By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 'I was angry and I sent it': Another Justice Brett Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting

o_O.Q said:
Hiku said:

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.


what his peers said renate alumni it means : "
Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players’ unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests."

can you post me the quote of kavanaugh saying this is not true? if i remember correctly he said it means something nice and i'd assume every man frames his conquests as being nice

why are you trying to frame the sexual activities of other people as bad?

you keep denying it but its obviously the motivational basis for the arguments you keep pushing forwards

 

with regards to devil's triangle he called it a drinking game, why can't he frame him drinking and having sex with people as a game? many people do

what doesn't make sense is to characterise that as a lie

 

with regards to boofing? what do you have on that? i asked you before and you simply ran away without answering the question

 

i think its interesting how instead of talking about what he was accused of and any supposed evidence people are just jumping around looking for any sign of misbehavior on his part over the entirety of his life... especially since i'm sure many of these people wouldn't enjoy similar scrutiny being leveled at them

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. New York Times extensively interviewed Kavanaugh's former classmates about this.


And you don't have to be rude. I told you I'll get back to you if I missed any of your replies.

As for finding it interesting that people talk about his conduct instead of the sexual allegations, I'm not doing that. I'm criticizing him for both. Because it was not just a hearing about his sexual assault allegations. It was also a job interview.

Last edited by Hiku - on 18 November 2018

Around the Network
adidas198 said:
NightlyPoe said:

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. 

" 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



Hiku said:
o_O.Q said:


what his peers said renate alumni it means : "
Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players’ unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests."

can you post me the quote of kavanaugh saying this is not true? if i remember correctly he said it means something nice and i'd assume every man frames his conquests as being nice

why are you trying to frame the sexual activities of other people as bad?

you keep denying it but its obviously the motivational basis for the arguments you keep pushing forwards

 

with regards to devil's triangle he called it a drinking game, why can't he frame him drinking and having sex with people as a game? many people do

what doesn't make sense is to characterise that as a lie

 

with regards to boofing? what do you have on that? i asked you before and you simply ran away without answering the question

 

i think its interesting how instead of talking about what he was accused of and any supposed evidence people are just jumping around looking for any sign of misbehavior on his part over the entirety of his life... especially since i'm sure many of these people wouldn't enjoy similar scrutiny being leveled at them

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.


And you don't have to be rude. I told you I'll get back to you if I missed any of your replies.

And if you find it interesting that people talk about his conduct instead of the sexual allegations, I don't see anyone doing that. There's no reason why he can't be criticized for both, however.

"And here's what Kavanaugh said about Renate alumnius: "The media reported that it referred to sex. It did not.""

ok and can you show me the evidence that for him at that point in time it did not? you understand that the claims of other people is not evidence when it comes to the written intent someone has? since anyone can have an assortment of reasons for writing something?

 

"it is concerning if they disregard the oath when it's not convenient. Not to mention that it's an illegal punishable offense."

punishable with evidence, what is your evidence? 

 

"So I hope you understand now"

i understand all the narratives you have been typing since they are not your arguments but came from reporters who reported on this issue

i don't think you understand what you are playing into yourself but that's besides the point

 

" 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"

as i've said many people refer to hanging out, drinking and having sex as a game, so again you have no argument

 

the thing you don't seem to be understanding here is that you are trying to ascribe the internal workings of a man's mind 30 years ago to words written 30 years ago, which is the stupidest thing ever, you can infer from the claims of his peers what his intent may have been but you can never determine it definitely

its a stupid narrative being pushed out since no one could bring forth direct evidence of his assaulting or raping anyone, so we jump straight to assassinating his character in anyway possible

 

" 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?"

yes that would be the first thing that comes to mind but as i have said people can have a multitude of reasons for writing certain things down

and i wouldn't be so stupid to suggest that this could be used as evidence for anything

 

"As for boofing, it supposedly"

supposedly, so why are you talking about it? you don't know what the intent was again so why bring it up?

this is how tenuous the attempts to make this man a villain have become - harping on about ass jokes made 30 years ago, "liberals" really have gone mad



o_O.Q said:
adidas198 said:

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. 

" 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?



adidas198 said:
o_O.Q said:

" 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?

