Herochat

Kavanaugh Investigation(s)

AP

  • ********
  • 19056
  • +119/-56
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2018, 11:10:39 AM »
True.  It's not out of the question for either party to do a little muck raking.  I tend to despise everyone involved, for what it's worth.

Rufio

  • ****
  • 776
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2018, 11:37:33 AM »
Well I mention some of the perjury in the post above you. Which why I said depends if they want to go after the little stuff

Which why I said the devil triangle thing they may just let slide. Even though think even at the time that meant two guys fucking a girl and not a drinking game. Unless it only involve 3 people drinking. Which if not why would it be called that.

Here the thing with Rameriz..there actully Text message prior to the new York story. Where he reach out to them about Ramerez. Then he said he didn't know about it. Which is clearly a lie then. Since he said new york article was the FIRST time he heard about it. It was to get him to go against her.

You’re wrong about that. Read pages 18-20 of the hearing on Sept 25:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted)..pdf

On page 18, he said he heard about an incident matching Ramirez’s allegations through the New Yorker story. Then on page 20, he states that during the 6-day period before the New Yorker piece when she was trying to recover her memory, he heard she was calling around.

He seems to have meant that he’d heard she was making some type of sexual allegations that she couldn’t be sure of and calling around to fill in the details, but he heard about the precise details during or around the time the story was published. This is the sort of vague misstatement or contradiction that occurs all the time in depositions. Often times, the witness then realizes he or she misstated things and gives a more precise answer.  The claim that this was perjury is very weak.

While I haven’t heard anyone say “Devils Triangle” is a drinking game, I have heard people from that era say “Triangles” was a drinking game. And someone’s already provided a book about farts that uses the word “boof” to describe one.

I’m sure his memory of the yearbook entries isn’t entirely accurate. He may be dead wrong on some of it. That doesn’t mean he’s lying. False memories are very common. Eyewitnesses regularly have false memories of details surrounding events like school shootings and 9/11. Its highly unlikely that he has an accurate memory of his high school slang.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 11:41:32 AM by Rufio »

therock

  • ********
  • 8879
  • +50/-65
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2018, 01:32:37 PM »
Well I mention some of the perjury in the post above you. Which why I said depends if they want to go after the little stuff

Which why I said the devil triangle thing they may just let slide. Even though think even at the time that meant two guys fucking a girl and not a drinking game. Unless it only involve 3 people drinking. Which if not why would it be called that.

Here the thing with Rameriz..there actully Text message prior to the new York story. Where he reach out to them about Ramerez. Then he said he didn't know about it. Which is clearly a lie then. Since he said new york article was the FIRST time he heard about it. It was to get him to go against her.

You’re wrong about that. Read pages 18-20 of the hearing on Sept 25:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted)..pdf

On page 18, he said he heard about an incident matching Ramirez’s allegations through the New Yorker story. Then on page 20, he states that during the 6-day period before the New Yorker piece when she was trying to recover her memory, he heard she was calling around.

He seems to have meant that he’d heard she was making some type of sexual allegations that she couldn’t be sure of and calling around to fill in the details, but he heard about the precise details during or around the time the story was published. This is the sort of vague misstatement or contradiction that occurs all the time in depositions. Often times, the witness then realizes he or she misstated things and gives a more precise answer.  The claim that this was perjury is very weak.

While I haven’t heard anyone say “Devils Triangle” is a drinking game, I have heard people from that era say “Triangles” was a drinking game. And someone’s already provided a book about farts that uses the word “boof” to describe one.

