Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_EAllusion]

That blurb doesn't speak well of what might be in the link. None of the witnesses have "refuted" Ford. They say they don't recall. Even Judge who was named as assisting the assualt attempt went with, "I don't recall that."

In a disputed descriptions of a plausible event, the fact that Kavanaugh keeps lying about material facts would ordinarily be enough to meet a preponderance standard.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

In a disputed descriptions of a plausible event, the fact that Kavanaugh keeps lying about material facts would ordinarily be enough to meet a preponderance standard.

Can you provide examples of material facts in this situation?

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

In a disputed descriptions of a plausible event, the fact that Kavanaugh keeps lying about material facts would ordinarily be enough to meet a preponderance standard.

Can you provide examples of material facts in this situation?

- Doc

His drinking history, which it's quite obviously something he is lying about, speaks to whether it would be true that he was quite drunk as Ford alleges and generally if it would make sense if his memory would be compromised. If it's not relevant, you should wonder why he is lying about it.

His description of his year book entry is also blatantly lying. It speaks to a possible pattern of attitudes regarding women and partying that is relevant. If he doesn't find it relevant, you again should wonder why he is lying so blatantly about it.

He also has lied about other things. For example like the above partisan assessment disguised as independent memo, he repeatedly falsely described witnesses as having refuted Ford. And he's also lied about other unrelated issues before Congress as well.

Whenever I am doing an abuse/neglect investigation where I have competiting testimonies and only the accused is lying constantly about material facts against a general pattern of dishonesty, that's pretty much guarantees a more likely than not substantiation of the allegations. To the point that disagreeing makes me feel like I am taking crazy pills.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Wouldn't his drinking history, disputed by associates, just be a matter of evidence? I thought material facts had to do with the act in question; In other words, a material fact in this case would be that he, Judge, and Ford were drinking and, say, Judge stated they were in fact drinking the night of the alleged incident?

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Wouldn't his drinking history, disputed by associates, just be a matter of evidence? I thought material facts had to do with the act in question; In other words, a material fact in this case would be that he, Judge, and Ford were drinking and, say, Judge stated they were in fact drinking the night of the alleged incident?

- Doc

My understanding of the term is a fact that is germane to the investigative question. Since whether or not Kavanaugh was prone to drinking heavily is germane, that's a material fact.

[_Kevin Graham]

Rachel Mitchell's analysis. Link below.

A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... alysis.pdf

Wow, so Mitchell is just as stupid as Kavanaugh since she doesn't understand what the word "refute" means. No one has "refuted" Ford's testimony and to keep repeating this lie only goes to prove the point that it is the Republicans who are spinning this in desperation and not the Democrats.

Kavanaugh we already know has flat out lied under oath and in this interview he lied about material facts. Yes, EA is correct about the meaning of the term. Given his tendency to drink himself to the point of blackout, it makes dubious the only argument left which is basically:

Ford can't remember who assaulted her while sober but Kavanaugh can state for a fact he never did anything like this because he was never so drunk that he couldn't remember.

Well, we know he was that drunk. Many times.

[_Water Dog]

EA, you're such a mouth breather. Kavanaugh hasn't lied about a damn thing. You cannot name a single thing he's lied about. You may "suspect" he's lying, but cannot actually show that to be the case. Re Kavanaugh's drinking, did you actually watch the hearing? He was very forthright and acknowledged drinking to excess on occasion. In high school. He denied blacking out or drinking to a point of experiencing memory loss after the fact. How in the world can you say he's lying about that? You have recordings of his brain or something?

EA, have you ever been the subject of an FBI background investigation? I have. I'm sure Doc has as well. They are quite exhaustive. Drinking habits are also central to their focus. You must provide a list of every place you have ever lived. Every place you have ever worked. Or gone to school. You must provide lists of friends, and family. Go lookup the SF86 form. And then you know what they do? They go to all of these places, knock on the doors, talk to your neighbors, your landlords, your tenants if you owned property, your co workers, your peers in school, your professors, your friends, your druggie relative. Every damn person. And you know what they ask all these people? One of the very first questions, they ask about drinking habits!

Kavanaugh has gone through this 6 times. Highest security clearance possible. Worked with the president. By his side. In the oval office. Flying on AF1. A high ranking federal judge at the court that is closest to Supreme Court in terms of seniority.

If you think there is something relevant to uncover related to his drinking habits, you're a fool. But I repeat myself.

[_Water Dog]

Wow, so Mitchell is just as stupid as Kavanaugh since she doesn't understand what the word "refute" means.

Here is Kevin, the real estate agent, calling Rachel Mitchell and Brett Kavanaugh stupid. Kevin, is there anybody here who gives a wet fart about what you think, about, anything? You're just bent out of shape that Trump is about 10 billion times more successful that you. He does literally what you do, except, he's actually good at it. You are precisely the person standing in line for hours to attend one of his How To Be Successful Enough to Make My Rent seminars. Precisely the sort of person that would go order a bunch of credit cards with $1500 limits each so that you can pay your Trump University tuition fees. In fact, you probably did and that's what you're really bent about. You signed up, you bought the books, went to the seminars, and still just can't make it work. And you know why, because you're a deranged asshole, who that lacks even the basic discipline to post on a internet message board without starting every single post by calling someone stupid.

[_subgenius]

No one has "refuted" Ford's testimony

One of the definitions for "refute" is to deny or contradict...and to that end Kavanaugh has denied her allegation, ergo "refuted".
Other than that Ford has offered nothing in her testimony that can be considered by any other definition of "refute" because there are no facts, no evidence, no dates, not times, no locations, no witnesses, and no corroboration available for contradiction or disproof.
It is like me exclaiming that no one can refute what I say about the dream I had while sleeping last night.

and to keep repeating this lie only goes to prove the point that it is the Republicans who are spinning this in desperation and not the Democrats.

yes, the acts of desperation are clear.

Kavanaugh we already know has flat out lied under oath and in this interview he lied about material facts.

Does not Ford is telling the truth. And Ford has yet to provide any material facts...or even facts.

Yes, EA is correct about the meaning of the term. Given his tendency to drink himself to the point of blackout, it makes dubious the only argument left which is basically:

Check you dictionary, it is not a material fact that Kavanaugh had a tendency to drink himself to point of black out.

Ford can't remember who assaulted her while sober but Kavanaugh can state for a fact he never did anything like this because he was never so drunk that he couldn't remember.

Other than the remarkable idiocy in your whatever-thought-process is here, the burden is not on Kavanuagh to prove that he did not do something that someone else imagined he did.

Well, we know he was that drunk. Many times.

And we know that Ford can't prove her allegation.....can't prove one teeny tiny aspect of it.
Actually the material facts conclude that this not a "he said/she said"...it is a "she made it up / he did not do it"

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Wow, so Mitchell is just as stupid as Kavanaugh since she doesn't understand what the word "refute" means.

Here is Kevin, the real estate agent...

Dude! Why are you bashing how he makes a living? He does an awesome job at it, is very successful given where he lives in Atlanta, and has by all means achieved the American dream. I admire KG for what he's built for himself.

- Doc