Sen. Feinstein Claims She Received Info On Kavanaugh And Sent It To FBI

[angelo]

To summarize:
Franken Kavanaugh

touch? pushed, threw, groped, grinded

joke attempted rape

apology no apology

resigned did not resign

Attempted rape? So your presumption of innocence just flew out the window, right!

You find him guilty, now he has to prove his innocence. Reminds of the dark ages witch hunts. Throw the weighed down accused in to a body of water, if she doesn't drown she's innocent!

 

[Arctish]

Now you're saying that because he displayed some temperament and demeanor, etc., but I'm challenging the contention that he was not fit because he was likely to lie.

I already answered your question.

People who are likely to lie, to commit perjury, to provide false and misleading testimony while under oath, etc., cannot be trusted to uphold the law because they are fundamentally dishonest. That's what makes them likely to lie.

Fundamentally dishonest judges corrupt the entire justice system.

 

[angelo]

Now you're saying that because he displayed some temperament and demeanor, etc., but I'm challenging the contention that he was not fit because he was likely to lie.

I already answered your question.

People who are likely to lie, to commit perjury, to provide false and misleading testimony while under oath, etc., cannot be trusted to uphold the law because they are fundamentally dishonest. That's what makes them likely to lie.

Fundamentally dishonest judges corrupt the entire justice system.

Are you implying Kavanaugh is lying or worse, corrupt on the hearsay of an acuser who failed to prove her accusations?

 

[Jarhyn]

To summarize:
Franken Kavanaugh

touch? pushed, threw, groped, grinded

joke attempted rape

apology no apology

resigned did not resign

Attempted rape? So your presumption of innocence just flew out the window, right!

You find him guilty, now he has to prove his innocence. Reminds of the dark ages witch hunts. Throw the weighed down accused in to a body of water, if she doesn't drown she's innocent!

I trust her story but would seek to verify. I would have trusted HIS story, but failed to verify after the instance of multiple unnecessary lies and myriad dissembly.

Until an FBI or other investigation that actually seeks to verify the verifiable elements of Ford's testimony and which specifically puts BK in a seat in which his dissembly is unappreciated and identified as such, I'm going to take the most reasonable position here and operate on that knowledge: to treat him as a probable rapist.

 

[Copernicus]

Now you're saying that because he displayed some temperament and demeanor, etc., but I'm challenging the contention that he was not fit because he was likely to lie.

I already answered your question.

People who are likely to lie, to commit perjury, to provide false and misleading testimony while under oath, etc., cannot be trusted to uphold the law because they are fundamentally dishonest. That's what makes them likely to lie.

Fundamentally dishonest judges corrupt the entire justice system.

Are you implying Kavanaugh is lying or worse, corrupt on the hearsay of an acuser who failed to prove her accusations?

If this were the only evidence that he had lied to Congress and that there were no other women accusing him of such misconduct, then you might have more of a point, angelo. As things stand, there is enough evidence, including his evasive, blustery testimony following Dr. Ford's, to judge him unfit for the Supreme Court. If his Republican supporters had been more open to a full investigation of this incident and had not rushed to confirm him, then it would also look more like they believed in his innocence, as well. They sure made it look like they and he were engaged in a coverup.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now you're saying that because he displayed some temperament and demeanor, etc., but I'm challenging the contention that he was not fit because he was likely to lie.

I already answered your question.

People who are likely to lie, to commit perjury, to provide false and misleading testimony while under oath, etc., cannot be trusted to uphold the law because they are fundamentally dishonest. That's what makes them likely to lie.

Fundamentally dishonest judges corrupt the entire justice system.

Are you implying Kavanaugh is lying or worse, corrupt on the hearsay of an acuser who failed to prove her accusations?

I'm thinking that how he liquidated his credit-card debt so quickly is more concerning, regarding corruption charges.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I already answered your question.

People who are likely to lie, to commit perjury, to provide false and misleading testimony while under oath, etc., cannot be trusted to uphold the law because they are fundamentally dishonest. That's what makes them likely to lie.

Fundamentally dishonest judges corrupt the entire justice system.

The "likely" assessment is a probabilistic assessment based on the available evidence, which does not require them to be less honest than one would expect humans to generally be.
For example, suppose that when Joe was in high school, together with his male friends he talked about his female classmates, and said sexual things that were very disrespectful to his female classmates. He also wrote down some of those, using some language common among them at the time.

Fast forward to the present day. He's in a Senate confirmation hearing. He has been accused of assault + attempted rape by a woman, by a lesser sexual offense by another woman, and of participating in multiple instances of gang rape by a third one, all of them allegedly happening decades ago. He is asked about the things he said or wrote down while in high school. Joe is almost certainly not going to be prosecuted by any of the alleged crimes. But his confirmation and perhaps his standing with his family depends on his answers. What would Joe likely do?

If I had no further information about Joe, I would say Joe would probably lie. I make the assessment given the cost that telling the truth is likely to have for him, and how humans tend to behave. Now, suppose we assume that he is guilty of at least one of the sexual crimes Joe is accused of. I would still say he will probably lie. But if we assume that he is not guilty of any of them, I would still reckon he will probably lie.

Yet, it would be a mistake to think that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe's character is fundamentally dishonest, or even less honest than what humans normally are, or even less honest than judges normally are.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Kavanaugh was guilty of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt. Just as bad, he's an extreme partisan espousing conspiracy theories and took part in a scam to confirm himself. He will be another terrible justice from the party of crazy liars like Trump. Now did he do some terrible sexual things as well? I can't say for sure, but probably.

Overall, we have to assess the cost benefit of having a person like him on the SC. That means we would need to use estimation and risk assessment. Probabilities are the elements of such analysis, not merely a high burden of reasonable doubt. Even so, that distinction is moot as his perjury and extreme craziness is disqualifying.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Kavanaugh was guilty of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you have a specific matter in mind, or are you saying that there is conclusive evidence that he lied about something?
If the former, maybe. I haven't looked at all of the details, but if you want to provide the relevant links, I will take a look.
If the latter, I agree. That would not be enough for a conviction due to lack of identification of the specific lie, but it is enough to say that he committed perjury (adding several probable or very probable lies, a statement that is almost certainly a lie when conditioned to the other statement not being so, etc., can get one to "certainly at least one lie" without being able to identify the lie)

In any event, I was replying to an assessment based on an assessment that he would be likely to lie, and for that reason he was not fit.

Just as bad, he's an extreme partisan espousing conspiracy theories and took part in a scam to confirm himself.

What conspiracy theories do you have in mind, and how is the confirmation a scam?
The confirmation seemed to be in accordance to the US Constitution.

He will be another terrible justice from the party of crazy liars like Trump.

I don't think he will be very good, but I don't think the evidence supports that he would be worse than the average justice. The small amount of evidence about his quality as a judge provided by the hearings is swamped by the evidence provided by his judicial trajectory. Conclusion: this is business as usual in terms of rulings. He is biased of course, but at least most of the justices are.

Now did he do some terrible sexual things as well? I can't say for sure, but probably.

Maybe. I'm roughly on 50/50 on that.

Overall, we have to assess the cost benefit of having a person like him on the SC. That means we would need to use estimation and risk assessment. Probabilities are the elements of such analysis, not merely a high burden of reasonable doubt. Even so, that distinction is moot as his perjury and extreme craziness is disqualifying.

Why do you think he is extremely crazy?
The most improbable beliefs he has are his Catholic beliefs, as far as I can tell, but that is not disqualifying.

Anyway, he would almost certainly be just another justice, in terms of rulings. One should not expect anything out of the ordinary. Sure, his rulings will be biased towards conservatism. But for that matter, so are those of other conservative justices, whereas leftists are biased on the other direction.

As for risk assessment, actually the evidence from a hearing is not much, compared with the evidence from all of his time as a judge, when it comes to evidence about his judicial behavior.

 

[Arctish]

Now you're saying that because he displayed some temperament and demeanor, etc., but I'm challenging the contention that he was not fit because he was likely to lie.

I already answered your question.

