Serious discussion with Reps

If you're not aware of Kavanaugh's latest charge of perjury, go to 2:34. The piece below is not from a comedian, it's a news anchor:

YouTube : MSNBC

If you hate YouTube vids, here's a link:
https://www.businessinsider.com/did-brett-kavanaugh-commit-perjury-testimony-new-yorker-article-deborah-ramirez-2018-10

As the news link above shows, Kavanaugh lied under oath when asked when asked when he knew about the accusations from Debra Ramirez, his second accuser. Kavanaugh claimed to have no knowledge of her accusations prior to the being published in the New Yorker. Recently obtained text messages show Kavanaugh conspiring to preempt his accuser before the New Yorker story was published.

There is no clearer example of perjury than that.

I want to have a a serious discussion. No name-calling, no childish antics most of us usually partake in. Let's be mature.

Conservatives: why are you okay with with a perjurer being chosen for Supreme court? There are scores of posts from you guys being indignant over Ford possibly lying about having a fear of flying. While we can't know for sure what she's actually afraid of, we DO know for sure that Kavanaugh lied.

Yet, none of you who bashed Ford have a problem with Kavanaugh, and none of you have raised any criticisms of him. Not just on this site, but NO Republican seems to be criticizing him, despite hordes of Reps attacking Ford. Kevin Jackson, a Fox News contributor, called Kavy's accusers "lying skanks" and was fired for it. Where's his outrage over Kavanaugh?

Where's YOUR outrage over a SCOTUS pick committing perjury? Are you okay with the GOP pushing a man of such character on the Supreme Court?

@vivify said
If you're not aware of Kavanaugh's latest charge of perjury, go to 2:34. The piece below is not from a comedian, it's a news anchor:

[youtube MSNBC]qbh8-Xf4wFQ[/youtube]

If you hate YouTube vids, here's a link:
https://www.businessinsider.com/did-brett-kavanaugh-commit-perjury-testimony-new-yorker-article-deborah-ramirez-2018-10

As the news link above shows, Kavanau ...[text shortened]... committing perjury? Are you okay with the GOP pushing a man of such character on the Supreme Court?

They're not talking, are they?

"Serious discussion", eh?

It's like trying to reason with a room full of gorillas.

It's about time we on the left start getting serious about this sh** and start hooking this country up to the tow truck and start towing it back from the brink before it's just too god-damned late.

No more "Mr. Nice Guy". The Republicans stopped playing "Mr. Nice Guy" in 2016, and now look, they're two years ahead of us in activating their final agenda. It's about time the real patriots in this country started doing what it takes to grab this country by the balls and start dragging it firmly into the 21st Century, instead of backwards where the Republicans want it.

@vivify said
If you're not aware of Kavanaugh's latest charge of perjury, go to 2:34. The piece below is not from a comedian, it's a news anchor:

[youtube MSNBC]qbh8-Xf4wFQ[/youtube]

If you hate YouTube vids, here's a link:
https://www.businessinsider.com/did-brett-kavanaugh-commit-perjury-testimony-new-yorker-article-deborah-ramirez-2018-10

As the news link above shows, Kavanau ...[text shortened]... committing perjury? Are you okay with the GOP pushing a man of such character on the Supreme Court?

I can't type a long discussion on my cell phone right now, but just read this:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/04/nbc-owes-brett-kavanaugh-retraction-apology-perjury-claims-based-ramirez-texts/

@vivify said
If you're not aware of Kavanaugh's latest charge of perjury, go to 2:34. The piece below is not from a comedian, it's a news anchor:

[youtube MSNBC]qbh8-Xf4wFQ[/youtube]

If you hate YouTube vids, here's a link:
https://www.businessinsider.com/did-brett-kavanaugh-commit-perjury-testimony-new-yorker-article-deborah-ramirez-2018-10

As the news link above shows, Kavanau ...[text shortened]... committing perjury? Are you okay with the GOP pushing a man of such character on the Supreme Court?

The problem with your premise is Ramirez's name was not out there yet. Kavanaugh was aware SOMEONE was, just not Ramirez...YET...You are ignoring a very important fact to arrive at your conclusion.

@sleepyguy said
I can't type a long discussion on my cell phone right now, but just read this:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/04/nbc-owes-brett-kavanaugh-retraction-apology-perjury-claims-based-ramirez-texts/

I read it and remain puzzled; Kavanaugh is asked a rather specific question and gives a firm "no"answer:

Redacted Questioner:] All right. My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?

Judge Kavanaugh: No.

The exchange continues:

[Redacted Questioner:] Well, actually, are you aware that the New York Times passed up on this story before the New Yorker ran the story?

Judge Kavanaugh: That’s what I read in the New York Times.

[Redacted Questioner:] What’s your reaction to that?

Judge Kavanaugh: They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that.

The only way to square those two answers is to conclude that Kavanaugh "heard about that" AFTER the New Yorker story, quite possibly from the New York Times story he read. The Federalist reading i.e. that the answer in the last paragraph means Kavanaugh had "heard about" and discussed the matter with other people contradicts his answer to the contrary moments before (which he never clarified).

Admittedly the evidence consists as far as I can see of third person e-mails (not impressive proof of perjury).

@no1marauder said
I read it and remain puzzled; Kavanaugh is asked a rather specific question and gives a firm "no"answer:

Redacted Questioner:] All right. My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by M ...[text shortened]... the evidence consists as far as I can see of third person e-mails (not impressive proof of perjury).

I think you are glossing over the qualifier "matching the description".

He may have heard that Ramirez was shopping some story around but didn't know the details.

@sleepyguy said
I can't type a long discussion on my cell phone right now, but just read this:

http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/04/nbc-owes-brett-kavanaugh-retraction-apology-perjury-claims-based-ramirez-texts/

Look, I realize that Republicans are fairly boring people, but damn, that is the lamest sexual fantasy I've ever heard of. 🤔

@sleepyguy said
I think you are glossing over the qualifier "matching the description".

He may have heard that Ramirez was shopping some story around but didn't know the details.

"Matching the description" does NOT equal "did you discuss the details". Kavanaugh was asked a quite a general question about having knowledge of Ramirez's accusations; that question did NOT inquire about specific "details".

@suzianne said
Look, I realize that Republicans are fairly boring people, but damn, that is the lamest sexual fantasy I've ever heard of. 🤔

If you read his testimony you can see hoe NBC omitted ALL his testimony...don't be a fool and fall for their tricks.


The part omitted...


"Well, actually, are you aware that the New York Times passed up on this story before the New Yorker ran the story?
Judge Kavanaugh: That’s what I read in the New York Times.
[Redacted Questioner:] What’s your reaction to that?
Judge Kavanaugh: They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — >>>and I, myself, heard about that,<<< that she was doing that. And you know, that just strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people, is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that?
That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out. That’s what it sounds like."