New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Minoosh said:
A blackout will make his denial of sexual assault problematic. It's really, really simple. I'm not sure why this point is eluding you.



Bingo. It's why senators are trying to establish whether he's ever blacked out.



We find out whether he could have forgotten attempting sexual assault.



"Major partier" is not the pivot point. "Established blackout drunk" is.



They were trying to establish if he ever blacked out. Naive, maybe. What's he going to do, admit it? That doesn't mean they shouldn't ask. If they turn up evidence that he blacked out numerous times, it goes to his veracity and to his memory of the alleged incident.
Click to expand...



Shouldn’t they establish that there was an incident in the first place? Knowing his drinking habits isn’t going to do that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
crescent said:
Accepting everything in the letter does not mean that the letter means anything.

She's got a kink.

Okay.

How does that suggest she's lying?
Click to expand...

The letter does nothing to suggest shes lying, it describes her character. Much like some of the statements I've seen the press toss out there about Kavanaugh regarding his drinking or sexual conduct. (all based on allegations that are not corroborated by alleged witness accounts) How is it different?

(one is male, one is female?)


Yeah, its a nasty statement no doubt. Surprised they published it for the public. Then again, look at what has been publicly published on Kavanaugh without regard to authenticity. Still, I agree with the sentiment it's over the top.

Also, if you want to see Swetnicks statement discredited in some ways, just watch her interview. It is quite different than the statement previously released. Some select clips of it here. https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-k...-some-claims-in-extensive-nbc-news-interview/
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
Absolutely. “Promiscuity” is irrelevant to a rape charge. By the same token, drinking habits are also irrelevant to a rape charge. In both cases, they are attempts to cast aspersions on someone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They could be. But, I've already agreed that there is not enough here regarding the accusation to deny him the appointment.

It is his responses to the questions that do that. He simply was not forthright in his responses and presented an air of self righteousness and entitlement. His conspiracy theories and demeanor was not appropriate for a United States Supreme Court Justice.
 
xjx388 said:
Shouldn’t they establish that there was an incident in the first place? Knowing his drinking habits isn’t going to do that.
Click to expand...
No. But it would mean his categorical denial was less trustworthy, because there might have been an incident he forgot about.

Proving the incident happened is a very long shot. Proving he could have forgotten any such incident may be possible. If such proof or strong evidence is gathered, it also contradicts his testimony.
 
Meadmaker said:
And, asking him about that in the senate hearing served what purpose?

Hint: If your answer involves anything related to gathering information, you are hopelessly naïve.
Click to expand...

The purpose was to gather information. And if you don't think that's accurate I contend you are the one that's hopelessly naive.

Consider: He said he never blacked out. However, as you indicated in your previous post, such answers can't be 100% trusted in general--The possibility of a lie cannot be ruled out.

Indeed, several witnesses have come forward and said he drank to extremes and they would be surprised to learn he never blacked out.

Hence, we have evidence that Kavanaugh was not completely truthful. Mind you, I said "evidence" not proof. Evidence, however, is, in fact, information, and tends to support a conclusion that he has *something* to hide. Maybe he's embarrassed of his excessive drinking. Maybe it's something more.

Furthermore, we have a clear motive for his lie, assuming for the moment it is such: If telling the truth caused him to acknowledge blacking out, that would also force him to acknowledge that it's possible he is guilty yet ignorant of his guilt. Not a position anyone would wish to be cornered into.

Now, it may not be information that supports the position you wish to support, but that doesn't change the fact that it *is* information.
 
acbytesla said:
I didn't understand any of that. What's very clear is that Kavanaugh regularly drank to excess. That he was belligerent and aggressive while drinking. That he wasn't the choir boy he pretends to be. Boofing and Devils Triangle are not the terms of innocent choir boys.
Click to expand...

I know you don't.

What is very clear is that it has nothing to do with determining whether or not he ever committed sexual assault. It has everything to do with making Kavanaugh look bad by dredging up dirt from his high school days or maybe, as a bonus, getting him to lie about his high school days.

See my other recent comments regarding rightward shifts in polling data.
 
He has managed to make himself look bad, by demonstrating that he hasn't matured from his high school days. Lying to make yourself look better isn't worthy of a Justice.
 
Cabbage said:
The purpose was to gather information. And if you don't think that's accurate I contend you are the one that's hopelessly naive.

