Pitting Steophan, and any of the other lying liars from the now-closed Kavanaugh thread

Pitting Steophan for his post in this exchange in particular:

Given the abundant citations in the thread referring to persons (such as Ford’s therapist) who corroborated her story, and the virtual impossibility that Steophan wasn’t aware of such corroborating, if informal, testimony, that’s a flat-out lie.

My WAG is that Steophan was actually referring to the failure of the other persons Ford said were at the party (other than Kavanaugh and Judge, of course) to recollect anything about it. But if this was his meaning, she never claimed that they would remember or be able to corroborate the existence of this party - quite the opposite, actually.

He knows that too. So if this was what he really meant, that’s a lie too.

Since the original thread has been closed (prematurely, IMHO, as people were still spouting bullshit that deserved refutation), if any of that other bullshit went past being mere bullshit and into the territory of blatant lies, other posters should feel welcome to bring up instance of that here.

Of course, Steophan and MemoryLeak overlook the fact that they’re comparing apples and oranges - how much evidence is required to deprive a person of life, liberty, and property, versus how much evidence should have been required to trigger a (genuine) investigation to make sure a person nominated for the highest court in the land is indeed suitable for that position - but that’s mere willful obtuseness, at least on Steophan’s part; for all I know, it’s possible that MemoryLeak may be too stupid to make this distinction.

It deosn’t matter what the standard is, unless your standard is that any accusation is enough to prevent someone sitting on the supreme court. The balance of the evidence shows that the alleged party did not happen, so the attack Ford describes cannot have happened. She most likely misremembers, or is possibly lying, but that’s unlikely.

All that the therapist’s notes show is that she made a claim a few years ago that she was assaulted, there was no name given and the details differed from the recent allegation.

Unless and until this matter is reported to the police, all appropriate - and some arguably inappropriate - investigations have taken place.

Steophan lied? Water is wet.

What about the entry on the July 1st, 1982 calendar? “Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie and … Squi.” “Skis” is short for “brewskies,” or beer.

The name “Blasey” is conspicuously absent from that list.

From you, I’d need plenty of confirmation that water was wet before I believed it. You’d claim water was a dessicating pink gas if that’s what your political bias lead you to believe.

LOL. Says the guy who even conservatives criticized for unrepentantly lying about me. Sure, liar. Whatever you say.

Rolling tape:

Well, looks like you’re lying again - about something I just said. I’m so surprised.

That’s a lie too, of course. There’s absolutely zero evidence that this party did not happen. You know this. You know that participants’ failure to remember a small, informal get-together that happened 36 years ago is not 'evidence…that the alleged party did not happen."

Yep, you’re as persistent a liar as Kavanaugh is. Congratulations.

In case of the unlikely possibility that you didn’t know this, the calendar entries were generally prospective - as most calendar entries by anyone tend to be - rather than retrospective.

There. Your ignorance on that point, if it was indeed ignorance, has been fixed. Next time, you won’t have that excuse.

Of course it is. That you don’t accept this simply proves that you’ve prejudged this allegation to be true, and are dismissing the actual evidence.

What you are doing is literally the same as what conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, climate change denialist and the like do. You are cherry-picking the evidence that suits your position and ignoring the (much stronger) evidence against it.

Either way, it provides no evidence that a party such as the one Ford described actually occurred. Do you have any evidence to corroborate her claim that she was ever at a party with Kavanaugh?

Now you’re just being ridiculous. Not lying, just laughable.

As mentioned above, I kept a pretty detailed journal during high school. On the rare occasions when I dust off those notebooks and read them, it’s amazing, the number of incidents that I have no memory of, even when jogged by my own writing.

And according to you, my absence of memory of those incidents would be evidence that they didn’t happen, rather than merely lack of evidence that they did. This is what you would equate with anti-vaxxing and the like.

This is why it’s impossible to give you any credence, even when you’re not outright lying.

“Even Conservatives”… Everything has to be partisan with you, doesn’t it? No fucks given about right and wrong, truth and falsehood, just your side winning.

Which is ironic, as it’s your side’s continual promotion of this uncorroborated, most likely false allegation against Kavanaugh that has made the very real problems with him becoming a SCOTUS judge irrelevant to most people.

No idea what the hell you’re talking about – you’ve lied about me so much that apparently a fantasy version of me, untethered from reality, lives inside your own head. None of this has anything to do with what I’ve posted, in this thread or any other. But this is nothing new, of course. It’s impossible that you’d have ever noticed the times I excoriated Democrats and liberals, especially for credible accusations of sexual assault, because the real me conflicts with that fantasy me in your head.

The thing is that you’re not even that different from me on politics. You’re just a lying or delusional asshole. I don’t think you’re shitty because of politics – there are lots of conservative Dopers that I like, and you aren’t even particularly conservative. I think you’re shitty because you’ve lied about me many, many times – unapologetically.

No, but we have her testimony itself, and that’s evidence. Evidence of party, 1; evidence that the party never took place, 0. “Balance of the evidence” was your phrase, your standard. So by your own measure, this party happened.

Glad that’s settled. :slight_smile:

ETA: Please don’t move the goalposts and say it’s gotta be a win by 2 points to constitute ‘balance of the evidence.’ Not saying you’ve done this, but just in case.

“Evidence that party never took place” is at least 5 - 4 people claimed to have no memory of it, and there is no record of it in Kavanaugh’s extremely (perhaps worryingly) thorough calendars and journals.

And that’s not just no memory of that particular party - no memory of anything similar to it.

So, Hillary Clinton, then. Do you think she’s unfit to be president due to her support for her rapist husband and repeated attempts to silence his accusers? I assume you voted for Stein two years ago?

Or were you more concerned with your side winning?

I’ve no need to lie about you, that’s the thing. Your posts incriminate you by themselves, and you conveniently link to them. I’m not going to play your game and get angry in my own defence - do a Kavanaugh as it were - so you can claim my reaction makes me untrustworthy. I’ll just enjoy being right, and those that care can follow the links you provide and see that.

If only. The Judiciary Committee majority was already rushing to confirm him anyway and would not slow down to gather the evidence that was known to be out there, back when his frequent lack of honesty was the big issue the Dems were raising.

Trying to blame on the Dems the way the issue of his honesty, or lack of it, has been overlooked is bullshit. In fact, in the hearing ten days ago, Dems specifically asked questions to demonstrate his dishonesty now about what he wrote in his yearbook back then.

And again, the response of the Republicans was to refuse to investigate issues relating to Kavanaugh’s dishonesty, and to plow through it anyway.

You’re welcome to keep saying this.
It just demonstrates your lack of intellectual honesty.

That, OTOH, is a blatant lie on your part. Because you know you can’t know whether one of the gatherings on his calendar was the gathering in question.