• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How many lies under oath is Brett Kavanaugh allowed before he is disqualified?

How many false statements under oath should Brett Kavanaugh be allowed and still be on SCOTUS?

  • None, even one is too many

    Votes: 27 81.8%

  • 1 to 3 is okay

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • 4 to 6 is okay

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 7 to 10 is still okay

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 11 to 20 is still okay

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • His veracity doesn't matter -- swear him in already.

    Votes: 4 12.1%
  • Total voters
    33
Amelia

Amelia

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
11,060
Reaction score
9,450
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
How many false statements under oath should Brett Kavanaugh be allowed and still be made a Supreme Court Justice?
 
How about you name a few so we know what you're talking about.
 
if it's ok for perjury elf, why not a SCOTUS justice?
 
Amelia said:
How many false statements under oath should Brett Kavanaugh be allowed and still be made a Supreme Court Justice?
Click to expand...

What lies?
 
Amelia said:
How many false statements under oath should Brett Kavanaugh be allowed and still be made a Supreme Court Justice?
Click to expand...

Can you name a lie? I mean a real one not the ones that roll around in conspiracy nutters heads.
 
how many posts will the op dodge before posting the lies he made up?
 
AlphaOmega said:
Can you name a lie? I mean a real one not the ones that roll around in conspiracy nutters heads.
Click to expand...

It's the dishonesty about stupid **** that bothers me and makes me question whether he's truthful on anything. It was not legal for him to drink in HS, he was not of age when they raised the age and therefore wasn't grandfathered in. Why in the hell even try to paint a picture of himself that he was drinking legally. Hardly anyone was at that age. Turning of age was a huge deal at the time (19 where I lived) he would have remembered if he could "legally" drink or not.
 
Cardinal said:
A couple handy tabulations of outright falsehoods and disputed claims by Kavnaugh during his on oath hearings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...r-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6bbd95ec53a6

Even if you accept that he's innocent of attempted sexual assault, his falsehoods and behavior outright disqualify him.
Click to expand...


Thank you. The NYT link mentions his 2006 testimony but doesn't say much.

Here is Russ Feingold's more detailed commentary on his 2004 and 2006 hearings.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ld-kavanaugh-lies_us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff
 
Last edited:
Winchester said:
It's the dishonesty about stupid **** that bothers me and makes me question whether he's truthful on anything. It was not legal for him to drink in HS, he was not of age when they raised the age and therefore wasn't grandfathered in. Why in the hell even try to paint a picture of himself that he was drinking legally. Hardly anyone was at that age. Turning of age was a huge deal at the time (19 where I lived) he would have remembered if he could "legally" drink or not.
Click to expand...

Kavanaugh seems to feel it's acceptable to lie and dissemble when he perceives the questions to be unfair or inconvenient. When you've reached that point, we arrive at the age-old line: "We've already established what you are; now we're just negotiating."
 
Amelia said:
Thank you. The NYT link mentions his 2006 testimony but doesn't say much.

Here is Russ Feingold's more detailed commentary on that.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ld-kavanaugh-lies_us_5ba020f6e4b013b0977defff
Click to expand...

I posted a helpful explanation with links here a few days ago:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...-his-yale-roommate-says-8.html#post1069088080

and the supporting evidence...

https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/st...le/151095/brett-kavanaugh-really-lie-congress
 
Amelia said:
How many false statements under oath should Brett Kavanaugh be allowed and still be made a Supreme Court Justice?
Click to expand...

What is the burden of proof for the statements to be considered deliberately false? Is it at least Preponderance of Evidence or is Reason to Believe sufficient?
 
jdog21 said:
I noticed the NYTimes couldn't even find 1 lie.
Click to expand...

Meaning that the Washington Post did? In any case, the NYTimes catalogues four precise lies, which you'll see when you read the parts under "Social Circle", "Alleged Attendees," "Spying on Democrats" and "Contested Judicial Nominees." This is all if you laughably choose to accept that he never drank to the point of blacking out as well as his ridiculous responses regarding "boofing," "Renate" and "Devil's Triangle."
 
Amelia said:
How many false statements under oath should Brett Kavanaugh be allowed and still be made a Supreme Court Justice?
Click to expand...

The same amount Hillary Clinton.
 
