(October 3, 2018 at 2:12 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Extraneous matters?  Lying to the committee under oath about when he first heard of the second accuser’s allegations is not extraneous.

What does the timing of his hearing it have to do with whether the charges are true or not? Nothing, therefore extraneous.

---

(October 3, 2018 at 2:18 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Testimony is never so straightforward as that though, is it?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christi...new-claims

Nope. Same with Ford's testimony, huh? All other named parties either deny it or at best can't recall it.

(October 3, 2018 at 2:23 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(October 3, 2018 at 2:12 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Extraneous matters?  Lying to the committee under oath about when he first heard of the second accuser’s allegations is not extraneous.

What does the timing of his hearing it have to do with whether the charges are true or not?

It has nothing directly to do with whether or not her allegations are true.  It has everything to do with whether or not a man who just last week lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath deserves to be a Supreme Court Justice.

---

(October 3, 2018 at 2:18 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Testimony is never so straightforward as that though, is it?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christi...new-claims

Quote:Nope. Same with Ford's testimony, huh? All other named parties either deny it or at best can't recall it.

I agree.

(October 3, 2018 at 2:16 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 3, 2018 at 1:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Kavanaugh's testimony about his drinking and partying is materially relevant because it affects the credibility of his claim to have never blacked out or had partial inability to recall events during his drinking.  Ford's polygraph experience, fear of flying, and number of doors in her home, not so much.  Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus indeed, but this is a little ridiculous.  If Kavanaugh lied about his drinking or partying, Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick's testimony is irrelevant as he's not fit to serve on the court at all.

Would you really have me believe that the FBI, in its previous 6 investigations, did not inquire about the drinking habits of someone entrusted with the nuclear launch codes of the United States?

What the fuck are you talking about, Neo? As to what you believe, I don't consider that an accurate barometer of anything as you're a deluded, dishonest, and misogynistic twat.

(October 3, 2018 at 2:21 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(October 3, 2018 at 2:12 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Extraneous matters?  Lying to the committee under oath about when he first heard of the second accuser’s allegations is not extraneous.

I think it is time to put that false story to rest, HERE. NBC selectively presented facts to put forth a false narrative.

Thank you. I do actually appreciate your research. It was more thorough than mine.  I am no more immune to implicit biases than anyone else. I agree; that was dishonest on the part of NBC, and I will stand corrected on that particular claim going forward.

(October 3, 2018 at 2:42 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What the fuck are you talking about, Neo?

When he worked in the Bush White House as Staff Secretary, he was entrusted with very high level national secrets, including the nuclear launch codes. Do you believe the FBI would allow a known drunk or someone with a history of drinking anywhere near those?

(October 3, 2018 at 2:42 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: as you're a deluded, dishonest, and misogynistic twat.

Is that what passes for rational discourse in your world?

I mean, I think it’s pretty clear at this point that he was a drunk, lol.

(October 3, 2018 at 2:56 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(October 3, 2018 at 2:21 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I think it is time to put that false story to rest, HERE. NBC selectively presented facts to put forth a false narrative.

Thank you. I do actually appreciate your research. It was more thorough than mine.  I am no more immune to implicit biases than anyone else. I agree; that was dishonest on the part of NBC, and I will stand corrected on that particular claim going forward.

Did you read it?  I don't understand the defense in this article.


Kavanaugh admitted, in a deposition conducted by Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, that he knew Ramirez was looking for dirt and calling around to a handful of shared acquaintances trying to substantiate her own claims, and that he discussed the flurry of activity with an "inner circle" of associates.

But Kavanaugh didn't find out precisely what Ramirez was telling reporters until reporters for The New Yorker asked him for comment.

That's the claim, but that wasn't the question, which was:



So he knew this woman had a claim she was looking for verification of, but he didn't know the details of that claim (is the claim on his behalf).

The question was if he ever discussed or heard discussion about it before the New Yorker, and it still appears to me that he did.  Yeah, he didn't know the full description, but he absolutely discussed what the accusations from Ramirez might be, that's what the texts were about.  He had a chance to elaborate and didn't.

It's also not the only possible  substantive lie.

Daily wire is highly bias and has a poor fact check rating

Further, these are not the only facts in this case.  There was quite a lot more to the line of questioning than the supposed Twitter Gotcha moment there reported by The Daily Wire.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?
KAVANAUGH: … In the New Yorker.
HATCH: Did the ranking member [Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)] or any of her colleagues or any of their staffs ask you about Ms. Ramirez’s allegations before they were leaked to the press?
KAVANAUGH: No.

The first answer is still possibly a lie, if the texts exist as we have heard. He knew she was making allegations before hand.  Vox says:

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett’s guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

Underline is mine.  If he wanted her to refute Ramirez, but didn't know what the allegations even were, what the hell would she even be refuting?

Don't appreciate his research, it's biased BS.

Thank you Aroura. The more Kavanaugh defenders post shit, the deeper the hole they dig, seems to get.

Finally, we don't have access to the texts, just descriptions of them.  Until they are released, we can only rely on what we do know.  One thing we know is that the person Kavanagh was texting said he wanted her to "go on record in his defense". 

If he didn't know anything about the nature of the accusations yet, then what exactly was he asking her to go on record defending him from?  She is the one going to the FBI with this stuff.  We may never get to see the texts, just her description of them.

This defense that he (Kavanagh) didn't know the full nature of the accusations, only that Ramirez was looking for general dirt, is not backed up by what we know.  It's them trying to twist words and misuse semantics, and guess what Kavanagh must have meant in his answer (putting words in his mouth) when he himself has not made this distinction.

Isn't it ironic Wooter and his mini me Beta Fail accuse us of bias then engage in biased reporting