WonderBread wrote:
*Make up any source
Try something else
WonderBread wrote:
*Make up any source
Try something else
joedirt wrote:
Code name: Bart wrote:
He wrote his own name as Bart in 1982. Judge's book using that name was published in 1987.
Guess you believe that ....
Brett is Bart. Bart is Brett.
Hardloper wrote:
Are you accusing celery of being an antisemite?
Out of ammo, again?
Hardloper wrote:
Harambe wrote:
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?
One should check their own statements before tossing around "low information" ;).
"High money donors" and "Clintons" are classic dogwhistles for a certain subset of right-wing fantasies. Celery might buy into those, or he might not, who knows? He's high in fiber but the information part remains to be seen...
Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:
L L wrote:
Heitkamp’s opinion matters too.
She’s a Dem in a close race in a red state.
She may vote yes to help with her election.
It is possible that Heitkamp or Manchin (or both) will vote Yes for the nomination. Neither would vote YES unless Rep. already have the votes to confirm. So I'm not sure how much that matters.
How does that work?
Do Heitkamp and Manchin vote last after seeing everyone else’s vote?
Flagpole wrote:
WonderBread wrote:
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.
None of these can be shown to be a 100% black and white lie. Ford on the other hand has things that she said that can be shown to be a 100% black and white lie.
Harambe wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Better than sitting at home trolling on a message board.
Look who’s talking. Better hit protests lines and walk your talk.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Better than sitting at home trolling on a message board.
Look who’s talking. Better hit protests lines and walk your talk.
I'm a student paid off a federal grant.
Basically all you guys are paying me to sit here and troll you all day.
Your tax dollars at work!
take your blinders off wrote:
None of these can be shown ...
^ Trump blinders are welded on this one's skull.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Rules_of_the_United_States_SenateL L wrote:
Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:
It is possible that Heitkamp or Manchin (or both) will vote Yes for the nomination. Neither would vote YES unless Rep. already have the votes to confirm. So I'm not sure how much that matters.
How does that work?
Do Heitkamp and Manchin vote last after seeing everyone else’s vote?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
.... walk your talk.
You fail this every post.
Harambe wrote:
One should check their own statements before tossing around "low information" ;).
"High money donors" and "Clintons" are classic dogwhistles for a certain subset of right-wing fantasies. Celery might buy into those, or he might not, who knows? He's high in fiber but the information part remains to be seen...
Only crazy/psychotic people hear "dogwhistles" everywhere... just something to keep in mind before using that cliche.
Hardloper wrote:
Only crazy/psychotic people ....
... believe anything trump says.
Hardloper wrote:
Harambe wrote:
One should check their own statements before tossing around "low information" ;).
"High money donors" and "Clintons" are classic dogwhistles for a certain subset of right-wing fantasies. Celery might buy into those, or he might not, who knows? He's high in fiber but the information part remains to be seen...
Only crazy/psychotic people hear "dogwhistles" everywhere... just something to keep in mind before using that cliche.
True, I forget sometimes that blaming a shadowy conspiracy of global elites is now an acceptable way to weasel out of personal responsibility for ones actions.
Fat hurts wrote:
joedirt wrote:
Preditably Ms. McLean came forward and said she was not coached by Dr. Ford.
So this jilted lover lied about his ex-girlfriend?
I'm shocked.
Why due process matters:
Ford’s story is falling apart. She can’t remember the time, the street, the house, neighborhood, year, month, floor or any supporting details. The “witnesses” she presented all contradict her narrative & do not place Kavanaugh at the location.
Where is the corroboration?
Flagpole wrote:
WonderBread wrote:
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.
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.
It's a good thing you or any of these "reasonable" people are not the ones investigating. A defense is a defense unless proven uncredible. There is no way to conclusively say he was "flat lying" just because you think he was. If he was, then we will see the results (like you said).
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.
Same as #1. This event has already received so munch national attention and there has yet to be any further corroboration. I'm not ruling it out, but you can't say it's a ridiculous defense when you or I know nothing more about the details. We can sensationalize it all we want based on media headlines.
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.
You realize that no one is taking Swetnick's accusation seriously, right? And if your only evidence of his aggressiveness is Ford, then we are back at square one. Taking an accusation for face value.
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.
Ford changed the date range 4 (5?) times leading up to this trial. You think after 35 years you could remember the exact date (in the 80s, mid-80s, early 80s, Summer of 1982) given the scenario.
Here:
In your July 6th text to The Washington Post that you looked at earlier, you said that this happened in the mid ’80s. In your letter to Senator Feinstein you said it occurred in the early ’80s.
FORD: Yes.
MITCHELL: In your polygraph statement you said it was high school summer in ’80s, and you actually had written in and this is one of the corrections I referred to early and then you crossed that out.
Later in your interview with The Washington Post, you were more specific. You believed it occurred in the summer of 1982 and you said at the end of your sophomore year.
She also corrected the makeup of the "party members" multiple times. Go back and see Ford's exchange with Mitchell about the numbers.
Here:
You told Senator Feinstein in your letter that you and four others were present. You’ve corrected that today to say it was at least four others.
When you were interviewed by The Washington Post, you said that there were four boys present at the party. And then in your polygraph statement, you said there were four boys and two girls.
When you say “two girls,” was that you and another or was that two other girls?
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.
It's reaching in so far as it has no real relevance to the story. It doesn't negate his testimony.
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.
Here is our problem. There are no obvious lies because you or I can't for sure say that we know the 100% truth. There is no conclusiveness here, so the inconsistencies you may find with Kavanaugh's rambling dialogue are equally supported by those in Ford's vague testimony.
Lying under oath to the Senate Committee should be disqualifying
There is nothing worthy of perjury here.
Harambe wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Look who’s talking. Better hit protests lines and walk your talk.
I'm a student paid off a federal grant.
Basically all you guys are paying me to sit here and troll you all day.
Your tax dollars at work!
No surprise there. An unhonorable profession. Move up and serve your country, be a Democratic congressman from People Republic of California.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Harambe wrote:
I'm a student paid off a federal grant.
Basically all you guys are paying me to sit here and troll you all day.
Your tax dollars at work!
No surprise there. An unhonorable profession. Move up and serve your country, be a Democratic congressman from People Republic of California.
Just keep filing those 1040s -- thanks
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Why due process matters:
Merrick Garland.
L L wrote:
Kavanaugh, Schmavanaugh wrote:
It is possible that Heitkamp or Manchin (or both) will vote Yes for the nomination. Neither would vote YES unless Rep. already have the votes to confirm. So I'm not sure how much that matters.
How does that work?
Do Heitkamp and Manchin vote last after seeing everyone else’s vote?
Yes, that's how this kind of thing normally works. If Heitkamp and Manchin are the least bit fuzzy on how Flake, Collins, and Murkowski are going to go then they will wait to see how they vote. But that's only if they plan to vote, "yes". If Heitkamp and Manchin have made up their minds to vote "no" then they don't need to wait.