I’m sure his memory of the yearbook entries isn’t entirely accurate. He may be dead wrong on some of it. That doesn’t mean he’s lying. False memories are very common. Eyewitnesses regularly have false memories of details surrounding events like school shootings and 9/11. Its highly unlikely that he has an accurate memory of his high school slang.

here why i have trouble buying that

the question was specifically about ramirez. the text message was specfically about that to

the pages most talk about the wedding if he met her. he doesnt really mention he himself was calling around or say he knew about it. it just mention the artice said she was unless thats in another page

how for me to think a judge of his experience would make that sort of misiterpetations

just wonder if kav was the one judging this would he be cool with these mistakes

MTL76

  • ********
  • 10218
  • +1137/-119
  • "What if I know all your secrets, Your Eminence?"
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #18 on: October 04, 2018, 03:33:29 PM »
I am really starting to hate the expression “hill to die on.” It’s an extremely cynical way of saying somebody is standing by their principles (good or bad.) Make the other guy die on the hill.

But yes, the GOP should die on this hill. If they don’t support their nominee against these unfounded accusations, every other nominee will wonder if the Republicans will fuck them over too. It will also encourage the Dems to pull more shanigans like this in the future. Rufio has laid out how the Dems could have quietly pursued these accusations weeks ago. Instead they blatantly turned it into a circus. It’s disgraceful.

Rock’s analogy of hiring someone falls apart because of the reason I stated above, and also because the Republicans can only nominate one person at a time. There’s also the injustice of possibly abandoning an innocent man.

The perjury accusations seem unfounded. Good luck proving “Devil’s Triangle” can’t refer to a version of the drinking game Quarters. I’m sure it can also refer to a threesome. I highly doubt some high schoolers in the 80s were having so many threesomes they had casual references to them. Maybe they got the name for the drinking game from the sexual position. I doubt anyone remembers after 35+ years. It’s stupid and pointless.

Did Kavanaugh do it? I’m sure he believes he didn’t, and I’m sure Ford believes he did. Memory is incredibly malleable, especially with alcohol involved. Maybe he did it and is lying. Maybe he did it and honestly doesn’t remember. Maybe he didn’t do it and Ford is lying. Maybe he didn’t do it and Ford is confusing him with someone else. Maybe they’re both wrong: he made a pass at her and doesn’t remember because (in his mind) it wasn’t memorable, and she has inflated it in her mind to be attempted rape. After 37 years, who the fuck knows, which is why we have statutes of limitations.

What I do know is that this process has been incredibly destructive for this country. The assumption of innocence is not just something for courtrooms, it’s one of the foundations of civil society. Attempts to erode that because we need to “believe all women” are shortsighted. There is no corroborating evidence for Ford’s story, which has large holes in it. Vote on Kavanaugh’s legal record and move on.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 03:35:01 PM by MTL76 »


Minority Shareholder, Combine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles (CHOAM)

The Create A Team / Power Set Combo Compendium

XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6737
  • +101/-26
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #19 on: October 04, 2018, 03:36:37 PM »
Why is Kavanaugh entitled to a vote?

Rufio

  • ****
  • 776
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #20 on: October 04, 2018, 04:02:22 PM »
Well I mention some of the perjury in the post above you. Which why I said depends if they want to go after the little stuff

Which why I said the devil triangle thing they may just let slide. Even though think even at the time that meant two guys fucking a girl and not a drinking game. Unless it only involve 3 people drinking. Which if not why would it be called that.

Here the thing with Rameriz..there actully Text message prior to the new York story. Where he reach out to them about Ramerez. Then he said he didn't know about it. Which is clearly a lie then. Since he said new york article was the FIRST time he heard about it. It was to get him to go against her.

You’re wrong about that. Read pages 18-20 of the hearing on Sept 25:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted)..pdf

On page 18, he said he heard about an incident matching Ramirez’s allegations through the New Yorker story. Then on page 20, he states that during the 6-day period before the New Yorker piece when she was trying to recover her memory, he heard she was calling around.

He seems to have meant that he’d heard she was making some type of sexual allegations that she couldn’t be sure of and calling around to fill in the details, but he heard about the precise details during or around the time the story was published. This is the sort of vague misstatement or contradiction that occurs all the time in depositions. Often times, the witness then realizes he or she misstated things and gives a more precise answer.  The claim that this was perjury is very weak.

