Below is my column in USA Today on what appears now to be a clear perjury strategy against Judge Brett Kavanaugh that focuses more on his credibility than his alleged criminality. There are many who have questioned whether Kavanaugh testified truthfully on the meaning of well-known sexual terms as well as his statements on his prior drinking habits. Clearly, any false testimony would be a barrier to confirmation regardless of the subject. Yet, this confirmation could create a new term for future nominees: “boofed.” The questioning on high school lexicon and conduct is a new element in confirmations — precedent that could further degrade our process for selecting Supreme Court justices.
Here is the column:
As the FBI continues its investigation into claims that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a serial sexual assaulter, it remains doubtful that dispositive or even incriminating new evidence will be uncovered given the declarations submitted on the record by principal witnesses. But that may never have been the real strategy against Kavanaugh. This looks like a perjury trap.
While Kavanaugh believed Democrats were trying to paint him as an extremist, as they did Robert Bork in 1987, they actually were trying to trap Kavanaugh into false statements on terms and conduct from decades earlier. Indeed, Kavanaugh could achieve the immortality in the lexicon of confirmations not as a “Borked” but a “boofed” nominee.
The FBI is investigating allegations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford with the disadvantage of limited time (one week) and a locked-in record. The key witnesses have already made their statements under penalty of felonies to Congress, where they deny any recollection of the party described by Ford or even seeing such conduct by Kavanaugh. The Democrats knew this was unlikely to change with the FBI collecting additional statements.
Democrats didn’t seriously question Kavanaugh
The FBI is also looking into an allegation from Deborah Ramirez, who says Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party while both were students at Yale. But Ramirez admitted to having problems recalling the event due to her own heavy drinking, and she said her memory was refreshed after she first declined to come forward. There have been no direct witnesses at this party who recall the disgusting act alleged by Ramirez.
What was most striking at the hearing is that Democratic senators did not seriously question Kavanaugh on the details of these allegations. Instead, they focused on his refusal to call for an FBI investigation or absurd asides, like Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal demanding to know whether Kavanaugh “believed Anita Hill” in her testimony against Clarence Thomas 27 years ago. The only substantive focus was on Kavanaugh’s drinking in high school and college, and risqué references to his high school yearbook.
While the Democrats suggested this was meant to bolster Ford’s account of Kavanaugh being almost blacked out with alcohol, it seems quite implausible given the specificity of the questions, particularly on the yearbook entries. Clearly, the Democrats were trying to establish that Kavanaugh has lied about drinking and sex in his youth.
It all came down to a single moment when Kavanaugh would be faced with admitting to alcohol abuse and embarrassing sexual terminology or deny such alleged facts under oath.
Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse provided the moment by demanding to know the meaning of “boofed,” “Devil’s Triangle” and other terms in Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook. These terms are references to anal and group sex.
Many of us were unfamiliar with them (honestly, I now realize I led a relatively monastic life), but they are apparently well-known. Kavanaugh’s description of the first as flatulence and the second as a drinking game led to a torrent of ridicule. Despite someone in Congress trying to change the Wikipedia definition of “Devil’s Triangle” to include a drinking game, Kavanaugh is believed by many to have knowingly lied about these terms as well as when he denied that he drank excessively.
It was a curious tactic for the Democrats who once argued that President Bill Clinton could not be impeached for lying under oath about sex. They now argue that Kavanaugh should be denied confirmation (or if confirmed actually impeached by a later Democratic Congress) on the basis of lies about drinking or sexual terms.
The fact is that there is no subject matter exception for perjury. A lie about anything counts as a lie. Clinton was rightfully impeached on this basis, and Kavanaugh could be rejected on that basis. (Full disclosure, I testified during the Clinton impeachment hearings that such perjury would constitute an impeachable offense).
Democrats boofed Kavanaugh
Where does that leave us? A new college friend has come forward to say Kavanaugh lied when he denied abusive drinking. Charles Ludington, a professor in North Carolina, told the FBI that Kavanaugh was a “belligerent and aggressive” drunk in college. Others have also contradicted Kavanaugh. However, Kavanaugh did not deny drinking. Indeed, as now famously mocked by Matt Damon on “Saturday Night Live,” he repeatedly (and rather painfully) said that he liked beer. He did not deny ever being drunk.
If the assault allegations are left unproven and Kavanaugh’s testimony on drinking is relatively vague, that leaves his yearbook and the sexual references often exchanged among teenage boys.
