Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

Yay!
Nay!
Who cares? The SCOTUS doesn't matter anyways.

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72405 times)

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1450 on: October 08, 2018, 01:58:33 PM »
A crime might have been the accusation, but it wasn't a trial.  Voting no doesn't mean you are convicting him of sexual assualt. It means you aren't giving him the job.

Garland certainly didn't get past his 'job interview' for much lesser "crimes". His "crime" was being nominated by a Democrat.

To me, voting "no" meant legitimizing the Democrats' conduct, which I found despicable.  It also would have set a dangerous precedent that any allegation -- even one with no corroboration -- could sink a nomination.  That's not a precedent I'm willing to set, even for a nominee that I didn't initially like.

So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 

Whether or not you want to believe the allegation from Dr. Ford, plenty else went on at his hearing that calls his appointment into question.

As to no corroboration, I don't know if that's true or not, because the greatest sham of an investigation occured to find out. And that was on a single allegation; multiple others were not investigated.  People who wanted to give information to the FBI were ignored.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1451 on: October 08, 2018, 02:05:38 PM »
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 
Until that is proven, one shouldn't state it as a proven fact.  What examples and proofs do you have in mind?

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1452 on: October 08, 2018, 02:06:34 PM »
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 

Whether or not you want to believe the allegation from Dr. Ford, plenty else went on at his hearing that calls his appointment into question.

This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.

It's all a moving target, it's all a fucking con game to make their base feel that this was illegitimate, and I'm saying this as someone who has voted for a Democratic Congressman since I've been able to vote -- you're in on the shenanigans if you fell for any of it.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1453 on: October 08, 2018, 02:07:21 PM »
Are you aware of our civil court system?  Do you have an opinion on why it is okay for the standard of proof to be lower in our civil court system than our criminal court system?  Do you think that because there is no presumption of innocence in the civil court system that defendants aren't afforded due process in that system?  Are you aware that the highest estimate of the false allegation rate is currently ~10%?

I'm an attorney.  I'm very aware of burdens of proof.  This was an incredibly murky situation regarding what burden of proof applied because the tribunal was irregular.

The lowest possible burden of proof here would have been preponderance -- more likely than not.  The plaintiff, or accuser, carries that burden.  Based on my observation and analysis of the evidence, Dr. Ford failed that burden.

And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

I don't think I understand this statement.  Why does the fact that the accusation was a crime lead you to believe that?

ETA:  So, I guess my question to you is if we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 02:30:24 PM by shenlong55 »

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1454 on: October 08, 2018, 02:13:25 PM »
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 
Until that is proven, one shouldn't state it as a proven fact.  What examples and proofs do you have in mind?

That he never drank to black out (which many people have refuted).
Quote
KAVANAUGH: I — passed out would be — no, but I’ve gone to sleep, but — but I’ve never blacked out. That’s the — that’s the — the allegation, and that — that — that’s wrong.

That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."

That he was never at a gathering like the one described by Dr.Ford.  That gathering, as described,  was just a group of his friends.  Um, really?
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?

KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.

There are text messages that show this isn't true:
Quote
HATCH: When was the first time that the ranking member or any of her colleagues or any of their staff asked you about Ms. Ramirez’s allegations?

KAVANAUGH: Today.


I also have a very hard time believing he played a drinking game called Devil's Triangle that no one else had ever heard of, when the rest of the country, including his area, seemed to be using the term to mean something very different.



I'm not putting him on trial for perjury, but I would certainly question his testimony and not give him a lifetime appointment to the highest position in our judiciary based on this testimony
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 02:26:45 PM by I'm a red panda »

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1455 on: October 08, 2018, 02:19:34 PM »
To me, voting "no" meant legitimizing the Democrats' conduct, which I found despicable.  It also would have set a dangerous precedent that any allegation -- even one with no corroboration --
There were four corroborating witnesses.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1456 on: October 08, 2018, 02:20:03 PM »
According to Lindsey Graham, it wasn't a job interview, it was hell. I'm not sure what the standard of proof for hell is.

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1457 on: October 08, 2018, 02:21:38 PM »
This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.
They proved both that he sexually assaulted Ford and that he was a drunk. Do you have a source on the Devil's Triangle thing?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1458 on: October 08, 2018, 02:26:05 PM »
This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.
They proved both that he sexually assaulted Ford and that he was a drunk. Do you have a source on the Devil's Triangle thing?