Because you want to keep him off the court and you choose to not believe him doesn't mean at all that he is not telling the truth.. What makes you believe Ford when she cannnot answer basic questions of where, when? I've seen dumber things in a high school yearbook that didn't mean anything sinister.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Because you want to keep him off the court and you choose to not believe him doesn't mean at all that he is not telling the truth.. What makes you believe Ford when she cannnot answer basic questions of where, when? I've seen dumber things in a high school yearbook that didn't mean anything sinister.
Click to expand...

The issue of who wants to keep him off the court is immaterial to his dishonesty.
 
Cardinal said:
The issue of who wants to keep him off the court is immaterial to his dishonesty.
Click to expand...

wrong-the issue is your opinion as to what is a lie and your willingness to believe anything that casts Kavanaugh in a bad light
 
TurtleDude said:
wrong-the issue is your opinion as to what is a lie and your willingness to believe anything that casts Kavanaugh in a bad light
Click to expand...

You still have yet to answer my question from the previous thread:

If you accept the hypothetical scenario that the FBI finds sufficient evidence to confirm Ford's accusation...and if you state clearly that you don't mind if he attempted to commit sexual assault regardless, then you have to address that Kavanaugh repeatedly gave a blanket denial of the attempted assault. And if you accept that he attempted sexual assault, then you have to accept that his denial is a lie.

So again: is his lie acceptable to you or not?
 
Cardinal said:
Meaning that the Washington Post did? In any case, the NYTimes catalogues four precise lies, which you'll see when you read the parts under "Social Circle", "Alleged Attendees," "Spying on Democrats" and "Contested Judicial Nominees." This is all if you laughably choose to accept that he never drank to the point of blacking out as well as his ridiculous responses regarding "boofing," "Renate" and "Devil's Triangle."
Click to expand...
I didn't read the Washington Post one.
So His statement that he never drank to the point of blacking out, and someone he went to college with stating he drank heavily, and another saying they saw him drunk and was stumbling doesn't refute his claim that he never blacked out.
His statements about working on judge Pickering's confirmation, "not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling". This is refuted because he sat in on some calls and had email exchanges about judge Pickerings confirmation? All it shows is that he was involved. To what extent is not noted. It still can be very true that it wasn't his PRIMARY task, and more of a secondary in nature.
 
Winchester said:
It's the dishonesty about stupid **** that bothers me and makes me question whether he's truthful on anything. It was not legal for him to drink in HS, he was not of age when they raised the age and therefore wasn't grandfathered in. Why in the hell even try to paint a picture of himself that he was drinking legally. Hardly anyone was at that age. Turning of age was a huge deal at the time (19 where I lived) he would have remembered if he could "legally" drink or not.
Click to expand...

she lied about not knowing who drove her to the party. She lied abouy when she took the polygraph. Her testimony was so scripted it was difficult to watch. Underage drinking doesnt make you a rapist.
 
jdog21 said:
I didn't read the Washington Post one.
So His statement that he never drank to the point of blacking out, and someone he went to college with stating he drank heavily, and another saying they saw him drunk and was stumbling doesn't refute his claim that he never blacked out.
His statements about working on judge Pickering's confirmation, "not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling". This is refuted because he sat in on some calls and had email exchanges about judge Pickerings confirmation? All it shows is that he was involved. To what extent is not noted. It still can be very true that it wasn't his PRIMARY task, and more of a secondary in nature.
Click to expand...

So you accept the other lies then. As I said, "We've already established what you are; now we're just negotiating."

Do you believe him when he says he never drank to the point of blacking out? Also, do you believe his explanations regarding Devil's Triangle, boofing and Renate?
 
Cardinal said:
So you accept the other lies then. As I said, "We've already established what you are; now we're just negotiating."

Do you believe him when he says he never drank to the point of blacking out? Also, do you believe his explanations regarding Devil's Triangle, boofing and Renate?
Click to expand...

I don't except the other "lies" that the nytimes claims to be trying to debunk. I just didn't see the need to go line by line refuting each one. I quickly picked two a moved on.

I do believe that he never drank to the point of blacking out, why wouldn't you?

Devil's Triangle could be a drinking game they made up, why would this be a lie?

Boofing sounds like a onomatopoeia to me. Even the nytimes and the Washington post in your two articles contradict each other to what the definition to the word boofing means. One claims its anal sex, the other barfing from drinking to much, while Kavanaugh claims it regards to flatulence. Again where is the lie?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom