Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_EAllusion]

Https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/media ... iginal.jpg

[_Some Schmo]

Lol. The NYT is reporting that Ford isn't on the list of the 4 people the FBI is allowed to interview. Ford states she hasn't been contacted, which is consistent with that.

Totally legit investigation there.

There's already so much talk about this that the GOP is going to end up exactly where they were before the investigation, with a cloud hanging over his nomination. In fact, it'll likely be worse. Do they really think women are going to be fine with a rushed, limited investigation?

I guess the GOP thinks women need to shut up, know their place and vote for them despite the abuse.

They also seem to think nobody's paying attention. It feels like the people I know, including those not regularly interested in politics, have never been so attuned to something political.

[_subgenius]

The whole point behind trying to paint Ford as a liar with the fear of flying thing was to impugn her credibility so as to make her allegation less likely to be true. It was absurd, but contrast that with the defense of Kavanaugh in light of the fact he actually was lying constantly.

So she lies, she is still credible but He lies and he is no longer credible....got it! I don't think anyone here was aware that you had a critical "quantity" mass of lies for when credibility is lost.
And nobody painted her, she was the only one who brought a brush...soooo...

[_subgenius]

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.

Your understanding is wrong, and his "heavy drinking" (to the point of blackout) has not even been established as fact let alone stretched to the outlandish proportions necessary for it to be a material fact.

[_EAllusion]

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.

Your understanding is wrong, and his "heavy drinking" (to the point of blackout) has not even been established as fact let alone stretched to the outlandish proportions necessary for it to be a material fact.

You told Kevin to check the dictionary. I did. My definition matches. In one case, it was near verbatim. Maybe you should check the dictionary.

[_subgenius]

You told Kevin to check the dictionary. I did. My definition matches. In one case, it was near verbatim. Maybe you should check the dictionary.

Nope, you have to use an actual dictionary, or better, a law dictionary...not whatever you scribble on a post-it under the heading "me dictionary!".

A marerial fact:
Crucial to the interpretation of a phenomenon or a subject matter, or to the determination of an issue at hand this is a specific type of confirmed or validated event, item of information, or state of affairs.

We can all wait while you look up the word "fact" and then show were that has been stipulated/proven/established inasmuch as it is "germane" to anything that Ford alleges. Note, his drinking habits were not relevant to veracity of her accusation...that was circumstantial at best.

as a reference, see also:
material witness
n. a person who apparently has information about the subject matter of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution which is significant enough to affect the outcome of the case or trial. Thus, the court must make every reasonable effort to allow such a witness to testify, including a continuance (delay in a trial) to accommodate him/her if late or temporarily unavailable.

And as a qualified prosecutor has also noted, Ford did not meet the standard for her case to even go to trial....which kinda illuminates the idea of "material".

Ok, so let us start slow....what is a "fact" that was contained in Ford's allegation?

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

Your understanding is wrong, and his "heavy drinking" (to the point of blackout) has not even been established as fact let alone stretched to the outlandish proportions necessary for it to be a material fact.

Not correct sub. You’re conflating truth with materiality. Because they affect the reliability of Ks recollection that he never did what F says he did, whatever the facts are about his drinking, those facts are material to the question of whether F’s claims are accurate.

[_subgenius]

Not correct sub. You’re conflating truth with materiality. Because they affect the reliability of Ks recollection that he never did what F says he did, whatever the facts are about his drinking, those facts are material to the question of whether F’s claims are accurate.

Nope, she could well be mistaken about his drinking and he still may have assaulted her...the "drinking" is irrelevant to the alleged act.
nevertheless, his "drinking" at the alleged time of assault has not been established as a "fact".....oh right....there is no alleged time.
Think about this way, if Ford made no mention of drinking would her allegation be significantly different? His drinking, or lack thereof, is not critical to the interpretation of whether the assault occurred or did not occur. Perhaps its only relevance is in establishing a different issue at hand, which is whether Ford or a liar or not a liar on this account....and to that issue, her lying about flying is a material fact.

[_aussieguy55]

Something on the science of memory https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBwyS9bLXEQ

[_Kevin Graham]

Nope, she could well be mistaken about his drinking and he still may have assaulted her...the "drinking" is irrelevant to the alleged act.
nevertheless, his "drinking" at the alleged time of assault has not been established as a "fact".....oh right....there is no alleged time.
Think about this way, if Ford made no mention of drinking would her allegation be significantly different? His drinking, or lack thereof, is not critical to the interpretation of whether the assault occurred or did not occur. Perhaps its only relevance is in establishing a different issue at hand, which is whether Ford or a liar or not a liar on this account....and to that issue, her lying about flying is a material fact.

I don't know why you're so intent on embarrassing yourself on this issue. This isn't rocket science. She said he attempted to rape her while highly intoxicated. So much so that when he was knocked off the bed he couldn't remember what it was he was doing when he got back up, and that allowed her a split moment to flee to the bathroom. She also said that Brett and Mark were pinballing side to side while going down the stairs, that is how drunk they were.

And along comes Kavanaugh, crying and screaming that he not only never sexually assaulted her, but that it would be impossible because he would have remembered. Well, if you're that drunk you don't remember things that happened the next day let alone 35 years later. For this reason it is crucial for his defense that he discredit her claim about his drunkenness. His only way of doing this was to lie about his drinking habits and to keep reminding everyone he went to Yale and "busted his butt" to get where he's at. Classic denialism of a guilty person. If he were honest he'd admit he made mistakes as a kid, own up to the fact that he was a drunk, admit that while he doesn't remember the incident, it could very well have happened the way Ford described, and then ask for her forgiveness. It wouldn't be an admission of guilt, it would just be the more human thing to do. Character we'd expect from a Supreme Court Justice. Not a belligerent buffoon.

But no, he decided to go the new American Christian route. Deny, blame and attack.

We know from his classmates that he was a belligerent drunk who drank to the point of syncope.