I do realize that. Shodan, on the other hand, seems to think the House should, “be able to impeach based on the evidence to date.” I think that’s pretty extreme, but I’ll listen if he’d like to try to convince me.
Perhaps certain members of this board who feel the knee-jerk impetus to provide cover for right-leaning politicians and judges should demonstrate for Congress.
Less than an hour ago, you said, “He lies to senators every time he speaks to senators.” Justice Kavanaugh spoke to Whitehouse (a senator, lamentably) and said that “Devil’s Triangle” referred to a drinking game similar to Quarters. Lie? Or not a lie? What do you think, Lance?
Let’s just set, maybe as a minimum standard for truthfulness / accuracy, that the subsequent cites you offer not repeat the same exact mistake that your original one did?
Vox:
BI:
Your NBC News “cite” is just an opinion piece, not really a catalog of “lies”, but it does link to a New York Times piece that spreads the same misinformation on “Devil’s Triangle”:
You’re really going all in on this Devil’s Triangle business.
What do you think your last cite says? To me it looks like it says Kavanaugh’s explanation of Devil’s Triangle is disputed and then it quotes one of Kavanaugh’s classmates disputing it.
That said, Devil’s Triangle is not one of Kavanaugh’s obvious lies and I never claimed it was. There’s a bunch to choose from. There’s no need to concern yourself with Devil’s Triangle unduly.
I already quoted exactly what you claimed. You said “He lies to senators every time he speaks to senators.” Now we have established that is not correct.
“He lies to senators every time he speaks to senators,” means he tells at least one lie every time he speaks to senators, not that every word out of his mouth is a lie when he is speaking to senators. He lied in his 2003 hearing. He Lied in his 2005 hearing. He lied in his 2018 hearing. He lied every time he was under oath in a senate hearing.
Also, you have not established the truth of his Devil’s Triangle explanation, you have demonstrated that it may or may not be true.
You claimed earlier that it was clear and obvious that Kavanaugh lied. Now you at least recognize that it is neither. Progress, I guess.
You claimed that Kavanaugh lied about never blacking out. To prove that a lie is easy - all you need is a specific instance of Kavanaugh blacking out. When did that happen, who witnessed it, and how did that witness or those witnesses know that Kavanaugh had blacked out?
But that is the problem with proving perjury. It must be shown that the witness made a statement that is knowingly false. When you are dealing with subjective things, then it can never be proven.
What does it mean to “blackout”? Kavanaugh may believe that to mean something different than you or I do. Even if you find 20 people who would testify that Kavanaugh was at a party blasted off of his ass and pissing in a closet, he can say that he remembers the events of the night perfectly well.
Even if you find people who will say that the morning after a party Kavanaugh told them that he got drunk and didn’t remember anything from the night before, he can claim that he was just a young kid lying and trying to impress them with his drinking prowess.
You can say the same thing about most of these other “lies.” Especially the one about “personally handling” the Pryor nomination. What does that mean? That he was involved? That he was the point man? Even if you show that he was copied on every email about Pryor and hosted a party for him, he can say that yes he was involved in the nomination process but he did not personally handle it, that was Mr. Smith’s job.