(Preferably a source that predates the hearing.)

dustinst22

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1459 on: October 08, 2018, 02:27:24 PM »


You appear to be forgetting 1) her therapist - medical witnesses are counted as strong witnesses in court, were we in court, and 2) the lie detector test and the ex  FBI agent who took it.


You're right, these could prove to be corroborative.

The problem is, Christine Ford has refused to turn over her therapy notes or any of the documentation from her polygraph test. If she is telling the truth, these would be enormously important corroborative evidence in her favor. If she is not telling the truth, these materials might destroy her case and, at a minimum, open her up to perjury charges. The fact that she will not turn over the evidence seems to indicate that it falls into the latter category, not the former.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1460 on: October 08, 2018, 02:28:08 PM »
This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.
They proved both that he sexually assaulted Ford and that he was a drunk. Do you have a source on the Devil's Triangle thing?

(Preferably a source that predates the hearing.)

Jaime Roche, his Yale roommate?

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1461 on: October 08, 2018, 02:31:25 PM »
This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.
They proved both that he sexually assaulted Ford and that he was a drunk. Do you have a source on the Devil's Triangle thing?

Two letters were sent to the Judiciary Committee:

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

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-04%20College%20Letter%20re%20Devil's%20Triangle.pdf

Also, another classmate had in his yearbook had references that make pretty clear it's a drinking game: https://medium.com/@climatebrad/brett-kavanaughs-georgetown-prep-yearbook-explained-1bfea9bc047c

"Roland Goco; Paul G. Murray “Devil’s Triangle 3”; Bernard McCarthy’s entry lists “Devil’s Triangle (founder of the name)”; Juan Carlos del Real “Lost in Devil’s Triangle 3, 4.” Richard Schoeb Jr.: “Devil’s Triangle (participant).”

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1462 on: October 08, 2018, 02:35:20 PM »
That he never drank to black out (which many people have refuted).
No, people said he was a belligerent drunk, etc., but AFAIK nobody has said he drank to black out.

Quote
That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."
Don't know what the question was to which that was the answer, but there's no lying under oath in that statement alone.

Quote
That he was never at a gathering like the one described by Dr.Ford.  That gathering, as described,  was just a group of his friends.  Um, really?
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?
KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.
"Fits that description" would include Ford "also...present."  Now we're back to the heart of the matter: did Kavanaugh attack Ford?  If yes, the "ever at a gathering that fits" debate is irrelevant due to the more serious matter.  If no, then Kavanaugh is on firm ground.

Quote
I also have a very hard time believing he played a drinking game called Devil's Triangle that no one else had ever heard of, when the rest of the country, including his area, seemed to be using the term to mean something very different.
I'd never heard of it in any context, but he has corroboration from friends that back his story.

Quote
I'm not putting him on trial for perjury, but I would certainly question his testimony and not give him a lifetime appointment to the highest position in our judiciary based on this testimony.
And a bunch of senators who voted against him would agree with you.  Of course, most had pretty much decided to vote against him before any of this came out, or even before he was nominated.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1463 on: October 08, 2018, 02:41:02 PM »
Quote
That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."
Don't know what the question was to which that was the answer, but there's no lying under oath in that statement alone.

Possibly relevant word that I learned recently:  Paltering.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1464 on: October 08, 2018, 02:45:20 PM »
Quote
That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."
Don't know what the question was to which that was the answer, but there's no lying under oath in that statement alone.

Possibly relevant word that I learned recently:  Paltering.

Good word for it.  I think that matches what he was doing.  But, it doesn't make him guilty of lying to the senate under oath. 

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1465 on: October 08, 2018, 02:59:09 PM »
A crime might have been the accusation, but it wasn't a trial.  Voting no doesn't mean you are convicting him of sexual assualt. It means you aren't giving him the job.

Garland certainly didn't get past his 'job interview' for much lesser "crimes". His "crime" was being nominated by a Democrat.

To me, voting "no" meant legitimizing the Democrats' conduct, which I found despicable.  It also would have set a dangerous precedent that any allegation -- even one with no corroboration -- could sink a nomination.  That's not a precedent I'm willing to set, even for a nominee that I didn't initially like.

But you like him now?  How do you think Renate Schroeder feels about all of this?  Do you think he told the truth that all the cracks in the yearbook about her were not about sex? 

