Even more problematic stuff

[Sean Hayden]

Fake news is alive and well guys.

[laklak]

Rank and file revolt?

[Sean Hayden]

It's going to take more than that. I heard Amazon's made a lot of it's money from dear old DoD.

[laklak]

I think we're all Bezos on this bus.

[Brian Peacock]

...
This gets complicated.

Yeah, you kind of made my point about this being an exercise in trolling. And it's only complicated by an obession with other people's genitals riding on the back of an assumption that someone else's gender is your business and that people choose their sexual orientation like the choose their footwear.

Where did I say anything about people choosing their sexual orientation like they choose their footwear, or that I was concerned with other people's gentials or that I thought their gender was or should be my business?

What's an exercise in trolling? I'm not following.

You seem to be responding to something I didn't say.

Pfaff. I was just pointing out that you, in the manner of the Dutchman, and in as much as you ever really represent your own views, were trolling the nominal transgendered in your response. Then I implied that you feel justified in this because you assume gender is about the genitals you were born with, that a personal negation of that assumption makes no difference to the individual and should make no difference to you, that an individual choice to adopt a gender that doesnt align with birth genitalia is a casual choice--something akin to a fashion choice or a preference for Tuesdays or blue etc--and that consequently you find the sexual orientation of a transgendered person so disturbing and challenging to consider it, and the transgendered, worthy of mockery and denigration.

And no, you didn't explicitly say any of that in your post, but neither are you coming to this subject afresh are you? It's just the last in a long series. Your next mistake will probably be to respond as if I'm an advocate for whatever you think it is you oppose when, in fact, I don't think you know how to articulate what troubles you about this, and if I'm advocating anything it just for letting people go about their lives unmolested for being different, for being who and what they are.

[Forty Two]

...
This gets complicated.

Yeah, you kind of made my point about this being an exercise in trolling. And it's only complicated by an obession with other people's genitals riding on the back of an assumption that someone else's gender is your business and that people choose their sexual orientation like the choose their footwear.

Where did I say anything about people choosing their sexual orientation like they choose their footwear, or that I was concerned with other people's gentials or that I thought their gender was or should be my business?

What's an exercise in trolling? I'm not following.

You seem to be responding to something I didn't say.

Pfaff. I was just pointing out that you, in the manner of the Dutchman, and in as much as you ever really represent your own views, were trolling the nominal transgendered in your response. Then I implied that you feel justified in this because you assume gender is about the genitals you were born with, that a personal negation of that assumption makes no difference to the individual and should make no difference to you, that an individual choice to adopt a gender that doesnt align with birth genitalia is a casual choice--something akin to a fashion choice or a preference for Tuesdays or blue etc--and that consequently you find the sexual orientation of a transgendered person so disturbing and challenging to consider it, and the transgendered, worthy of mockery and denigration.

And no, you didn't explicitly say any of that in your post, but neither are you coming to this subject afresh are you? It's just the last in a long series. Your next mistake will probably be to respond as if I'm an advocate for whatever you think it is you oppose when, in fact, I don't think you know how to articulate what troubles you about this, and if I'm advocating anything it just for letting people go about their lives unmolested for being different, for being who and what they are.

I didn't troll anyone. I made a joke about some idiot who thinks he can "identify" as a man 20 years his junior.

Morevoer, I don't assume gender is about genitals you were born with. Gender identity is what gender you identify as, irrespective as gender. Gender expression is how one shows oneself to the world, which can be different than what one's gender identity is (and is rather a muddled concept, if taken with the presumption that traditional or typical expressions of a gender like maleness or femaleness are said to be arbitrary social constructions anyway). But, sex has to do with genetics and generally corresponds to genitalia, with humans, like other primates and mammals, are sexually dimorphic species of animals. Gender =/= sex. I've been through this a number of times, so your suggestion that I think something else - corresponding gender with genitalia - shows you either have not read a single thing I've typed about this concept, or you think you know what I 'Really Mean."

I never said anything about a choice being casual or formal, or otherwise. It doesn't matter to me whether or not its casual, nor have I ever said that "an individual choice to adopt a gender" is a fashion choice. I wouldn't call it an "individual choice," like you do. You think it's a choice, not me. Or, at least, you just said that it's an "individual choice." Do you think it is? Or did you misstate?