Those references in a 17-year-old’s yearbook could become the legal equivalent of the Butterfly Effect (where a butterfly flapping its wings could eventually cause a typhoon in another part of the world). They have precious little to do with any alleged assault or Kavanaugh’s undeniable qualifications as a jurist. The problem is that Kavanaugh had to answer the questions — or refuse to answer as a matter of dignity. A new political verb is born: to boof, leaving the nominee with the choice of either degrading or false testimony on collateral or marginal terms or conduct. As with Bork, boof will be available as a noun, and adjective and an adverb for future nominations.
Absent some sudden corroboration for Ford or Ramirez, it could come down to simply that. And if this is the standard for future confirmations, then we are all boofed.
Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409864-grassley-no-corroboration-of-kavanaugh-accusers-allegations-in-fbi-report
1. Feinstein’s not satisfied, and is moving the goal post.
2. Still awaiting a precis of Christopher Garrett’s remarks.
” Feinstein’s not satisfied, and is moving the goal post.”
After 3 successful attempts to reach the goal line the Rams are now over a hundred yards from mid field position.
“the FBI didn’t find third parties who could attest to the allegations of misconduct, and unearthed no contemporaneous evidence.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/senators-begin-review-of-fbi-report-on-kavanaugh-1538659468
No worries. While Dianne Feinstein crucified Judge Amy “the dogma lives loudly within you”, the Dems have their own witch burning dogma:
search and destroy, chase and harass, castrate and kill.
the Salem Witch Trials were total amateurs. Senator Joseph McCarthy is rolling over in his grave green with envy at not having the support that Feinstein et al have
McCarthy had tons of support, and, a lot of his accusations if not most were factually accurate
Mr Kurtz – McCarthy was supported by Joe Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and J. Edgar Hoover, among others.
seriously? You are calling his perjury a “trap”????
Wow, way to demo responsibility….blame it on the Dems…just don’t blame it on the LIAR!!!!!!
oh, and this:
“Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks”
Breaking news
Senator Dianne Feinstein missed her dental appointment… It was just a routine checkup & x-rays.
The Democrats on the judicial committee are obsessed with sophomoric behavior because of their obvious truncated social development.
It’s typical that they would set a trap for their prey, while giggling behind closed doors at all of the references to naughty parts.
The Democrat party will not survive unless it recruits some grown ups.
“They now argue that Kavanaugh should be denied confirmation (or if confirmed actually impeached by a later Democratic Congress) on the basis of lies about drinking or sexual terms.”
Turley and others are stretching the responses to the point where one is actually in the dark. See JAMA
Dealing with how a person interprets the meaning of a word or words is problematic and when one is attempting a perjury trap the fault should lie with the one asking the question, not the one answering it.
The JAMA study contradicts what a lot of people thought. Was Clinton’s statement a lie?
JAMA 1999 [A question was included in a survey conducted in ***1991*** that explored sexual behaviors and attitudes]
“Conclusions The findings support the view that Americans hold widely divergent opinions about what behaviors do and do not constitute having “had sex.”
“ These data indicate that prior to the current public discourse, a majority of college students attending a major midwestern state university, most of whom identified themselves as politically moderate to conservative, with more registered Republicans than Democrats, did not define oral sex as having “had sex.””
JT, this column is full of inaccuracies and failure to look at available evidence. To say there is no corroborating witnesses is simply untrue. There are. The FBI refused to interview them. They have resorted to filing their statements on the FBI online portal and giving, in addition, sworn statements to Congress. I urge you to read the article in the NYorker concerning these statements. At least one is actually a contemporaneous account. I believe releasing the unheard sworn statements to the press is about the only avenue open for the truth to come out.
You also fail to mention Brett’s reaching out to witnesses before the original Ramirez allegations came out, then Brett said he had never heard of these allegations until he read the article. Did Democrats make him tell that lie? He perjured all by himself, on his lone initiative. And there are other allegations of witness tampering which the FBI also ignored.
This process is shameful. Even people dying for Brett to be confirmed should demand and open, thorough and publicly available process. None of that is present. That is a disgrace and disservice to our nation.
To say there is no corroborating witnesses is simply untrue. There are
No, there are not. Your repetitive descents into fantasy are getting tiresome, Jill.
So name the corroborating witnesses??? Hear-say witness by a husband is nothing and meaningless. The Dems created an orchestrated smear campaign of idealogues who are looking for their 15 minutes of fame and Dem sainthood (Avenatti, Rodriguez, Swetnick and yes, Dr. Ford who is even profiting off of this to the tune of $750,000.) This doesn’t include the future speaking engagements we can all imagine for these people who will lie to achieve their political ends – Alinsky, Marx, Mao, Lenin, Castro, Chavez. The ends justifies the means.
