Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'll give the morons on this board one guess who is following:

A certain person made a past Facebook post, that has since been scrubbed, saying someone needed to come forward and accuse Gorsuch of rape, and to keep doing it until Merrick Garland is nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Who in the world was THAT?

- Doc

[_subgenius]

Evidence they said.
Yes, an investigation is needed, just not for what DT would like.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Women would never lie about this sort of thing:

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/09/ ... in-school/

Woman claimed in now-deleted tweet to have gone to school with Christine Blasey Ford and said the ‘incident was spoken about for days’ in school

Here was a typical article about this woman's lie:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/ ... d-thi.html

You'll note just how detailed and extensive her lie was. You'll also note that after she deleted her lie she said it "served its purpose." You'll further note when caught in her lie she resorted to stating that she didn't know if Ms. Ford's allegation was true or not.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oh boy. A 3rd named witness says BS.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/t ... legations/

In written testimony sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, a third named witness has rejected the allegations made by Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser. Having been asked by a Senate staffer to comment on the charges advanced against the nominee, a lawyer for Leland Ingham Keyser wrote:

Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.

Under 18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

Ms. Keyer, whom CNN confirms is “a lifelong friend of Ford’s,” is the third named witness to deny any knowledge of the allegations. The other two, Mark Judge and Patrick Smyth, issued written statements to that effect earlier in the week. Thus far, nobody has backed up the account advanced by Kavanaugh’s accuser, while Kavanaugh and three other named witnesses have rejected it outright.

- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

Evidence they said.
Yes, an investigation is needed, just not for what DT would like.

Do you have no shame at all? You're posting idiotic comments from a talk radio idiot. Ford has not "refused" to testify. In fact she is set to testify on Thursday.

Kavanaugh accuser will testify in open hearing on Thursday

You should really get your head out of the ass of talk radio, your primary source for news no doubt.

And of course these guys deny it, there really is no chance in hell the woman has a video of it happening or even an audio clip, so what's the risk of lying about something decades ago they know can never be proved?

[_Kevin Graham]

Women would never lie about this sort of thing:

Who the hell has more incentive to lie, a woman who was sexually assaulted or a man who did the assaulting? You show me an example of a woman getting caught making false accusations and I'll show you ten men caught lying about doing whatever it was they denied.

She isn't trying to get money or anything and her story doesn't make any sense in the context of her lying, unless you're prone to believing idiotic conspiracy theories conjured up by Right Wing propagandists.

Again, if you're going to accuse someone of something for the sole purpose of ruining their career, you don't say he "almost" raped you. And you sure as hell don't name specific people who were there to corroborate your story. Not if you are lying because if you're lying then you know you're naming witnesses who will deny something that never happened.

That makes no damned sense at all.

What does make perfect sense is that she's telling the truth, these witnesses were there, but they're so close to Kavanaugh for so many years they really don't give a crap what he did because they're likely human garbage same as him. She named all five of them specifically in hopes that at least one of them would recall the incident and have the moral conscience to do the right thing.

It was a risk, but she underestimated just how slimy Republican white men truly are. Birds of a feather.

Having said that, I suspect most of them probably don't remember the incident at all, but that isn't the same thing as saying they know for a fact it didn't happen. I bet something like this happened at probably a dozen parties I attended in High School and college over the span of 5-8 years but it would be silly for me to pretend to remember details from any specific party that didn't involve me personally. Kavanaugh is probably the kind of guy who did rape women, but Ford was one of the lucky ones because he was too drunk to finish the job. The rest of the guys were likely drunk as well, but they certainly know this isn't something Kavanaugh was incapable of doing.

The human garbage that you and subs are listening to on talk radio is just ruining your credibility. You guys must really, really hate women.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Women would never lie about this sort of thing:

Who the hell has more incentive to lie, a woman who was sexually assaulted or a man who did the assaulting?

She isn't trying to get money or anything and her story doesn't make any sense in the context of her lying, unless you're prone to believing idiotic conspiracy theories conjured up by Right Wing propagandists.

Again, if you're going to accuse someone of something for the sole purpose of ruining their career, you don't say he "almost" raped you. And you sure as hell don't name specific people who were there to corroborate your story. Not if you are lying because if you're lying then you know you're naming witnesses who will deny something that never happened.