Everyone is worthy of mockery and denigration, including those who think they can "identify" as a different race or age, and there are things transgendered people do or say that's hilarious - just like there are things straight, gay, queer, cis, whatever, say and do that is hilarious.

Last in a long series? You're confusing me with someone else. I've not said anything remotely like what you just ascribed to me in any post anywhere on this forum. You're just "assuming" something to be in my mind which isn't there.

I've not tried to ascribe any advocacy on your part where you haven't actually said it. When I inquire about what you and others advocate, I generally try to [gasp] "ask" what you think about it. I try to inquire after your view, and look for you to express your own view, rather than go off and declare what I know your opinion to be without you saying. That is, however, what you did here. Something made you declare that I think gender is about genitals and that I think people's "individual choice of gender" is a casual one. If you'd like to point out where I said that or implied it, I'd appreciate it. I'll clarify right here that I don't think either of those things.

You think I don't know how to articulate what troubles me about this? What "this" are you talking about? a guy who identifies as a 49 year old? Nothing "troubles" me about it. He can "identify", for all I care, as a newborn or a toddler or grammar school kid. There are those who do that. I'm not in the least concerned if he wants to do that. From a legislative standpoint, however, allowing people to identify as different ages is really a recipe for disaster in a lot of respects. What of an 18 year old who identifes as 21 year old and wants to buy alcohol in Kansas City? What of 50 year old who wants to identify as a 67 year old and wants to collect social security (if you get to change your age on your official records, then when they run your official records and you fill out the form, you become eligible for things). Age is also a fact, not a feeling - if I was born in January 1980, I'm 38 years old. I'm not 28, or 18. I'm 68. It doesn't matter how one feels about that. This guy's reason for identifying as a 49 year old, moreover, was so he could "truthfully" tell women he was 20 years younger than he was, and get more Tinder matches.

As for the transgender, I'm in full agreement that they should be able to go through their lives unmolested - treated the same way as everyone else under the law. Did you think I said something other than that? Where/

[Animavore]

[Forty Two]

The product of Critical Theory and Progressive "privileged vs. oppressed" mindset -- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/opin ... ville.html

The ACLU needs to rethink freedom of speech, and its defense thereof (meaning it should not steadfastly defend all individuals' freedom of speech). It's position on freedom of speech should be that some folks' speech is not as free as other folks' speech, depending on which group they belong to.

[Brian Peacock]

What is freedom of speech, and why shouldn't there be limits on it?

[Forty Two]

What is freedom of speech, and why shouldn't there be limits on it?

That deserves its own thread. Create it, and let's chat.

[Forty Two]

[laklak]

He should have to prove himself innocent!

Believe ALL women!!!!!

[L'Emmerdeur]

I couldn't be called on that - I'm correct. Read the articles I posted. Swetnick lied. Ford lied (or at least told inconsistent stories if she honestly believe her inconsistent stories were true) and Ford also spoke untruths about the second front door on her house, among other things. And, the accuser Leighton lied. So, there is no calling me out where I'm accurate.

You provided sources for your claim after I pointed out that you'd neglected to do so. I appreciate the fact that you did, and agree that Munro-Leighton lied not only about being 'Jane Doe' but also in her email directly lied about being raped by Kavanaugh.

While there are blatant inconsistencies in Swetnick's accounts, the fact remains that your claim that she admitted to lying has no basis.

I've already been over this accusation that his statement that he never attended a party like the one Blasey Ford describes. It really takes a leap to suggest that he was saying he never was in a house with several people in it drinking. If that's what you really think is meant by "I wasn't at a party like the one described by Ford" then have at it. However, if you look at the entirety of his statement - the sentences before and after he made that statement - you will see that he admitted to often going to parties in high school. In his same Senate testimony - he says he got together with friends often - went to parties. Not all gatherings of a few people for drinks are "like the one described by Blasey Ford." I've been to many many gatherings of a few friends with drinks in high school -- yet, I've never been to one like the one described by Blasey Ford. Am I lying?