I don’t really give a crap about Brett, he seems well qualified and I believe him, but, I wanted the lady Amy Barrett i think was her name, to be nominated.
But the Dems have brought this fight and I know which side I’m on. they have had their say now it goes to VOTE
Democracy: something “Democrats” like only when they win
There you go again… 🙂
The issue isn’t Boofed vs Devil’s Triangle vs self-perception vs even his account of an allegation of sexual assault.
It is the sum total of these problems Judge Kavanaugh seems to have with detail and the truth, and the relative disregard he has for the oath he takes in those hearings.
When a man of your stature places undue emphasis on the individual incidents, rather than working more honestly to comprehend the pattern they constitute, well, your statute diminishes.
I’ll add that while I never heard the term “boof” until a few days ago when it appeared in a blog post from a much younger writer, I also never heard the term “Devil’s Triangle” at all except in connection with the Kavanaugh testimony. The wikipedia definitions of these terms today do not prove anything about what they might have meant in 1982.
same. i thought boofed meant beefed which some people used to say instead of farted.
now i remember boo-foo, which was derived from butt f-ing, which they say is what boofed REALLY means.
i never heard of devils triangle at all; i thought of bermuda triangle, and take the statement that it’s a drinking game seriously. we made up a lot of stupid drinking games in high school and gave them names.
these days, considering the trouble that flirting with women can get a man into, I think the DEVILS TRIANGLE should be the new name for the woman’s pubic triangle. as in, “why did you act so stupidly when you flirted with anita hill? oh, the DEVIL’S TRIANGLE made me do it.”
today, there are talented young men out there, making their career plans. just as i did, they are saying to themselves: I WILL NEVER RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, IT’S TOO MUCH HASSLE!”
Devil’s Triangle? Proper Nouns are open to interpretation. Everybody knows that. No One can say with certainty what Kavanaugh meant or experienced in use of this noun. When I was in high school we used the term “Joe Cool.” It was a pejorative meaning a wannabe trying too hard to be popular. Other schools in the area used it as a compliment. I have no idea what Devil’s Triangle meant to Kavanaugh and neither do you. The charge of perjury is a joke.
Devil’s Triangle is an oral sex threesome. There is no way it’s a drinking game like quarters. The obvious raging hormones at that age and ‘I like beer.’ combination makes Kavanaugh look like a punter when it comes to lying. He should have simply admitted that as that teen he used foul language and talked dirty. Kavanaugh took an extreme position to deny everything with stupid lies, not well crafted lies, stupid lies. When Clinton argued the meaning of sex he made himself look the fool. He was voted an acceptable fool. He was the President and had performed fairly well. If this had come before getting elected he wouldn’t have become President. These kinds of insights into character should be taken seriously. Add this inability to accept responsibility for his teen years along with extremely poor lying and Kavanaugh is not SCOTUS material. Throw in the political bias he exhibited along with his obvious disrespect for the Democratic Senators and it would be a Yuge mistake if he made the court.
issac – so this is something you have experienced? What part of the Devil’s Triangle were you? I told you my experiences with the word “gay.” I was watching Smoky and the Bandit 2 and Sally Fields says Burt Reynolds looks like a gay cabellero. Given the way he was dressed it could have been taken two ways. Either was funny.
Paul
When something, such as the ‘Devil’s Triangle’ is so common knowledge, having been used often enough; and one attempts to pass it off as a drinking game, the responder is obviously lying. If you watched the interview, you would have noticed how quickly Kavanaugh responded, “drinking game, like quarters”. He was ready for it. He’s a liar. The important part of this exercise is that he lied even when he didn’t have to. He would have come off much more honestly if he had simply stated that it was ‘dirty talk’ or ‘locker room talk’. This is why he is not SCOTUS material. He hasn’t the minerals. You seem to emulate this mutt with your flipping it over on me; just as Kavanaugh went after the Democrat Senator by not answering the question on blacking out. Kavanaugh falls well short of what America demands in a Supreme Court Judge. However, apparently Thomas has turned out to be a really nice guy.
issac – I was in college and grad school in the 80s and neither boofing or Devil’s Triangle ever came up. And when I started teaching, neither came up.
