1. I'm pretty sure I already told you this, but it was a while ago so I'll repeat. Devil's Triangle. Boofing. Renate Alumni.
Several of his former classmates including his former roommate claim he was lying about these things/frequently used some of the terms in a sexual context. New York Times reporters had extensive interviews with them and concluded that it appears he lied.

2. Because it was an extremely obvious reference to a sexual conquest. Kavanaugh is not an idiot, and would obviously know how people would interpret that phrase.
Yeah, I don't know if someone planted the bloody knife in the suspect's hand as he was caught standing over a dead body either. That's no reason for me to not harp on about what appears to be extremely obvious. And you can ask Renate herself how she feels about it.

3. https://globalnews.ca/video/4483387/i-did-not-have-sexual-intercourse-in-high-school-kavanaugh
But whether he did or not doesn't matter. Someone who didn't have sex can act as if they did. Supposedly him and Renate didn't have sex, but he made it seem as if they did, in his yearbook.

4. I've said several times that teenage behavior like this is fine. How am I pretending that it's not ok? You don't seem to be reading my posts properly.
I said that lying under oath about it, or anything, is what's not ok. Especially for a judge.

His reputation and life will never be the same.  His life will be permanently in danger because of this.  He has lost a job over this.  His daughters will face consequences.  His wife will face consequences.  This will be the first thing mentioned when he dies.

There's a certain smugness in the whole notion that having basic human emotions in response to an injustice is itself disqualifying.  It's not just you, I know that the final argument made against him was, "Well, we can't prove this, but look, he didn't take his public humiliation with humility.  That proves he's not qualified."  However, it's a ridiculous standard to put someone up against.

He gets to be judge in the highest court of the land and people will forget. Heck he wasn't the first judge to be accused of something like this yet people barely remember the other one did anything. His life isn't in danger and you know it, or at least you should. Ford on the other hand couldn't go home even after the senate confirmed him. Nobody gives a shit about his wife and kids and probably won't face much in the years to come. 

And that certain smugness? Your side is always screaming "triggered" when the Trump administration does something horrible, but human emotions are only reserved to conservatives it seems. Kavanaugh followed the Trump way of deny deny deny and attack anyone questioning you. The only person who was a smug was Kavanaugh himself when instead of answering questions about drinking he just replied by "have you?". He even had to apologized to her given that her father was a drinker. 

1. Sure. And by the way, as I was in a rush I forgot to list 2-3 other cases where Kavanaugh potentially perjured himself. Two of them date back to the 2000's, which became apparent a few months ago as the senate reviewed over a hundred thousand pages of documents about Kavanaugh. An official complaint was made to the D.C. circuit and a judge was overseeing the case, but as Kavanaugh was confirmed before it concluded, it's uncertain what will happen to it. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6229253/Brett-Kavanaugh-faces-official-ethics-complaints-Merrick-Garland-decide-them.html

And here's what Kavanaugh said about Renate alumnius: "The media reported that it referred to sex. It did not." https://youtu.be/4ccXpDhMmBY?t=144

And again, I'm not condemning him for potentially slut shaming a girl, drinking excessively, or having casual sex. We all did stupid things as teenagers.
But most of us did not grow up to then swear an oath to uphold as a judge. I can understand white lies. But when you are a federal judge, it is concerning if they disregard the oath when it's not convenient. Not to mention that it's an illegal punishable offense.

So I hope you understand now, as I don't know how I can explain this any better.
Slut shaming, having sex, excessive drinking = Understandable.
Being a judge and lying about it under oath = Not ok.

As for Devil's Triangle, same thing as I just said above. If he had just said that it was a sexual reference, no one would pay more attention to it. However, assuming it is true that it was also a drinking game he and his friends came up with, if you and your friends come up with a drinking game called "doggy style" and you write "Doggy style" in your yearbook, just like that with no additional context. Would you or would you not presume that people reading your comment would think of the sexual reference?
Rhetorical question. Of course you would. If you did not want them to think you meant the commonly known sexual reference, you would add context to specify otherwise.
Several of his classmates including his roommate said he frequently used some of these terms in a sexual context.

As for boofing, it supposedly refers to something going into the ass, rather than out of it. Reporters extensively interviewed Kavanaugh's former classmates about this.