So what do you believe Kavanaugh meant when he said that he'd never been to a gathering like the one described by Ford? For that matter, what do you mean when you say that? Blasey Ford described a small gathering on a summer evening at a residence where drinking took place. To me it's obvious that there is no way that Kavanaugh's denial was truthful, and you haven't given any interpretation which shows otherwise.

That's not accurate at all. HIs calendar does not indicate the same people in attendance. For example, Ford's best friend - Leland Keyser is not suggested as being in attendance at the appointment on Kavanaugh's calendar. The July 1 calendar says "Workout / Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi”" - That's not the same list as Ford recounted. Timmy also lived nowhere near where Ford vaguely placed the house party.

Kavanaugh's friends that Ford described as being at the gathering were at the gathering noted on the calendar. There's no reason to think that they were the only people at the gathering. Kavanaugh listed his friends, but there easily could have been a few others in attendance whose names he didn't know or that he didn't consider noteworthy. The point is that Ford's description of those in attendance closely matches those that found on Kavanaugh's calendar.

She named Timmy? Tom? Squi? Bernie? When? Where? What are you talking about? ... by any standard, Kavanaugh has not been shown to be lying in the least. He brought out a calendar which at most shows a get together with mostly different people at a different house. Was Leland Keyser there? Ford's account had her and Keyser with Mark, Brett, and PJ. How does that in the least suggest Kavanaugh is lying?

In the transcript of Blasey Ford's testimony you will find the following:

One evening that summer, after a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall.

Kavanaugh's list on the calendar includes all of the people Blasey Ford named. She didn't claim that she had an exact recollection of every person in attendance, nor that she knew the names of all those in attendance. She didn't give a specific location beyond 'in the Bethesda area' and 'Timmy's house' was in the Bethesda area. Her list may not be exhaustive but neither is it inaccurate. Kavanaugh claimed "The calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends' houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers. But none of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr Ford has identified." This is a lie, and no weaseling will change that fact.

So Leland would have "known" Kavanaugh, if that's true. She doesn't say she has no recollection of knowing Kavanaugh - she says she doesn't know him.

Nonsense. I don't 'know' every person who was at every gathering I attended during high school and I sincerely doubt that you do, either. You've conveniently ignored the fact that Kavanaugh was lying when he claimed that the people named by Blasey Ford said that the gathering never happened. None of those people said that and in fact Keyser, completely contrary to Kavanaugh's lie, said that she believes the incident described by Blasey Ford happened. You can check this here, and some of the other dishonest statements made by Kavanaugh can be found here.

That's just dishonest, Lemmerdeur - he admitted drinking heavily in high school and in college. He admitted to drinking too much, excessively. That was honest. He can be an exemplary student, which he was, and an athlete, which he was, and also be a heavy drinker, which he admitted to. What's the lie? When I point to Swetnick lying, I point to her exact statement - and I say "see, this other statement over here shows that the original statement in her affidavit - paragraph 12 - was not true - according to herself - she refutes her own testimony." When you accuse Kavanaugh of lying you don't quote him - you mischaracterize him, and then declare he's evading because someone else says something different. That's not proving him a liar.

Here's the exchange I'm talking about, which can be found in the transcript published by The Washington Post:

LEAHY: Now, you’ve talked about your yearbook. In your yearbook, you talked about drinking and sexual exploits, did you not?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, let me — let me take a step back and explain high school. I was number one in the class…

LEAHY: And I — and I thought (ph)…

KAVANAUGH: … freshman — no, no, no, no, no.

LEAHY: I thought we were in the Senate (ph)…

KAVANAUGH: You’ve got this all — I’m going to — I’m going to talk about my high school…

LEAHY: … the (ph) whole (ph) question (ph).

I thought we were in the Senate (ph) filibuster (ph).

KAVANAUGH: … no, no.

GRASSLEY: Let him answer.

KAVANAUGH: I’m going to talk about my high school record, if you’re going to sit here and mock me.

GRASSLEY: We — we were — I think we were all very fair to Dr. Ford. Shouldn’t we be just as fair to Judge Kavanaugh?

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I busted my butt in academics. I always tried to do the best I could. As I recall, I finished one in the class, first in — you know, freshman and junior year, right at the top with Steve (ph) Clark (ph) and Eddie (ph) (inaudible), we were always kind of in the mix.

