Trump's SCOTUS

[DBTrek]

“It has been reported by the press that you would not attend this hearing because of your fear of flying”

“Reported by the press” isn’t a lie.
She never says she is too afraid to fly, nor did she refuse to attend the hearing, in fact she flew to it on a plane.

So what “proof” do you have, exactly? What has been proven? That she doesn’t feel fear in a plane? Nope. That wasn’t proven. That she will fly even though she claims it causes her fear? She never said she was unable to fly.

You’ve proven nothing. Use the T part of INTP. Examine shit critically.

[Speaker to Animals]

There is irrefutable evidence that she lied.

The Earth is flat. We never went to the moon.

People can say anything. That doesn’t constitute proof.

No sequitur fallacy.

The fact is, we can irrefutably prove she lied about a number of things.

The rennovation on her home for instance. The number of alleged attackers changed. Her characterization of what was discussed with her psychologist.

Then there are witnesses that alleged she knows how to snow a polygraph. She was specifically asked by the prosecutor if she ever coached somebody on how to fool one, and she replied "never". It takes only one piece of corroborating evidence to nail her for that too. I bet it can be found regardless of how well the deep state erased her history.

In particular, the second front door lie was pivotal to her allegation based on recovered memory of the attack. We now know that was a lie. The door was installed years earlier and associated with a business she ran out of the home. That was perjury and it was crucial to her allegation.

[DBTrek]

Let me look into this door thing.

[Speaker to Animals]

And if Kavenaugh lied, then I want to charge that motherfucker too.

[Fife]

The current Dem narrative is that Kavanaugh lied about being a virgin and how many beers he drank, so he lied under oath and should be impeached if he is confirmed.

Right, but the Dems are a bunch of totalitarian, Marxist, fake rape accusers with no regard for the rule of law when it gets in their way. The goal isn’t to emulate them by adopting the same crazy ethos to defend Kavanaugh. There’s no hard evidence (aka proof) that she was raped, and no hard evidence she lied. There’s a lot of emotional motherfuckers citing this witness or that as “proof” that lies were told, but a witness calling someone else a liar isn’t proof of jack.

We need a little more “T” from our INTPs, because there’s a lot of “F” in this thread.

+1
We here at Hashwerks all want to see the rule of law followed, proper proof of crimes, etc.

IMO, there's plenty of proof that she's lying in several areas. Whether it chargeable is another issue. For example, she used the excuse that she's afraid of flying, but her history of travel and the testimony of others say she lied. That wasn't under oath, so may not be able to charge her there.

Is there a Lawyer in the house that can tell me what that does to the veracity of her other statements ?

Anyone?
Anyone?
Esquire, Anyone?

Veracity is a different issue from criminal liability. She doesn't have to be criminally liable to be a witness not to be believed before the Senate. Look at the typical jury instruction given to civil jurors regarding veracity and weight to to be given to testimony.



That's a horse of a different color from a successful prosecution for lying to Congress.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years . . ..

[C-Mag]

“It has been reported by the press that you would not attend this hearing because of your fear of flying”

“Reported by the press” isn’t a lie.
She never says she is too afraid to fly, nor did she refuse to attend the hearing, in fact she flew to it on a plane.

So what “proof” do you have, exactly? What has been proven? That she doesn’t feel fear in a plane? Nope. That wasn’t proven. That she will fly even though she claims it causes her fear? She never said she was unable to fly.

You’ve proven nothing. Use the T part of INTP. Examine shit critically.

Examine my words critically.

I said I didn't know if it was chargeable and that her deeds showed she was full of shit.

It's a great devils advocate you are playing DB, but you know shes full of shit too and that her team put out that she couldn't make the first Monday hearing to string this thing out.

[C-Mag]

That's a horse of a different color from a successful prosecution for lying to Congress.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years . . ..

In your professional opinion is she prosecutable ?

[DBTrek]

Well, the door thing looks shady as fuck, but most of her testimony looks shady as fuck. Again, there’s “proof” and then there’s stories that make no sense.

Ford claims she installed the second door in order to feel safe as a result of the rape attempt. She says the second door caused a fight with her spouse which led to her having to go to marriage counseling.

Critics note:
1) the door was built in 2008 but the Fords did not attend marriage counseling until 2012.
2) The door allowed them to rent the room out to others and was used for access to an office space.
3) The fords second home does not have a second door.

All of this makes her claim look shady, but we still can’t prove that she didn’t put the door in her house because of trauma. We can prove the door served a lot of non-trauma related purposes, we can prove the second home doesn’t require a trauma door and ask why, and we can prove that her timeline seems suspicious, given a 4-year gap between the door and the counseling.

But how do we prove her intentions at the time the door was built?
Only she knows.

[C-Mag]

Well, the door thing looks shady as fuck, but most of her testimony looks shady as fuck. Again, there’s “proof” and then there’s stories that make no sense.

+1

Shady As Fuck

She's getting used by the Democrats. I'd feel sorry for her, but I think she volunteered for this shit. If she was truly unwillingly outed by Feinstein, then I do have sympathy for Ms Ford.

It amazes me that people are ignoring that the Dems sat on her story for weeks, initiated no investigation, did not seek to get her help, nothing................................. until it was politically advantageous to them.

[Fife]

That's a horse of a different color from a successful prosecution for lying to Congress.

18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years . . ..

In your professional opinion is she prosecutable ?

I don't know the total evidence that could be used in a criminal case at this point any better than you or any of the rest of us in the peanut gallery.

Based on what I know so far (which is not meaningful), I wouldn't want to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard of proof in a criminal case) what she did "knowingly and willfully" regarding the material allegations. There could certainly be more relevant evidence than we currently know about regarding intent, &c.

However, if I am a Senator (read: a "juror") weighing her credibility against other witnesses based upon what has come across the bench in the public hearing, I don't think her testimony reflects the truth. I also believe that she is a lo-info tool of crooked ass lawyers, and that she has a direct financial interest in the proceeding (the Gofundme page), especially given that her handlers (sorry, her lawyers) have declared that they are acting for free (pro bono) in this matter.

I still wouldn't be voting to confirm BK, just not because of Ford, et al. Even though he likes beer, that's just a one mitigating factor against his judicial philosophy, which sucks -- IMNSHO.