Consider: He said he never blacked out. However, as you indicated in your previous post, such answers can't be 100% trusted in general--The possibility of a lie cannot be ruled out.

Indeed, several witnesses have come forward and said he drank to extremes and they would be surprised to learn he never blacked out.

Hence, we have evidence that Kavanaugh was not completely truthful. Mind you, I said "evidence" not proof. Evidence, however, is, in fact, information, and tends to support a conclusion that he has *something* to hide. Maybe he's embarrassed of his excessive drinking. Maybe it's something more.

Furthermore, we have a clear motive for his lie, assuming for the moment it is such: If telling the truth caused him to acknowledge blacking out, that would also force him to acknowledge that it's possible he is guilty yet ignorant of his guilt. Not a position anyone would wish to be cornered into.

Now, it may not be information that supports the position you wish to support, but that doesn't change the fact that it *is* information.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself. You have described what it tells us.

For extra credit, could you describe something that is highly significant to the subject of the hearing, but about which this line of questioning yields no information?
 
Whether or not he can either lie or tell the truth about an attempted rape, because he cannot know one way or the other being mindless drunk at the time?
 
Meadmaker said:
I couldn't have said it better myself. You have described what it tells us.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad we're in agreement, then! Why did you even ask what information it gives us if you were simply going to acknowledge that it gave us the information I just described???

For extra credit, could you describe something that is highly significant to the subject of the hearing, but about which this line of questioning yields no information?
Click to expand...

Don't keep me in suspense. After the last exchange I've begun to suspect you of disingenuously playing games with me.
 
Cabbage said:
LOL. This again???

What is the criteria for "perjury trap" and how is it distinguished from perjury?
Click to expand...

A perjury trap described any situation where a subject of an interrogation under oath is asked a question whose answer is not important to the matter being investigated, but which the interrogator believes the subject may lie about. The question is asked in the hope that the subject of the interrogation will lie, so that the subject may be charged with perjury.



(Note: there are slight variations on the above, where the defendant doesn't lie, but may be charged with lying, and a prosecutor/congressional committee may believe it easier to get a conviction on a perjury charge than on the original charge, regardless of actual guild or innocence.)
 
River said:
The letter does nothing to suggest shes lying, it describes her character. Much like some of the statements I've seen the press toss out there about Kavanaugh regarding his drinking or sexual conduct. (all based on allegations that are not corroborated by alleged witness accounts) How is it different? (one is male, one is female?)

>snip<
Click to expand...

The difference is that the letter describing Swetnick's alleged actions do not include unwanted or forced sexual acts on another person. The allegations made against Kav do.
The Swetnick letter does not include allegations of lying, much less under oath before a gov't body. The criticism of Kav does.
 
Meadmaker said:
I know you don't.

What is very clear is that it has nothing to do with determining whether or not he ever committed sexual assault. It has everything to do with making Kavanaugh look bad by dredging up dirt from his high school days or maybe, as a bonus, getting him to lie about his high school days.

See my other recent comments regarding rightward shifts in polling data.
Click to expand...

No it's not. And it still doesn't excuse Kavanaugh's awful responses.
 
Meadmaker said:
A perjury trap described any situation where a subject of an interrogation under oath is asked a question whose answer is not important to the matter being investigated, but which the interrogator believes the subject may lie about. The question is asked in the hope that the subject of the interrogation will lie, so that the subject may be charged with perjury.
Click to expand...

However, as I just explained AND you just acknowledged, the question was relevant because it can establish:

WHETHER THE ACCUSED, IF GUILTY, IS EVEN AWARE OF HIS GUILT.

Did that clear it up for you? LOL
 
Did everyone running interference for swetnick watch her interview?

Yeah. She. Lied. Like an avenatti client.
 
Cabbage said:
Well, I'm glad we're in agreement, then! Why did you even ask what information it gives us if you were simply going to acknowledge that it gave us the information I just described???
Click to expand...

It gives us no information, but it creates a situation where he might provide an answer which contradicts known information, so that we can then accuse him of perjury or, possibly, simply cast aspersions on his character. Note that the accusation is that he has lied. By definition, we didn't get any information from the lie. We get a chance to call him a liar, either officially with a perjury charge, or just unofficially to smear his name. That's the whole point of the charade.


Don't keep me in suspense. After the last exchange I've begun to suspect you of disingenuously playing games with me.
Click to expand...


It tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not he committed sexual assault. I read somewhere that that was the subject of the hearing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom