The Kavanaugh Effect.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

Does this apply to your own posts?

Yes, it does. If you didn’t read my posts before, you won’t read them if I repost.

For instance -

Like you repeatedly asserting that no investigation into Kavanaugh’s possible perjury is warranted because there have been such investigations already, without actually producing any evidence of a single past investigation into possible perjury by Kavanaugh?

It won’t do any good to point out what I said.

It was alleged that there was already clear and obvious proof that Kavanaugh had committed perjury. If that were true, more investigations would serve no purpose - there is already supposed clear and obvious proof. This reiteration will do no good.

It will also do no good to point out that Kavanaugh went thru several investigations as part of his hearings, both for the Supreme Court and for his earlier stint as an appeals court, and that those investigations included, for instance, what Kavanaugh said about his involvement in the Pryor case (which happened in 2003) and what he said in 2012, and that the Supreme Court hearings happened in 2018.

It will also do no good to point out that what Kavanaugh said about the Devil’s Triangle thing was investigated, by GQ and others who found one guy who said it didn’t mean what Kavanaugh said it did, and by those who found four people who said it did mean what Kavanaugh said it did.

That’s what Shodan’s Law says - you aren’t going to “get” this. I repeat myself, you repeat yourself, we get nowhere.

Horse, water. I can do no more.

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

Yes, it does. If you didn’t read my posts before, you won’t read them if I repost.

For instance -It won’t do any good to point out what I said.

It was alleged that there was already clear and obvious proof that Kavanaugh had committed perjury. If that were true, more investigations would serve no purpose - there is already supposed clear and obvious proof. This reiteration will do no good.

It will also do no good to point out that Kavanaugh went thru several investigations as part of his hearings, both for the Supreme Court and for his earlier stint as an appeals court, and that those investigations included, for instance, what Kavanaugh said about his involvement in the Pryor case (which happened in 2003) and what he said in 2012, and that the Supreme Court hearings happened in 2018.

It will also do no good to point out that what Kavanaugh said about the Devil’s Triangle thing was investigated, by GQ and others who found one guy who said it didn’t mean what Kavanaugh said it did, and by those who found four people who said it did mean what Kavanaugh said it did.

That’s what Shodan’s Law says - you aren’t going to “get” this. I repeat myself, you repeat yourself, we get nowhere.

Horse, water. I can do no more.

Regards,
Shodan

Ahh, I understand. This is very different than what you said before – you said before (if I understood you correctly) that there shouldn’t be any investigations into possible perjury because Kavanaugh already went through investigations (which was false, at least in terms of any investigations relating to perjury). Now you’re saying something else, entirely different, which doesn’t appear to conflict with the proposition of Congress investigating Kavanaugh over possible perjury in his testimony during his confirmation hearing.

[k9bfriender]

@Shodan

That’s what Shodan’s Law says - you aren’t going to “get” this. I repeat myself, you repeat yourself, we get nowhere.

Horse, water. I can do no more.

Regards,
Shodan

I think I understand now. You do not understand the difference between evidence and proof. There is evidence that he may have lied under oath. That evidence does not constitute “proof”, that is what an investigation would be for, to find more evidence, that eventually proves beyond a reasonable doubt as to his acts, or uncovers exculpatory evidence that clears him.

What you are saying is like saying that, because this murder suspect has not been convicted, since we do not have “proof” of his guilt, we should not investigate to find more evidence.

Yeah, until you can understand that difference, I do fear that you are going to just repeat yourself, and get nowhere.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

Ahh, I understand. This is very different than what you said before – you said before (if I understood you correctly) that there shouldn’t be any investigations into possible perjury because Kavanaugh already went through investigations (which was false, at least in terms of any investigations relating to perjury). Now you’re saying something else, entirely different, which doesn’t appear to conflict with the proposition of Congress investigating Kavanaugh over possible perjury in his testimony during his confirmation hearing.

Like I said, I didn’t expect it to do any good.
[ul][li]You did not understand me[/li][li]It is not different from what I said before[/li][li]I did not say that there shouldn’t be investigations because Kavanaugh had already been investigated[/li][li]It is not false that Kavanaugh has been investigated before, including investigations relating to perjury[/li][/ul]Apart from that - well, there isn’t anything apart from that.

