He didn't lie under oath, he said they would have to ask the author, as he did not write the book and that much of the work is fictionalized.
He didn't lie under oath, he said they would have to ask the author, as he did not write the book and that much of the work is fictionalized.
joedirt wrote:
He didn't lie under oath.....
No, he lied blatantly.
WonderBread wrote:
2) Boof? He didn't lie about that?
There's no proof that he did. Idiosyncrasies in language are common. To dog people a boof if when a dog barks.
3) Devil's triangle? He did't lie about that?
There's no proof that he did. Idiosyncrasies in language are common
cite any source anywhere in the world that supports the definitions BK had
joedirt wrote:
He didn't lie under oath, he said they would have to ask the author, as he did not write the book and that much of the work is fictionalized.
You could make an argument that it's not "technically" a lie. (Though it's a weak argument)
But you can't argue that Kavanaugh's response showed the forthright honesty we expect from a s Supreme Court Justice.
The honest response would be, "Some people called me Bart in High School. So the character might be loosely based on me. You would need to ask Mark Judge to fill in the details."
A Supreme Court Justice tells the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth.
Fat hurts wrote:
The honest response would be, "Some people called me Bart in High School...
He wrote his own name as Bart in 1982. Judge's book using that name was published in 1987.
Hey, I just got my Presidential Alert:
"Witch Hunt, Crooked Hillary, No Collusion, Confirm Kavanaugh, Make America Great Again"
i'm waiting wrote:
WonderBread wrote:
2) Boof? He didn't lie about that?
There's no proof that he did. Idiosyncrasies in language are common. To dog people a boof if when a dog barks.
3) Devil's triangle? He did't lie about that?
There's no proof that he did. Idiosyncrasies in language are common
cite any source anywhere in the world that supports the definitions BK had
Cite any source that supports your narrative that isn't urban dictionary
The intonation behind the question was that everything in the book could be taken as fact, which is not true as the author has taken creative liberties with the experiences, just like any Hollywood film. So to say that the actions of Bart in the book would be the same as Brett in real life would be a fallacy. He would be lying if he said that he was Bart in the book.
Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:
celery wrote:
Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr on the Watergate investigation in the 90's. But I wouldn't expect you to know that since you are obviously a low information person.
As did Rod Rosenstein. They are buddies. Chris Wray was at Yale undergrad and Yale Law school at the same time as Kavanaugh (2 years behind). They were all members of the Federalist society!
So the FBI chiefs in charge of investigating Kavanaugh are his buddies!
Yeah!
WonderBread wrote:
Cite any source...
Try a different approach.
jodirt wrote:
The intonation behind the question was that everything in the book could be taken as fact.
Book published 1987. Brett signing as Bart in 1982.
Internet tough guys wrote:
How many bar fights do you think Ghost of Igloi, joedirt, and the other internet tough guys on here have been in?
celery wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Lmao its the ((((Clintons')))) isn't it?
Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr on the Watergate investigation in the 90's. But I wouldn't expect you to know that since you are obviously a low information person.
Watergate in the 90s? Now that's a new timeline. I want to be high information like you guys
celery wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Lmao its the ((((Clintons')))) isn't it?
Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr on the Watergate investigation in the 90's. But I wouldn't expect you to know that since you are obviously a low information person.
Wait I forgot to make fun of you again for the (((((Clinton))))) BS.
If only it were so simple...
sources wrote:
WonderBread wrote:
Cite any source...
Try a different approach.
*Make up any source
Code name: Bart wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
The honest response would be, "Some people called me Bart in High School...
He wrote his own name as Bart in 1982. Judge's book using that name was published in 1987.
Guess you believe that Norm Macdonald's book Based on a True Story is pure non-fiction
How about Bill Simmons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiFBOHUT0c4Or Peterman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWH92zxuLPwProbably at least a dozen wrote:
How many protests have the LRC internet Social Justice Warriors been in this week?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Probably at least a dozen wrote:
How many protests have the LRC internet Social Justice Warriors been in this week?
Better than sitting at home trolling on a message board.
WonderBread wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) Blackout means loss of consciousness, typically in a way that does not mean just sleeping. It has nothing to do with memory loss.
Most level-headed people would correctly correlate blacking out to getting so drunk that you "black out" and forget things. It almost certainly is related to memory, but you can easily get drunk without blacking out.
2) Boof? He didn't lie about that?
3) Devil's triangle? He did't lie about that?
4) He said all those at the party that Ford mentioned said her accusations did not occur. Actually NONE of them said that.
5) Renate? He did't lie about that?
6) He mentioned that the drinking age was 18 and so the "seniors" were of legal age when he was in high school. That is true for some seniors when he was a freshman and sophomore, but then they upped the drinking age in Maryland to 21 ironically on July 1, 1982 and grandfathered those who had already turned 18 in. Kavanaugh was still just 17 then and so it was NEVER legal for him to drink in high school. So, not an outright lie, but a definite attempt at misleading.