People who are likely to lie, to commit perjury, to provide false and misleading testimony while under oath, etc., cannot be trusted to uphold the law because they are fundamentally dishonest. That's what makes them likely to lie.

Fundamentally dishonest judges corrupt the entire justice system.

Are you implying Kavanaugh is lying or worse, corrupt on the hearsay of an acuser who failed to prove her accusations?

Angra Mainyu is "challenging the contention that [Kavanaugh] was not fit because he was likely to lie".

I am saying that someone likely to lie under oath has a serious character flaw that renders him/her unfit to be a judge.

If you want to argue whether Kavanaugh has that particular flaw, take it up with him.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Angra, you seem like you are just arguing to argue because some of these questions are ridiculous and obvious. I don't have time for such as that. I will give some brief answers this time but I am not going to go off into debate or semantic quibbling Land as you often do.

Do you have a specific matter in mind, or are you saying that there is conclusive evidence that he lied about something?
If the former, maybe. I haven't looked at all of the details, but if you want to provide the relevant links, I will take a look.
If the latter, I agree. That would not be enough for a conviction due to lack of identification of the specific lie, but it is enough to say that he committed perjury (adding several probable or very probable lies, a statement that is almost certainly a lie when conditioned to the other statement not being so, etc., can get one to "certainly at least one lie" without being able to identify the lie)

In any event, I was replying to an assessment based on an assessment that he would be likely to lie, and for that reason he was not fit.

Jeepers Creepers. He obviously lied about Renate, right? I mean, come on.

He obviously lied about boofing:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucel...-and-why-you-should-never-do-it/#6bd856162a94

His objection may have been that he meant "fart" by boof, but (1) it appears in no slang dictionaries (2) it appears as other things and (3) it makes no semantic sense as written: "have you boofed yet?" That only makes sense if boof is an initiation thing or a rare thing one might do in their lives where a lot of his peers might not have done it "yet" being the operative word. So, any objection that he meant "fart" is UNREASONABLE. Therefore, the reasonable doubt burden is met. There is no reasonable doubt he lied.

I am not going to address other instances of him perjuring himself. Those have already been discussed in the thread but they are there. So this is not a complete list and collectively did he lie in some other instance because he probably lied multiple times, yes.

Here are some other examples, too:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-lied-senate-judiciary-committee.html

Now, I suppose you could claim he was mistaken all those times and not lying, but really, that does not speak well to his ability to make judgments.

Also, as an aside, your other objections that he HAD TO LIE are false. He did not have to lie as both George W Bush and Obama talked about their drug use in their lives and the partisan Republicans would have stood by him in his confirmation no matter what.

What conspiracy theories do you have in mind, ...

Jeebus, don't you know? Why is it my responsibility to tell you about his testimony when we have a near-100 page thread where this stuff is linked and talked about? He blamed the Clintons in his testimony among other lashing out about funding by outside groups.

...and how is the confirmation a scam? ...

It was a scam because Kavanaugh engaged in many, many falsities (even if you claim he was mistaken) and the listeners were all competent enough to know it.

Much like you are competent enough to know all those times he perjured himself.

The confirmation seemed to be in accordance to the US Constitution.

Allowing someone to perjure themselves over and over after denying a previous President a confirmation of a Justice is not obeying rule of law.

He will be another terrible justice from the party of crazy liars like Trump.

I don't think he will be very good, but I don't think the evidence supports that he would be worse than the average justice. The small amount of evidence about his quality as a judge provided by the hearings is swamped by the evidence provided by his judicial trajectory. Conclusion: this is business as usual in terms of rulings. He is biased of course, but at least most of the justices are.

Now did he do some terrible sexual things as well? I can't say for sure, but probably.

Maybe. I'm roughly on 50/50 on that.

Overall, we have to assess the cost benefit of having a person like him on the SC. That means we would need to use estimation and risk assessment. Probabilities are the elements of such analysis, not merely a high burden of reasonable doubt. Even so, that distinction is moot as his perjury and extreme craziness is disqualifying.

Why do you think he is extremely crazy?
The most improbable beliefs he has are his Catholic beliefs, as far as I can tell, but that is not disqualifying.

