Every single employer that person interviews for should get that quote in their email inbox.
I’ve cut out the rest of the Clinton stuff. I’m happy to agree with you that Clinton’s lying was a problem. And, because of it, he was impeached and disbarred. Do you agree that Kavanaugh’s lying under oath to the Senate should cause him to be impeached and disbarred?
Everyone – I really do not want this to be another monster thread about the sexual assault charges. Would it be possible to keep this focused on his possible lies to the Senate during his Thursday testimony and whether they alone are disqualifying?
Just to point out, Perjury typically requires the accused to have knowingly given testiminey s/he knew or believes was false.
Per Bronston v US, even a misleading answer in cross examination is not sufficient for a conviction under this head.
19 USC 1001 is the unsworn false statements clause, which is similar to the perjury section.
Thanks. Hopefully, this thread isn’t derailed into a long sidetrack into whether he technically committed perjury. I’m asking whether his (possibly) dishonest and misleading statements is enough to disqualify him in supporters’ minds.
The interesting part, to me, is: didn’t all of us — even his supporters — go into this expecting him to lie? Didn’t we all figure that he’d get asked about Roe by this or that Senator on live television, and didn’t we all figure that he’d lie?
Not really. We expect nominees to sidestep those questions or refuse to answer because they may see a case, etc. On Roe, for example, I think he said it’s settled law - that’s true! However, settled law can be overturned, so no lie and he’s still allowed to overturn it if he’s inclined to and is given the opportunity.
I think it’s surprisingly cynical to expect SCOTUS nominees to lie to congress.
I’ll give it a shot.
There is no good evidence that he did.
There’s no good evidence that he did.
There’s no good evidence that he did.
There’s no good evidence that he did.
There’s no good evidence that he did lie.
What’s “the above” that needs to be explained? OK, maybe he was wrong about the details of the Mark Judge letter. That’s not disqualifying (in my view).
Fair enough. It has not been shown that he lied, so no, not disqualifying.
Regards,
Shodan
The issue isn’t “perjury”, it’s making a false statement under Section 1001. The letter that Judge’s lawyer provided (I don’t know why you say “apparently” with regards to its contents, the letter is readily available here) offers a first person statement from Judge to the committee. I’m not an expert on 1001, but it would seem to me that this would qualify as a “statement” within the ambit of 1001 and, therefore, made under penalty of felony. (Of course, if Judge were prosecuted for lying and could show that he did not, in fact, make the statement that his lawyer provided, that would be a defense). Then again, at some point after the hearing, Judge submitted another letter that he personally signed, so I could be wrong (or maybe a second letter was easier than a debate over the scope of 1001). But it would be a weird loophole in 1001 if you’re right. I’d be interested in reading your source to the contrary.
I’d also want to read the statement from Kavanaugh about Judge’s letter that you propose is a lie. I did a quick search of the transcript for “penalty of felony” by Kavanaugh and I’m not seeing him claim that Judge denied the party took place. Judge’s letter says he doesn’t remember any such party and that “I never saw Brett act in the manner that Dr. Ford describes.” The first proposition is unremarkable (although you might expect him to remember a sexual assault). But, unlike the other alleged attendees at the gathering, Judge is alleged to have been a direct witness to (and potentially participant in) the assault. His statement that he never saw such behavior is directly contrary to Ford’s allegations. Judge could be lying, of course. And he could simply be wrong (i.e., that he did see such conduct, but he does not remember it due to alcohol consumption or the passage of time). But, in any event, I don’t buy your theory on “penalty of felony” being a lie, but would welcome a contrary analysis.
Thanks for replying. Do you agree that he was certainly incorrect in how he described those terms, such as Devil’s Triangle, etc? There is evidence that those terms actually meant something different than what he ascribed to them, but I suppose he could simply have conveniently only thought those terms were quite innocent.
As for the drinking, there is, in fact, evidence that he was wrong about his own habits – several of his former college and high school friends have said so.
I guess, though, there is almost never good evidence that someone actually lied as opposed to mis-remembered, mis-heard the question, misunderstood, etc. What kind of evidence would you expect that someone lied? Seems like you’d need an fMRI or something.
Thanks for replying. I’ve already said that I don’t think what he said about the letter is disqualifying (I said “apparently” because I didn’t read the letter – I’m getting most of my news about this from this board).
What do you think of the other items?
May I please piggy-back to ask two other questions of Kavanaugh supporters?
Watch this video showing Kavanaugh’s bitter histrionics in the Senate hearing.