"while she would have to pay for it."

based on what? who physically attacked her and where did they touch her?

 

"The main issue wasn't putting children in cages, it was separating families which is a policy the Trump administration started."

its not its asinine to suggest that the trump administration started the policy of separating criminals from their families, that has been the case since governments started locking people up and i'm quite sure you'd see it happening under obama, but that's ok because he comes from the right tribe 

 

". Plus I don't care about your whataboutism"

with regards to what? i asked a question i put an example out of what i figured you were talking about, if i was wrong can you give an actual example?

 

"he tried to paint himself as a saint saying that he didn't drink whatsoever"

and now you're lying, can you produce the quote of him saying he never drank whatsoever?



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
Hiku said:

1. There's no "regardless". Interrogations involves questions. Questions designed to prompt responses they otherwise may not give, or think of. The Senate are not trained to interrogate. Both Ford and Kavanaugh should have been questioned by the FBI after the hearing. And like I told you, she needed some help from investigators in at least one instance. Possibly more.

2. Let's not resort to arguing semantics now. You know exactly what I meant, but ignore the entire point and purely focusing on the semantics.
He constantly/consistently opposed an FBI investigation by deferring to "whatever the committee wants". Which everyone knew was 'no'. He also didn't want to take a lie detector test. What innocent person, who previously explained the importance of polygraphs for both screening of law enforcement and accuracy of witnesses, would suddenly not want to take one when their accuser did?
Especially in a case that would come down to credibility, an innocent person would beg for an FBI investigation and a polygraph, to appear innocent. He did the opposite.

3. Except Renate herself you mean? Who found it hurtful and shocking, and prays their daughters "won't be treated this way". As anyone would. Tell me if you believe "Renate allumni" was meant as a nice comment, and that he didn't obviously assume that people who would read it would think it referred to a sexual conquest?

4. He didn't have to go to Georgetown Prep to know that Devil's Triangle was a widely known sexual reference, and hearing Kavanaugh and his friends use it as a sexual reference regularly. And he's far from the only one making that claim.
Someone saying that it was a drinking game, even if true is not an indication of it not being a sexual reference. At best it only means they weren't aware of it's original meaning.
I had people in my class who had never heard the term 'thong' before. Doesn't mean it wasn't a very commonly used term. And it was.

5. If extensive interviews conducted by New York Times with Kavanaugh's former Georgetown Prep classmates does not convince you, then I'm sure nothing will.

6. Two men having intercourse with a woman is not homosexuality. And yes, it is something straight guys commonly brag about. It's not about seeing another guy naked, which you often do in the showers after gym class anyway, but about being with a girl who is into freaky shit.

7. When in that same hearing he was asked to name cases he was handling, he omitted Pickering. The accusation is that he tried to conceal the fact that he knew he had received information stolen from Senate Democrats. And that he tried to mislead the Senate into thinking he wasn't particularly involved with handling Pickering. While evidence suggests that he was heavily involved, and in some cases appeared to be the authority on the matter.

8. Due to how you structure your replies, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. But I assume you're asking for this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6229253/Brett-Kavanaugh-faces-official-ethics-complaints-Merrick-Garland-decide-them.html

1.  Generally speaking, interrogations punch holes in testimony.  They don't enhance it.  There's no logical reason anyone would demand that.

Also if she wanted help, the means were through the Senate.

2.  It's not semantics to note the difference between being adamantly opposed to something and deferring to someone else's judgement.  Democrats wanted him in the middle of their petty dispute, and frankly wasted a whole lot of time with someone who was saying "Not my call".

3.  Renate wasn't aware of it at all until contacted by the press and specifically said herself that she doesn't know what it means in her lone public statement (the part that is usually left out).  So she's little more clued in than the rest of us.

As for what it meant, I couldn't tell you.  It seems the yearbook is filled with all sorts of in-jokes that only makes sense to the boys at the time.  Saying you know for sure that it means he was trying to tell other students that he banged her is possibly the simplest answer, however it's not necessarily the correct one.

4.  Your citation does not back up your statement.  There is a section about the roommate believing Devil's Triangle was commonly known and there's later a section about him talking about Kavanaugh and his friends talking about threesomes.  But it's never said that he used the term.

And if Kavanaugh wasn't aware of its other meaning, or even if he was aware and meant then drinking game, then it doesn't matter.  The simple fact is that we have plenty of witnesses that recall playing the game with Kavanaugh and even his teaching them the game.

5.  Again, the people involved all back Kavanaugh on both.  The New York Times interviewing random other people at the school does not necessarily mean anything.

6.  I'm aware that it's not homosexuality.  However, bragging about being naked with a dude is still a highly odd thing for multiple students to place within a yearbook, particularly back then.

7.  Again, within the same testimony, Kavanaugh spoke about his involvement with Pickering, so there is nothing hidden as you claim.  Furthermore, your sources provide no evidence that he was the authority on Pickering.  All you have is him reserving a room, relaying a request to the Justice Department, meeting a senator's chief of staff, and reviewing some documents.

These strike me as all rather menial tasks and hardly indicative of Kavanaugh being in charge of the matter.  Kavanaugh's testimony made clear that he would have had a hand in the nomination somewhere, and even mentioned possibly being involved in a mock hearing, something that would have taken up more of his time and energy than any of the tasks you seem to think are proof that he was covering something up.

8.  Those aren't federal investigations or court investigations.  Those are ethical complaints that were received by the court from outside groups.  The court hadn't acted on them at all when Kavanaugh was confirmed.  Last I checked, the DC Court forwarded them to CJ Roberts who moved them over to Judge Tymkovich who probably won't do anything with them beyond disposing them.

1. They would, if they think their opponent lied in their testimony, and they were truthful. And the interrogation aspect is not the only reason to ask for for FBI.
Especially when it's a matter that comes down to credibility. Anyone would know that it doesn't look good when your accuser passes a polygraph and asks for an FBI investigation, and you don't.

2. Now you're arguing the semantics of the term "semantics"....
I'm not getting sucked into that.

Let's stick to the point. This was not a criminal trial, but a hearing broadcast to the public, who would decide what to believe.
When the accuser takes a polygraph and passes, and the accused doesn't take one, especially after previously highlighting their importance, that is a bad look.
When the accuser asks for an FBI investigation, which they've issued before in a similar case, but the accused does not when given the chance multiple times, that is also a very bad bad look.
In spite of knowing that it makes him look more guilty, he seemingly decided that the alternative was probably worse.

3. No one said that she knew of it before recently, nor that anyone would know what it means with 100% certainty. I said that when someone reads that sentence in his yearbook, without context, under "accomplishments", everyone will assume it's referring to a sexual conquest. And there is no way Kavanaugh didn't consider that when he wrote it.
And yes, that is still true even if there was a secret alternative meaning behind it that only a few knew of. And she didn't, which makes it even less believable that this was the case.

As for her comment, she also said that it was "horrible and hurtful", and that she "prays their daughters don't get treated this way".
You know why? Because when she read it, she assumed it meant exactly what everyone else would assume it meant.

4. It does. He says it in the interview. Click the video. Anderson Cooper asks him "You say you actually heard Brett Kavanaugh and his friends, or someone else in the room, using those terms, in a way that didn't mean what he said under oath?"
Roche replies: "I was shocked when I heard that, because those words were commonly used. And they were references to sexual activities."
*Fastforward*
"I heard them talking about it regularly. I think it contributed to some of my feelings about the fact that these guys treated women in a way I didn't like."

And even if it's true that there was also a drinking game with that name, it does matter because it was written out of context under accomplishments in his yearbook.
Would you write "Doggy style" and "Anal" under the list of accomplishments in your yearbook if it was also the name of a drinking game you and a few of your friends knew about? Probably not, because you know that everyone else would obviously assume you were referring to sexual activities. Unless that's what you wanted them to think.
Which is what the Senate wanted to know. Which Kavanaugh's classmates say he was lying about.

5. The people involved? Renate does not back him about Renate Alumnius. Unless you think "Horrible and hurtful" and "I pray their daughters don't get treated this way" is backing his claim? That's how she took it, as anyone would. As anyone writing that comment obviously knows they would. Slutshaming.
And they can only back him up on the game existing. Not that it wasn't also a well known sexual reference. Like I said above, no one lists a well known sexual reference in their yearbook under accomplishments with no further context unless they want people to think that's what it meant.