I — I played sports. I was captain of the varsity basketball team. I was wide receiver and defensive back on the football team. I ran track in the spring of ’82 to try to get faster. I did my service projects at the school, which involved going to the soup kitchen downtown — let me finish — and going to tutor intellectually disabled kids at the Rockville Library.

With the church — and, yes, we got together with our friends.

So - what here is a lie told by Kavanaugh? What's the statement? Look - a lie is something someone says that is not true (and intentionally untrue, not just wrong). So, quote Kavanaugh's lie. Is it "who signed this?" Is it "I don't recall?" Where does he say something that is inconsistent with his prior testimony of not having seen materials? It's not in what you just quoted. Fucking hell - ESTABLISH IT!

Kavanaugh said "XXXXXXXXXX"

I can prove that's untrue because "YYYYYYYYYYYYY"

Kavanaugh said that he'd never seen materials stolen (or obtained, if you don't like the word 'stolen') from US Senate Democrats. From the transcipt of Senate hearings in 2004:

CHAIRMAN HATCH: Now, this is an important question. Did Mr. Miranda ever share, reference, or provide you with any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

MR. KAVANAUGH: No, I was not aware of that matter ever until I learned of it in the media late last year.

CHAIRMAN HATCH: Did Mr. Miranda ever share, reference, or provide you with information that you believed or were led to believe was obtained or derived from Democratic files?

MR. KAVANAUGH: No. Again, I was not aware of that matter in any way whatsoever until I learned it in the media.

And in 2006:

SENATOR DURBIN: Did you ever work with him [Miranda] in terms of judicial nominations?

MR. KAVANAUGH: He was part of a group of Senate staffers that did work on judicial nominations with people at the
Department of Justice and the White House Counsel's Office. We talked about this last time. I did not know about any memos from the Democratic side. I did not suspect that. Had I known or suspected that, I would have immediately told Judge Gonzales, who I'm sure would have immediately talked to Chairman Hatch about it. Did not know about it, did not suspect it. He was part, however, of the staff, of course, that worked on judicial nominations, including with--on both sides.

Kavanaugh is unequivocally lying, as shown by emails released by Senator Leahy. In those emails from Miranda to Kavanaugh, we can see Miranda both describing the information he's stolen (or 'obtained') from the Democrats as well as presenting that information directly.

As a bonus, here is Leahy exposing another of Kavanaugh's lies.

[Cunt]

Orange man bad. Orange man bad.

[Forty Two]

I couldn't be called on that - I'm correct. Read the articles I posted. Swetnick lied. Ford lied (or at least told inconsistent stories if she honestly believe her inconsistent stories were true) and Ford also spoke untruths about the second front door on her house, among other things. And, the accuser Leighton lied. So, there is no calling me out where I'm accurate.

You provided sources for your claim after I pointed out that you'd neglected to do so. I appreciate the fact that you did, and agree that Munro-Leighton lied not only about being 'Jane Doe' but also in her email directly lied about being raped by Kavanaugh.

While there are blatant inconsistencies in Swetnick's accounts, the fact remains that your claim that she admitted to lying has no basis.

It doesn't matter when I provided the sources. The facts are as true then as they are now. I don't recall if I said she "admitted to lying" in those exact words. If I did, I'm happy to clarify that - at a minimum - she admitted to not telling the truth about material, important things, like the fact that Kavanaugh did anything wrong at all. Her allegations were not true. She admitted they were not true. Further, given the allegations in her affidavit, and comparing that to her NBC interview, for anyone to say that she said the former in good faith, believing them to be true, but then later realized they weren't, is ridiculous. But, you're free to stand on that, if you want.

I've already been over this accusation that his statement that he never attended a party like the one Blasey Ford describes. It really takes a leap to suggest that he was saying he never was in a house with several people in it drinking. If that's what you really think is meant by "I wasn't at a party like the one described by Ford" then have at it. However, if you look at the entirety of his statement - the sentences before and after he made that statement - you will see that he admitted to often going to parties in high school. In his same Senate testimony - he says he got together with friends often - went to parties. Not all gatherings of a few people for drinks are "like the one described by Blasey Ford." I've been to many many gatherings of a few friends with drinks in high school -- yet, I've never been to one like the one described by Blasey Ford. Am I lying?