@K9bfriender

I think I understand now.

No, you don’t.

What you are saying is like…

No, it isn’t anything like that.

:shrugs:

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

It is not false that Kavanaugh has been investigated before, including investigations relating to perjury

Cite for any investigations of Kavanaugh related to possible perjury during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings?

[k9bfriender]

@Shodan

No, you don’t.

So it goes deeper than that? You use the words proof and evidence interchangeably, so I was being generous, and saying that you, like many have done, were conflating those terms, giving you a possible out.

If that is not the case, then your posts show an understanding of basic vocabulary, much less justice systems, that seems to be very underdeveloped.

No, it isn’t anything like that.

Then can you articulate a level of evidence that would be appropriate before an investigation takes place? You were all talking about proof earlier. Are you claiming that you need to prove someone committed a crime before you may investigate?

For instance, do you think that is appropriate to investigate a teenage black girl if she happens to be within a mile of an area where a male black adult was reported to have committed a crime? If so, your standard of evidence before an investigation cannot be too high.

[UltraVires]

@k9bfriender

Then can you articulate a level of evidence that would be appropriate before an investigation takes place? You were all talking about proof earlier. Are you claiming that you need to prove someone committed a crime before you may investigate?

As I have said before, even if you show that Kavanaugh’s testimony was false, that does not equal perjury. You have to prove that he knew it was false, not just mistaken or suffering from a lack of memory from 36 years prior, and that the false testimony was material.

So even if you activate the entire resources of the FBI and have agents fanning out all across Maryland, like a scene from Mississippi Burning, and by some miracle you find solid evidence from the early 1980s that, say, boffing was a reference to anal sex by Kavanaugh’s contemporaries, and Kavanaugh says something along the lines of “now that I think about it, boffing was indeed referred to anal sex by some” then you still haven’t got your foot in the door.

You then have to prove that when he testified, he really remembered it and intended to mislead the Senate committee, and you have to show that the boffing testimony was material to the investigation. It really was a collateral issue and if you extrapolate from that that Kavanaugh was banging every girl in a three county area, it does not make it any more or less likely that he sexually assaulted Dr. Ford.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

Cite for an investigation into possible perjury by Kavanaugh?

Wait. I thought you said they would investigate whether he committed attempted rape. Are you backing off on that? Cuz the silence from the Democrats indicates that they might not be interested in the sexual assault anymore. IIRC you said you would do something if they did that.

[iiandyiiii]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Wait. I thought you said they would investigate whether he committed attempted rape. Are you backing off on that? Cuz the silence from the Democrats indicates that they might not be interested in the sexual assault anymore. IIRC you said you would do something if they did that.

I said I hoped they would investigate him for attempted rape and/or for perjury. If you look back earlier in this thread, you can see for yourself.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

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.

He did demand an investigation as soon as the allegations were made. Then people realized it was 35 fucking years ago and the conflicting testimony basically made it impossible.

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.

I don’t believe that any amount of evidence (or lack thereof) will ever placate most of his critics. Most of his critics are just salty that SCOTUS now leans conservative. I notice how noone really seems to give a shit whether it Kavanaugh or some other heritage institute recommended judge sitting on the supreme court.

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/416119-top-judiciary-dem-no-plans-to-investigate-or-impeach-kavanaugh

But they are interested in investigating Trump’s interference in the Kavanaugh investigation if any.

It was pure political theater. And it hurt the dems. I hope Trump doesn’t get a chance to nominate any more supreme court justices but that spectacle was like any other political spectacle from the Benghazi hearings to the Clinton impeachment. And it backfired just like they did.

[k9bfriender]

@UltraVires

As I have said before, even if you show that Kavanaugh’s testimony was false, that does not equal perjury. You have to prove that he knew it was false, not just mistaken or suffering from a lack of memory from 36 years prior, and that the false testimony was material.

So even if you activate the entire resources of the FBI and have agents fanning out all across Maryland, like a scene from Mississippi Burning, and by some miracle you find solid evidence from the early 1980s that, say, boffing was a reference to anal sex by Kavanaugh’s contemporaries, and Kavanaugh says something along the lines of “now that I think about it, boffing was indeed referred to anal sex by some” then you still haven’t got your foot in the door.