While I haven’t heard anyone say “Devils Triangle” is a drinking game, I have heard people from that era say “Triangles” was a drinking game. And someone’s already provided a book about farts that uses the word “boof” to describe one.

I’m sure his memory of the yearbook entries isn’t entirely accurate. He may be dead wrong on some of it. That doesn’t mean he’s lying. False memories are very common. Eyewitnesses regularly have false memories of details surrounding events like school shootings and 9/11. Its highly unlikely that he has an accurate memory of his high school slang.

here why i have trouble buying that

the question was specifically about ramirez. the text message was specfically about that to

the pages most talk about the wedding if he met her. he doesnt really mention he himself was calling around or say he knew about it. it just mention the artice said she was unless thats in another page

how for me to think a judge of his experience would make that sort of misiterpetations

just wonder if kav was the one judging this would he be cool with these mistakes

You would be amazed how often lawyers and judge misremember or misstate subtle facts and have to be corrected. It’s common and isn’t indicative of deception. It’s even more likely to occur when the judge is enraged.

On Sept 25, Kavanaugh said he heard about some type of Ramirez accusations. He just said he didn’t hear about allegations that matched the specific incident alleged. Then on Sept 27, he repeated that he hadn’t heard about her (specific) allegation until the New Yorker story.

The New Yorker story itself says they contacted him about Ramirez’s allegations. He testified that he’d heard she was calling around.

The simple way to reconcile his testimony is that he was distinguishing between knowing Ramirez was going to make *an* allegation and knowing the precise details of the allegation that showed up in print. Or he could’ve simply meant he learned about it when the New Yorker called him rather than the exact date of publication. Both interpretations are simpler than the notion that he was intentionally trying to hide the fact that he knew about the allegation, even after he was quoted in the New Yorker story and even after he testified that he’d heard she was calling about an allegation.

He may’ve been nominated by Trump, but he isn’t Trump. His judicial record doesn’t show a penchant for lying about what he’s already said for no apparent reason.

Rufio

  • ****
  • 776
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2018, 04:08:45 PM »
Kavanaugh’s yearbook explanations are now backed by two former classmates:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1047933928651276292/photo/1

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1047921408234463232

Again, good chance they’re misremembering something. Memory is malleable and open to suggestion. But this again shows why the charges of lying appear to be flimsy.* That said, if Democrats think they have the goods, then by all means they should try to prosecute him.

No one should walk away from this when there’s clear evidence of perjury or lying to the Senate. On that note, Avenatti and his clients’ allegations need to be thoroughly investigated.

* Perjury requires more than a lie under oath. The lie must be material to the proceedings. Kavanaugh’s yearbook entries are not material. Even if he lied, it wouldn’t be perjury. It might still be criminal because it’s lying to the Senate.


XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6737
  • +101/-26
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #22 on: October 04, 2018, 04:11:38 PM »
Kavanaugh’s yearbook explanations are now backed by two former classmates:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1047933928651276292/photo/1

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1047921408234463232

Again, good chance they’re misremembering something. Memory is malleable and open to suggestion. But this again shows why the charges of lying appear to be flimsy.* That said, if Democrats think they have the goods, then by all means they should try to prosecute him.

No one should walk away from this when there’s clear evidence of perjury or lying to the Senate. On that note, Avenatti and his clients’ allegations need to be thoroughly investigated.

* Perjury requires more than a lie under oath. The lie must be material to the proceedings. Kavanaugh’s yearbook entries are not material. Even if he lied, it wouldn’t be perjury. It might still be criminal because it’s lying to the Senate.


How does this hold more weight than what his college roommate wrote?

Rufio

  • ****
  • 776
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2018, 04:26:40 PM »
Kavanaugh’s yearbook explanations are now backed by two former classmates:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1047933928651276292/photo/1

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1047921408234463232

Again, good chance they’re misremembering something. Memory is malleable and open to suggestion. But this again shows why the charges of lying appear to be flimsy.* That said, if Democrats think they have the goods, then by all means they should try to prosecute him.