Paul
If you watched the interview and you are in the slightest bit honest, you would have seen a liar. A dozen to twenty people who knew Kavanaugh in college, including his room mate, have attested to the fact that he was often drunk and sometimes physically aggressive, a mean drunk. Many of his friends and those who did not witness this have attested to the fact that they never saw him drunk and mean. So, is it, if you saw him drunk and mean, that gets negated by you didn’t see him drunk and mean? That is basically what it comes down to. The FBI research-call it what you will-has been specifically designed by the Republican Senators to leave out anything that might include those who saw Kavanaugh acting in a manner that could point to him being capable of sexually assaulting Ford. His room mate, who should be first on the list, is left out. Rigged is the word.
Regarding your pussified college experience, I refer to the above. You argue your point with true Republican hypocrisy. The best I can say for your logic is ‘pretzel’.
Issac, you are providing your interpretation of hearsay which isn’t acceptable in a court of law or for the Senate. What is required is a written or certified oral statement where the individual signs the declaration submitted to the Senate. That makes that individual subject to perjury and criminal prosecution. Without that you have nothing.
Provide the address for the person you say made any of those comments.
Quote the comment in question and your interpretation.
Show how that comment is factually based.
If you can’t do these things you have nothing. If you continue to insist you have something without these things then you show yourself to be a fool.
the nancy boys have come out from behind momma’s skirts are lining up to apologize for women. keep on talking, i want the world to see what a real proper nancy boy sounds like.
issac – consider the source. We know that Chrissy perjured herself at least twice and not over little things. Her attorneys failed to pass on vital information to her which is a violation of the Code of Ethics.
Here’s a list of the people who we know have not been interviewed:
A suitemate of Kavanaugh’s has now told the New Yorker he remembers hearing at the time about the incident Deborah Ramirez has recounted. Ramirez, who has been interviewed, had claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a dorm party at Yale. The suitemate, Kenneth G. Appold, now says he is “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told the culprit was Kavanaugh. He does say he never discussed this with Ramirez, but he claims an eyewitness described the episode to him at the time. Appold has tried to share this story with the FBI, but there’s no indication the FBI is willing to hear from him.
A classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Prep now strongly challenges one of Kavanaugh’s assertions under oath. The person told the New Yorker that he heard Kavanaugh talk repeatedly about Renate Dolphin as someone “that everyone passed around for sex” (the witness’ words), and even heard Kavanaugh singing a rhyme that included the words “you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE-NATE.” Kavanaugh (and many others) described themselves in their yearbook as a “Renate Alumnius,” but Kavanaugh has denied under oath that this was a sexual reference, claiming, ludicrously, that it was intended to show “affection.”
This classmate is not named by the New Yorker. But he put his name on a statement to the FBI and Judiciary Committee that makes this claim, and he is prepared to talk to the FBI. There is no indication this happened.
James Roche, one of Kavanaugh’s roommates at Yale, has written a piece for Slate that claims Kavanaugh lied under oath about his use of slang and his drinking. Roche claims that Kavanaugh “regularly” blacked out. Roche has offered to talk to the FBI, but there’s no indication this happened.
Roche also pointedly added of Kavanaugh: “He said that ‘boofing’ was farting and the ‘Devil’s Triangle’ was a drinking game. ‘Boofing’ and ‘Devil’s Triangle’ are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.” Roche concluded that Kavanaugh “has demonstrated a willingness to be untruthful under oath about easily verified information.”
NBC News reports that the FBI has not contacted dozens of people who could potentially corroborate the allegations against Kavanaugh or testify to his behavior at the time. This includes many people who knew either Ford or Ramirez at the time, and people who actually approached the FBI offering information.
The Post reports that Ramirez’s lawyers provided the FBI with a list of more than 20 people who might have relevant information, but “as of Wednesday, Ramirez’s team had no indication that the bureau had interviewed any of them.”
Neither Ford nor Kavanaugh have been interviewed by the FBI. As the Brookings Institution’s Susan Hennessey points out: “It is inconceivable they could close a real investigation without re-interviewing Kavanaugh.”
issac – it is my understanding that the FBI were told to leave Ford and Kavanaugh alone. The Senate is controlling the investigation. The Democrats wanted it, the Republicans are directing it.
Paul.