He was willing to admit he likes beer, but he couldn't tell the truth about poor Renate. I feel like an echo. I've brought her up 1000 times in this thread, and not one single defender of Kavanaugh is willing to admit that they buy his story that the reason a bunch of football players said they were Renata alumni was "affection" and not a joke about sex.  You guys all know it was about sex.  And because you know that, you know he lied.  He lied, because telling the truth made him look like the asshole he was when he was 17.  By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

If you don't believe me, you could ask Renate how she feels.  Oh yeah-she's devastated and prays that no one does that to these assholes' daughters. That sure sounds like it was about affection.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1466 on: October 08, 2018, 02:59:31 PM »

Quote
That he was never at a gathering like the one described by Dr.Ford.  That gathering, as described,  was just a group of his friends.  Um, really?
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?
KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.
"Fits that description" would include Ford "also...present."  Now we're back to the heart of the matter: did Kavanaugh attack Ford?  If yes, the "ever at a gathering that fits" debate is irrelevant due to the more serious matter.  If no, then Kavanaugh is on firm ground.

I have a lot of trouble with the logic on this one.  Surely the starting point is: Ford described a gathering, Kavanaugh denies there was ever such a gathering, a gathering of that description is recorded in Kavanaugh's calendar.  How did Ford know about that gathering recorded in Kavanaugh's diary if she wasn't there?  The preponderance of evidence suggests that despite Kavanaugh's denials there was a gathering at which Ford and Kavanaugh (and others who were named by Ford) were present and at which beer was drunk.  Kavanaugh's denial is unconvincing, given his calendar.  (I expect that he had to produce the calendar because so many people, including his parents, his wife and his kids all knew about it.)

The secondary question, that comes after the evidence of the gathering, is what happened at the gathering.  Did Kavanaugh and Judge sexually assault Ford at that gathering and put her in fear of her life?  She says yes, he says no, others say they can't remember.   A dispassionate view, from reading the transcript and watching the behaviour of the two witnesses, would say that Ford was the more credible witness (ask any lawyer which of the two they would prefer as a witness on their side).

I just don't see how the logic of "oh the evidence of the gathering is irrelevant because what did or did not happen at it is more important" works.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1467 on: October 08, 2018, 03:02:50 PM »
Quote
That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."
Don't know what the question was to which that was the answer, but there's no lying under oath in that statement alone.
Possibly relevant word that I learned recently:  Paltering.
Possibly, but now that I went back to see the actual transcript, probably not.  From Kavanaugh hearing: Transcript - The Washington Post:
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. Did you consume alcohol during your high school years?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1468 on: October 08, 2018, 03:06:04 PM »

Quote
That he was never at a gathering like the one described by Dr.Ford.  That gathering, as described,  was just a group of his friends.  Um, really?
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?
KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.
"Fits that description" would include Ford "also...present."  Now we're back to the heart of the matter: did Kavanaugh attack Ford?  If yes, the "ever at a gathering that fits" debate is irrelevant due to the more serious matter.  If no, then Kavanaugh is on firm ground.

I have a lot of trouble with the logic on this one.  Surely the starting point is: Ford described a gathering, Kavanaugh denies there was ever such a gathering, a gathering of that description is recorded in Kavanaugh's calendar.  How did Ford know about that gathering recorded in Kavanaugh's diary if she wasn't there?  The preponderance of evidence suggests that despite Kavanaugh's denials there was a gathering at which Ford and Kavanaugh (and others who were named by Ford) were present and at which beer was drunk.  Kavanaugh's denial is unconvincing, given his calendar.  (I expect that he had to produce the calendar because so many people, including his parents, his wife and his kids all knew about it.)

The secondary question, that comes after the evidence of the gathering, is what happened at the gathering.  Did Kavanaugh and Judge sexually assault Ford at that gathering and put her in fear of her life?  She says yes, he says no, others say they can't remember.   A dispassionate view, from reading the transcript and watching the behaviour of the two witnesses, would say that Ford was the more credible witness (ask any lawyer which of the two they would prefer as a witness on their side).

I just don't see how the logic of "oh the evidence of the gathering is irrelevant because what did or did not happen at it is more important" works.
Because now we're talking about "lying under oath to the Senate" and whether that (not "did Kavanaugh attack Ford?") is a proven fact.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1469 on: October 08, 2018, 03:10:00 PM »

Quote
That he was never at a gathering like the one described by Dr.Ford.  That gathering, as described,  was just a group of his friends.  Um, really?
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?
KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.
"Fits that description" would include Ford "also...present."  Now we're back to the heart of the matter: did Kavanaugh attack Ford?  If yes, the "ever at a gathering that fits" debate is irrelevant due to the more serious matter.  If no, then Kavanaugh is on firm ground.

