So, it’s not clear or obvious that Kavanaugh perjured himself, and you don’t believe he lied about blacking out. Again, progress of a sort.
Do you also believe you don’t need any instances of Kavanaugh lying to show that he lied?
Regards,
Shodan
If Kavanaugh didn’t lie, he should welcome this investigation. As should his supporters (just as I welcomed the Benghazi investigations). It could show that he was telling the truth the entire time, and didn’t tell a single untruth. If he didn’t lie, his good name has been damaged, and this could be a chance to clear his name.
Now, now, stop being the Voice of Reason. His SDMB Fan Club wants to die on the Hill of the Devil’s Triangle, by all means let 'em. :rolleyes:
I honestly don’t see how you can come to these conclusions from reading my posts.
It is clear and obvious that Kavanaugh lied under oath.
And I have shown that Kavanaugh has blacked out, but I’m not sure that I have ever claimed he lied about that.
Finally, many other posters have posted cites that show that Kavanaugh lied under oath. My beliefs don’t figure into this.
And yet you can’t seem to come up with the evidence that makes this clear or obvious.
On what specific occasion did Kavanaugh black out, who witnessed it, and how did that witness or those witnesses know he had blacked out?
Regards,
Shodan
This isn’t my read on the situation at all. Like, completely opposite actually. There is no upside for Kavanaugh. The folks who believe he lied will never be placated so there is no point to engage with them.
Do you subscribe to the idea that if you have done nothing wrong you should consent to searches? Do you think someone accused should always testify? This gambit suggesting that Kavanaugh should just submit - it makes no sense.
You did in this post. That is, you did claim he lied about it - you did not show that he ever blacked out.
Regards,
Shodan
I could. I haven’t because others posted enough to get started.
Not my problem. I never claimed to know any of that.
If he doesn’t care about how he’s widely perceived, then of course he should resist such an investigation. And obviously, if he has something to hide. But if he has absolutely nothing to hide, and wants to clear his name of any suggestion that he’s an abuser or liar, then he ought to cooperate with – and even demand – as much legitimate and thorough investigation as he can get.
Of course, I disagree that “the folks who believe he lied will never be placated so there is no point to engage with them”. If you believe this is true for many or most issues, then there’s rarely a point to any investigation, or even discussion or engagement, about anything.
That’s not under oath, but it doesn’t matter anyway.
He clearly lied many times under oath about many things, and not just about his high school and college drinking habits.
I don’t think Devil’s Triangle or blacking out are among his clear and obvious lies, but I do think he lied about them. Furthermore, it is certain that he blacked out, but it is less certain that he lied about it.
What is the criteria under which you would believe that Kavanaugh did not lie?
I wouldn’t say I believe that people wont be placated about most issues, but there are some. This is one. A year long FBI investigation could come back and say that they’ve discovered no evidence to support the idea that Kavanaugh lied, and folks would still not believe it.
But you didn’t answer my question - do you think you should consent to searches if you’ve done nothing wrong?
If I believed that my good name had been unjustly besmirched, and that these searches might clear my name, then I’d strongly consider it.
As for your first question, I’ve made no final conclusion about whether Kavanaugh lied. I think an investigation is appropriate because I think it’s reasonable to suspect that he might have.
You’re really good at telling us what you think he did NOT clearly and obviously lie about, but really BAD at telling us what you think he DID clearly and obviously lie about.
Do you realize that this pattern of behavior runs counter to what almost every defense lawyer in the country would recommend? And that’s true whether their clients are guilty as sin or innocent and pure as driven snow.
You are really bad at understanding that I think the links others have posted are a sufficient jumping off point.
Is there a specific link you had in mind, or is this just another of your vague “it’s out there somewhere” posts?
One of several that you responded to regarding Devil’s Triangle. The GQ link posted by CaptMurdock is a decent, but not the only, example.
We’ve already established that those links contain factually wrong claims.
False.
And your evidence for this stunning rebuttal? Is it ‘somewhere out there’?