No one should walk away from this when there’s clear evidence of perjury or lying to the Senate. On that note, Avenatti and his clients’ allegations need to be thoroughly investigated.

* Perjury requires more than a lie under oath. The lie must be material to the proceedings. Kavanaugh’s yearbook entries are not material. Even if he lied, it wouldn’t be perjury. It might still be criminal because it’s lying to the Senate.


How does this hold more weight than what his college roommate wrote?

The Yale roommate who doesn’t claim that he even went to Georgetown prep? The one who claims with confidence that Kavanaugh’s lying about never getting blackout drunk, not because Kavanaugh ever *said* to the roommate that he blacked out the night before, but because he was a sloppy and mean drunk? The roommate who, according to Kavanaugh, repeatedly got in fights with their third roommate?

I would at least take the word of two Georgetown students over the word of someone who apparently didn’t even go to the school and wouldn’t know their lingo.

On that note, should Ford be prosecuted because her ex boyfriend says she lied about never coaching anyone on a polygraph, her claustrophobia, and her fear of flying? I don’t think so.

Panthergod

  • ********
  • 7823
  • +45/-82
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2018, 04:43:30 PM »
This circus is amazing. White Supremacy on the left and right are tearing each other apart, and its glorious, really. White elitist Feminism is strikingly an incredible blow against itself no matter what over the next generation, and if Kavanaugh gets in, hopefully he'll be pissed enough to definitely END the legalized mass child genocide that this is truly ALL about.

XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6737
  • +101/-26
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2018, 04:53:23 PM »
Kavanaugh’s yearbook explanations are now backed by two former classmates:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1047933928651276292/photo/1

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1047921408234463232

Again, good chance they’re misremembering something. Memory is malleable and open to suggestion. But this again shows why the charges of lying appear to be flimsy.* That said, if Democrats think they have the goods, then by all means they should try to prosecute him.

No one should walk away from this when there’s clear evidence of perjury or lying to the Senate. On that note, Avenatti and his clients’ allegations need to be thoroughly investigated.

* Perjury requires more than a lie under oath. The lie must be material to the proceedings. Kavanaugh’s yearbook entries are not material. Even if he lied, it wouldn’t be perjury. It might still be criminal because it’s lying to the Senate.


How does this hold more weight than what his college roommate wrote?

The Yale roommate who doesn’t claim that he even went to Georgetown prep? The one who claims with confidence that Kavanaugh’s lying about never getting blackout drunk, not because Kavanaugh ever *said* to the roommate that he blacked out the night before, but because he was a sloppy and mean drunk? The roommate who, according to Kavanaugh, repeatedly got in fights with their third roommate?

I would at least take the word of two Georgetown students over the word of someone who apparently didn’t even go to the school and wouldn’t know their lingo.

On that note, should Ford be prosecuted because her ex boyfriend says she lied about never coaching anyone on a polygraph, her claustrophobia, and her fear of flying? I don’t think so.
Yes, the roommate who specified things Kavanaugh claimed under oath that he would testify were lies.

I like how you pretended you were discrediting his statements though.

XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6737
  • +101/-26
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2018, 04:59:14 PM »
I don't think Kavanaugh is trustworthy, and he's definitely not levelheaded enough to do the job. This isn't the first time he's been called out for it.


His apparent disdain toward the 4th amendment and advocacy for a reduction of state's rights is a hilariously sad combination that will fuck up this country for a generation, regardless of who is in power next.

Rufio

  • ****
  • 776
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2018, 05:13:29 PM »
I’m not a fan of what his jurisprudence will mean for the Supreme Court either. Aside from what you said, he’s too pro-executive power, too expansive in his reading of the Second Amendment, and will likely tilt the Court in even more of an anti-consumer direction. Their recent decisions expanding the First Amendment to strike down labor union laws are especially troubling. I fear he’ll help push that to another level.