I have a lot of trouble with the logic on this one.  Surely the starting point is: Ford described a gathering, Kavanaugh denies there was ever such a gathering, a gathering of that description is recorded in Kavanaugh's calendar.  How did Ford know about that gathering recorded in Kavanaugh's diary if she wasn't there?  The preponderance of evidence suggests that despite Kavanaugh's denials there was a gathering at which Ford and Kavanaugh (and others who were named by Ford) were present and at which beer was drunk.  Kavanaugh's denial is unconvincing, given his calendar.  (I expect that he had to produce the calendar because so many people, including his parents, his wife and his kids all knew about it.)

The secondary question, that comes after the evidence of the gathering, is what happened at the gathering.  Did Kavanaugh and Judge sexually assault Ford at that gathering and put her in fear of her life?  She says yes, he says no, others say they can't remember.   A dispassionate view, from reading the transcript and watching the behaviour of the two witnesses, would say that Ford was the more credible witness (ask any lawyer which of the two they would prefer as a witness on their side).

I just don't see how the logic of "oh the evidence of the gathering is irrelevant because what did or did not happen at it is more important" works.
Because now we're talking about "lying under oath to the Senate" and whether that (not "did Kavanaugh attack Ford?") is a proven fact.

If it's lying to the Senate that matters, Kavanaugh's denial of the gathering recorded in his calendar was a lie.    But wasn't it your post that raised the attack itself as "the heart of the matter?  That's why I challenged the logic of your statement on that.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1470 on: October 08, 2018, 03:26:19 PM »
If it's lying to the Senate that matters, Kavanaugh's denial of the gathering recorded in his calendar was a lie.
You may want to believe that it is a lie.  And it's not an indefensible belief, but it's by no means a certainty.  E.g., see Brett Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry that could help Ford’s case, explained - Vox for what appears to be a reasonably balanced analysis.

For more, see Transcript: Brett Kavanaugh's Opening Statement from Today | Time:
Quote
Less than two weeks ago, Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, have said they recall no such event. Her longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me, and does not believe she ever saw me at a party, ever.

Here is the quote from Ms. Keyser’s attorney’s letter: quote, “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,” end quote.

Quote
But wasn't it your post that raised the attack itself as "the heart of the matter?  That's why I challenged the logic of your statement on that.
This side-trip started with
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 
Until that is proven, one shouldn't state it as a proven fact.  What examples and proofs do you have in mind?
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1471 on: October 08, 2018, 03:33:37 PM »
If it's lying to the Senate that matters, Kavanaugh's denial of the gathering recorded in his calendar was a lie.
You may want to believe that it is a lie.  And it's not an indefensible belief, but it's by no means a certainty.  E.g., see Brett Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry that could help Ford’s case, explained - Vox for what appears to be a reasonably balanced analysis.

For more, see Transcript: Brett Kavanaugh's Opening Statement from Today | Time:
Quote
Less than two weeks ago, Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, have said they recall no such event. Her longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me, and does not believe she ever saw me at a party, ever.

Here is the quote from Ms. Keyser’s attorney’s letter: quote, “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,” end quote.

Quote
But wasn't it your post that raised the attack itself as "the heart of the matter?  That's why I challenged the logic of your statement on that.
This side-trip started with
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 
Until that is proven, one shouldn't state it as a proven fact.  What examples and proofs do you have in mind?
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.
Kavanaugh quoted in the transcript of the hearing: "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation."  That is a flat-out lie, testified to by Dr Ford and by Kavanaugh's own calendar.  And it is that lie which allows the gullible to say that as there was no gathering at which Kavanaugh and Ford were present that their was either no assault or that the assault was by somebody else (the Senator Collins defence).  So not, not incorrect and not a trivial lie by Kavanaugh.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1472 on: October 08, 2018, 03:39:13 PM »
Kavanaugh quoted in the transcript of the hearing: "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation."  That is a flat-out lie, testified to by Dr Ford and by Kavanaugh's own calendar.  And it is that lie which allows the gullible to say that as there was no gathering at which Kavanaugh and Ford were present that their was either no assault or that the assault was by somebody else (the Senator Collins defence).  So not, not incorrect and not a trivial lie by Kavanaugh.
At least we are up to a four letter word (like) instead of a two letter word (is) when we debate its meaning.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1473 on: October 08, 2018, 03:47:47 PM »
Kavanaugh quoted in the transcript of the hearing: "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation."  That is a flat-out lie, testified to by Dr Ford and by Kavanaugh's own calendar.  And it is that lie which allows the gullible to say that as there was no gathering at which Kavanaugh and Ford were present that their was either no assault or that the assault was by somebody else (the Senator Collins defence).  So not, not incorrect and not a trivial lie by Kavanaugh.
At least we are up to a four letter word (like) instead of a two letter word (is) when we debate its meaning.