You then have to prove that when he testified, he really remembered it and intended to mislead the Senate committee, and you have to show that the boffing testimony was material to the investigation. It really was a collateral issue and if you extrapolate from that that Kavanaugh was banging every girl in a three county area, it does not make it any more or less likely that he sexually assaulted Dr. Ford.

As I said before:

@me from just a few posts ago

I have not said that he should be convicted of perjury on this charge, in fact, it has been specifically stated that this is the most circumstantial of the claims against him, as it is impossible to tell what is really in the mind of Kavanaugh. But, instead of accepting that we have said that this would not be proof of perjury, you instead keep arguing that this is not proof of perjury. It’s almost like you are arguing against an argument that is not being made. In fact, it’s exactly like that. Why would you do something like that? Why can’t you argue against the arguments that are actually being made, rather than having to make stuff up to rail against?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

Bumping this thread since there was some discussion earlier about a possible Democratic Congressional investigation into Kavanaugh’s possible lies about sexual assault: New Democratic House committee chairs: 10 who are about to make Trump’s life hell - Vox

This is bad journalism. Nadler’s most recent comments immediately after the election indicate he has no such intention. In fact noone really gives a shit whether its Kavanaugh or some other conservative justice sitting on the supreme court. Democrats were trying to shoot the moon and try to delay the nomination until after the election where they might get a senate majority back. I don’t blame them after all, the Republicans pulled much the same shit on Merrick Garland and turnabout is fair play.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@iiandyiiii

I said I hoped they would investigate him for attempted rape and/or for perjury. If you look back earlier in this thread, you can see for yourself.

IIRC you were pretty upset in a #me too sort of way about the attempted rape. Perjury about drinking games did not seem to be the source of your outrage.

When did your focus shift from attempted rape to perjury? Was it when you thought that the Democrats were no longer interested in the attempted rape?

What will you do when you discover they aren’t even interested in any allegations of perjury because they would just be replacing one conservative SCOTUS justice with another one. Without winning the senate back, none of this matters politically and politics is what matters to them. Not getting justice for Ford or getting to the bottom of her allegations.

What did you say if they didn’t take this up right away? Now that the shutdown is over I’m sure we will be hearing about the senate investigation into a 35 year old alleged attempted rape.

[iiandyiiii]

@Damuri_Ajashi

IIRC you were pretty upset in a #me too sort of way about the attempted rape. Perjury about drinking games did not seem to be the source of your outrage.

When did your focus shift from attempted rape to perjury? Was it when you thought that the Democrats were no longer interested in the attempted rape?

What will you do when you discover they aren’t even interested in any allegations of perjury because they would just be replacing one conservative SCOTUS justice with another one. Without winning the senate back, none of this matters politically and politics is what matters to them. Not getting justice for Ford or getting to the bottom of her allegations.

What did you say if they didn’t take this up right away? Now that the shutdown is over I’m sure we will be hearing about the senate investigation into a 35 year old alleged attempted rape.

This appears to be about your feelings about me as a poster, rather than any actual issues, and thus I won’t be continuing along with you.

[CaptMurdock]

As I stated upthread, the allegations from Ford are more or less unprovable and the drinking game vs. sexual practice is a non-starter. I’m still waiting on something more substantive than “So what if he didn’t remember handling something big like the confirmation of a circuit-court judge during the W administration” from Brett’s fanboys in this forum.

[Bone]

@CaptMurdock

He lied about his handling of William Pryor during his nomination for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Happy?

@CaptMurdock

As I stated upthread, the allegations from Ford are more or less unprovable and the drinking game vs. sexual practice is a non-starter. I’m still waiting on something more substantive than “So what if he didn’t remember handling something big like the confirmation of a circuit-court judge during the W administration” from Brett’s fanboys in this forum.

It’s not just folks on this forum that disagree with you. These guys at the Washington Post don’t agree with you.