The FBI investigation is designed/rigged/directed by the White House and the Republican Senators; as you stated, ‘were told’, ‘the Senate is controlling….’. Flake, a Republican insisted. You sound more and more like that liar Trump every post. Step back and read yourself. Or, are you just funning; I would understand that. Get out of the sun, Paul. This is no different than a foregone conclusion or ‘first the execution and then the trial’.
lol you are funny isaac. kav was the accused. inapt analogy
anyhow, it’s going to be blip on the radar screen soon; breaking news of major hardware hack by chinese with huge implications. now the trade war makes a lot of sense. check it out on bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies?srnd=premium
i mean I guess it’s no wonder that DIFI was ginning this tempest in a teapot up over Kav, since she had a Chinese spy in her office for 20 years. Collusion with Chicoms? FBI must investigate DIFI!
damn, how things turn around quickly sometimes
issac – this is Arizona, only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun. We are one of the skin cancer capitals of the US. If you are smart you go from shady spot to shady spot this time of year.
I am only passing on what I have read.
If one wanted to be heard it was easy. All they had to do is sign an affidavit with proof that something definitive occurred and be subject to perjury if their affidavit’s turned out to be lies. Where are those affidavit’s you apparently foolishly think exist and why weren’t they presented at the onset of the hearings?
I’ll tell you why. The one’s running the smear campaign know that a lot of people are fools and can be fooled time and time again. You are either one of those fools or one of the disgusting type that practices character assassination for political reasons. I can’t tell which type you are and for all I know you might fill the shoes of both types.
The above was to our Canadian who makes me suspicious he didn’t leave Canada on his own accord.
The rubbish Jill and our Canadian head case keep referring to is this:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ronan-farrow-disgraces-himself-brett-kavanaugh-story/
There’s a reason federal law enforcement cannot be bothered with this sort of things. It’s left to Democratic oppo-research contractors like Jane Mayer.
Paul:
“Issac – so this is something you have experienced? What part of the Devil’s Triangle were you?”
************************
Here’s guessing he was the area of the triangle and not the segments. Talk about triangle inequality!!
Burt Reynolds, another abuser! Let’s heap dirt on his grave too when this is done
one night in high school i remember a beer party with the guys from football. was it five guys or ten, was it ten girls or five guys? it all runs together 35 years later….this story is really about the drinking part after the girls left. i wont bore you with how all the guys stripped naked and walked together past all the girls and jumped in the pool. i won’t bore you with how the girls then thought it would be ok to just strip down to bra and panties and get in there with us. that’s all boring. today it would have qualified as a series of sex offenses but at the time the girls sure seemed like they were having fun and nobody got reported to the police. then at least; maybe some will remember now 35 years later and charge us with indecent exposure or sexual assault for the several fanny pinches that were handed out at various times. would you believe me if you said that I had my butt pinched by a girl many times and my front parts grabbed too? I don’t think i have ptsd over it but definitely not every girl that grabbed me did I like it or want it… i never thought to call it a crime. i would have been laughed at…… but anyhow….
…. after all the girls left– they were treated with perfectly gentlemanly conduct by us all, other than the part were every guy at the party stripped naked right in front of them we finally got down to business. there was a big rubber wastebasket in the corner of the basement, kid we will call Billy puked in it and “passed out.” that means fell asleep btw, i still don’t know what “blacked out” meant. Bob said, i have to piss, and he relieved himself in the same wastebasket. soon three other guys did the same. beer cans were thrown into it and pizza boxes and beer case boxes too. John said let’s play Devil’s Triangle. Biff said, what’s that? Jack said, “John’s mom’s not here and we can’t do it without her!” everyone laughed. Steve said, no, he means this cool drinking game I learned from a guy at George town prep. “What” we all said. Then Steve set up three shot glasses. one was filled with water, one with beer, and one with whiskey.
Steve said, now you gotta bounce the quarter into these. if you miss you have to do 50 pushups. If you hit one of the three glasses you gotta drink it. (obviously a hit in the whiskey shot would send anyone that much faster into puking territory) ….. an hour later we so drunk that somebody had pissed on billy, sleeping on a couch, another kid had puked on the floor, then another kid laughingly did pushups with his face in the puke…. i think i was the only one of 5 or was it ten guys? who didnt puke. and after that I sat down on a different couch and either “feel asleep” or “passed out” or “blacked out” because next thing i remember Biff, whose parents house we were at, was shaking me awake at dawn telling me to help him empty the peepuke bucket and gather the cans because his parents would be home in an hour
Now would I swear under oath to that? did it happen? did I make some or all of it up? do i have worse stories and do they include names that people would know?