Anyway, he would almost certainly be just another justice, in terms of rulings. One should not expect anything out of the ordinary. Sure, his rulings will be biased towards conservatism. But for that matter, so are those of other conservative justices, whereas leftists are biased on the other direction.

As for risk assessment, actually the evidence from a hearing is not much, compared with the evidence from all of his time as a judge, when it comes to evidence about his judicial behavior.

Oh please. That old Democrats are just as bad canard? We are experiencing a slow moving coup in our country. This was part of it. It was a giant scam. This is a guy who is a big hypocrite and he was enabled to lie repeatedly, many times, by people who know better, and they attacked the other party.

We are now at a point in history where we have One Party Rule by politicians who openly lie and don't care because they have a strong counter media lie machine to back them up with a significant number of brainwashed minions who tow the partisan line.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Jeepers Creepers. He obviously lied about Renate, right? I mean, come on.

Very probably, yes. But certainly, and while under oath? I'm not sure. Let us consider what he said:

WHITEHOUSE: You mentioned, I think, the Renate or Renata — I don’t know how you pronounce that — that’s a proper name of an individual you know?

KAVANAUGH: Renata.

WHITEHOUSE: Renata. It’s spelled with an “E” at the end, R-E-N-A-T-E. Is that…

KAVANAUGH: Correct.

WHITEHOUSE: OK. And then after that is the word “alumnius.” What does the word “alumnius” mean in that context?

KAVANAUGH: I explained that in my opening statement. We — she was a great friend of ours. We — a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group. The media circus that has been generated by this, thought (ph) and reported that it referred to sex. It did not. Never had any — as she herself said on the record, any kind of sexual interaction with her.

And I’m sorry, how that’s been misinterpreted and sorry about that, as I explained in my opening statement. Because she’s a good person. And to have her named dragged through this hearing is a joke. And, really, an embarrassment.

Note how Kavanaugh dodges the question, and never makes a claim about the meaning of "alumnius". So, what did he actually say:

We — she was a great friend of ours. We — a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group.

The second and third sentences may well be true. The first one is probably false, but they did get along in high school, and even until very recently. Renate Dolphin was one of the women supporting Kavanaugh before he found out about "Renate Alumnius". Kavanaugh might think they were friends, and if "great" is very probably an exaggeration, I would hesitate to say this is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then he says:

The media circus that has been generated by this, thought (ph) and reported that it referred to sex. It did not. Never had any — as she herself said on the record, any kind of sexual interaction with her.

Did he ever had sex with her?
Perhaps. I don't know.
But there is the question about what it referred to, and what Kavanaugh meant by saying it did not refer to having sex with her. I think he very probably lied about that, and it did refer to sex, but I don't think it's beyond a reasonable doubt that that was his claim.

He obviously lied about boofing:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucel...-and-why-you-should-never-do-it/#6bd856162a94


His objection may have been that he meant "fart" by boof, but (1) it appears in no slang dictionaries (2) it appears as other things and (3) it makes no semantic sense as written: "have you boofed yet?" That only makes sense if boof is an initiation thing or a rare thing one might do in their lives where a lot of his peers might not have done it "yet" being the operative word. So, any objection that he meant "fart" is UNREASONABLE. Therefore, the reasonable doubt burden is met. There is no reasonable doubt he lied.

I didn't know the meaning of that one, but after looking for alternative explanations, I find the evidence persuasive. I agree that he lied about that.

Here are some other examples, too:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...committee.html

Now, I suppose you could claim he was mistaken all those times and not lying, but really, that does not speak well to his ability to make judgments.

The claim "it's been investigated" is true, even if many people wanted a more detailed investigation. The claim about the witnesses is false, sure.

Also, as an aside, your other objections that he HAD TO LIE are false. He did not have to lie as both George W Bush and Obama talked about their drug use in their lives and the partisan Republicans would have stood by him in his confirmation no matter what.

I don't recall ever saying that. Could you provide quotes, please?
I said he had to lie if he wanted to prevent some almost certain negative consequences. Obama and Bush were in very different situations. Do you actually think if he had said he was talking about getting high by putting drugs in his anus, that they meant they all had sex with Renate, or else that they were mocking her because she was easy to date and would not say no to a date even if they had sex (an alternative possibility, though very unlikely), etc., he would have been appointed?