[quote]
As for the meetings and conference calls, it’s unclear whether Kavanaugh ended up in them. If he did, it’s important to keep in mind that he disclosed in his written answers to Durbin and Kennedy in 2004 that he had been involved in meetings and discussions about Pryor and 18 other nominees./quote]

These guys also disagree with you:

The first instance, wherein Kavanaugh said he was “not involved in handling” Pryor’s nomination, isn’t even clearly “false.” The question that precedes it is a lengthy question from Senator Kennedy. One could argue that Kavanaugh thought Kennedy was asking whether Kavanaugh played a major role “in the vetting process” for Pryor, or discussed specific Constitutional doctrines with Pryor prior to Pryor’s nomination (Kennedy mentions Pryor’s reported views of the Supreme Court’s Miranda decision). Thus, Kavanaugh’s answer (“No. I was not involved in handling his nomination”) is truthful insofar as Kavanaugh understood “handling” to mean “in charge” of either vetting the person or shepherding that person’s nomination through the Senate.

On the first tweet, being involved in the nomination, I think if you look down lower at the transcript below the part highlighted, he gives himself enough room that it doesn’t clearly rise to the level of perjury. He’s saying, “I know him, I’ve met him, but I wasn’t the point person for that one, I wasn’t in charge.” I think if you look at the overall context, he has a line that he wasn’t involved in the handling. That was probably too direct an assertion, but I don’t think that one rises to the level of perjury.

In my view, it’s clear that Kavanaugh was distancing himself from the Pryor nomination among other things. That was probably intentional - to downplay more controversial actions. Hardly anything significant, and lightyears away from perjury, which is what you’ve been asserting. It’s pretty weak actually, so much so that I hope it occupies all of the Democrats time for years to come. They can rotate between talking about alleged perjury with talking about Garland.

[UltraVires]

@k9bfriender

As I said before:

Fine. Then you concede the boffing thing. What do you allege that Kavanaugh perjured himself about?

[UltraVires]

@CaptMurdock

As I stated upthread, the allegations from Ford are more or less unprovable and the drinking game vs. sexual practice is a non-starter. I’m still waiting on something more substantive than “So what if he didn’t remember handling something big like the confirmation of a circuit-court judge during the W administration” from Brett’s fanboys in this forum.

You are the one alleging perjury. Please make your allegation as to what he perjured himself about.

[iiandyiiii]

Doesn’t matter what anyone alleges right now. It appears likely there will be a congressional investigation into possible perjury by Kavanaugh during his SCOTUS hearing, and that investigation may or may not find evidence that he did commit perjury.

[k9bfriender]

@UltraVires

Fine. Then you concede the boffing thing. What do you allege that Kavanaugh perjured himself about?

Once again, we are talking about many different things here, and you seem to insist on conflating them to what you want to talk about in inappropriate ways.

I concede that the boffing thing and devil’s triangle thing are very unlikely to have enough evidence for them that they would result in proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but I still believe, on balance, given the preponderance of evidence and basic logic, it to be the case that he lied. That is not the same as convicting for perjury.

For the other petty stuff to get it out of the way, I also think that he lied about what a “Renate Alumnus” means, I do not believe that he never blacked out, and I know he has not always treated women with dignity and respect, as I watched him treat a woman with disrespect and contempt during the confirmation hearings (though his last claim wasn’t under oath, so him lying about that isn’t perjury, just regular lying).

As to the others, yes I also think that he lied in relation to the Pryor handling, I think he lied in respect to the confidential memos, and I think that he lied about his assault on Ford.

As to what is provable, I do think that the memos thing is pretty much proven to anyone that is not a partisan. He says that he never handled the memos, but he has an email receiving the memos, even mentioning that they are confidential. I think that, given an investigation, the Pryor handling and the memos could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt but, given that there has not been an investigation into those claims, there is not currently enough evidence to prove the case.

But, as I said, it is hard to prove a case when an investigation has not been done. You only need probable cause for investigation, not “proof”, and I think that there is more than enough probable cause to investigate.

So, as we are not calling for a conviction based on the evidence that we have, but rather, an investigation to get more evidence that will either shore up our claims, or maybe even exonerate him, do you have an argument as to why an investigation should not take place that is not the usual strawman of demanding to know why we think we can convict on perjury of your cherry picked claim based on only what we, the public, know right now, that seems to be the theme of Team Kavanaugh in this thread?