(1) Are his charges correct? Did the D’s ask for the FBI investigation because they were bitter about Hillary’s loss?
(2) Were Kavanaugh’s remarks partisan? Is this appropriate rhetoric for a federal judge?
Is this the right thread to get sincere Republican views on questions like these? I see ITR champion and HurricaneDitka addressing OP’s questions only with Tu Quoque’s.
(“Clinton got a blowjob, so we had no choice but to nominate a sexual predator for the Supreme Court.” 
)
The evidence, on this count, is scant I think. IIRC, he was fairly clear that he had, at times, drank too much. This seems to be what his roommate and a handful of other associates are also alleging.
He tried to dance around the topic of underage drinking, and I don’t think his answers there would count as an out-and-out “lie”, but I understand opinions may vary.
As for blacking out, he consistently denied that he had, and the evidence that he did seems rather dubious: a “don’t recall” about a dice game during a boating trip, and Chad’s statement that “I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking, and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking, Brett has not told the truth” which he offered without any supporting evidence. How does he know Kavanaugh blacked out? He doesn’t say, leaving us to wonder. His statement seems to only address “the possibility” that he did. It’s not clear that Chad even recalls an incident in which Kavanaugh blacked out. He certainly doesn’t detail one.
I think you’re mischaracterizing HurricaneDitka’s contribution. I asked for examples of people lying to congress and he came up with two (well, one and a half, in my view).
As for your first question, I think it’s difficult to clearly characterize that statement as truth or lie – it could be his opinion about what happened. I’m trying to keep this thread to more GQ-style true-or-false statements, because in my mind, his (probably) lies are enough to disqualify him, leaving aside his demeanor and conspiracy theories.
As for your second question, it’s guaranteed to derail this thread, so I hope it doesn’t get too much traction. I’m also concerned about his partisanship, but I don’t want to discuss it here. I don’t think it has to be considered in light of his obvious (seeming) lies to the Senate and the American people.
Now, I’m not a mod or anything, and threads can go where they may, but I’m hoping to keep this one focused. Thanks.
OK, fair point, but do you think it’s fair to say, as Shodan did that there’s “no good evidence”? I think there is some good evidence that he, at least, downplayed and misled on the frequency and extent of his drinking.
Clinton should have just claimed that a “blowjob” is a drinking game.
RitterSport, if he is facing questioning, where he knows that any answer he gives will be given the most unfavourable interpretation by critics, then I don’t think you can characterise giving narrowly tailored answers as being untruthful. Especially since they, well could’ve asked him for clarification right there and then.
I don’t have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the others. I was not previously familiar with what I’m told is the universally understood definitions of “boof” or “Devil’s Triangle”. His definitions sound plausible to me, but I’m not familiar with the sexual slang of the early 1980s. So, I don’t know what he would have understood them to mean. (And I really can’t begin to understand the “Renate” thing.)
He was clearly seeking to minimize his drinking (and I think could be accused of being evasive), but I’m not sure I saw anything that would constitute a “lie.” There were a number of non-answers and deflections. And some of the accusations of “lying” about drinking are not consistent with my personal experience drinking. For example, I saw a Yale classmate (now a physician, I think) quoted as saying that Kavanaugh was often drunk in college, liked drinking games, and would stumble and slur his words, etc. Therefore, she said, he can’t claim he never blacked out. Personally, I didn’t like drinking games, but I was often drunk in college, often vomited, often stumbled, and often slurred my words. But I never experienced a “blackout”. So, I can’t conclude that he’s lying about that without more information.
I’m not sure what narrowly tailored answers he gave regarding the questions I raised in the OP. Can you be more specific?
Regarding follow up questions, did you listen to any of the testimony? Questioners only had 5 minutes and were routinely running up against that limit. His wandering responses didn’t help at all. I don’t agree that they had time to ask follow up questions.
It’s not whether *you *know what they mean, it’s whether *he *knew what the terms that were in his own yearbook entries meant. I didn’t know those definitions either, but they weren’t in my yearbook entries. The Renate thing is that he and several others described themselves as Renate Alumni or something. She was a girl from another school and it’s pretty obvious to me that it meant they slept with her or had some form of sexual contact with her. He claimed that it meant that they were friends with her or some other innocuous thing.
When she found out about that entry, she flipped her lid. I believe (but could be wrong) that she was one of the 65 women that had signed a letter saying he was a good guy, but after she found out, she back away from that letter. I will happily accept correction on any part of this.