You incorrectly characterized one sentence as demonstrably false.
That does not mean that, “those links contain factually wrong claims”. It doesn’t even show that one claim is false.
The article says that Kavanaugh contemporaries were not familiar Kavanaugh’s explanation of the term, and it quotes those contemporaries. The fact that some people later claimed that they were familiar with Kavanaugh’s explanation does not magically make the statement in the article false. The author of the GQ article never claimed that 100% of Kavanaugh contemporaries denied Kavanaugh’s definition. The author made a claim, and backed it up.
Furthermore, finding one sentence in an article that you disagree with and using that as an excuse to ignore the many many other documented clear and obvious lies told by Kavanaugh is pretty weak stuff.
It’s an indication to me that the author (of the article, this isn’t directed at you) is not interested in giving a truthful account of events or updating their list when new information comes to light. That GQ article is not a good source.
The particular sentence you have a problem with is where the author makes a claim and backs it up with evidence. It is not even in the same category as a demonstrably false claim.
I’ve looked it over, and I don’t see how you are getting that it is not truthful. It is not something you would like to read, I get that, and it is something that has some requirements to understand timelines and understand that someone other than who is quoted rebutting a quote does not mean that the news got the quote wrong.
If you want to defend Kavanaugh, go ahead. But this, this attack on words that you don’t like, with the only evidence being that other people said something different, (not even contradictory), is not a very robust line for you to take.
Especially as you dismiss the entire article, and author, and I assume publication, based on your false understanding that these words are not true and your accusation of dishonesty.
That you cherry pick a single sentence out of an article that you try to find some room for doubt, allowing you to dismiss all the rest of the evidence presented in that article does not actually put anything into a “win” column for you in this debate.
I’m not focused on one particular sentence. The big picture idea was that this exchange with Whitehouse was a “lie” by Justice Kavanaugh. It was published in the media, and elsewhere online (even here at the SDMB IIRC). That whole idea (that Justice Kavanaugh was lying when he said “Devil’s Triange” was a reference to a drinking game) is false. It is, itself, a lie perpetuated by many on the Left. There is substantial evidence to support that conclusion.
That the author of the GQ article quotes Fishburne is not evidence that Justice Kavanaugh lied, but that Fishburne was ignorant. Again, this is not something that should be in doubt for any reasonable person:
Ooh ooh ooh Mr. Hurricane Ditka! Sorry to hijack this thread, but you seem to have been too engrossed in it to respond to my multiple PMs about the election bet that you have yet to pay off. Should I expect some response, or should I just go ahead and start yet another Pit thread about you?
Well, and there you go, making accusations of deliberate lies again. If anything, it is a misunderstanding that is maintained by the left, to make your accusation of lying, you now have the burden of knowing what the intent and what is in the minds of those who believe that Kavanaugh was less than truthful in this instance. You are doing exactly what you are accusing the author of doing.
You have substantial evidence to support your conclusion that it is an intentional falsehood perpetuated by the left? Cite please.
If anything, at very most, it is a mistake, a very understandable mistake, that a term that is coined and used exclusively for one activity is used to refer to a completely different one.
And, in the end, I do believe that he was lying out his ass on that. He knew very well what Devil’s Triangle meant, knew very well taht it referred to sexual activity, and not drinking. That he got some of his buddies to back him up on that lie after the fact doesn’t really give him the alibi that you think it does.
That’s why cops talk to witnesses and suspects alone, before they get a chance to coordinate their stories. Before there was a chance to coordinate stories, his peers said one thing. Then after it came out that this is what Kavanagh said, they suddenly remember it being a drinking game.
You are incorrect that it is not evidence that he lied. We have one person who says one thing, and one person who says another. One or the other is lying or mistaken. How do you know that it is Fishburne who was lying or mistaken? What motive does he have to lie about his classmate?
Incontrovertible proof that he committed perjury, no, it is not.
To cast that anyone who takes the word of someone who mad e statement before being coached over the word of willing alibis who spoke after they knew the story they were supposed to be telling as “unreasonable” is not an honest debate tactic. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that the person who did not know the story he was supposed to tell was the one who was telling the truth.
You are correct that Fishburne was ignorant. He was ignorant of the party line that he was supposed to be telling.
Now, if Kavanaugh had said, “Yes, that is often referred to as a sex act, but me and my friends used that name for our drinking game.” then sure, I’d give some credibility for that. But to believe that he had never heard of it in that context, especially when one of his peers had, is what should be in doubt for any reasonable person.
My friends all backed me up after I told them what to say!
What is GQ supposed to correct? Are you claiming that Fishburne did not say what he said? They simply reported on what he said. If what he said was incorrect, then that is on him, and if it can be shown that he lied about it, they should update the story.
Can you show that Fishburne lied about knowing what “Devil’s Triangle” meant? If not, then your insistence that GQ make a correction has no merit whatsoever, and is only meant as a smokescreen to avoid talking about the other umpteen things that he is suspected of having lied about.
Picking one single claim that you think you can find a wedge on to discredit the entire piece and magazine is not a credible claim, and your wedge is nothingberder, as well.