WHO CARES!
keep it up and we will be at South Park level soon… if this is too gross then ban me, or better yet, then tell Senators to get out of the gutter first, and then I’ll follow
ivan:
Far be it from me to dispute an experienced expert in perverse sex and drunkenness, but there is simply no way you can know what someone is thinking unless you are in their head. Now if it’s important we can run the gamut of corroborating evidence but the musings in a 30-something-year-old yearbook are fascinating only to facile thinking minds.
A purjury trap is when they ask about details where they already know the answer in hopes of the witness telling a lie or misremembering. In this case they asked a question that has an answer which was embarrassing or awkward to say in a hearing. He could have said “The answer is inappropriate to the decorum if the Senate.” Or he could have just told the truth. But I don’t see a purjury trap. However it was an inappropriate question in the first place.
The one promoting the idea that he lied in his testimony is James Roche, his college roommate, who claims that ‘boofed’ and ‘Devil’s triangle’ are sexual references he heard Kavanaugh and his friends use and that Kavanaugh was routinely blackout drunk.
1. I’m a contemporary of this crew and I was a Maryland resident at the time (Baltimore, not Washington). I’ve never heard the term ‘boofed’ in my life, nor any use of the term ‘Devils Triangle’ outside the sort of UFO literature popular ca. 1974. My default assumption would be that these are localized inside jokes, not sexual slang prevalent up and down the eastern seabord. The colloquial terms for anal sex I can recall (in order of prevalence) were ‘cornholing’ and ‘buggery’. It certainly wasn’t a topic of discussion in my circle of friends. Neither was 3-way sex. I had among my proximate relations one self-destructively slutty person and one grotesquely uninhibited one (in her discussions, not behavior); three-way sex was certainly not something they blabbed about.
2. Sick-drunk, babbling-drunk, falling-down drunk are observable states. Blackout drunk is not. It’s a subjective state, and Roche would only know about it if Kavanaugh had spoken of it. However, Roche also admits the two did not socialize. So what gives?
3. We have James Roche telling the world that Kavanaugh should be voted down for lying about colloquialisms current in a school James Roche never attended located in a city in which he has never lived.
4. It’s 35 years ago. Am I going to rely on Kavanaugh’s memory of what was, or Roche’s memory of what someone he didn’t like supposedly told him a propos of nothing in particular?
5. We’re parsing the tomfoolery of yearbook captions.
6. In re James Roche and Craig Maizin. All the water under the bridge since 1984 (in Roche’s case) and 1989 (in Maizin’s case) and someone you didn’t much care for assigned to room with you is still taking up rent-free space in your head? I had a college roommate I didn’t care for. I haven’t given him a second thought in 35 years. What gives with you guys?
Is oral sex, sex? Who the heck can know what is in another’s mind?
“Is oral sex, sex? Who the heck can know what is in another’s mind”
**********************************
Or in another person’s …. nope I won’t say it!
“Porked” is the appropriate word for this Kav discussion. Pork em if ya gottem.
What is wrong with that?
This national disgust shown for humans who have an attraction to humans of the opposite sex is dorky. Folks in Europe think Americans are dorks.
Yeah you should not drive if you are drunk. But it doesn’t mean you should not have fun in life. Life is short. So are the Dems.
For it’s up against the wall Redneck Mothers.
Mothers who have raised their sons so well.
He’s 34 and drinking in Honky Tonks.
Kickin hippies asses and raising Hell.
“A Lie is a Lie!
It’s a Lie all the way!
From your first cigarette …
To your last dying day!
—
Those who smoke die quicker.
Guns are quicker.
For all you jerks who direct animosity towards those who have sex. Direct it towards those dumb dorks who smoke. Tell your kids not to. Make it a crime to sell the products.
Is Prof. Turley correct that there is no “subject matter exception” to perjury? I suppose. But doesn’t the false statement have to relate to a material issue? And if this line of inquiry (meaning of “boof” and “Devil’s Triangle”) is not considered material, then a false answer would not be considered perjurious. If Richard Nixon denied under oath that he put ketchup on cottage cheese or wore wing-tips when he walked on the beach, would that be perjurious? No, just laughable.
Exactly right. Not every lie is perjury. But it might amount to disqualification for a judicial nominee. I’m not suggesting it should. And I’m not even suggesting it was a lie: I had never heard the term “boof” until a few days ago. I don’t think it was around in my high school and college years, which are a bit earlier than Brett’s, but still…
JMRJ – I was in college and grad school in the 80s and I never heard either term. And when I started teaching in 86, I never heard the terms. They were new to me, too.