Based on extensive interviews by me and @katekelly with Kavanaugh's former Georgetown Prep classmates, what he just said about the meanings of "boofed" and "Devil's Triangle" is not true.

— David Enrich (@davidenrich) September 27, 2018

" Ford on the other hand couldn't go home even after the senate confirmed him"

based on what? i've heard that the families of both got death threats... why assume that ford's abuse was worse especially when you consider that most of the country was against kavanaugh?

ford is now $700 000 richer and is regarded as a hero by most, so its a bit asinine to imply that she's suffering

"Your side is always screaming "triggered" when the Trump administration does something horrible"

examples?most people refer to the children put into jail... without mentioning that it started under obama

and way to wear that tribe as a badge man... i'm sure that'll be good for you in the long run

"human emotions are only reserved to conservatives it seems."

human emotions regarding what?

"Kavanaugh followed the Trump way of deny deny deny and attack anyone questioning you."

and has been proven correct with regards to most of the accusations  by any reasonable standard 

"The only person who was a smug was Kavanaugh himself when instead of answering questions about drinking"

because they were fucking retarded since everyone knows how common teenage drinking is

the sole purpose of those questions was to give people like you a narrative to follow

1) Only half the country was against Kavanaugh, and he gets protection while she would have to pay for it.

2) The main issue wasn't putting children in cages, it was separating families which is a policy the Trump administration started. The pictures you seem from 2015 are from unaccompanied minors. Plus I don't care about your whataboutism, talk about wearing that tribe as a badge.

3) He could've admitted to drinking as a teenager, say he never sexually abused Ford and feel sorry for if anyone did. That would've been the mature thing to do. Instead, before the hearing, he tried to paint himself as a saint saying that he didn't drink whatsoever, only for more information to come out showing how much of a liar he was. Did you honestly forget that?

Your surety is a result of a presupposition about her motivations for testifying. Suppose she had anti-progressive messages instead; are you saying you'd have more reason to believe her?

 1.  I gave a 17-point list detailing why I was sure of which the scrubbing of the history is only the first.

 2.  Of course if she were a federalist society credentialed lawyer she would have more credibility than a professor from a California university.  Then she truly wouldn’t have a motivation for coming forward.

And before you complain, “motivation” and the supposed lack thereof was constantly tossed around during the hearings.  And since a political motivation would be the most likely cause for a false claim, it is relevant.

Also, I didn’t put it on my original list despite certainly thinking it.

This is a false dichotomy fallacy. The choice isn't public or anonymous. The choice was public or private. You don't need to be anonymous in private.

In order to make the accusation, she would need to do so publicly.  There is a dichotomy there.

Nobody was suggesting the building itself wasn't secure. It's her travelling where she would be susceptible.

That’s a novel complaint and does not show up anywhere in the complaints about security.  Can't imagine it's all that likely that a would-be assassin would just so happen to be among the few dozen people on the flight or that flying incognito would present any difficulty.  By all means, present your own source on that for once.

The consequence of her fear of flying was delay. This is not the same as deliberately delaying.

But she flew nonetheless.  What is different about flying out between Sunday and Wednesday that would cause a delay in the hearings?

This isn't evidence.  

The ubiquity of the knowledge is evidence.  The unlikelihood of her lawyers would betray their client by withholding such knowledge even if she had gone dark and endanger their professional credentials is also evidence.  In fact, put together, it comes to strong and damning evidence.  It is incredibly unlikely that both these circumstances occurred.

 She got caught in a lie here.

 Oh I see you were offering useless testimony then. Got it.

No, I am not offering testimony at all.  I am stating basic psychology principles that even a layman might be familiar with.  I see you’re trying to make it about me, but this is about the obviously false nature of her testimony.

The fact is that it’s well known within psychology that memories of traumatic events are very much subject to reinterpretation after the fact.  You don’t need to be an expert witness to know this.  That a psychology professor would make such a basic error in order to support her testimony again cuts against her credibility.

Doesn't seem strange at all to any of the experts who analyzed her testimony that I've seen.

On its own, I would concede.  But as I am making clear, it was a part of a pattern.

You are welcome to your opinions of course.

Once again, the oddness of the action cuts against her credibility.

I think avoiding a particular person after having unwanted advances from them shows a change in action.

Sure, if the two had frequently interacted in the past and then she suddenly stopped.

But there’s no evidence that Kavanaugh and Ford were ever in the same room together in the first place or had met in any meaningful sense of the word.  So there is no pattern of behavior to be disrupted.

Were they in scenarios wherein this behavior should be apparent?

Are you saying that you think it’s normal for people to only behave strangely around their attackers after a sexual assault?  It tends to be a bit more generalized than that.

Okay?

Again, this is a part of the pattern that I’m laying out.  You’re poo-pooing it all away because it’s not definitive in and of itself, but Ford’s memory being limited to things that cannot be proven or disproven speaks to a pattern of deception with a mindfulness of not saying anything that could put her in danger of perjury.

All I'm saying is that memory is funny and we cannot control what gets banked.

And I am saying that the things she remembers and things she doesn’t are awfully convenient.

Well I know there's a certain group claiming Dr. Ford made up the entire event. Oh wait, you're in that group yourself.

Yes, but the official party line was to state that Ford was merely mistaken about Kavanaugh’s identity.  This is what public officials, talking heads, and even Kavanaugh himself stated.  In fact, they went out of their way to praise her.

They were afraid to directly challenge her specifically or the notion that she didn’t really want to stay anonymous or testify in private for political reasons where they could be accused of attacking a victim.  Republicans were so afraid of ads being used against them in future campaigns that they hired an outsider to ask questions  I didn’t mention it before, but her lawyers also demanded that the senators themselves question her.  What reason she would have to demand that politicians question her is unknown other than to ensure such ads get made. 

If this were an actual trial though, any lawyer worth their salt would be all over her for the reasons I listed above and many more.  They would have shredded her testimony so easily.

I'm too lazy too look back but I'm pretty sure this chain was about the FBI not the senate so I don't understand your response.

You don’t understand that there was no need to use the FBI as a middleman for conveying new information and evidence to the Senate?

This is my mistake, I do apologize. Proximity and volume is important in this then. She did classify it as uproarious laughter so the expectation would be loud laughter.

So loud as to be heard clearly enough that it’d be the thing she’d remember most?  Was Judge’s commentary from the sidelines yelled so loud that it could be heard not only over music blaring to the point of drowning out cries for help, but comprehensible to a woman in the middle of fighting off an assault and scared that she would be suffocated to death?

This seems reasonable to you?

Right, but this is about only the materially relevant medical history. The senate would receive redacted records with only relevant facts exposed for their viewing, rather than Dr. Ford's entire medical history.

Why would the FBI redact anything?  They’re not in charge of deciding what’s relevant and keeping information from the Senate.

And if they didn't want irrelevant material included, is there something wrong with the sharpies in Ford’s lawyers' office?

Ah so you are of the position that Dr. Ford was lying?

Hmm, yeah.  We established that a week ago and it’s been repeated in each post since.

But let’s get back to your belief that believing Ford is lying is akin to believing in a magical stork and certainly not a parsimonious explanation.

What about this story has to be true?  What part couldn’t be explained by Ford just being a partisan who made a false accusation in order to stop a man she disliked from joining the Supreme Court?

She doesn't believe what she said, despite a polygraph showing otherwise? 

Polygraphs are pseudoscience.  There’s a reason why they’re not admissible in court.

Nobody is doing this. You can behave inappropriately without committing sexual assault. Kavanaugh wants us to believe he was perfectly behaved throughout his life while drinking copiously in his youth (most do), which is quite humorous indeed.

1.  You very much are doing this.  Because you’ve declared it magical thinking to believe that Ford wouldn’t be telling the truth based on Kavanaugh having drank beers in his youth.

2.  The claim that Kavanaugh testified he’d behaved perfectly is pure political talking point and ignores the parts of Kavanaugh’s testimony where he stated that he was, indeed, not perfect as a young adult but never engaged in the type of behavior that he was accused of.

None of those individuals meet the burden of "in their right mind" due to being emotionally comprised. Ford appeared composed and objective when giving testimony. 

Why would a false accuser be emotionally compromised and a real one objective?  That makes no sense.

Again, Ford’s testimony and the actions of her and her team of lawyers before and during the testimony paint a damning picture of her credibility.