Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

Flagpole wrote:

Wonderbread wrote:

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.

Meh to your answers. No one can EVER know the absolute truth about anything really, so your statement there is a straw-man. For all we know, God actually does direct everything in our lives and can at His whim create any situation He wants...or aliens can, or whatever, so we can NEVER bee 100% sure of anything really...not without conditions.

Also, do remember this isn't a criminal trial.

Should a reasonable person believe that "Renate Alumni" or whatever it exactly was means something positive about her?

Should a reasonable person believe that "Devil's Triangle" is a drinking game?

Should a reasonable person be swayed to JUST look at the weekends in Kavanaugh's stupid calendar because he told us that was the only reasonable time he would party when right there on said stupid calendar is Thursday July 1 with the names of three of the people at supposed party? Not a lie here, but clear attempt at minimizing what people were to look at.

Regarding Swetnick, only people on the right aren't taking her seriously. Avenatti now has another witness who says that what she is saying is true. Surely deserves an interview.

Anyway, you are clearly biased. I'll let you have the last word if you like, but I don't plan on responding. I tire of you.

Flagpole wrote:

Meh to your answers. No one can EVER know the absolute truth about anything really, so your statement there is a straw-man. For all we know, God actually does direct everything in our lives and can at His whim create any situation He wants...or aliens can, or whatever, so we can NEVER bee 100% sure of anything really...not without conditions.

Also, do remember this isn't a criminal trial.

Should a reasonable person believe that "Renate Alumni" or whatever it exactly was means something positive about her?

Should a reasonable person believe that "Devil's Triangle" is a drinking game?

Should a reasonable person be swayed to JUST look at the weekends in Kavanaugh's stupid calendar because he told us that was the only reasonable time he would party when right there on said stupid calendar is Thursday July 1 with the names of three of the people at supposed party? Not a lie here, but clear attempt at minimizing what people were to look at.

Regarding Swetnick, only people on the right aren't taking her seriously. Avenatti now has another witness who says that what she is saying is true. Surely deserves an interview.

Anyway, you are clearly biased. I'll let you have the last word if you like, but I don't plan on responding. I tire of you.