Sorry, nice try...but you can't hold a candle to her.glub glub glub
aM i DoInG tHiS rIgHt TaJy?
That was how he answered the question.Huh?
"Have you ever spoken to anyone at the lawfirm of [Dilhole], [Smegma], [Schmuck], and [Johnson] about the Mueller investigation?"
Yes, very loosely worded, very confusing. So, so, so easy to be caught lying about that one! JFC man. The obvious answer, of course, would be: "Not to my recollection."
(Oh wait, then he'd be accused of sounding too much like that incompetent homo-murdering, weapon-selling asshole of a canonized POTUS that the republicans elected way back in '79.)
I still don't know what a "perjury trap" is. Sounds like another one of those made-up expressions that is only used to signal morons, like "reverse racism."
A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath).[1] Most often a perjury trap is employed because the prosecutor is unable to prosecute the defendant on other charges.
As an example, suppose that a person committed a crime for which they were never prosecuted, but the statute of limitations on that crime has expired. A prosecutor could set a perjury trap for them by calling them as a witness before a grand jury in a case about a different crime, and ask them about the expired crime. If the witness lies about the expired crime, that would be perjury—a new crime, which could then be prosecuted.[2] Prosecution for perjury elicited in this manner violates due process of law, since the investigatory powers of the grand jury are exploited to reach beyond their legal limits.[1] It has been argued by legal scholars whether it constitutes a form of entrapment.[2]
Claims of a perjury trap are common when perjury charges result from testimony before a grand jury, but are rarely proven.[3] No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap.[2] The defense is extremely difficult, because the question that elicited the perjured testimony must be immaterial to the case in which it was asked, and courts construe very broadly what questions count as material to a case.[2]
I thought it was a very straight forward question. Ask me that question: the answer is no and I don't need 10 mins of stumbling over words to answer it.
No its not. The media already figured this out, that’s why they’ve already moved on. Epic showdown not found.The question could be understood to be asking in a specific professional context, or, in a general context. If he said no that he did not because he never did in an official capacity that could allow for someone to show that he did in a personal capacity. Further, it may turn out that he talked to someone he did not know was part of the firm and that too could be used. Saying he did not know would appear to be a deflection. Its not as clear as some believe.
No its not. The media already figured this out, that’s why they’ve already moved on. Epic showdown not found.
Let's be honest here. He has dodged questions the entire hearing. Its embarrassing when someone repeats the question and he continues to make slightly related statements. It's sad that thisHe answered the question, its just not the answer you want to hear
I'm thinking Zina Bash is one of the greatest trolls of all time! This is too funny!
The question could be understood to be asking in a specific professional context, or, in a general context. If he said no that he did not because he never did in an official capacity that could allow for someone to show that he did in a personal capacity. Further, it may turn out that he talked to someone he did not know was part of the firm and that too could be used. Saying he did not know would appear to be a deflection. Its not as clear as some believe.
You're really reaching to rationalize Kavanaugh's evasiveness here. The question contained no such qualifies. Either he discussed the Mueller investigation with someone at that law firm or he did not. Dialing down to specifics would be the follow up questions if the answer was "yes." The problem here was that he wouldn't answer the question. And it's telling that he kept asking Harris if she had something specific in mind. He was probing to see what she knew before answering his question.
Kavanaugh ultimately answered with an unqualified "no" after the question had been asked, in slight variations, at least 7 times. If the answer was an unqualified no, then Harris is right, he should have just said that the first time she asked. That's the problem with your ruminations about Kavanaugh wondering whether she meant in a professional or personal context. His ultimate answer was unqualified by context just as was the question, so what you're suggesting really could not have been the reason for his hesitation. If his answer had been qualified or more complicated in some way, that might have explained his difficulties, but it wasn't. An unqualified "no" should have come out of his mouth straight way, if that was the actual truth.
Kavanaugh is very likely hiding something. If you've watched the tape and did not conclude that, I don't know what to tell you.
You're really reaching to rationalize Kavanaugh's evasiveness here. The question contained no such qualifies. Either he discussed the Mueller investigation with someone at that law firm or he did not. Dialing down to specifics would be the follow up questions if the answer was "yes." The problem here was that he wouldn't answer the question. And it's telling that he kept asking Harris if she had something specific in mind. He was probing to see what she knew before answering his question.
Kavanaugh ultimately answered with an unqualified "no" after the question had been asked, in slight variations, at least 7 times. If the answer was an unqualified no, then Harris is right, he should have just said that the first time she asked. That's the problem with your ruminations about Kavanaugh wondering whether she meant in a professional or personal context. His ultimate answer was unqualified by context just as was the question, so what you're suggesting really could not have been the reason for his hesitation. If his answer had been qualified or more complicated in some way, that might have explained his difficulties, but it wasn't. An unqualified "no" should have come out of his mouth straight way, if that was the actual truth.
Kavanaugh is very likely hiding something. If you've watched the tape and did not conclude that, I don't know what to tell you.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D), CALIFORNIA: Judge, have you ever discussed special counsel Mueller or his investigation with anyone?
KAVANAUGH: Well, it's in the news every day.
HARRIS: Have you discussed it with anyone?
KAVANAUGH: With other judges I know.
HARRIS: Have you discussed Mueller or his investigation with anyone at Kasowitz, Benson, and Torres, the law firm founded by Mark Kasowitz, President Trump's personal lawyer. Be sure about your answer, sir.
KAVANAUGH: Well, I'm not remembering, but if you have something you want to --
HARRIS: Are you certain you have not had a conversation with anyone at that law firm?
KAVANAUGH: Kasowitz, Benson --
HARRIS: Kasowitz, Benson, and Torres, which is the law firm founded by Mark Kasowitz, who is President Trump's personal lawyer. Have you had any conversation about Robert Mueller or his investigation with anyone at that firm? Yes or no?