Turley – stop suggesting that this line of pursuit by political thugs has any sense of legitimacy. No one has any idea what exactly he meant in 1982 or in 2018. How could anyone know what ANY 17 year old meant when they said or wrote something in a yearbook 36 years ago. If it is a perjury trap it is absurd. POKE,GRINDS, HOOK-UP, SHAG, TEABAG,POUND, MILF, HEAD, DIDDLING – Words said in 1982 which have totally different and sexual meanings NOW! And the meaning of words and this over -sexualized culture, brought to us by liberals, has changed the meaning of all of the above words since 1982. Sadly today’s culture is over-sexualized. Thanks to the liberals we have this over-sexualized culture and this smear tactic politics.
There is no such thing as a perjury trap! Just tell the truth and be done with it. Kavanaugh didn’t have to lie; he chose to.
I am so over this SCOTUS crap.!
Kavanaugh, should just resign if he gets the votes.
He has destroyed himself and he has been destroyed.
Guinness you are better off with Guinness than your comments.
Republicans have the mettle to hang in there, go the distance….
Dems want to go to the mat, have at it!
Ordinarily there are two ways to avoid committing perjury: 1) tell the truth; 2) take The Fifth. Kavanaugh’s predicament may very well be complicated by a possible blackout. When someone experiences temporary amnesia that person can not really become a witness against himself or herself–at least not on a charge of perjury. But who ever asserts his or her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on a charge of perjury? OTOH, if Kavanaugh were facing a charge of sexual assault, no lawyer would allow Kavanaugh to admit to a blackout as a defense against a perjury charge. There’s something highly unusual about Kavanaugh’s predicament. If Kavanaugh were charged with perjury for statements denying having attended the party described in Dr. Ford’s allegation, then Kavanaugh would either have to admit the blackout or assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in order to preserve an adequate defense against a prospective charge of sexual assault. But no lawyer would allow Kavanaugh to admit the blackout. For the sake of argument, let’s call Kavanaugh’s predicament a “Fifth-Amendment Trap.” Do we really want an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court who may soon enough have to Take The Fifth?
Here’s the relevant quotation from Turley’s original post for this thread:
“As the FBI continues its investigation into claims that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a serial sexual assaulter, it remains doubtful that dispositive or even incriminating new evidence will be uncovered given the declarations submitted on the record by principal witnesses.”
Now there’s an excellent reason for having the FBI interview “principal witnesses” before they make sworn statements to Republican SJC staffers under penalty of felony. If any of those principals witnesses change what they had previously said in those sworn statements during their subsequent interview with the FBI, then Grassley and Graham et al. will almost certainly charge those “principal witnesses” with lying to Congress or make a criminal referral for perjury charges against them.
Oops. The comment above belongs on the previous page. My bad.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – are you a lawyer now? What do you know what a lawyer would or would not do? And besides, the lawyer “represents” the client, they don’t control them like a slave. Most people take the advice of their lawyers, but taking the advice of your lawyers is not an excuse at law if they get you in trouble.
Suppose you answer your rhetorical questions for a change. It doesn’t take a Teacher of the Year to figure out that if Kavanaugh admits the blackout he undermines his defense on the underlying sexual assault allegation. If the FBI by way of Chris Garret, Tim Gaudette, PJ, Tom, Bernie or even Mark Judge can place Christine Blasey at Tim Gaudette’s house on Thursday July 1st, 1982, then Kavanaugh is going to have to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for lying to Congress or worse, perjury. The only alternative would be admitting the blackout as a defense against perjury. And no lawyer–including Kavanaugh, himself–would allow Kavanaugh to undermine his own defense on the more serious charge for the sake of defending himself on the less serious charge. BTW, taking The Fifth on a perjury charge is really weird.
Maybe the FBI will fail to place Christine Blasey at Tim Gaudette’s house on Thursday July 1st, 1982. Or not.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – why don’t you admit to your blackouts first? Lead and others will but follow.
I have no knowledge pertaining to my alleged blackouts. There are two basic ways for any amnesiac to acquire knowledge pertaining to his or her suspected blackouts. 1) Note taking in real time–including audio or video recordings. 2) Trusted friends who witness the amnesiac’s behavior during the blackout and report it back to the amnesiac afterwards. The second method is what you might call “hearsay memory.” I suspect that Kavanaugh has a fair bit of hearsay memory from his trusted friends during prep school and college.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – so, what is Chrissy’s excuse for her blackouts?