So what do you believe Kavanaugh meant when he said that he'd never been to a gathering like the one described by Ford? For that matter, what do you mean when you say that? Blasey Ford described a small gathering on a summer evening at a residence where drinking took place. To me it's obvious that there is no way that Kavanaugh's denial was truthful, and you haven't given any interpretation which shows otherwise.

I believe he meant that he wasn't at a similar party in the same place or a place that fits the description given by Ford, where the same or similar things occurred fitting the description given by Ford. Ford described ore than a small gathering on a summer DAY - not evening - DAY at a residence where drinking took place, and specific people were there, and the house was in a general location relative to her home and the club she was swimming at. She described certain things happening at the party. He said he didn't go to a party like that.

How can a fucking federal judge say "I never went to a party like...X" - but then in the next fucking breath - the same testimony - within sentences of each other - say that he regularly went to parties with friends and drank and say that he had a calendar which showed it?

Here is his testimony -

I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation. I’ve never sexually assaulted Dr. Ford or anyone.

Again, I am not questioning that Dr. Ford may have been sexually assaulted by some person in some place at some time. But I have never done that to her or to anyone.

Dr. Ford’s allegation stems from a party that she alleges occurred during the summer of 1982, 36 years ago. I was 17 years old, between my junior and senior years of high school at Georgetown Prep, a rigorous all-boys Catholic Jesuit High School in Rockville, Maryland. When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually the — with friends from nearby Catholic all-girls high schools, Stone Ridge, Holy Child, Visitation, Immaculata, Holy Cross.

So, four sentences - literally a couple of seconds after he says "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation," he says "When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually ...with friends from nearby Catholic all-girls high schools..." So, he says he goes to parties with friends. Are you really, seriously, saying, he lied and then admitted it four sentences later - not in response to questioning - but in his PREPARED STATEMENT. He's explaining what he means.

Dr. Ford did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton-Arms and she was a year behind me. She and I did not travel in the same social circles. It is possible that we met at some point at some events, although I do not recall that. To repeat, all of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening.

So he's describing what he means by "like" -- different people - different social circles. Different places.

He goes on to say -

Importantly her friend, Ms. Keyser, has not only denied knowledge of the party, Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not recall ever being at a party with me ever. And my two male friends who were allegedly there, who knew me well, have told this committee under penalty of felony that they do not recall any such party and that I never did or would do anything like this.

Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers. Refuted.

All true.

A few sentences later - still in his prepared statement - he continues to explain -

Fourth, I have submitted to this committee detailed calendars recording my activities in the summer of 1982. Why did I keep calendars? My dad started keeping detailed calendars of his life in 1978. He did so as both a calendar and a diary. He was a very organized guy, to put it mildly. Christmas time, we’d sit around and he regales us with old stories, old milestones, old weddings, old events from his calendars.

This July 1 "skis with squi" thing after his football practice is on the calendar he ALREADY GAVE TO THE COMMITTEE, and which he as reviewed, and which he is describing. Are you seriously contending that the entry on the calendar is a "gathering like that described by Ford?" Are you seriously contending that you don't understand - based on what Kavanaugh is saying - and the fact that he already turned over these calendars and knows the entry is there - that he's lying when he says that he never went to a gathering like that described by Ford?

Aren't there differences between the gatherings described?

If any gathering that involves a house, a few people and drinks is "like the gathering described by Ford," then to say he was "never" at one would include any get together with friends, neighbors - a holiday get together - a birthday party - anything with four or five friends and drinks. Is that really what you think he was denying? Never having been in a house with several people where drinks were served? Come on, man.

That's not accurate at all. HIs calendar does not indicate the same people in attendance. For example, Ford's best friend - Leland Keyser is not suggested as being in attendance at the appointment on Kavanaugh's calendar. The July 1 calendar says "Workout / Go to Timmy’s for Skis w/ Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi”" - That's not the same list as Ford recounted. Timmy also lived nowhere near where Ford vaguely placed the house party.

Kavanaugh's friends that Ford described as being at the gathering were at the gathering noted on the calendar. There's no reason to think that they were the only people at the gathering. Kavanaugh listed his friends, but there easily could have been a few others in attendance whose names he didn't know or that he didn't consider noteworthy. The point is that Ford's description of those in attendance closely matches those that found on Kavanaugh's calendar.

'

Negative - Ford says "Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth, and one other boy whose name I cannot recall," Ford said in her prepared remarks. "I remember my friend Leland Ingham attending." - that's who she says was their. Absent from her list is Timmy, Tom, Bernie and Squi. Absent from his list is Ford and Leland. That's not "closely matching." It's a different list at a different party. It's the same, and a gathering of guys for "skis" after his workout on July 1 is not "like" a gathering with different people, including girls, on a different day, and at a different location - Ford's party was not "At Timmy's" -- Timmy didn't live where Ford says the house was.

f

She named Timmy? Tom? Squi? Bernie? When? Where? What are you talking about? ... by any standard, Kavanaugh has not been shown to be lying in the least. He brought out a calendar which at most shows a get together with mostly different people at a different house. Was Leland Keyser there? Ford's account had her and Keyser with Mark, Brett, and PJ. How does that in the least suggest Kavanaugh is lying?

In the transcript of Blasey Ford's testimony you will find the following:

One evening that summer, after a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall.

Kavanaugh's list on the calendar includes all of the people Blasey Ford named. She didn't claim that she had an exact recollection of every person in attendance, nor that she knew the names of all those in attendance. She didn't give a specific location beyond 'in the Bethesda area' and 'Timmy's house' was in the Bethesda area. Her list may not be exhaustive but neither is it inaccurate. Kavanaugh claimed "The calendars show a few weekday gatherings at friends' houses after a workout or just to meet up and have some beers. But none of those gatherings included the group of people that Dr Ford has identified." This is a lie, and no weaseling will change that fact.

Not accurate at all - she described it more particularly than that, as to location. "Near the club." Tim Gaudette's house at the time was not in Bethesda, but Rockville, Maryland. Ford said the gathering was “not far from the country club” which was in Chevy Chase, MD, not Rockville or Bethesda.

I hope I'm never accused of something where you are on the jury. LOL. You say Kavanaugh lied when he said "I was not at a gathering like the one described by Ford..." and you say it's a "lie" because Ford provides what you say MIGHT be an incomplete list of attendees at the one she described, and the list provided by Kavanaugh of a party occurring on July 1 contains a list with other people in attendance, and missing two of the attendees. So, Kavanaugh is lying in your view.

f

So Leland would have "known" Kavanaugh, if that's true. She doesn't say she has no recollection of knowing Kavanaugh - she says she doesn't know him.

Nonsense. I don't 'know' every person who was at every gathering I attended during high school and I sincerely doubt that you do, either. You've conveniently ignored the fact that Kavanaugh was lying when he claimed that the people named by Blasey Ford said that the gathering never happened. None of those people said that and in fact Keyser, completely contrary to Kavanaugh's lie, said that she believes the incident described by Blasey Ford happened. You can check this here, and some of the other dishonest statements made by Kavanaugh can be found here.

I'm not going into links to hunt down what you think the "lies" are - quote him. A lie he told must be something he actually said. Not some interpretation of it by "Slate" (LOL).

He lied when he said: X.

If you're calling his characterization of Leland's refutation a "lie" - just go up and read what he said in his statement. It's all there.

If the standard you are applying to Kavanaugh were applied, by you, to Ford, you couldn't possibly believe a word she said.

That's just dishonest, Lemmerdeur - he admitted drinking heavily in high school and in college. He admitted to drinking too much, excessively. That was honest. He can be an exemplary student, which he was, and an athlete, which he was, and also be a heavy drinker, which he admitted to. What's the lie? When I point to Swetnick lying, I point to her exact statement - and I say "see, this other statement over here shows that the original statement in her affidavit - paragraph 12 - was not true - according to herself - she refutes her own testimony." When you accuse Kavanaugh of lying you don't quote him - you mischaracterize him, and then declare he's evading because someone else says something different. That's not proving him a liar.