That said, here’s four more Georgetown prep students who say that despite the Urbam Dictionary definition, “Devil’s Triangle” was a name they came up with for a drinking game:

https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-10-04-Georgetown-Prep-Letter-re-Devils-Triangle.pdf

I wish I could link this information from a non-right wing source. Unfortunately, the release of information has been incredibly Balkanized during this process. CNN literally sat on the story about Ford’s ex for a whole day, then wrote a hasty piece immediately after her friend denied that Ford coached her on a polygraph. It seems like The Hill and Politico are the only sources that try to give a complete picture.

XerxesTWD

  • *****
  • 6737
  • +101/-26
  • You can't park here, buddy. Earth is closed today.
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2018, 05:18:14 PM »
I’m not a fan of what his jurisprudence will mean for the Supreme Court either. Aside from what you said, he’s too pro-executive power, too expansive in his reading of the Second Amendment, and will likely tilt the Court in even more of an anti-consumer direction. Their recent decisions expanding the First Amendment to strike down labor union laws are especially troubling. I fear he’ll help push that to another level.

That said, here’s four more Georgetown prep students who say that despite the Urbam Dictionary definition, “Devil’s Triangle” was a name they came up with for a drinking game:

https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-10-04-Georgetown-Prep-Letter-re-Devils-Triangle.pdf

I wish I could link this information from a non-right wing source. Unfortunately, the release of information has been incredibly Balkanized during this process. CNN literally sat on the story about Ford’s ex for a whole day, then wrote a hasty piece immediately after her friend denied that Ford coached her on a polygraph. It seems like The Hill and Politico are the only sources that try to give a complete picture.
I agree with your whole first paragraph.

It's difficult for me to see how people (not you specifically) took a very different stance on credibility of accusations when Catholic priests were accused of incidents taking place decades ago.

Rufio

  • ****
  • 776
  • +5/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Kavanaugh Investigation(s)
« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2018, 05:33:40 PM »
Kavanaugh’s yearbook explanations are now backed by two former classmates:

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1047933928651276292/photo/1

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1047921408234463232

Again, good chance they’re misremembering something. Memory is malleable and open to suggestion. But this again shows why the charges of lying appear to be flimsy.* That said, if Democrats think they have the goods, then by all means they should try to prosecute him.

No one should walk away from this when there’s clear evidence of perjury or lying to the Senate. On that note, Avenatti and his clients’ allegations need to be thoroughly investigated.

* Perjury requires more than a lie under oath. The lie must be material to the proceedings. Kavanaugh’s yearbook entries are not material. Even if he lied, it wouldn’t be perjury. It might still be criminal because it’s lying to the Senate.


How does this hold more weight than what his college roommate wrote?

The Yale roommate who doesn’t claim that he even went to Georgetown prep? The one who claims with confidence that Kavanaugh’s lying about never getting blackout drunk, not because Kavanaugh ever *said* to the roommate that he blacked out the night before, but because he was a sloppy and mean drunk? The roommate who, according to Kavanaugh, repeatedly got in fights with their third roommate?

I would at least take the word of two Georgetown students over the word of someone who apparently didn’t even go to the school and wouldn’t know their lingo.

On that note, should Ford be prosecuted because her ex boyfriend says she lied about never coaching anyone on a polygraph, her claustrophobia, and her fear of flying? I don’t think so.
Yes, the roommate who specified things Kavanaugh claimed under oath that he would testify were lies.

I like how you pretended you were discrediting his statements though.

You do realize there’s a difference between discrediting someone and putting the weight of their claims in context, right?

The fact that six different Georgetown prep grads are saying that Devil’s Triangle meant something else does outweigh the claims of Roche. As Georgetown grads, they are better situated to know what they meant than someone who wasn’t at the school. It doesn’t discredit Roche’s claim, but it does outweigh it in terms of evidentiary value.

Roche’s claim that Kavanaugh lied about not being blacked out because he appeared incoherent is self-discrediting. Even if everything Roche claimed was factually true, the idea that he knows Kavanaugh was blacked out based on his “incoherence” is absurd. He’s pushing a frivolous non-sequitur.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2018, 05:36:05 PM by Rufio »