SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

That would make it more relevant, another falsehood he offered under oath.

The falsehood was "I didn't see her testimony," as demonstrated by other people in the room with him while he watched her testimony. The followup statement "I was preparing" is basically irrelevant. Editing that, probably for brevity, doesn't seem to me to impact the "here's the lie" presentation. Are you thinking that by piling on an "I was doing this instead" it significantly compounds the lying? Or am I missing something?
 
Grassley wants the notes from Ford's therapist but he didn't want the therapist to testify? Methinks he doesn't care if the notes confirm Ford told of the attack but wants them to cast aspersions on her credibility.

If we are to judge from posts in this thread, her credibility doesn't exist in the right-wing media sphere.
 
Isnt the point of drinking beer to enjoy the taste ? I dont see why you would want to Boof beer
Maybe he wanted hes rear end to be clean and smell of fresh beer for the devils triangle ?
The point if beer is to get your nerve up before raping someone. The quicker it enters the bloodstream, the sooner the gang raping can commence.
 
the explanation is a 2nd lie

I still think it is sort of an "icing on the cake" lie and that the first one was sufficient for the story at hand, so don't have a problem with the editing, but okay, it probably is another lie. Wait a second though...what if he was in that room with the reporters watching her testimony, and he did make a few notes? "I was preparing" could, technically, be true. It's not like any of the reporters have said "he was NOT preparing." This guy is so slippery that he could very well start a big brawl over the second "unproven" lie to distract from the first. That would be typically Trumpian.
 
Is it safe to assume that, aside from the corrections Innonimatu made, my account (page 21, post 417) of the events between Ford and Kavanaugh was more or less correct? No-one else here disagrees? Also, it seems to me that the bulk of the accusations against Kavanaugh have shifted from the sexual assault incident to his testimony.

Also, some republicans are saying that this is a delay tactic. They're saying that Feinstein sat on these allegations by Ford for weeks, before bringing this up before the nomination. Is there any truth to this? Or the fear of flying delay accusation?
Perjury:

The general lack of candor was part of it yes. There were the deflections, such as when he declared that parties *only* happened on weekends, and the calendar showed him as being away/busy/out of town every weekend of the summer, hoping to misdirect from the July 1 date (a Thursday) in which he is noted as having a get-together with 3 of the very people named in Ford's account. When asked about this date by the Republicans' chosen prosecutor, he waffled and played for time until the Republicans could call a Recess, at which point the prosecutor was no longer permitted to ask questions.

There are the rehearsed non-answers to certain particular questions. For example any time a question was asked about drinking, his response is the now infamous "I liked beer, I drank beer, I still like beer", any question about partying or drunkenness was met with the nonanswer of "I went to Yale" or "I worked my butt off" or "I was top of my class". Any question asking him whether he thought an FBI investigation would be appropriate was met with the nonanswer of "I will follow through with whatever the committee deems necessary" or "I wanted a hearing from DAY ONE". The most telling moment of the hearing was when Sen. Blumenthal pushed him into a corner about this line of questioning, such that Kavanaugh at one point fell silent for 20 seconds, refusing to say ANYTHING, until Blumenthal noted this, at which point he went back to his "I will follow through with whatever the committee deems necessary".

The big ones, though are the obvious and outright lies. The first being whether he ever got excessively drunk or blackout drunk, which he has adamantly denied, although a) we have him admitting *in email* that he got blackout drunk as recently as 2001, and b) his friends from Yale and high school are now coming forward in droves to dispute his self-characterization as a non-drunkard.

The second major one is his answers to epithets given to him in his high school yearbook, and definitions of "what they mean". For example, "King of the Beach Week Ralph Club" was, according to him, a reference to the fact that he has a weak stomach, and not that he drank to such excess that he vomited. Or that he was listed as a "Renate alumnus", referencing a girl from a neighboring high school, which Kavanaugh claims was a sign of friendship and a token of Kavanaugh's and his friend's admiration for her, despite a) Renate not knowing about this excerpt from the yearbook until a week ago, and b) being horrified and disgusted upon hearing about it and fervently denying anything the appellation might imply.

Kavanaugh claimed that the "Devil's Triangle", a crass and obvious reference to a three-way involving two men and one woman (you know, what he and Judge allegedly attempted with Ford) was in fact a drinking game, although he couldn't actually explain the rules when asked to do so directly. He also claimed that "boofing", generally understood to refer to the act of ingesting alcohol through the anus, was a reference to flatulence. The lies in these instances were so patently obvious that someone from inside the Capitol building was scrambling to amend the respective wikipedia pages to include his erroneous definitions. There actually exists evidence of someone actively trying to cover Kavanaugh's ass as he blatantly and flippantly lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Of course these declarations are absurd on the face of it, but recently many of Kavanaugh's classmates from Yale, most particularly his freshman roommate, have come forward to note that Kavanaugh knew very well what all of these words actually meant, and his trying to pass them off as something they weren't represented outright lies on his part.

