So if he had “brownouts” would it be perjury to deny that he had a blackout?
Six-pack? Piffle. That is for amateurs. 
When the statement “Hey, Iggy, sorry for catching your hair on fire two weeks ago at the party when I was blowing fireballs!” came as a surprise to me that was a definite clue I had a blackout.
Not remembering every one of the people who were at the party the following week does not mean I blacked out. I don’t typically perfectly recall every person who attended a party I was at anyway.
I don’t think someone not remembering certain things means they must have had an alcohol induced blackout. An imperfect memory is quite normal, and some people have better memory than others.
See my prior post. I predicted that this would be the new Dem talking point, although I did think that it would be after the investigation.
The next talking point will be after the investigation when the Dem journalists and hack job activists dig up another few allegations, there will be a call for another delay so that another FBI investigation can be conducted into the new allegations.
The final hail mary will be when someone has a new allegation but states that it is up to the victim to choose when and if she comes forward, and she chooses January 4, 2019.
Why does correctly predicting that the WH would artificially limit the investigation make you look good? It is absurd to not even interview a woman who has made a sworn statement in her name about sexual misconduct, especially when she was named as someone Flake wanted investigated.
I thought he was probably sailing to confirmation, but there is now a much higher chance this blows up in Kavanaugh’s face.
He’s back to being illegitimate no matter what happens.
Blackouts are a things with a specific definition.
Please define brownouts.
The real irony is that the republicans should really be asking about his health, as one of his selling points is his age and supposed longevity on a lifetime appointment.
When January 2020 rolls around, and democrats are in control of the house, the senate, and the executive, in large part because of the blowback from their pushing of this particular candidate, the final shoe drops when he is diagnosed with severe liver failure, and has only months to live.
It’s not that he admited to liking beer. It’s how adamantly he went about it.
“Thou dost protest too much” starts kick in when someone goes on like he did. If his drink of choice was Jim Beam, we know he wouldn’t see fit to remind of us of how much he liked (and still likes) whisky. It’s only because beer has a softer reputation that he allowed himself to tout his love of it from the rafters.
Problem with that is two-fold: 1) beer can be abused just as much as any other alcoholic beverage and 2) ain’t no one buying the idea that beer is all he consumed, so his emphasis suggests more disingenuousness.
Case in point: he said the Devil’s Triangle is a drinking game involving 3 “glasses”. Put aside the likelihood this was a lie. Who plays drinking games with beer? You’re gonna do shots or not play at all; this is a universal given.
36 years is pretty long enough for people to have a more sober assessment of someone. Like, there are people I went to school with that, if you had asked me as a kid, I would have said that I liked them. I might have even said we were friends. But all these years later, I remember the more douchier things they did or said. Now I realize that we were only “friends” in the sense that we were got along with one another while thrust together in the same place and time.
It’s not like these people are my “enemies”. It’s not like I would cross to the other side of the street if I encountered them on the sidewalk. But if I saw them on national TV bragging about their goodness–especially during the time period that I knew them from–I would feel compelled to say something.
What do you think? Is categorically denying under oath that you have ever had blackouts when you have frequently had blackouts perjury?
I’m on your side, but you’re way off base here. Most drinking games involve beer. Shots only drinking games are dangerous as fuck.
Also… beer pong.
Or check out the 2006 Broken Lizard documentary Beerfest.
Sorry if I wan’t clear. I was agreeing with the other poster that Kav’s over-emphasis on beer was kind of weird, and I thought he wanted to keep the conversation about drinking focused on beer rather than the hard stuff. I’m not saying “it’s clear he likes the hard stuff”, just that it’s the more likely explanation for his weird focus on beer.
I did not mean to imply Kav did cocaine, or even that he probably did. I’m just surprised it hasn’t come up in any of the descriptions about the partying done “back in the day” by his contemporaries.
Do you think the FBI should be investigating the accusations by Swetnick? AFAICT, she hasn’t actually accused him of any kind of sexual assault. That cite uses the term “misconduct”, which I assume is not an accident (emphasis added):
ETA: I can see now that you do think so, and posted that while I was still composing this post.
Of course. It is absolutely absurd to not even talk to her to clarify that.
It is equally absurd to not let the FBI learn when Mark Judge worked at the supermarket.
No one can defend that with a straight face.
Touché. I never played drinking games at parties and I hate beer, so I can admit to talking out my ass right now.
“Back to?” Lol, how is it possible to move off of “no matter what happens” in the first place?
Also, he specifically mentioned “quarters” which is often played with beer. It’s often played where you chug the beer, too, so it’s not like you’re just sipping beer during the game. I think there are lots of variations of that game, but I’ve only played it with beer.
Unless Mark Judge actually confirms that he was in the room and saw Kavanaugh do this, there won’t be enough evidence. Even if they find the house, get the other attendees to confirm they were there, and confirm who drove her home, it won’t prove Kavanaugh did it. It could always be argued that the gathering did happen, but Ford made the attack up. Unless Judge (or Kavanaugh) says it happened, there won’t be proof. That’s the only thing that would count as proof. Everything else is just circumstantial and supposition.
When it was announced that there would be a legitimate investigation then he had the possibility of becoming a legitimate justice. Being cleared by an illegitimate investigation means nothing. Therefore no matter what happens with it, he is an illegitimate justice. Seems pretty simple. The accused does not get to dictate a legitimate investigation.
Honestly, this whole discussion has taken on a tinge of the absurd. Kavanaugh blatantly, obviously lied during his confirmation hearing. He acted with the demeanor of a child. If I acted like that, with or without lying to my potential employers, it should go without saying I would not get the job, even if that job was simply “working at McDonalds”. This guy is auditioning for a position running the goddamn world.
Then again, it didn’t stop Trump…
But it would add to Ford’s credibility (or detract from it, what if Judge never worked at a supermarket). A sham investigation is no investigation at all.
I agree. Wouldn’t surprise me if Kav’s assessment of his former classmates hasn’t matured in keeping with his age, and he doesn’t realize how shallow the relationships he’s had truly are.