Interviewing random people at the school can certainly shed light on how commonly used those terms were as sexual references, and how likely it is that he was telling the truth with his alternate explanation. Apparently the concensus was not even uncertainty. It was that he lied.

6. I would say less odd than bragging about farting as an accomplishment. In comparison, bragging about freaky sex is less strange.
And I'm not sure what your expertise on "back then" is. Unless you are old enough to be well familiar with that era. In which case I'd have to take your word for it. Is that a good idea? It's ok to be wrong at times. But you've previously expressed firm certainty over something that was inaccurate. It's not related to this topic per say, but because you do seem to have this mentality that the word of a random person online should outweighs the word of experts, I'd like to point this out. Or maybe it is directly related to all this, since you suggest the only reason I say some of these things is because I'm a partisan hack.

Previously you told me very clearly ("Let me make this clear to you") that "even if Trump had walked up to the FBI director and said I order you to drop the Flynn investigation, or I will fire you" it could not have amounted to obstruction of justice charges.
That is false. I already knew that when you said it, because I had heard the argument constantly by many legal experts. Lawyers, federal prosecutors, judges, etc. Both from the US, Australia, and Sweden. And when you previously cited the "method" that Nixon used to order the CIA as the reason for it amounting to obstruction of justice charges, I suspected that you may be confused about how it worked. What I've seen them do on Fox News when this comes up is say "We'll doesn't he have a legal right to do so?" as if the legality of the method is relevant. But it's not. It's all about intent. Since I'm also a random person online, I'm not telling you to take my word for it. I can however link you to legal experts who explicitly state that obstruction of justice charges are a very real possibility. But for you I reached out to a certified US attorney, who also happens to be a well known fighting game commentator. I asked him to weigh in on your specific comment, and this is what he had to say:



"Much less than that could amount to obstruction of justice."
Feel free to contact him and tell him why he is wrong. His twitter handle is in the screenshot.

Now, when I linked you to legal experts saying that what Don Jr did in the Trump Tower meeting could amount to conspiracy against an American, which you also claimed was not true, you cited an example of a lawyer who "was wrong" about something. As if lawyers being wrong some times means random people online are more credible.
But to that I want to say two things: Not only did he claim that what he said was hyperbole, but he also wasn't asked to weigh in on the matter as a legal expert. He was just blowing off steam.
Secondly, yes, legal experts can be wrong, or have differing opinions. That was why I said Trump was risking obstruction of justice charges. If one lawyer thinks one way, and another thinks another way, it's argued in court. Hence the risk. You can not claim that he did not risk obstruction of justice charges by what he did. You can show me a legal expert who explicitly claims that he would not be at any risk for obstruction of justice (Not just that the firing was legal) if you have any such references. I'm actually curious to know why you were so convinced that he would not. But even then, at best that would suggest that it would be argued in court. When a ton of legal expert say the opposite. Including judge Napolitano on Fox News.

Anyway, if you are an expert at what was normal in the 80's, I'm sorry but I can't take your word over what many of Kavanaugh's classmates told New York Times in their extensive interviews.

7. As far as I can tell, he did not mention Pickering by name in that same testimony. He testified about this more than once.
If I'm asked for names of significant people in my life, and I don't list someone I hang out with more than others, the fact that they fall under "among others" or "everyone" doesn't make it less conspicuous. 
The second complaint filed against him pertains to him supposedly lying about not knowing that he was using documents stolen from democrats. But this is a subject I'm not versed in. That's about all I know of it for now.

As for what all these things about Kavanaugh's involvement with Pickering is indicative of, that would be for the judge to decide.

8. Right. I don't think that was the point though. They were accusations of perjury sent to the D.C. circuit. There's no precedence for how to handle them if Kavanaugh got appointed before they concluded, which he did. The assumption was that nothing would happen in that case.
My point was that the GOP moved forward with his nomination without concerning themselves of the outcome of these perjury accusations first.

Last edited by Hiku - on 19 November 2018

NightlyPoe said:

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.

I have no idea why you would respond to me without quoting me but you don't present anything new here. 

Your statement that your list is the reason you believe as you do, rather than an ad hoc rationalization for your presupposition is nothing but bullshit.