I feel like this post was a reply to me, even though technically it wasn't. I will touch on a few points though, even though I haven't yet listened to the hearing myself. I'll look at the rest of the stuff later once I've listened through it. I found a stream of the hearing, and it seems like it's over 9 hours long. Jesus Christ, that is exactly the reason why I wasn't excited about doing a deep dive into this.

any question about partying or drunkenness was met with the nonanswer of "I went to Yale" or "I worked my butt off" or "I was top of my class"
This might be one of those things that people with different life experiences interpret different. In Finland, if you go to any top university, there will be a lot of hard work and a lot of drinking. Personally, I would immediately interpret Kavanaugh's answer as "yes of course I drank".
Any question asking him whether he thought an FBI investigation would be appropriate was met with the nonanswer of "I will follow through with whatever the committee deems necessary" or "I wanted a hearing from DAY ONE"
Wait what? How is this a non-answer? What would an innocent man say? I mean, Kavanaugh seems to agree to these investigations? Is this a point against Kavanaugh?
You have a point about the greater threat of polarization. Do you think this would have happened if Trump had proposed a much more centrist candidate?
I'm not sure anyone, democrat or republican, could propose a more centrist candidate without being slaughtered by their own party. This is doubly true of Trump, who apparently needs support from the Christian right. I don't think that nominating Kavanaugh helped, but in a way this is also a result of the current polarization.
 
Neither of those have testified under oath. The psychiatrist is only known to Ford's sponsors among the Democrats and the alleged "therapist notes" have been held by the Democrats and never shared to be checked. The whole process stinks.

And we've come to the final act of this farce, where Democrats are responsible for the crap process even though Republicans have all of the power, the Democrats none, and the Republicans have made all of the process decisions on their own.
 
Wait what? How is this a non-answer? What would an innocent man say? I mean, Kavanaugh seems to agree to these investigations? Is this a point against Kavanaugh?

An innocent man would say, "I welcome a full and thorough investigation by impartial law enforcement officers to prove I haven't done anything wrong."

Kavanaugh said he wanted a "hearing." In Congress. Where the people conducting the hearing can (and did) do everything in their power to protect him. When pressed on an impartial investigation, he would not answer the question as to whether he supported that.

A man who truly believed he was innocent would not demur on the question of whether he wanted his innocence investigated.
 
I'm not sure anyone, democrat or republican, could propose a more centrist candidate without being slaughtered by their own party. This is doubly true of Trump, who apparently needs support from the Christian right. I don't think that nominating Kavanaugh helped, but in a way this is also a result of the current polarization.
Obama nominated a centrist candidate. It was fine. There was no "slaughtering by his own party". In fact it was the Republicans who refused to even give the nominee a hearing.
 
“The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution,” writes Kavanaugh, who twice chose to speak directly to the American public through the two highest profile partisan conservative opinion peddlers in the country.
 
“The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution,” writes Kavanaugh, who twice chose to speak directly to the American public through the two highest profile partisan conservative opinion peddlers in the country.
We're getting ready to go from "As stated by Justice so-and-so" to "who's opinions are widely disregarded as partisan hackery"

:shake:
 
An innocent man would say, "I welcome a full and thorough investigation by impartial law enforcement officers to prove I haven't done anything wrong."

Kavanaugh said he wanted a "hearing." In Congress. Where the people conducting the hearing can (and did) do everything in their power to protect him. When pressed on an impartial investigation, he would not answer the question as to whether he supported that.

A man who truly believed he was innocent would not demur on the question of whether he wanted his innocence investigated.
He said he agrees to what the committee recommends? And there is an FBI investigation, isn't there? And wouldn't an FBI investigation have even less power than the hearing? And aren't you ignoring the whole political context in which this happens (accusations of this being a delay tactic?)
Obama nominated a centrist candidate. It was fine. There was no "slaughtering by his own party". In fact it was the Republicans who refused to even give the nominee a hearing.
Which one was this? Merrick Garland?
 
All people named by Ford as being in the party with her have said that they recall no such party. Thus they have all denied that her clam can be possible.
I finished highschool as recently as 2002. I would be hard-pressed to recall names and faces of all of my classmates, never mind who of them was or was not present at some random bender.
The people named by her not recalling that party is to be expected - I don't see it as evidence neither for nor against her.
 
He said he agrees to what the committee recommends? And there is an FBI investigation, isn't there? And wouldn't an FBI investigation have even less power than the hearing? And aren't you ignoring the whole political context in which this happens (accusations of this being a delay tactic?)

Surely you see the problem here. "I agree to what the committee recommends," when the committee is transparently working as hard as they can to get you confirmed, is not seeking a full and impartial investigation. It's trusting your powerful friends to protect you.

An FBI investigation has SO much more power than a committee hearing. You can't dodge investigators' questions. You WILL get brought up on charges if your answers are misleading. And investigators are duty bound to follow up on leads and gather evidence.

Senate hearings are political theater, and no reasonable person would confuse a Senate hearing with this high of a profile as an honest attempt to gather all relevant facts. That's plainly obvious from the fact that the hearing didn't even include all of the people who were allegedly in the room a the time of the attack. How can you possibly confuse a hearing that doesn't even include all of the eyewitnesses with an honest attempt to gather facts?

You can see how wrong this is from the simple fact that the FBI was not directed to actually carry out an investigation. They followed no leads. They ignored all tips. They didn't even interview the subject or his accuser! Sure, he agreed to let the committee protect him, and that's exactly what he did. An innocent man would not need to rely on his friends' protection.
 
Back
Top Bottom