Justice Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing *DISCUSSION AND LIVE COMMENTARY*

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Don’t hold your breath expecting Flake not to Flake

So ready for Flake to not be a Senator anymore. Even if we get McSally, at least she is clear about her beliefs and doesn't give people false hopes.

Flake is completely clear on his beliefs to anyone who has paid attention to him over the years. He is so consistent about them it's annoying.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Don’t hold your breath expecting Flake not to Flake

So ready for Flake to not be a Senator anymore. Even if we get McSally, at least she is clear about her beliefs and doesn't give people false hopes.

Flake is completely clear on his beliefs to anyone who has paid attention to him over the years. He is so consistent about them it's annoying.

My point is that Flake consistently says things that to the typical low information voter, make him seem way more moderate than he actually is. We on Atlas see through it, but the average american is fooled.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/keithcrc/status/1043663681245143046

If you're lying about who assaulted you, Ford, just admit it.

Oh Wulfric. Never chan.....

On second though, change completely.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

https://twitter.com/keithcrc/status/1043663681245143046

If you're lying about who assaulted you, Ford, just admit it.

Oh Wulfric. Never chan.....

On second though, change completely.

You telling me to change or not change has no effect on me. I have better things to care about than my FF/HP rating on an obscure online forum.

In any case, we're now at the word of 4 vs. the word of 1. Something clearly happened in 1982 that scarred Ford for life, and I'm sorry she had to go through it, but odds are Kavanaugh is not the culprit. This obviously still merits further investigation by all sources, and I wish the committee would have something resembling the 22-witness Anita Hill hearing, but that's about as likely as me winning the lottery. Based on what we have to go on at this moment, Kavanaugh appears to be innocent.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

YUGE GRAIN OF SALT AS THIS IS FROM AN ANONYMOUS SOURCE, but the GOP may have agreed to Thursday: https://abc7.com/politics/kavanaugh-accuser-tentatively-agrees-to-testify-thursday/4314807/

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/keithcrc/status/1043663681245143046

If you're lying about who assaulted you, Ford, just admit it.

Oh Wulfric. Never chan.....

On second though, change completely.

You telling me to change or not change has no effect on me. I have better things to care about than my FF/HP rating on an obscure online forum.

In any case, we're now at the word of 4 vs. the word of 1. Something clearly happened in 1982 that scarred Ford for life, and I'm sorry she had to go through it, but odds are Kavanaugh is not the culprit. This obviously still merits further investigation by all sources, and I wish the committee would have something resembling the 22-witness Anita Hill hearing, but that's about as likely as me winning the lottery. Based on what we have to go on at this moment, Kavanaugh appears to be innocent.

You've constantly held fast to Ford "possibly not remembering the details". OK, which is more likely. Ford may not recall whether Kavanaugh (e.g.) whether he used his right or left hand to cover her mouth while pinning her to the bed, but is sure Kavanaugh was the one because she knew him so well; OR this witness isn't recalling a party 40 years ago because it never happened, not because it was a party she wasn't sexually assaulted at?

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

https://twitter.com/keithcrc/status/1043663681245143046

If you're lying about who assaulted you, Ford, just admit it.

Oh Wulfric. Never chan.....

On second though, change completely.

You telling me to change or not change has no effect on me. I have better things to care about than my FF/HP rating on an obscure online forum.

In any case, we're now at the word of 4 vs. the word of 1. Something clearly happened in 1982 that scarred Ford for life, and I'm sorry she had to go through it, but odds are Kavanaugh is not the culprit. This obviously still merits further investigation by all sources, and I wish the committee would have something resembling the 22-witness Anita Hill hearing, but that's about as likely as me winning the lottery. Based on what we have to go on at this moment, Kavanaugh appears to be innocent.

You've constantly held fast to Ford "possibly not remembering the details". OK, which is more likely. Ford may not recall whether Kavanaugh (e.g.) whether he used his right or left hand to cover her mouth while pinning her to the bed, but is sure Kavanaugh was the one because she knew him so well; OR this witness isn't recalling a party 40 years ago because it never happened, not because it was a party she wasn't sexually assaulted at?

