Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_Kevin Graham]

KAVANAUGH SAID HE HAD 'NO CONNECTIONS' TO YALE. HE WAS, IN FACT, A LEGACY STUDENT

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh said underoath that he had “no connections” to Yale prior to attending, arguing that hard work and ambition were the sole factors leading him to study at the prestigious institution of higher education.

However, that statement is verifiably untrue. In fact, Kavanaugh would be classified as a legacy student, because his grandfather Everett Edward Kavanaugh also attended Yale as an undergraduate student, The Intercept reported on Saturday, sharing an image of a 1928 yearbook.

“I have no connections there. I got there by busting my tail,” Kavanaugh, who currently serves as a federal judge, said while testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.

Although legacy admittance is frowned on by some, elite universities such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton and many others, have long given preference to students whose family members have attended.

According to a 2011 report in The New York Times , Yale said that 20 to 25 percent of its students were classified as legacy students. A CNBC report from 2017 said that students attending Yale’s close rival, Harvard, were three times more likely to get accepted if they had a close family member who had attended.

While none of this necessarily means that Kavanaugh got into Yale unfairly, or that he did not have the required qualifications to attend or succeed, his statement about lacking “connections” is untrue. It’s unclear why the Supreme Court nominee would feel the need to make such a false statement.

But as The Intercept reported, this is only one of numerous inaccurate statements the judge has made. He said that drinking was “legal for seniors” during the time in high school when Dr. Christine Blasey Ford has accused of him of drunkenly sexually assaulting her. While drinking was legal for 18 year olds in Maryland at the time, Kavanaugh was still 17 when the alleged assault occurred.

[Alf'Omega]

When Republicans talk about getting someone on the court that represents their interests, it must be their interest in never saying anything true that they're talking about.

I wouldn't let this asshole judge a dog show. Surely we can get someone better, but then, the GOP base is into asshole thugs.

[_Water Dog]

his statement about lacking “connections” is untrue./quote]

Again, Kavanaugh didn't lie, you're just mendaciously illiterate. The word "connections" in this context does not mean, literally, that he did not know anyone on planet earth who had ever attended Yale, blood related or not. That's not what connection means, ya dummy. It means he did not have any insider connections that would afford him privilege, or any sort of advantage in the admissions process. Nothing in this smear article says otherwise, either.

While drinking was legal for 18 year olds in Maryland at the time, Kavanaugh was still 17 when the alleged assault occurred.

You mean the assault that didn't occur? So your proof that Kavanaugh drank when he was 17 is that someone accused him of drunken assault when he was 17?

Kevin, I know you're not the brightest, but I also know you aren't this dumb. I honestly don't understand the point of maintaining the ruse here on this forum. You know damn well this isn't about Kavanaugh, is fitness, sexual assault, high school drinking, or any of that. Haha. 31 pages. Good lord.

I mean, your girl, even Hillary Clinton, is a well known drunk. She is reported by many people to drink excessively throughout her time as First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and failed presidential candidate. You couldn't care less about any of her drinking, now you suddenly are oh-so concerned about Kavanaugh's relationship with beer in high school? ROFL.

Believe survivors! Unless they're from Benghazi, right? It's infuriating, but I find myself laughing, because what else can I do?

This poor woman Ford. What about all the women assaulted by Bill Clinton? What about all the women assaulted by Bill Clinton, who were additionally attacked by Hillary? What about that child rapist Hillary defended by impugning the victim/survivor? Oh, but now I'm supposed to believe this is totally about Ford?

You're a cock goblin.

[Guest]

and to that issue, her lying about flying is a material fact.

No it is not! There is no compelling justification for the claim that she was lying about fear of flying! Why do you insist on grasping so desperately at this incredibly flimsy straw? There are numerous examples of people who manage to overcome their fear of flying when given sufficient need or motivation. If this is the strongest reason you have to doubt her testimony, you have a very weak case indeed!

And why do you stubbornly ignore the very well substantiated material fact that Kavanaugh has a record of previous lying before Senate hearings?

Taking all his testimony together, we see a clear pattern emerge: Brett Kavanaugh has never appeared under oath before the U.S. Senate without lying.

[_Some Schmo]

There is no compelling justification for the claim that she was lying about fear of flying!

I think we can summarily dismiss any condemnation of lying by any Drumpf supporter from this day forward. They have nullified their option to use lying as a reason for criticism, primarily because they've demonstrated no ability to spot it when it happens.

[_Gunnar]

There is no compelling justification for the claim that she was lying about fear of flying!

I think we can summarily dismiss any condemnation of lying by any Drumpf supporter from this day forward. They have nullified their option to use lying as a reason for criticism, primarily because they've demonstrated no ability to spot it when it happens.

Well stated!

[_Kevin Graham]

You mean the assault that didn't occur? So your proof that Kavanaugh drank when he was 17 is that someone accused him of drunken assault when he was 17?

Kevin, I know you're not the brightest, but I also know you aren't this dumb. I honestly don't understand the point of maintaining the ruse here on this forum. You know damn well this isn't about Kavanaugh, is fitness, sexual assault, high school drinking, or any of that. Haha. 31 pages. Good lord.

I mean, your girl, even Hillary Clinton, is a well known drunk. She is reported by many people to drink excessively throughout her time as First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and failed presidential candidate. You couldn't care less about any of her drinking, now you suddenly are oh-so concerned about Kavanaugh's relationship with beer in high school? ROFL.

Believe survivors! Unless they're from Benghazi, right? It's infuriating, but I find myself laughing, because what else can I do?

This poor woman Ford. What about all the women assaulted by Bill Clinton? What about all the women assaulted by Bill Clinton, who were additionally attacked by Hillary? What about that child rapist Hillary defended by impugning the victim/survivor? Oh, but now I'm supposed to believe this is totally about Ford?