Traumatic experience can lead to blocked memory by way of heightened focus on sound stimuli processed through Wernicke’s area during the traumatic experience. That is not a blackout. Although, oddly enough, a blackout can involve suppression of neural activity in Wernicke’s area. Notice suppression of function is the opposite of heightened focus on sound stimuli blocking memory from other sensory inputs.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – sorry, doesn’t fit Chrissy’s story.
You are making absurd assumptions uncorroborated by any testimony and using it to make smears. ie “when someone blacks out” … Well he didn’t black out and he never used it as a defense so your rant is just that — an absurd connection of logical fallacies and almost none of your rant has any truth or merit.
It’s Diane playing her usual games (which she does making use of 3 or 4 sock-puppets). No point in paying attention.
Kavanaugh admitted to having fallen asleep as a result of excessive drinking while denying that he had ever “passed out” as a result of drinking himself into “unconsciousness.” It was lawyer talk–as in, “It depends what the meaning of ‘blackout’ is.” Tabarrok is far too gullible. It’s sad, really.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – I, myself have fallen asleep, as the result of excessive drinking. I did not pass out. I knew exactly what I was doing. I was easy to wake up.
You’re not paying attention. Admitting to falling asleep as a result of excessive drinking is admitting to excessive drinking. Admitting to falling asleep as a result of excessive drinking is not denying a blackout. It is denying a loss of consciousness–or having “passed out,” if you prefer. Now pay special attention to the next sentence. Denying having passed out is NOT denying a blackout. Kavanaugh’s testimony on the question of blackouts was, therefore, a non-denial denial (a.k.a. lawyer talk of a particular strain often associated with politicians).
“Excessive drinking” is defined by individuals and laws and can be considered excessive in one case and very little in another. How alcohol affects an individual is different in different cases. I don’t like to drink a lot and sometimes I don’t want to drink yet at a party one might see me holding a drink and think I was consuming a lot of alcohol. A drunk person might assume I was drunk even though I had zero alcohol.
Diane, you need to pay attention to facts and proof because almost everything you have written against Kavanaugh has been totally ignorant.
In other words granny who takes a little sherry before going to bed to help her fall asleep has blackout’s every night. Diane you should try and keep such foolishness hidden from the general public.
A blackout is a memory impairment involving temporary amnesia due to a thiamine deficiency as well as the direct harm of alcohol on the hippocampus. It takes a great deal of alcohol in the bloodstream to cause a blackout. The rate at which the alcohol is consumed is also a factor. Chugging beer or otherwise drinking quickly will increase the risk of blackout. There are several prescription drugs that can lead to blackout. None of L4D’s medications list memory impairment as a side effect. L4D does not, has never and will never consume alcohol.
“A blackout is a memory impairment involving temporary amnesia due to a thiamine deficiency as well as the direct harm of alcohol on the hippocampus.”
No! You have conflated an alcoholoic blackout with some of the effects of alcoholism. Blackout (alcohol= anterograde amnesia). You think you are smarter than you really are.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – be careful. Some cough syrups are high in alcohol.
Mr. or Ms. Monogram said, “You are making absurd assumptions uncorroborated by any testimony and . . . Well he didn’t black out . . .”
Kavanaugh denied ever having “passed out.” That’s not the same thing as denying ever having “blacked out.” The putative fact that Mr. or Ms. Monogram won’t admit the difference between losing consciousness versus losing memory (a.k.a. temporary amnesia as in “blackout”) necessarily entails that Mr. or Ms.Monogram’s conclusion that Kavanaugh “didn’t blackout” is unwarranted by Kavanaugh’s testimony to the SJC. Now what kind of an absurdist assumes a false premiss for the sake of reaching a false conclusion? A lawyer talking lawyer talk. That’s who. Try harder next time, Punk.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – you use false premises all the time. You just hate getting caught at it. Marky Mark Mark does it daily. And he’s a lawyer don’t you know. He talks that lawyer talk.
I use premises with which you disagree. Premises are not true because you believe them. Premises are not false because you disagree with them. Judgments of sentiment satisfying the exigencies of der human vill are not truth conditions for any assertoric statement. Frederick The Second Emperor of Prussia forced Herr Professor Manny to cough up that sentimental judgment clap-trap on pain of losing his job at The University of Konigsberg. The rest is post-modernism in a nutshell. Did you even know that you were trespassing on L4D’s turf? I doubt it.
“I use premises with which you disagree.”
Premises are assumptions which are meaningless as proof in a court of law. My premise is that you, your premises and your aliases are whackjobs.
L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – post-modernism has been proven to be clap-trap.