Thanks! And, thank you for your thoughtful replies. Every Kav thread seems to go south so quickly and becomes practically pit material. So far, so good here, but I fear it may not last.
I only really know of one more confirmed K supporter* (although I’ve probably missed a few, and there are no doubt many here who just steer clear), so I’m hoping he weighs in before this goes off the rails.
It’s very difficult to prove a negative, as mentioned. That’s the point. Kavanaugh is being required on some level to prove it never happened. “He can’t prove it didn’t happen, so he is a perjurer” is not, to me, a persuasive argument.
Regards,
Shodan
“You can’t prove him wrong” seems to be an extremely low bar when it comes to a lifelong appointment to the SCOTUS.
Also note the goalpost shift from “no good evidence” to “can’t prove a negative”.
You seem to be demanding a higher level of proof than would be required even in a jury trial, and this isn’t a jury trial.
I’m pretty sure that reasonable people could conclude that Kavanaugh lied on a “beyond a reasonable doubt” basis. But that’s not enough for you–you want absolute proof, knowing that no such thing exists.
I wonder if this is your usual standard of proof (he said, knowing that it isn’t).
There has been no shift of goalposts. If you are going to claim certainty, you need proof. If you are going to charge perjury, you need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are going to claim anything else, you need good evidence. I haven’t seen any so far, and simply repeating yourself louder doesn’t do it.
Regards,
Shodan
Sure. My point was only that if these terms have only one possible definition that everyone knows the fact that I’m unfamiliar with them makes it hard for me to form a conclusion on whether that’s true and on what he thought they meant. A quick Google search tells me that “boof” means anal sex, something to do with kayaking, insertion of alcohol or drugs into your own rectum, and has frequently been used onomatopoetically (and I probably should not google things like that at the office). But I don’t know how common those definitions were back then. If asked in the abstract what “Have you boofed yet” means, I would have guessed vomit. But I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term before.
He is not on trial-he is interviewing for a job.
What do you not understand?
Question: are all these independent accounts, including from Kavanaugh himself, of heavy binge drinking, evidence? Good evidence?
Who is claiming certainty? It just seems likely he lied when he told the Senate that’s what those words mean, for example. Who is going to charge perjury?
From here, it really looks like those goalposts are moving.
Note, nothing about passing gas, which is what he claimed it meant. And, Devil’s Triangle?
I, for one, am claiming certainty.
I am certain that he was a frequent heavy binge drinker due to multiple independent accounts from different people including Kavanaugh himself.
I am certain that frequent heavy binge drinkers experience blackouts often due to the physiology of alcohol tolerance with respect to motor function, etc. as compared to the physiology of alcohol tolerance with respect to the ability to transfer memories from short term to long term.
And has already demonstrated that he is tempermentally unsuited to the job in addition to lying in several other responses unrelated to Thursday’s hearing. Even if you start with the premise that Kavanaugh and Ford were on equal footing in terms of credibility, Kavanaugh “boofed” his way right into the gutter with his conspiranoiac opening statement and kept going until he hot rock.
Why the GOP is stuck on jamming Kavanaugh through is a puzzler, other than the sheer obstinance that comes with getting caught doing something they know they never should have considered. Lindsey Graham’s little hissy fit shows everything wrong with the process; for the Republicans it is all about grandstanding for Trump’s approval. But really, if they want a conservative Supreme Court justice, they’ve got a whole bag of options of which there are presumably a few who aren’t overgrown rapey frat boys screaming, “I DRINK BEER! I LIKE BEER! BOYS LIKE BEER! GIRLS LIKE BEER! I LIKE BEER!” in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
Stranger
Emphasis added. See also Lance Turbo’s post. Note also that I am not moving any goalposts - he claims certainty, which requires more than good evidence - it requires proof.
Regards,
Shodan
Proof has been provided.
No, it doesn’t. It just requires certainty.
Do you have absolute proof for everything you are certain about?
One more time for clarity…
It has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh was a frequent heavy binge drinker.
It has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that frequent heavy binge drinkers blackout often.
Therefore, it has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Brett Kavanaugh blacked out often.
So you are absolutely certain about this, even without proof.
:shrugs:
Certainty without evidence is not a position that is amenable to discussion.
Regards,
Shodan
If you were hiring a babysitter, and you had strong suspicion that the person you were interviewing was a child molester because of reports from friends and neighbors, would you hire that person because absolute proof of child molestation could not be provided?
My point was that I don’t know. I don’t know these terms. Other than as a reference to the Bermuda Triangle, I am entirely unfamiliar with the term “Devil’s Triangle”. The question is whether I thought he was lying about these specific items. My answer was: “I don’t have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief”
I had a (somewhat) informed opinion on your “lie” #4 (about the Judge letter), because I’m familiar with section 1001 and I can easily read a copy of the letter. Based on that, I found the allegation of lying not well-taken.
Similarly, on “lie” # 3 (nature and scope of drinking), I could review the transcript and conclude that I found the answers to be evasive (often avoiding the question entirely), but not “lies”. It was not unfamiliar to my experience of cross-examining a hostile witness. My personal experience with alcohol leads me to believe that many of the indicia of guaranteed blackouts that his contemporaries identified (stumbling, slurred speech, even getting into fights) are things that I experienced without blacking out (although, the point about knowing you blacked out in a situation where there isn’t some unexplained event that occurred is well-taken).
But, I have no basis to form an opinion on the meanings of terms in his yearbook.