Right.  Although a debate which is unhelpful to Kavanaugh: he says he never attended a gathering "similar to" the one mentioned by Ford which means that any trivial differences between Ford's account and the calendar entry become irrelevant.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1474 on: October 08, 2018, 03:50:17 PM »
Quote
That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."
Don't know what the question was to which that was the answer, but there's no lying under oath in that statement alone.

Possibly relevant word that I learned recently:  Paltering.

Good word for it.  I think that matches what he was doing.  But, it doesn't make him guilty of lying to the senate under oath.

It may not technically be a lie, since a lie is "an intentionally false statement", but I think the common usage of the term may be closer to "an intentionally deceptive statement".  And I don't know about you, but I feel disrespected and am less inclined to believe a speaker in the future anytime they intentionally deceive me, not just when they intentionally tell me something false.

ETA: I'm also curious if any of you guys are going to address Wexler's questions about Renate Schroeder...

But you like him now?  How do you think Renate Schroeder feels about all of this?  Do you think he told the truth that all the cracks in the yearbook about her were not about sex? 

He was willing to admit he likes beer, but he couldn't tell the truth about poor Renate. I feel like an echo. I've brought her up 1000 times in this thread, and not one single defender of Kavanaugh is willing to admit that they buy his story that the reason a bunch of football players said they were Renata alumni was "affection" and not a joke about sex.  You guys all know it was about sex.  And because you know that, you know he lied.  He lied, because telling the truth made him look like the asshole he was when he was 17.  By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

If you don't believe me, you could ask Renate how she feels.  Oh yeah-she's devastated and prays that no one does that to these assholes' daughters. That sure sounds like it was about affection.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 03:57:20 PM by shenlong55 »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1475 on: October 08, 2018, 04:19:23 PM »
ETA: I'm also curious if any of you guys are going to address Wexler's questions about Renate Schroeder...
No idea what went on there, but every time it comes up the following comes to mind: Client/server computing is a little like teenage sex – everyone talks about it, few actually do it, and even fewer do it right.

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1476 on: October 08, 2018, 04:33:12 PM »
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 

Whether or not you want to believe the allegation from Dr. Ford, plenty else went on at his hearing that calls his appointment into question.

This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.

It's all a moving target, it's all a fucking con game to make their base feel that this was illegitimate, and I'm saying this as someone who has voted for a Democratic Congressman since I've been able to vote -- you're in on the shenanigans if you fell for any of it.

Of course it was political bs - Republicans played Democrats, again.  It's all about projection.  I laughed when I saw the tweets about Soros paying protesters.  Because how convenient that Women for Kavanuagh had a bus and lots of money for ads, not just signs that even I could pay for.  I wonder how that was paid for??? How convenient that the Women for Trump group was started by Ann Stone, ex and former business partner of Roger Stone.  There have been so many dirty tricks on the side of the Republicans that I am more disgusted than I was with Kavanuagh and Gingrich's tricks back in 1990 and 1991.  You remember he said what goes around, comes around?  More projection.  You think the claims of lying were D tricks?

Read this - https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

And the Leahy issue - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/01/brett-kavanaugh-misleading-statements-under-oath/1492254002/

I am inclined to believe the Leahy issue as Grassley and Hatch kept interrupting and giving Kavanaugh cover. 

And disgusting?  That would be Trump and his administration.  Kids in cages, mocking a victim of sexual assault, endless lies, endless corruption, the list goes freaking on and on. 
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 04:35:53 PM by Unique User »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1477 on: October 08, 2018, 04:34:55 PM »
ETA: I'm also curious if any of you guys are going to address Wexler's questions about Renate Schroeder...
No idea what went on there, but every time it comes up the following comes to mind: Client/server computing is a little like teenage sex – everyone talks about it, few actually do it, and even fewer do it right.
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 04:36:29 PM by shenlong55 »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1478 on: October 08, 2018, 04:49:02 PM »
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
Then you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "and".  It does not imply "therefore".