The last PM I received from you was more than six weeks ago. I passed your request along to the ACLU when I gave them my donation. Our wager is settled. At this point, go ahead and do whatever the hell you want. IDGAF
This is an interesting tactic: propose a standard for making an accusation of lying, and then immediately abandon it:
Or perhaps you want me to abide by it while you and your fellow leftists do not? GQ didn’t meet “the burden of knowing what the intent and what is in the mind” of Justice Kavanaugh before labeling them “All of Brett Kavanaugh’s Lies”. Neither did you.
No, we have one person (Fishburne) who says “The explanation of Devil’s triangle does not hold water for me” vs FOUR people (not just one) who said that “Devil’s triangle” referred to a drinking game (their names were DeLancey Davis, Bernard McCarthy, Jr., Paul Murray and Matthew Quinn). Matthew Quinn even went on to teach it two of his buddies in college:
Lets call it four firsthand (5 if we count Justice Kavanaugh) and two secondhand accounts vs one “does not hold water for me”.
Their story that (inaccurately) says “Georgetown Prep contemporaries had never heard of that definition”. They got a statement from one contemporary that had never heard of it and ignored the multiple statements from other contemporaries that had heard of it.
Only if you are actually only reading the selective parts that you quote. otherwise, it makes perfect sense.
Ah, here, you are accusing me of a double standard, are you not? And you are doing so on what basis?
You claimed that “There is substantial evidence to support that conclusion.” Yet, you presented us with, well, nothing.
I claimed that I believed that he was lying.
You may believe that he is telling the truth, and that is great. But what you claimed was that you had substantial evidence that democrats were lying about their position, evidence that has yet to surface.
GQ, OTOH, compared what Kavanagh said to the evidence that existed that showed that what he said was not true. They provided substantial evidence for this. You may dispute this evidence, you may not believe this evidence. You may believe that an alibi given after coaching is more credible than a statement given before coaching, and all of that is up to you.
But, you have claimed that democrats re lying about the belief that Kavanaugh lied about this, you claimed to have substantial evidence.
You have nothingberder. You accusation of hypocrisy has, and this seems to be a pattern for you, once again failed miserably.
Yes, we have one person who says he knew what it meant. And we have other people who claim that they had never heard of it in that context.
Had there been a drinking game called that, and called that because of some similarity or inside joke relating it to the very much better known use for the term, then that I could accept. The idea that a bunch of teenagers would use this term without knowing that it refers to sex is not a credible claim, IMHO.
Remind me to get you on a jury after if I ever rob a bank. You will take the word of my 4 friends over the word of the bank teller I held up. Awesome.
(don’t hold your breath for that sweet $10 a day pay out though, I have no plans on committing any such acts.)
Right, and what is said was factually accurate. That the people that they had talked to had never heard of that definition. That later, after the story was out, and after the party line was established, that suddenly some people “remembered” the definition that they were supposed to remember doesn’t change the veracity of the claim that “Georgetown Prep contemporaries had never heard of that definition.”
And that you are using the one line that you can find in the article to nitpick and try to dissemble and use to disparage the entire article, author and publication is not getting you anywhere. It is doing your best to distract from the rest of the article, and it is essentially admitting that this is the only thing that you have a contention with, and that you accept the rest of the article as correct.
Can you challenge any of the other claims in the article? Or do you accept them as written?
None of what you said gets you to step 1 of 100 for perjury. An unscientific survey of my friends show that none of us had ever heard the term “devil’s triangle” used either for a drinking game or for group sex. The only time I have ever heard the term is in reference to the Bermuda Triangle.
None of us have ever heard the term “boofing” either. We have heard the term “boffing” that refers to sex, but it have never used it.
Slang being what it is, isn’t it possible that some people use a particular term meaning one thing and others use it for something else? It is entirely possible that the drinking game was named that way because of the sex term and vice versa.
In any event, there is no way, never, ever to prove that Kavanaugh committed perjury in this instance. You’ll notice that all of the cited articles were written prior to the confirmation vote in hopes of changing a few minds.
The crazy part is that the article was cited as an example of the many clear and obvious lies that Kavanaugh told under oath, but the part about Devil’s Triangle was specifically excluded from that.
Can you, without pointing to the articles, give one example of a “clear and obvious” lie such that Kavanaugh has committed perjury? Again, while I respect your opinion, I am not talking about things that ping your bullshit meter, I am talking about things which can be verified as lies.
I’ll be delighted to respond to the rest of your post too, but for starters, I’d like you to answer a question for me. A simple “yes” or “no” will do. You’ve now several times suggested that the four Georgetown Prep contemporaries of Justice Kavanaugh that vouched for “Devil’s triangle” being a reference to a drinking game were somehow “coached”. Do you have any evidence of this “coaching” taking place? Yes or no?
Can you, without pointing to the articles, give one example of a “clear and obvious” lie such that Kavanaugh has committed perjury? Again, while I respect your opinion, I am not talking about things that ping your bullshit meter, I am talking about things which can be verified as lies.