You're a cock goblin.

Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand, and even your own Republican politicians admit an assault took place. I mean we all know you're among the dumbest people on the internet, but good God. The reason this thread is 31 pages is because idiots like you keep popping in to derail. I mean seriously? Bitching about thread length, and WTF does Hillary or Benghazi or the fact that I make more money than you have to do with anything? It is as if you're an a desperate tirade to avoid the obvious, simple truth, that Kavanaugh has lied on numerous occasions. Your attempt at arm-chair apologist is cute, but that is as far as it goes.

The fact is Kavanaugh lied and we know this because all his classmates, whom Trump will not allow the FBI to interview, have come forward stating as much. This isn't about caring about Kavanaugh's "relationship with beer in high school" you idiot. It is about how he has blatantly lied about the extent to which he drank.

Elizabeth Rasor is Mark Judge's former girlfriend from High School. Trump allows the FBI to interview Judge because he already knows he has nothing to say that's incriminating, but he won't allow the FBI to interview Rasor. Ever, I wonder why? Oh, maybe this is why:

After seeing Judge’s denial, Elizabeth Rasor, who met Judge at Catholic University and was in a relationship with him for about three years, said that she felt morally obligated to challenge his account that “ ‘no horseplay’ took place at Georgetown preparation with women.” Rasor stressed that “under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t reveal information that was told in confidence,” but, she said, “I can’t stand by and watch him lie.” In an interview with The New Yorker, she said, “Mark told me a very different story.” Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated. But Rasor was disturbed by the story and noted that it undercut Judge’s protestations about the sexual innocence of Georgetown preparation.

Here is another classmate of his, Charles Ludington:

"I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences."

Liz Swisher, a prominent Seattle doctor and former Yale classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh alleges he lied under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee about his drinking habits in college.

Deborah Ramirez attended Yale at the same time as Judge Kavanaugh. She says he exposed his genitals to her during a college drinking game.

Julie Swetnick says she went to house parties attended by Judge Kavanaugh in the early 1980s, where she said he and his friends had tried to "spike" girls' drinks.

But please waterdog, go ahead and drag this out another 10 pages with more idiotic red herrings. What's next, complaints about George Soros and MSNBC?

ETA: THIS JUST IN

WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has tried to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI...

A September 24 text shows Yarasavage clarifying that she did not refute Ramirez’s claims to the New Yorker. Republicans and Kavanaugh have said that his former classmates, who gave an anonymous statement to the New Yorker, have refuted Ramirez’s claim.

“I didn’t say I would have known … I said she never told me, I never heard a word of this ever happening and never saw it. The media surmised (that I was saying she is lying),” said Yarasavage.

Yarasavage declined to speak to NBC News as did other classmates named in Berchem’s memo who may have information pertinent to the investigation.

Finally, Berchem is concerned about what she witnessed at the 1997 wedding where Ramirez and Kavanaugh were both in the wedding party.

The wedding took place 10 years after Ramirez and Kavanaugh graduated. According to the information Berchem provided, Ramirez tried to avoid Kavanaugh at that wedding of their two friends, Yarasavage and Kevin Genda.

Ramirez, “clung to me” at the wedding, Berchem wrote to Yarasavage in a Sept. 24th text message recalling the event. “She never went near them,” a reference to Kavanaugh and his friends. Even in the group photo, Berchem wrote, Ramirez was trying to keep away from Kavanaugh.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

What could have theoretically happened under some other set of facts is irrelevant (dare I say immaterial) to the concept of materiality. Whether K was drunk at the time of the alleged assault is material because it arguably makes the described behavior more believable. Material, when used as a test for admission of evidence, does not mean critical. It is actually a broader category than "relevant." Here's a pretty good description by actual lawyers who do this stuff for a living: https://www.plunkettcooney.com/blogs-do ... l-evidence

And another: http://decatolaw.blogspot.com/2011/04/r ... dence.html

The argument that X lied about Y, therefore X is a liar, therefore X lied about Z is an example of a whole set of potential evidence referred to as "conformity evidence." It has its own court rule because of the general recognition that the argument is a terrible one except in limited circumstances. Evidence that K is misrepresenting the nature of his drinking in high school is not being used as conformity evidence. The way you describe F "lying" about her fear of flying is classic conformity evidence. The argument as you describe it would rarely, if ever, get to a jury.

[_Res Ipsa]

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".

Stunningly wrong. Here's what she said in her memo:

Mitchell continued: “For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the [Senate Judiciary] Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

What she is not saying is that the case doesn't meet the standard to go to trial. Her first statement is her opinion of what a reasonable prosecutor would do. The second is her opinion on what she would rules if she were a juror.

If what we had was a civil case of assault and battery, and all we had for testimony is what we saw on television on Thursday, the case would absolutely go to trial. Had she opined that a judge would find the evidence insufficient to go to the jury, she would have been laughed out of the profession.

I believe the result would be the same in criminal court, although I'd have to review a little case law to be sure.

Ford's testimony is sufficient to get to a civil, if not a criminal, trial. Whether her story is credible is an issue for the jury. If you have any question, review Civil Procedure Rule 56 and the cases decided under it. That will educate you on the standards for a case to go to a jury.

[_canpakes]

Zero evidence... LOL

put up or shut up.

There you go again. You don’t seem to know how the process works.

If Dog makes a crazy claim, and SS states, “zero evidence” because Dog has given none, then SS is under no obligation to find the nonexistent evidence that Dog either doesn’t want to provide or cannot locate if it is nonexistent.

I have faith that you can figure this one out, if you apply yourself.