That makes no damned sense at all.

What does make perfect sense is that she's telling the truth, these witnesses were there, but they're so close to Kavanaugh for so many years they really don't give a crap what he did because they're likely human garbage same as him. She named all five of them specifically in hopes that at least one of them would recall the incident and have the moral conscience to do the right thing.

It was a risk, but she underestimated just how slimy Republican white men truly are. Birds of a feather.

Having said that, I suspect most of them probably don't remember the incident at all, but that isn't the same thing as saying they know for a fact it didn't happen. Kavanaugh is probably the kind of guy who did rape women, but Ford was one of the lucky ones because he was too drunk to finish the job. The rest of the guys were likely drunk as well, but they certainly know this isn't something Kavanaugh was incapable of doing.

The human garbage that you and subs are listening to on talk radio is just ruining your credibility. You guys must really, really hate women.

Aaaand this right here is why Democrats got their asses kicked in 2016. I see you still haven't learned anything, you still don't read the posts here, you still aren't clicking the links, and you still fly off the handle with little to no regard for what's been posted.

I'd bother to respond if I actually felt you were reading and following this thread. Your ignorance and ignorant statement tells me otherwise. No thanks.

- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

You referenced a woman who said it happened, and you called it a "lie" five times based on no evidence other than she's a woman. Women lie, not men. This is clearly how you think.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You referenced a woman who said it happened, and you called it a "lie" five times based on no evidence other than she's a woman. Women lie, not men. This is clearly how you think.

This is literally what I'm talking about. *shrugs*

- Doc

[Guest]

As far as I have been able to find out, the accuser is a highly respected professor, well liked and respected by colleagues, friends and neighbors who has lived an admirable and honorable life so far. And there is no indication that she expects to receive any monetary or other material gain from accusing Kavanaugh. On the other hand: Reminder: Brett Kavanaugh has a history of lying about stuff. A lot. Under oath

With a sexual assault allegation building against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Republican Senate leadership refusing to allow an independent investigation of the claim, it's worth remembering that this is far from the only question raised about Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the nation's highest court. It's also worth reiterating that Republicans have been covering up for him since his nomination, releasing a small fraction of the documentation behind his political career.

That small fraction, about 7 percent of the total, has already proven dicey for him with a handful of examples of out-and-out perjury rising up. Beyond parts of his testimony where he clearly was not telling the truth, there are those areas where he'd have to be a total idiot or amnesiac to maintain his claims.

The Washington Post's fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, has an exhaustive examination of one of those claims: that Kavanaugh never had any idea at all while he was in the Bush White House, coordinating judicial nominations, that the information he was getting from Republican Judiciary staffer Manny Miranda was stolen from committee Democrats, 4,670 files taken over an 18-month period from 2001 to 2003.

Kessler creates a timeline based on the documents eventually made public by the committee, emails between Miranda and Kavanaugh in which Miranda is directly quoting from highly sensitive materials created by and for committee Democrats. It’s material that would never be made public or shared with the opposition. Kavanaugh's insistence that "nothing raised red flags and that he never received documents that appeared to be stolen or obtained in an 'untoward' manner," Kessler concludes, "defy logic" and "strains credulity." And this isn't very flattering to Kavanaugh: "It reminds us of Sergeant Schultz in the 1960s TV show 'Hogan’s Heroes'—'I see nothing! I hear nothing! I know nothing!'" Ouch.

The "best-case scenario is that Kavanaugh, who is up for a seat on the nation’s highest court, has a glaring lack of curiosity or a superficial level of discernment," Kessler concludes. "The worst-case scenario is that he has been feigning ignorance since his first confirmation hearing in the Senate in April 2004, which was held after the Senate sergeant-at-arms had released his report documenting Miranda’s serial theft." Kessler says "feigning ignorance," the rest of the world says "lying." Whether he is stupid or duplicitous, though, he should not be on the Supreme Court.

It's why there has to be a real investigation into his accuser’s claims, not the sham that we're seeing from the committee. But it's also why Republicans are not going to let that happen. They already know he's going to lie about it.

So why would any honest, fair minded person knowing these facts automatically discount her credibility rather than his, especially considering the ample justification for denying his appointment, even if the accusation is false?