7) Lots of people have said he becomes aggressive and mean when drunk. He didn't lie about that?
8) He said he was never at any such gathering that Ford described. Well, she said he and Judge and PJ and some other boy were there. On July 1, 1982 on his very calendar was written, "skis at Timmy's" and then listed Judge and PJ along with a couple other boys as being there. He admitted "skis" meant "brewskis". So, exactly the kind of gathering Ford described. No lie there?
I haven't even listed them all.
So, didn't perjure himself? You are mistaken.
Flagpole, top notch responses as usual.
1) Blackout means loss of consciousness, typically in a way that does not mean just sleeping. It has nothing to do with memory loss.
Most level-headed people would correctly correlate blacking out to getting so drunk that you "black out" and forget things. It almost certainly is related to memory, but you can easily get drunk without blacking out.
2) Boof? He didn't lie about that?
There's no proof that he did. Idiosyncrasies in language are common. To dog people a boof if when a dog barks.
3) Devil's triangle? He did't lie about that?
There's no proof that he did. Idiosyncrasies in language are common
4) He said all those at the party that Ford mentioned said her accusations did not occur. Actually NONE of them said that.
Seems like he mis-spoke. Did you actually watch the hearing or read the transcript? Unless further evidence is submitted, not recalling the incident is worth just as much towards corroborating this story as saying it didn't occur. If none of them recall the incident, is there proof it occurred?
5) Renate? He did't lie about that?
There's no proof that he did. Idiosyncrasies in language are common and he provided an explanation.
6) He mentioned that the drinking age was 18 and so the "seniors" were of legal age when he was in high school. That is true for some seniors when he was a freshman and sophomore, but then they upped the drinking age in Maryland to 21 ironically on July 1, 1982 and grandfathered those who had already turned 18 in. Kavanaugh was still just 17 then and so it was NEVER legal for him to drink in high school. So, not an outright lie, but a definite attempt at misleading.
Reaching at best.
7) Lots of people have said he becomes aggressive and mean when drunk. He didn't lie about that?
Wasn't this limited to college? How does this have any bearing on this incident?
8) He said he was never at any such gathering that Ford described. Well, she said he and Judge and PJ and some other boy were there. On July 1, 1982 on his very calendar was written, "skis at Timmy's" and then listed Judge and PJ along with a couple other boys as being there. He admitted "skis" meant "brewskis". So, exactly the kind of gathering Ford described. No lie there?
"Exactly the kind of gathering" is exactly the kind of conclusion you can't draw...or else the situation would be more conclusive, no? Ford's recollection is so vague as to the participants, date (which has changed multiple times), and transportation that I am not entirely sure you weren't there yourself Flagpole.
1) Your idiosyncrasies in language defenses are just that...defenses, and not really good ones. Any reasonable person, ESPECIALLY with the Devil's Triangle thing, would know he is flat lying about that. It is highly likely that someone interviewed by the FBI will confirm that that is a lie. He should have said simply that he was a teenager and crass back then rather than lying about it.
2) I can agree to give you the blackout thing, but really, only because there is so much more.
3) While the Renate thing falls into your defense mentioned in #1 above, it's a ridiculous defense. Now that the FBI investigation has been allowed to expand, it is also highly likely that someone with knowledge about this will tell the truth...they can even tone it down if they like...that they went on a date with her, or whatever, but clearly with the poem someone else wrote in his yearbook, it wasn't meant as a flattering thing.
4) The aggressive comments did NOT just come from people who knew him in college. Ford said this, Swetnick said this, and now another accuser has said they witnessed his aggressiveness in high school while drunk.
5) Just going to have to disagree with you about the gathering comment. Ford, before even knowing about Kavanaugh's stupid calendar, said she was at a party with Judge, Kavanaugh, PJ and at least one other boy...described pretty closely to that on a Thursday...notably away from the weekend that Kavanaugh wanted all of us to focus on. So, is that the "kind of gathering" Ford described? I say yes.
6) Regarding his age, I did say it didn't show a lie but a misrepresentation...and it was. So, no reaching there at all.
7) I agree with you that Ford's recollection is vague, but that's not what I was commenting on. I was commenting ONLY about the obvious lies and misrepresentations Kavanaugh made in his hearing. Ford is NOT a perfect witness, and there hardly ever are any.
Lying under oath to the Senate Committee should be disqualifying.
Harambe wrote:
celery wrote:
Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr on the Watergate investigation in the 90's. But I wouldn't expect you to know that since you are obviously a low information person.
Watergate in the 90s? Now that's a new timeline. I want to be high information like you guys
Obviously he meant Whitewater. Are you accusing celery of being an antisemite?