Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

LOL.

I just put the dictionary definition of the word up and you're trying to tell me what the definition of the word is.

Oooooookay....

 

Nah, you just aren't bright enough to understand the proper usage even with a definition.
"Not recalling" is not a refutation.

"Did you feed the cat today?"

"I don't recall".

Which means the cat could be fed or not fed. It isn't a denial.

 

She's made claims of people who "witnessed" this crime that have already refuted the claim that they witnessed it and yet here we are. In a week, if the FBI investigation produces no cooberating evidence, the Dems will still claim "not enough time yet". She's under zero pressure...nobody is going to dare to claim she is making this up, not in this #metoo climate. Meanwhile, her "GoFundMe" grows.

Also, its incorrect he's "against an FBI investigation. Yesterday, he said he was up for whatever investigation the committee decided and today after it was announced their would be an FBI investigation he released a statement he was willing to work with this investigation. So, I guess in this case you're the "liar".

 

No, to use your example the question is,

"Ms. Ford said you fed the cat last week."

"I don't recall ever feeding the cat."

Nobody knows who fed the cat or if the cat was actually fed -- the action of proving a statement or theory to be wrong or false.

Statement 1 is directly REFUTED.

 

Except Ford never claimed that Leeland committed an action. Her claim was that she was present at the party.

More precise wording would be "Do you attest to Ford's allegations?".

"No" - would be a refuation.

"I don't recall" would be a memory issue that does not refute or confirm.

So no, she did not refute Ford's claim and on top of that, believes her.

Refutation is a hard claim.

In fact, lawyers often advise their clients to use phrasing such as "do not recall" instead of outright claims of refutation or confirmation to avoid being caught in perjury.

 

Not to join in, but here goes:

Ms Jones says Mr Smith fed the cat. What do you three neighbors say?

Three neighbors: we don't recall seeing Mr Smith feed the cat.
One neighbor: I would tend to believe Ms Jones. High integrity.

Mr Smith: three neighbors REFUTED that I ever fed that cat! Done! Boo-yah!
...

To me, that is a very weird notion of refuted. I think there is plenty of room separating "cannot confirm" and "refute," but y'all carry on.

 

Has anyone discussed whether or not we will have a second Civil War now that the President has ordered the FBI to violate state's rights by investigating this?

 

So now that the FBI is going to gather the same evidence that the Senate Judiciary Committee gathered, does that mean Democrats are going to support Kavanaugh once the FBI also fails to find anything to corroborate Dr Ford's baseless allegation?

 

The Democrats are getting way too much credit for this... they can barely get out of their own way.

This is on Kavanaugh and the accusers.

The accusers all were in social circles or went to school with Brett and share social circles with him. At least three of them are well educated are successful with no obvious alterior motives. Simply, as human beings they appear credible.

Then Kavanaugh comes out, after being evasive to the panel and lying about the 2003 memo... and decides that he is smarter than everyone else and he will portray himself as someone he clearly was not. He lied about the legal drinking age, his level of intoxicatiom, lied about his activities in high school; including his interest in slut shaming and group sex. His own classmates, many that defended him say he isn’t being truthful.

Then suddenly to the senate he lied about watching the testimony of Ford, misrepresented the testimony of others and continued his previous lies.

This whole thing is about credibility and some how Kavanaugh has managed to lie so often about dumb things he doesn’t seem very trustworthy, certainly not trustworthy for being on the Supreme Court.

He would be approved down partisan lines already had he been honest.

I still think he gets approved, but if there is anything that comes out.. another credible accusation, some other evidence and this could get real nasty for Trump.

 

I keep hearing he lied under oath, I haven’t been able to see much news today. What did he lie about?

 

I don't know. BK has already lied about a lot of unnecessary things under oath. Not very credible for a Justice. Also doesn't have the temperament.. unhinged.

 

If you had any proof that he lied, then he'd be brought up on charges.....so essentially you are just making **** up.

 

lol. Furthermore, chuckle.

 

I didn’t get an answer to my question but I guess you just answered it. So now he lied under oath with no proof?

 

Again, it is insulting. Kavanaugh damn well knows the difference but he doesn’t believe the public does.

 

No, I'm not. He said that he was in favor of whatever the Senate committee wanted. He has not been in favor of an FBI investigation. At the time he said that the committee was against the FBI investigation.

Nobody who has refuted her claims has been allowed to be questioned. The Dems can claim whatever they want after the week-long investigation but it won't matter then.

 

You have to understand that when there is a witch hunt going on, proof doesn't matter. I personally think he likely stretched the truth a few times and may have even lied, but there's absolutely no proof of it. The only person we know for a fact lied in the process in order to manipulate the process is Dr. Ford. She effectively admitted to it or I wouldn't go that far to outright accuse her of lying.

 

LOL when someone says that they were at a party with 5 other people and 3 of them say that they have no memory of such a party and 1 of them who is a close friend of theirs says that they were never at a party at any point with 1 of the people she lists and that she's never even met that person.....and she feels the need to apologize to her friend for having told the truth.....the accusation is thoroughly refuted and IMO debunked entirely. Of course if we were talking about different people then you'd likely agree with that but I understand how tribal things are these days.

 

He lied under oath to congress in 2004 and 2006 concerning the Miranda documents.

He also lied under oath another time in 2006 when he claimed he knew nothing about NSA wire tapping when he did.

He also lied under oath about his involvement with Judge Pryor.

Unfortunately for Kavanaugh e-mails and document paper trails exist that show he was involved and aware of the things he claimed no knowledge of.

He does not appear to have much integrity or concern for ethics, but he wasn’t appointed for his ethics or judicial ability.

 

Here's a visual representation of the problem today. The left has moved incredibly far to the left and now it's to where the left and right have almost nothing they can agree on as a result. This is why the tribalism BS is so ridiculous these days. Hopefully the left will return to sanity one of these days, but it doesn't seem likely.