They have the means to impeach him, but it seems unlikely to be able to convict him with a Republican Senate. At this present moment in time, of course, Kavanaugh isn't a priority.

 

[pcgeek11]

How does this fit with her reporting the incident in marital therapy years earlier? Or her attempts to keep her identity private until the story leaked to the media and her name was going to be exposed anyway? Or her passing a polygraph with the FBI? Or the limitations placed on who the FBI was allowed to interview including Kavanaugh and Ford during the investigation? And the witnesses contacting the FBI saying they had information that had to be turned away?

As I remember the way it went was that Kavanaugh's name wasn't in the mix until it became a story.

 

[Starbuck1975]

They have the means to impeach him, but it seems unlikely to be able to convict him with a Republican Senate. At this present moment in time, of course, Kavanaugh isn't a priority.

Kavanaugh wasn’t a priority for an entire year. If the case for perjury had any merit, given the predictions of judicial apocalypse, it absolutely would have been a priority.