I'm pretty sure that many Republicans - even most of them - would have stood by him. But a handful at least would very likely have flipped - and also, maybe sole Democrat. Additionally, there was a good chance that he would have lost the standing with his own family.

Jeebus, don't you know? Why is it my responsibility to tell you about his testimony when we have a near-100 page thread where this stuff is linked and talked about? He blamed the Clintons in his testimony among other lashing out about funding by outside groups.

Because you're claiming he is crazy, which does not seem to be the case at all, and apparently are trying to persuade me of that?

He said:

This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

That does not seem to be a case of blaming the Clintons. Maybe it is, but it is not probable. He is probably talking about people taking revenge for Hillary's (and Bill's, as some see it) defeat, Trump's victory, etc. He went too far for sure, but also there were orchestrated political attacks, and anger over Trump's victory was very probably one of the motivations - though it's not just his victory, but generally the way he and many Republicans are doing things, and the defeat of liberal candidates and causes since 2016.

So, he went clearly too far and left out many other motivations, but that wasn't crazy, even if he believed it. More importantly, he very probably knows that there is much more to it than that - i.e., many people had other motivations for the attacks -, but he was probably signaling to the Senators whose vote he wanted.

It was a scam because Kavanaugh engaged in many, many falsities (even if you claim he was mistaken) and the listeners were all competent enough to know it.

I did and do not claim any of that. But if that makes the appointment a scam, it seems to me most presidential elections are scams, as many (probably most) of the voters are competent to know that the candidate they are voting for lied (publicly and to the public and about important matters) at least a few times (even if they can't pinpoint exactly the lies).

Much like you are competent enough to know all those times he perjured himself.

And you're competent enough not to jump to conclusions, but jump anyway, like your assessment about my assessments. People don't always do what they're competent to do. But I'm not sure what your point is, apart from another attack against me.

The confirmation seemed to be in accordance to the US Constitution.

Allowing someone to perjure themselves over and over after denying a previous President a confirmation of a Justice is not obeying rule of law.

First, how is that an objection to what I said?
I said it seemed to be in accordance to the US Constitution. What part of it was not?
Still, I do not see what law they broke by voting to confirm, even knowing that he had committed perjury. What law do you claim they broke?
Second, what does not approving Garland have to do with "not obeying the rule of law"?
Of course, there is nothing in the Constitution that says they had an obligation to confirm Garland.
Third, I was not talking about Garland anyway, but about the confirmation of Kavanaugh. Even if Garland's not confirmation had been unconstitutional (it wasn't), that would not make all future confirmations an act "not obeying the rule of law".

Oh please. That old Democrats are just as bad canard? We are experiencing a slow moving coup in our country. This was part of it. It was a giant scam. This is a guy who is a big hypocrite and he was enabled to lie repeatedly, many times, by people who know better, and they attacked the other party.

That does not even seem to address any of my points. They stand, though. Purely for example, if Trump had nominated and they had appointed, say, Amy Coney Barrett or Thomas Hardiman or any other plausible alternative, and there had been no accusations of sexual misconduct, lies, etc., it would not be rational to expect that SCOTUS rulings would be particularly better or worse.
Now, the fact that he lied was a good reason not to vote to confirm him. But that's not because of how the Court will rule.

We are now at a point in history where we have One Party Rule by politicians who openly lie and don't care because they have a strong counter media lie machine to back them up with a significant number of brainwashed minions who tow the partisan line.

There isn't One Party Rule. Not even close. There are two large groups of people irrationally making assessments about their outgroup, hating and demonizing each other - with plenty of variation within each group, so the irrational beliefs are not the same within each group, but to a considerable extent they overlap with their ingroup. I don't know who is doing more damage to the US in the long run. Of course, we can subdivide into smaller groups, etc., and in the end, it comes to individuals. But I'm not sure whether rightism or leftism is doing more damage.

 

[angelo]

To summarize:
Franken Kavanaugh

touch? pushed, threw, groped, grinded

joke attempted rape

apology no apology

resigned did not resign

Attempted rape? So your presumption of innocence just flew out the window, right!

You find him guilty, now he has to prove his innocence. Reminds of the dark ages witch hunts. Throw the weighed down accused in to a body of water, if she doesn't drown she's innocent!

I trust her story but would seek to verify. I would have trusted HIS story, but failed to verify after the instance of multiple unnecessary lies and myriad dissembly.

Until an FBI or other investigation that actually seeks to verify the verifiable elements of Ford's testimony and which specifically puts BK in a seat in which his dissembly is unappreciated and identified as such, I'm going to take the most reasonable position here and operate on that knowledge: to treat him as a probable rapist.

Isn't the real truth you believe Ford over Kavanough is because he is a Trump nominee, and you're obviously biased?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

To summarize:
Franken Kavanaugh

touch? pushed, threw, groped, grinded

joke attempted rape

apology no apology

resigned did not resign

Attempted rape? So your presumption of innocence just flew out the window, right!

You find him guilty, now he has to prove his innocence. Reminds of the dark ages witch hunts. Throw the weighed down accused in to a body of water, if she doesn't drown she's innocent!

I trust her story but would seek to verify. I would have trusted HIS story, but failed to verify after the instance of multiple unnecessary lies and myriad dissembly.

Until an FBI or other investigation that actually seeks to verify the verifiable elements of Ford's testimony and which specifically puts BK in a seat in which his dissembly is unappreciated and identified as such, I'm going to take the most reasonable position here and operate on that knowledge: to treat him as a probable rapist.

Isn't the real truth you believe Ford over Kavanough is because he is a Trump nominee, and you're obviously biased?

We believe her story because of the facts.

1) His reaction looks guilty.

2) She told others previously when there was no benefit to her from the telling.

3) She made multiple statements about the situation that have been verified. They're not the sort of thing you're likely to remember decades down the road unless something really important happened that day to burn them into your memory.

I'm left with no doubt she was assaulted, but no proof of what party-goer did the deed. I'm willing to take her word on which one, especially since she identified him by position earlier.

 

[angelo]

The testimony of her best friend as well as other friends to verify her story wouldn't stack up in any court.

Some years ago a woman withdrew consent during sex here in sunny Perth. He was charged and jailed for rape, until she let the cat out of the bag one day boasting to a friend that the charge was made up, because she wanted to " get the bastard " for some reason I no longer remember now.

He became know as the 30 second rapist, but ex hon-orated and also received damages for the loss of his freedom.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s265381.htm

 

[Jarhyn]

The testimony of her best friend as well as other friends to verify her story wouldn't stack up in any court.

Some years ago a woman withdrew consent during sex here in sunny Perth. He was charged and jailed for rape, until she let the cat out of the bag one day boasting to a friend that the charge was made up, because she wanted to " get the bastard " for some reason I no longer remember now.

He became know as the 30 second rapist, but ex hon-orated and also received damages for the loss of his freedom.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s265381.htm

And that has absolutely nothing to do with this case, where the witnesses are not expected to remember what (for them) was just another small teenage get-together with folks they barely knew.

Her testimony was shaped as honest testimony is shaped. This does not make it absolutely true, but does make it something worthy of verifying.

Her testimony contained many details that can be verified. Among them is that she was at a house belonging to a compatriot of Kavanaugh with a narrow staircase, at the top of which is a bedroom across from a bathroom.

Kavanaugh' testimony was shaped as dissembly is shaped. This does not absolutely mean that it is a dissembly, but it can be verified from this perspective as such: he lied about many things, dodged many questions, and filibustered others. He was not honest and forthright, and the only thing that comes to mind as to his purposes for doing such are that he has skeletons related to his lies.

But I don't expect you to be honest or forthright or value honesty and forthrightness. I don't expect you to even know what honesty looks like. What I expect from you is dissembly and partisan bullshit. And you never disappoint me there.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Very probably, yes. But certainly, and while under oath? I'm not sure. Let us consider what he said:


Note how Kavanaugh dodges the question, and never makes a claim about the meaning of "alumnius". So, what did he actually say:

We — she was a great friend of ours. We — a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group.