Here's the exchange I'm talking about, which can be found in the transcript published by The Washington Post:

LEAHY: Now, you’ve talked about your yearbook. In your yearbook, you talked about drinking and sexual exploits, did you not?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, let me — let me take a step back and explain high school. I was number one in the class…

LEAHY: And I — and I thought (ph)…

KAVANAUGH: … freshman — no, no, no, no, no.

LEAHY: I thought we were in the Senate (ph)…

KAVANAUGH: You’ve got this all — I’m going to — I’m going to talk about my high school…

LEAHY: … the (ph) whole (ph) question (ph).

I thought we were in the Senate (ph) filibuster (ph).

KAVANAUGH: … no, no.

GRASSLEY: Let him answer.

KAVANAUGH: I’m going to talk about my high school record, if you’re going to sit here and mock me.

GRASSLEY: We — we were — I think we were all very fair to Dr. Ford. Shouldn’t we be just as fair to Judge Kavanaugh?

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I busted my butt in academics. I always tried to do the best I could. As I recall, I finished one in the class, first in — you know, freshman and junior year, right at the top with Steve (ph) Clark (ph) and Eddie (ph) (inaudible), we were always kind of in the mix.

I — I played sports. I was captain of the varsity basketball team. I was wide receiver and defensive back on the football team. I ran track in the spring of ’82 to try to get faster. I did my service projects at the school, which involved going to the soup kitchen downtown — let me finish — and going to tutor intellectually disabled kids at the Rockville Library.

With the church — and, yes, we got together with our friends.

No lies there. Are there? Which statement?

f

So - what here is a lie told by Kavanaugh? What's the statement? Look - a lie is something someone says that is not true (and intentionally untrue, not just wrong). So, quote Kavanaugh's lie. Is it "who signed this?" Is it "I don't recall?" Where does he say something that is inconsistent with his prior testimony of not having seen materials? It's not in what you just quoted. Fucking hell - ESTABLISH IT!

Kavanaugh said "XXXXXXXXXX"

I can prove that's untrue because "YYYYYYYYYYYYY"

Kavanaugh said that he'd never seen materials stolen (or obtained, if you don't like the word 'stolen') from US Senate Democrats. From the transcipt of Senate hearings in 2004:

No no - you can't change the question. The question was "stolen." If you change it to "obtained" that changes the question.

ff

CHAIRMAN HATCH: Now, this is an important question. Did Mr. Miranda ever share, reference, or provide you with any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

MR. KAVANAUGH: No, I was not aware of that matter ever until I learned of it in the media late last year.

CHAIRMAN HATCH: Did Mr. Miranda ever share, reference, or provide you with information that you believed or were led to believe was obtained or derived from Democratic files?

MR. KAVANAUGH: No. Again, I was not aware of that matter in any way whatsoever until I learned it in the media.

And in 2006:

SENATOR DURBIN: Did you ever work with him [Miranda] in terms of judicial nominations?

MR. KAVANAUGH: He was part of a group of Senate staffers that did work on judicial nominations with people at the
Department of Justice and the White House Counsel's Office. We talked about this last time. I did not know about any memos from the Democratic side. I did not suspect that. Had I known or suspected that, I would have immediately told Judge Gonzales, who I'm sure would have immediately talked to Chairman Hatch about it. Did not know about it, did not suspect it. He was part, however, of the staff, of course, that worked on judicial nominations, including with--on both sides.

Kavanaugh is unequivocally lying, as shown by emails released by Senator Leahy. In those emails from Miranda to Kavanaugh, we can see Miranda both describing the information he's stolen (or 'obtained') from the Democrats as well as presenting that information directly.

As a bonus, here is Leahy exposing another of Kavanaugh's lies.

I don't see the lie here. But since you don't say "he said x and that's untrue because" Y, instead you link to twitter statements by someone, I have to print the attachments and read through - the link you have is eight pages long. When scanning it, I don't see as where it suggests that any statement actually made by Kavanaugh is a lie. It's again, broadening what he actually says to mean something far more expansive than it is, and then refuting the mischaracterization. But, the material is so long, in all honestly, I have to print the material and review.