Next question: Will the FBI Kavanaugh probe be thorough?

[Bugsy McGurk]

Are you going to answer my challenge?

Pick one.

I did. See above.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

They are all equally strong, but I’ll give you one to work with...

When he said that all people Ford identified as being present “refuted” Ford’s account. The truth is that none of them did. One of them even said she believes Ford’s account.

OK - can you try to turn Kavanaugh’s lie into the truth?

Ok, on what effing planet is this "perjury?"

Do you have a quote so that I can check his actual statement and look at context?

I have no idea that he even said this.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

“Dr. Ford’s allegations are not merely uncorroborated, it’s refuted by the very people she says were there.” — Kavanaugh's testimony Thursday.

I believe this was the actual statement. It contains NO LIES, rather the best I can gather is that he would be wrong about this statement alone "exonerating" him.

Perjury involves giving false or misleading testimony - not false or 'incorrect' statements. Being wrong is NOT perjury.

 

[Days]

That is really up to Flake,Collins and Murkowski. When they signal that they're ready to vote and voting for confirmation,there will be an up-or-down vote.

I think it might go beyond that, I think they also want to nail down Feinstein's slander; provide the field work for a possible lawsuit... and I think kavanaugh will let her off the hook, but they want to set him up to sue her for what she did.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Ok, on what effing planet is this "perjury?"

Do you have a quote so that I can check his actual statement and look at context?

I have no idea that he even said this.

You don’t even know what he said but you dismiss the charge that it was perjury?

Sheesh.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

You don’t even know what he said but you dismiss the charge that it was perjury?

Sheesh.

See above. I provided the statement for you since you are obviously so busy.

You have not demonstrated one single instance where Kavanaugh perjured himself.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

“Dr. Ford’s allegations are not merely uncorroborated, it’s refuted by the very people she says were there.” — Kavanaugh's testimony Thursday.

I believe this was the actual statement. It contains NO LIES, rather the best I can gather is that he would be wrong about this statement alone "exonerating" him.

Perjury involves giving false or misleading testimony - not false or 'incorrect' statements. Being wrong is NOT perjury.

He falsely said under oath that those present refuted her allegations, but it wasn’t perjury? Why not?

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

He falsely said under oath that those present refuted her allegations, but it wasn’t perjury? Why not?

He offered an incorrect opinion - not perjury.

Perjury would be if he said he wasn't at the party but KNEW he was and hid it. It involves either an attempt to deceive or an attempt to not provide facts that he knew to be true.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

See above. I provided the statement for you since you are obviously so busy.

Progress. You at least read one of his statements instead of saying you don’t know what he said, but it wasn’t perjury.

Baby steps.

;-)

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

He offered an incorrect opinion - not perjury.

It’s not an opinion. It’s a false statement of fact. They did NOT refute Ford’s allegations.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

Progress. You at least read one of his statements instead of saying you don’t know what he said, but it wasn’t perjury.

Baby steps.

;-)

My first comment was based on what YOU had suggested, which did not include his actual words or contexts.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

It’s not an opinion. It’s a false statement of fact. They did NOT refute Ford’s allegations.

If we are in court and I offer an opinion that I believe to be truthful but in fact, it is not - it's called being wrong.

If I knowingly lie when I know better, that would be perjury.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

My first comment was based on what YOU had suggested, which did not include his actual words or contexts.

That’s why I gave eight links to his statements. They’re all there for the reading.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

If we are in court and I offer an opinion that I believe to be truthful but in fact, it is not - it's called being wrong.

If I knowingly lie when I know better, that would be perjury.

Now you’re switching from falsely claiming it’s a matter of opinion to claiming it was false but Kavanaugh thought it was true. He’s a judge who knows how to read. No fair person would believe that.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

Perjury requires showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a statement was made with willful intent and the speaker knew the statement was false. It is not perjury or a punishable false statement when testimony results from confusion, mistake or faulty memory. Inconsequential inconsistencies or conflicts in testimony do not constitute perjury or false statements. An intentionally misleading but literally true answer cannot form the basis for prosecution. In short, perjury cannot be proven simply by showing the testimony of a witness is inconsistent with the statements of another witness (as Republicans sought to do with their video clips of Clinton vs. Comey testimony). Finally, to convict of perjury it must be proven by more than one witness, or one witness plus corroborative evidence.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

Now you’re switching from falsely claiming it’s a matter of opinion to claiming it was false but Kavanaugh thought it was true. He’s a judge who knows how to read. No fair person would believe that.

Sorry, doowd - not perjury.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

That’s why I gave eight links to his statements. They’re all there for the reading.

You were wrong on your best punch. I'm not wading through your pitter-pat to see if got anything else.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Perjury requires showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a statement was made with willful intent and the speaker knew the statement was false. It is not perjury or a punishable false statement when testimony results from confusion, mistake or faulty memory. Inconsequential inconsistencies or conflicts in testimony do not constitute perjury or false statements. An intentionally misleading but literally true answer cannot form the basis for prosecution. In short, perjury cannot be proven simply by showing the testimony of a witness is inconsistent with the statements of another witness (as Republicans sought to do with their video clips of Clinton vs. Comey testimony). Finally, to convict of perjury it must be proven by more than one witness, or one witness plus corroborative evidence.

No such additional witnesses are needed. It’s a matter of reading the statements of the people in question. Did they refute Ford’s allegations? Nope. Did Kavanaugh say they did? Yep.

Perjury. Straight up.

 

[Puzzling Evidence]

No such additional witnesses are needed. It’s a matter of reading the statements of the people in question. Did they refute Ford’s allegations? Nope. Did Kavanaugh say they did? Yep.

Perjury. Straight up.

OK. Awesome, please send a letter to the FBI and include yoar opinion. I'm sure he's going to prison for it.
Good call.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

You were wrong on your best punch. I'm not wading through your pitter-pat to see if got anything else.

I understand. You took enough punishment even trying to defend one of Kavanaugh’s countless lies under oath.

If you muster the strength, try to defend his outrageous whopper claiming that the “Renate alumni” stuff was an effort to compliment that girl. Or his claim that “Devil’s Triangle” is a drinking game. Or that “boofing” refers to flatulence. Or that he never got blackout drunk. Or that the beach “Ralph club” referred to his sensitivity to spicy food.

The guy is a stone cold perjurer.