The second and third sentences may well be true. The first one is probably false, but they did get along in high school, and even until very recently. Renate Dolphin was one of the women supporting Kavanaugh before he found out about "Renate Alumnius". Kavanaugh might think they were friends, and if "great" is very probably an exaggeration, I would hesitate to say this is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Then he says:

The media circus that has been generated by this, thought (ph) and reported that it referred to sex. It did not. Never had any — as she herself said on the record, any kind of sexual interaction with her.

Did he ever had sex with her?
Perhaps. I don't know.
But there is the question about what it referred to, and what Kavanaugh meant by saying it did not refer to having sex with her. I think he very probably lied about that, and it did refer to sex, but I don't think it's beyond a reasonable doubt that that was his claim.

He's claiming that alumnius [sic] was in reference to being her friend. However, "Renate alumnius [sic]" is an objectification of Renate, semantically. Whatever it means--and one can argue over that--it is making her into an abstract thing that a group of guys graduated from. That doesn't sound like being friends and dating but if it is, the act of calling it graduation via "alumnius [sic]" doesn't shed a positive light on what they meant.

Renate, upon first learning of it just recently, and not knowing about it back then, because it was done behind her back, presumably had this to say...

"I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago," Dolphin said in a statement to the Times. "I don't know what 'Renate Alumnus' actually means. I can't begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/poli...anaugh-renate-high-school-yearbook/index.html

Also, two witnesses from his prep school talked about what it really means:

Sean Hagan, who was a Georgetown Prep student at the time, told the Times that Kavanaugh and his teammates "were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate," and said, "I can't express how disgusted I am with them, then and now."

Hagan and another classmate, who requested anonymity, told the Times that Dolphin was a subject of their boasting. They said Kavanaugh and his friends wanted to memorialize their supposed conquests with the yearbook references.

You will no doubt find plenty of Republican graduates of the prep school who also objectified Renate now supporting Kavanaugh. Oh, he's innocent. He meant they kissed and did homework together! Such witnesses are not credible.

I will state again, calling your team graduates of a female as an object is not the same thing as The Renate Dating Club, it's much worse. So even if it's not about sex--which frankly it is about sex--his reflection on it is dishonest.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The claim "it's been investigated" is true, even if many people wanted a more detailed investigation. The claim about the witnesses is false, sure.

Therefore, this is the second lie that you've conceded that Kavanaugh told. In front of the whole Senate. And it's obvious to them.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There isn't One Party Rule.

The Republicans control all 3 branches of government. And Trump controls them.

 

[angelo]

The testimony of her best friend as well as other friends to verify her story wouldn't stack up in any court.

Some years ago a woman withdrew consent during sex here in sunny Perth. He was charged and jailed for rape, until she let the cat out of the bag one day boasting to a friend that the charge was made up, because she wanted to " get the bastard " for some reason I no longer remember now.

He became know as the 30 second rapist, but ex hon-orated and also received damages for the loss of his freedom.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s265381.htm

And that has absolutely nothing to do with this case, where the witnesses are not expected to remember what (for them) was just another small teenage get-together with folks they barely knew.

Her testimony was shaped as honest testimony is shaped. This does not make it absolutely true, but does make it something worthy of verifying.

Her testimony contained many details that can be verified. Among them is that she was at a house belonging to a compatriot of Kavanaugh with a narrow staircase, at the top of which is a bedroom across from a bathroom.

Kavanaugh' testimony was shaped as dissembly is shaped. This does not absolutely mean that it is a dissembly, but it can be verified from this perspective as such: he lied about many things, dodged many questions, and filibustered others. He was not honest and forthright, and the only thing that comes to mind as to his purposes for doing such are that he has skeletons related to his lies.

But I don't expect you to be honest or forthright or value honesty and forthrightness. I don't expect you to even know what honesty looks like. What I expect from you is dissembly and partisan bullshit. And you never disappoint me there.

All of this seen through the eyes of bias!

But the biggest fail of all, besides her witnesses failure to verify her story, is the fact that she brought all this up many decades later.