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1479 on: October 08, 2018, 04:51:38 PM »
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
Then you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "and".  It does not imply "therefore".

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.

Yeah, I know.  That's not where I got the implication.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1480 on: October 08, 2018, 04:59:50 PM »
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
Then you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "and".  It does not imply "therefore".

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.

Yeah, I know.  That's not where I got the implication.
At least we agree on something. :)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1481 on: October 08, 2018, 05:00:17 PM »
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 

Whether or not you want to believe the allegation from Dr. Ford, plenty else went on at his hearing that calls his appointment into question.

This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.

It's all a moving target, it's all a fucking con game to make their base feel that this was illegitimate, and I'm saying this as someone who has voted for a Democratic Congressman since I've been able to vote -- you're in on the shenanigans if you fell for any of it.

Some of Kavanaugh's friends claim it was a drinking game. 2 High School friends claim it was a sexual connotation. Kavanaughs former Yale roommate claimed Kavanaugh used the phrase frequently in college as a sexual connotation. The online entry of the phrase also notes it as a sexual connotation. If you are alleging it's the truth because you simply picked a side, you are as guilty of the same bullshit you accused Dems of doing. 

BTW, Dems didn't have to show he was a drunk. Kavanugh was a well known drunk. Should they have tried to prove he is male as well? Jesus!

FIRE_Buckeye

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Age: 29
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1482 on: October 08, 2018, 05:00:40 PM »

And disgusting?  That would be Trump and his administration.  Kids in cages, mocking a victim of sexual assault, endless lies, endless corruption, the list goes freaking on and on.
Fair points.
That said, until liberals stop stomping their feet and crying like children long enough to formulate a reasonable platform beyond "Donald Trump and his Republican party are deplorable", those deplorables will continue winning elections at every level.

The people in the middle who decide elections care about real issues that can or could affect their everyday lives, not partisan rhetoric.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1483 on: October 08, 2018, 05:16:25 PM »
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
Then you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "and".  It does not imply "therefore".

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.

Yeah, I know.  That's not where I got the implication.
At least we agree on something. :)

So, you're response to the Renate Schroeder question is a non-answer that if anything supports the view that he lied under oath and you think I mistook the meaning of the word "and"?  I think Wexler had it right...

You guys all know it was about sex.  And because you know that, you know he lied.  He lied, because telling the truth made him look like the asshole he was when he was 17.  By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 05:18:11 PM by shenlong55 »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1484 on: October 08, 2018, 05:34:08 PM »
So, you're response to the Renate Schroeder question is a non-answer that if anything supports the view that he lied under oath and you think I mistook the meaning of the word "and"?
My primary response to the Renate Schroeder question was that I have no idea what went on there.  See https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2163001/#msg2163001 in which the "and" issue had no reference to Ms. Schroeder.

Quote
I think Wexler had it right...
You guys all know it was about sex.  And because you know that, you know he lied.  He lied, because telling the truth made him look like the asshole he was when he was 17.
On this particular point, that may be correct.  Wouldn't be at all surprising if 17-18 year old boys were claiming to have more sex than they did.
Quote
By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
Would you prefer that he said something like "yeah, we heard she made it with a few guys so a bunch of us decided to claim credit too"?  Or was it better that he said nice things about her now?  In this instance, even if he was lying about what the yearbook comment implied at the time, no I don't think that in any way disqualifies him as a justice now.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1485 on: October 08, 2018, 05:45:56 PM »
So, you're response to the Renate Schroeder question is a non-answer that if anything supports the view that he lied under oath and you think I mistook the meaning of the word "and"?
My primary response to the Renate Schroeder question was that I have no idea what went on there.  See https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2163001/#msg2163001 in which the "and" issue had no reference to Ms. Schroeder.

I already told you the "and" is not where I got the implication.

Quote
I think Wexler had it right...
You guys all know it was about sex.  And because you know that, you know he lied.  He lied, because telling the truth made him look like the asshole he was when he was 17.
On this particular point, that may be correct.  Wouldn't be at all surprising if 17-18 year old boys were claiming to have more sex than they did.
Quote
By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
Would you prefer that he said something like "yeah, we heard she made it with a few guys so a bunch of us decided to claim credit too"?  Or was it better that he said nice things about her now?  In this instance, even if he was lying about what the yearbook comment implied at the time, no I don't think that in any way disqualifies him as a justice now.