I don't know about you, but personally I'd remember it if I had literally witnessed someone getting sexually assaulted. Now if it was just Mark Judge (for instance) saying this never happened, I'd be skeptical, but the fact that we have 3 witnesses specifically named by Ford coming out and saying essentially "Nope, this didn't happen." is meaningful to me. And now we have one of them saying they don't even know Kavanaugh personally. Now, if say Kavanaugh was going around and finding people to say "Nope, this never happened", that might not be very reliable. But these are witnesses that are being specifically named by FORD HERSELF and then they come out and without fail (so far) take Kavanaugh's side.

As far as Ford's memory goes, exact details of horrible events happening to you tend to fade over 36 years because people tend to try to actively forget about the incident because it's understandably horrible to think about. The memory tends to come back every so often, but not all the details may come back. And sometimes the mind may latch onto a falsehood to fill in the gap. That can easily include the culprit.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

BREAKING: Christine Blasey Ford's Female Witness Doesn't Remember Anything
https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/breaking-christine-blasey-ford-s-female-eye-witness-doesn-t-remember-anything-vHwXAKtCgUWdX_jSGdb7mA/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

cnn

“Simply put,” Walsh said, “Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”
The lawyer acknowledged to CNN that Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-ford-accuser-nomination/

[Badger]

BREAKING: Christine Blasey Ford's Female Witness Doesn't Remember Anything
https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/breaking-christine-blasey-ford-s-female-eye-witness-doesn-t-remember-anything-vHwXAKtCgUWdX_jSGdb7mA/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ford said she was at the party, not that she witnessed the sexual assault. It would be easy, even quite probable, she would forget a party she went to 40 years ago, let alone the attendees.

[Badger]

BREAKING: Christine Blasey Ford's Female Witness Doesn't Remember Anything
https://www.themaven.net/theresurgent/erick-erickson/breaking-christine-blasey-ford-s-female-eye-witness-doesn-t-remember-anything-vHwXAKtCgUWdX_jSGdb7mA/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ford said she was at the party, not that she witnessed the sexual assault. It would be easy, even quite probable, she would forget a party she went to 40 years ago, let alone the attendees.

BTW, your link is to Erik Ericson who is still shilling the Ed Whalen "some other dude did it, because reasons" garbage. So no, if that's the alternative, it doesn't hold water.

And that's not getting into the issue over whether an apparent creep like Mark Judge should be remotely believed, particularly as IIRC he's accused of turning up the stereo to drown out Ford.

[Confused Democrat]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not minimizing the difficulty of Dr. Ford, but she needs to heed this Biblical admonition.  Tell her story, under oath, let her yay be yay.  The haters will be there, but they will always be there.  At this point, telling her story under oath is the ONLY way SHE can do significant good.  I believe that the groundswell of good will for her if she does this will be amazing and uplifting; there will not be anything anyone else can say that will matter.  If she's telling the truth, Dr. Ford can take heart.  In that circumstance, Kavanaugh is cast as the Pharisee in this moral drama, and Jesus was NOT sympathetic to them. 

[Confused Democrat]

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

[fhtagn]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

[Confused Democrat]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

Are you saying that the witnesses defending Kavanaugh are in serious legal jeopardy if their lying?

I find that hard to believe honestly.

[fhtagn]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

Are you saying that the witness that are denying Ford's accusations are in serious legal jeopardy if their lying?

I find that hard to believe honestly.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

[Confused Democrat]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

Are you saying that the witness that are denying Ford's accusations are in serious legal jeopardy if their lying?

I find that hard to believe honestly.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Ummm...

Doesn't this statute only apply to criminal investigations, such as false statements made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent?

[fhtagn]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

Are you saying that the witness that are denying Ford's accusations are in serious legal jeopardy if their lying?

I find that hard to believe honestly.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Ummm...

Doesn't this statute only apply to criminal investigations, such as false statements made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent?

try reading again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Confused Democrat]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

Are you saying that the witness that are denying Ford's accusations are in serious legal jeopardy if their lying?

I find that hard to believe honestly.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Ummm...

Doesn't this statute only apply to criminal investigations, such as false statements made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent?

try reading again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I feel like we're getting into the weeds here.

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't the witness have to make a false statement, in pursuant to an investigation/review, to the relevant committee of congress in order to fall within jurisdiction of the statute your citing.

For example, a false statement from a witness to a reporter wouldn't fall within 18 U.S. Code § 1001's jurisdiction, but a false statement to a committee member, pursuant to an investigation/review, would fall within the code's jurisdiction.

[fhtagn]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

Are you saying that the witness that are denying Ford's accusations are in serious legal jeopardy if their lying?

I find that hard to believe honestly.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Ummm...

Doesn't this statute only apply to criminal investigations, such as false statements made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent?

try reading again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I feel like we're getting into the weeds here.

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't the witness have to make a false statement, in pursuant to an investigation/review, to the relevant committee of congress in order to fall within jurisdiction of the statute your citing.

For example, a false statement from a witness to a reporter wouldn't fall within 18 U.S. Code § 1001's jurisdiction, but a false statement to a committee member, pursuant to an investigation/review, would fall within the code's jurisdiction.

They submitted their statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee. So if they are lying, it would fall under this.

[Confused Democrat]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

Are you saying that the witness that are denying Ford's accusations are in serious legal jeopardy if their lying?

I find that hard to believe honestly.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Ummm...

Doesn't this statute only apply to criminal investigations, such as false statements made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent?

try reading again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I feel like we're getting into the weeds here.

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't the witness have to make a false statement, in pursuant to an investigation/review, to the relevant committee of congress in order to fall within jurisdiction of the statute your citing.

For example, a false statement from a witness to a reporter wouldn't fall within 18 U.S. Code § 1001's jurisdiction, but a false statement to a committee member, pursuant to an investigation/review, would fall within the code's jurisdiction.

They submitted their statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee. So if they are lying, it would fall under this.

Okay, I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for the info.

[Badger]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

Hypothetically that's true. However, the consequences are much stronger Underoath. More to the point, none of those exceptions to the rule apply here. At all. None of these so-called Witnesses have said a word that could get them into any legal trouble.

[Badger]

I'm sorry, but I find it disgusting how we're all armchair investigating the serious accusation that Ford has levied against Kavanaugh. I don't care what any witness denies, it doesn't matter unless it's denied under oath.

The right thing to do is to have a serious FBI investigation into this matter. Any other route would be frighteningly unscrupulous.

Does it matter if it's not made under oath?

That's a serious question.

Of course it does!

There are legal consequences for lying under oath. It's not hard to imagine these witnesses denials becoming non-denial denials under oath.

You do realize that someone doesn't have to be under oath to face serious legal trouble for lying in their statements, right?

Are you saying that the witness that are denying Ford's accusations are in serious legal jeopardy if their lying?

I find that hard to believe honestly.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Ummm...

Doesn't this statute only apply to criminal investigations, such as false statements made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent?

try reading again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I feel like we're getting into the weeds here.

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't the witness have to make a false statement, in pursuant to an investigation/review, to the relevant committee of congress in order to fall within jurisdiction of the statute your citing.

For example, a false statement from a witness to a reporter wouldn't fall within 18 U.S. Code § 1001's jurisdiction, but a false statement to a committee member, pursuant to an investigation/review, would fall within the code's jurisdiction.

Bingo. Besides, the one witness's statement is made through Council. She can't be prosecuted for that. Nothing here can get any of these Witnesses in trouble. Yet.

[Tekken_Guy]

Polls should definitely shift in Ford’s favor soon. Almost nobody outside the Trump base felt Trump or Moore was innocent.