Remember the Kavanaugh!! Republican war cry in defeating ruthless Dems

[sys]

I’ll admit not everyone is going to share this opinion, but IYAM you have a pretty weak case for perjury if it takes longer than two sentences to explain.

he testified under oath that he didn't receive material stolen from a dem senator and documents from the time show that he did.

[catastrophe]

That’s better. Just not what the article you linked said.

[sys]

That’s better. Just not what the article you linked said.

that is what the article said.

[catastrophe]

That’s better. Just not what the article you linked said.

that is what the article said.

The article explicitly said he testified under oath that he did not receive “any documents that appeared to [him] to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

The fact that he actually did receive documents drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary committee doesn't render that testimony false.

It's not even that fine of a point, to be honest.  If someone asked me if I have ever met someone who appeared to be a Democratic staff member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I can unequivocally say "no," even if it just so happens that my next door neighbor was a former staffer and I didn't realize it.

[renocat]

If pussy panthers are trying to destroy this man, they to speak up in the light of day to voice their accusations or just shut up.  Ford''s attorney said she doesn't have to verify her accusations.  What? Is this because she is spEwing a false statement?

[wetwillie]

That’s better. Just not what the article you linked said.

that is what the article said.

The article explicitly said he testified under oath that he did not receive “any documents that appeared to [him] to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

The fact that he actually did receive documents drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary committee doesn't render that testimony false.

It's not even that fine of a point, to be honest.  If someone asked me if I have ever met someone who appeared to be a Democratic staff member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I can unequivocally say "no," even if it just so happens that my next door neighbor was a former staffer and I didn't realize it.

Crack legal advice from catastrophe is a welcome surprise to this thread

[sys]

The article explicitly said he testified under oath that he did not receive “any documents that appeared to [him] to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

The fact that he actually did receive documents drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary committee doesn't render that testimony false.

It's not even that fine of a point, to be honest.  If someone asked me if I have ever met someone who appeared to be a Democratic staff member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I can unequivocally say "no," even if it just so happens that my next door neighbor was a former staffer and I didn't realize it.

the article also explained why it is pretty obvious that he was lying, even though it might be difficult or impossible to convict him of perjury for his lies.

[catastrophe]

Which brings us full circle to my point about making a perjury case.

FWIW, I also think the article is taking some liberties concerning the content of the docs at issue. It certainly isn’t apparent to me that they include parts of Dems’ analysis as opposed to opposition research, but I get that he may have been in a better position to understand that’s what was going on.

[sys]

a.  you asked for a tl:dnr summary.  of necessity that skirts detail.
b.  the discussion is with regard to whether people think he should be confirmed to be a sc justice, not whether he should be prosecuted for perjury.  i think most people just care if he's a lying liar who loves to tell lies, not if he's convictable.

[chum1]

Still a mess.

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1042203651597639680

[wetwillie]

What exactly is the FBI going to investigate?

[Phil Titola]

What exactly is the FBI going to investigate?

CCTV stored on microfiche obviously

[star seed 7]

It's a background investigation

[catastrophe]

a.  you asked for a tl:dnr summary.  of necessity that skirts detail.
b.  the discussion is with regard to whether people think he should be confirmed to be a sc justice, not whether he should be prosecuted for perjury.  i think most people just care if he's a lying liar who loves to tell lies, not if he's convictable.

Taking a trip down memory lane

I’ll admit not everyone is going to share this opinion, but IYAM you have a pretty weak case for perjury if it takes longer than two sentences to explain.

he testified under oath that he didn't receive material stolen from a dem senator and documents from the time show that he did.

I did not ask for a tl;dr summary.  I was making a point that if your explanation for why this guy was lying under oath took longer than two sentences to explain ("tl"), then it's not a strong point.

Example: Subject testified under oath that he did not do X.  This video corroborated by eyewitness testimony shows that he did do X.

Agree with most of your second point, although the skeptic in me says most people who have expressed an opinion don't actually care whether he is lying or not.  They made up their mind as soon as they heard about the accusation.

[steve dave]

really good an interesting fight you guys are having itt 

[catastrophe]

Good contribution.

[chum1]

Just for the sake of counting all of the things this shady rough rider has clearly been lying about.

https://twitter.com/jakebackpack/status/1042396733345554432

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Still a mess.

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1042203651597639680

Pfffft. She's a rough ridin' liar.

I think I read the FBI has already conducted 5 or 6 background checks on BK.

[wetwillie]

One more couldn’t hurt

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

If she won't testify or is lying, I think we can go ahead and warm up the FBI investigation of her and Feinstein, maybe impeach that POS in the process. This may work out well for all Americans.

[Dugout DickStone]

I hate to agree with FSD but if she won't testify and wants some vague FBI investigation...sorry lady, we need to vote on this guy.

[Spracne]

Just for the sake of counting all of the things this shady rough rider has clearly been lying about.

https://twitter.com/jakebackpack/status/1042396733345554432

I, for one, can't deal with the fact that Mr. Bacharach (douchey name) used the words soi-disant and prevarication in a single tweet.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Phil Titola]

I mean who doesn't want to lie about sexual assault and get their name drug through the mud by every hard core trump maniac?

Sounds awesome.

[ChiComCat]

Republicans only believe in holding up confirmation if there is a good reason to do so.

[catastrophe]

I mean who doesn't want to lie about sexual assault and get their name drug through the mud by every hard core trump maniac?

Sounds awesome.

My understanding is that she initially insisted on remaining anonymous but came out publicly after it was apparent her name was going to get leaked by nosy reporters. So you could craft a coherent story that explains her behavior to this point even if she’s not telling the truth. Obviously going under oath and testifying would undercut that story.

Of course, it’s also reasonable to assume that a lawyer would not want their client testifying under oath about anything with less than a week of prep. Plus, assuming she doesn’t want Kav to get confirmed, she has every motivation to delay the proceedings as much as she can.