So, which part of my previous post was incorrect then?

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?

And maybe you would like to go revise your previous post?

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 05:50:49 PM by shenlong55 »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1486 on: October 08, 2018, 06:04:20 PM »
So, which part of my previous post was incorrect then?

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
The part where you assumed what I said there included anything about Ms. Schroeder.  It did not.  I was responding to I'm a red panda's points in https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2162895/#msg2162895

Quote
And maybe you would like to go revise your previous post?

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.
Nope, not regarding I'm a red panda's points.  As noted, the point regarding Ms. Schroeder is different.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1487 on: October 08, 2018, 07:05:13 PM »
Well, according to Trump, he was proven innocent.

Does anyone know when that happened?

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1488 on: October 08, 2018, 07:09:02 PM »
So, which part of my previous post was incorrect then?

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
The part where you assumed what I said there included anything about Ms. Schroeder.  It did not.  I was responding to I'm a red panda's points in https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2162895/#msg2162895

Quote
And maybe you would like to go revise your previous post?

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.
Nope, not regarding I'm a red panda's points.  As noted, the point regarding Ms. Schroeder is different.

Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 07:12:17 PM by shenlong55 »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1489 on: October 08, 2018, 07:16:04 PM »
On this particular point, that may be correct.  Wouldn't be at all surprising if 17-18 year old boys were claiming to have more sex than they did.
Quote
By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
Would you prefer that he said something like "yeah, we heard she made it with a few guys so a bunch of us decided to claim credit too"?  Or was it better that he said nice things about her now?  In this instance, even if he was lying about what the yearbook comment implied at the time, no I don't think that in any way disqualifies him as a justice now.
[/quote]

At my husband's high school, it was said that a girl gave head to the entire football team.  Rumor or true, who knows. (Sounds like the stuff porn is made of.) But I'm sure it's not the only instance of a rumor or truth about a girl who may have a lot of experience, real or imagined.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1490 on: October 08, 2018, 07:20:24 PM »
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1491 on: October 08, 2018, 07:29:04 PM »
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1492 on: October 08, 2018, 07:41:33 PM »
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1493 on: October 08, 2018, 07:57:09 PM »
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1494 on: October 08, 2018, 08:08:13 PM »
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1495 on: October 08, 2018, 08:17:06 PM »
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....

No, no I don't think it does.  I know it's a common misconception currently that telling the truth requires one to be an asshole, but I am in vehement disagreement with that notion.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1496 on: October 08, 2018, 08:23:06 PM »
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....
No, no I don't think it does.  I know it's a common misconception currently that telling the truth requires one to be an asshole, but I am in vehement disagreement with that notion.
OK, as I said you have a defensible position.

If the situation is similar to what Kbecks described in https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2163221/#msg2163221, I think Kavanaugh chose the better part of valor not to say it.  You may disagree, and so it goes.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1497 on: October 08, 2018, 08:23:11 PM »
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....

He could have said something along the lines of, "it was an inside joke among immature high school boys, and I'd rather not elaborate" and if it wasn't true he could add "it wasn't based on her actions, we were being crude and she happened to be the butt of the joke". And then most importantly, "I'm sorry Renate".


shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1498 on: October 08, 2018, 08:41:58 PM »
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....

He could have said something along the lines of, "it was an inside joke among immature high school boys, and I'd rather not elaborate" and if it wasn't true he could add "it wasn't based on her actions, we were being crude and she happened to be the butt of the joke". And then most importantly, "I'm sorry Renate".

@MDM ^this.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1499 on: October 08, 2018, 09:04:58 PM »
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....
He could have said something along the lines of, "it was an inside joke among immature high school boys, and I'd rather not elaborate" and if it wasn't true he could add "it wasn't based on her actions, we were being crude and she happened to be the butt of the joke". And then most importantly, "I'm sorry Renate".
Ah, so if he said "I'm sorry" all would be forgiven and he would have been confirmed unanimously?

It's important to note that it was not Kavanaugh who dragged this into the open, it was those trying to scuttle his nomination.  It would be reasonable to assume they didn't much care who got hurt along the way.

But I do agree those could have been good things to say if they fit the facts.