KAVANAUGH: Is there a person you're talking about.
HARRIS: I'm asking you a very direct question, yes or no.
HARRIS: I don't think you need to. I think you need to know who you talked with. Who did you talk to?
KAVANAUGH: I need to know -- I'm not sure I know everyone who works at the law firm.
KAVANAUGH: I don't think -- I'm not remembering, but I'm happy to be refreshed or if you want to tell me who you're thinking of.
HARRIS: Are you saying with all that you remember, you have an impeccable memory. You have been speaking for almost eight hours -- I think more to this committee about all sorts of things you remember. How can you not remember whether or not you had a conversation about Robert Mueller or his investigation with anyone at that law firm? This investigation has only been going on for so long, sir.
KAVANAUGH: I'm not sure -- I'm just trying to think do I know anyone who works at that firm. I might know --
HARRIS: That's not my question. My question is, have you had a conversation with anyone at that firm about that investigation.
If we’re going to be honest, lets be brutally honest. The whole thing was a facade. Nothing happened that is going to change a nearly evenly split Senate from voting along party lines. I previously linked a CNN article that sums it up nicely. Kavanaugh didn’t stumble, those with political ambitions got their moment and the media moves on to the next storyLet's be honest here. He has dodged questions the entire hearing. Its embarrassing when someone repeats the question and he continues to make slightly related statements. It's sad that this
The Twitter mob accused her of flashing a white power sign, so she decided to troll them.I haven't been watching. Is this from the first day she as caught trolling and sending some sort of signal to someone or is this a subsequent day where she is trying to make it look like she was just having conversations and that's what her super secret signal really was just her saying "okay"? This is over the top over-acting. Just curious.
I was agreeing with your assessment and also your subsequent analysis of how she kept shifting the question to keep Kavanaugh off balance. He didn’t take the bait.Was that post for me?
I was agreeing with your assessment and also your subsequent analysis of how she kept shifting the question to keep Kavanaugh off balance. He didn’t take the bait.
Of course he was fishing. The line of questioning started very broad, and then very quickly alluded to a very specific conversation with an insinuation that there was something inappropriate about it. Until Harris provided evidence of her bluff, that is all that happened in that exchange.He was pretty clearly fishing for information. He could have easily said ‘no, not to the best of my recollection but I don’t know everyone.’ He likely did not say this because he’s afraid information would arise where it was impossible for him not to have known the person’s associations.
We already know he’s very likely perjured himself repeatedly in prior confirmation hearings so his evasiveness here likely indicates further perjury (or attempts to conceal information) to me.
Let me show you what was actually asked.
Extremely broad question. If it was meant to be about the law firm, this is a horrible question.
Same issue as before.
He gets cut off, but, we are now onto the 3rd time and the question has changed. Its how shifted from anyone, to anyone from the law firm. Its reasonable to be unsure if you had talked to anyone from a firm if you don't know everyone in the firm. But, this is a very different question from what was asked the first 2 times.
Cut off once more. Again, without knowing everyone from that firm, its impossible to give a yes or no answer.
Same issue as before. Now he is trying to clarify if she had someone in mind. It appears that he cannot recall anyone specific.
Same issue as before.
So, he is clearly trying to recall anyone that he might have talked to that might have worked at the firm in question.
So, the question was not clear, which is why she had to modify it. It went from anyone, to anyone at a specific law firm. He clearly was trying to recall anyone from a firm, but, he also made it clear that he has talked about it with people. He was unsure if anyone that he talked to was from the law firm.
So, if you think it was clearly not about his personal, that is wrong.
I watched the entire thing. You're trying to make something of the fact that before she repeatedly asked Kavanaugh an extremely clear and unambiguous question, she had asked him a broader question? So what? Why would her first framing it as "have you ever talked to anyone about the investigation," a question which itself, though over broad, was still extremely clear, create any confusion for him in understanding the subsequent narrow question?
You're saying at one point she had to rephrase because it was ambiguous. Nonsense. I have no trouble comprehending the question in any of the various ways she tried to rephrase it after he behaved as though he didn't fully understand it. Every version is it was crystal clear and means exactly the same thing.
Not remembering is a different thing, but if that was the case, that should have been his answer. "I don't recall any such conversations, but I do know and run into lots of other lawyers in my profession so I can't be certain." But that wasn't his answer. His answer was "no." Did he suddenly become certain that the answer was no after she repeated the same question over and over again?
He asked her to be specific about a person because he wanted to know what information she had that was prompting her to ask the question to begin with. This is a tactic of someone who's trying to hide something.
Again, look at the questions she asked. "Have you discussed Mueller or his investigation with anyone at Kasowitz".
Legally, that is a huge question. Its asking if he ever talked about Muller or his investigation with anyone at the firm. Say he talked about Muller but not he investigation. If he says no in terms of it being about the investigation, he has technically lied. He clearly answered that he had talked to many people about Muller. He said that he has talked to many people about Muller and the investigation. He rightly did not say yes or no which is what she directly said he should answer. That would be foolish. To most people, we can say that its not wrong, but, his was a lawyer asking a question that could have huge implications.
She also clearly warned him that his answer could have implications if answered wrong. He did not want to commit to an answer because doing so would have large implications. You can say you had no trouble comprehending the question, but, question are not so clear in law as you think they are in your every day use.
Also, at what point did he say no?
I wonder if Kavanaugh is as big a fan of impeachment for perjury now as he was in the 90’s, hahaha.
By the way, Trump was warned ahead of time that Kavanaugh was a risky pick because of his ugly background but he went with him anyway. I suspect it’s because he thought Kavanaugh would be best at protecting him from the Russia investigation. ie: we are quite probably getting a corrupt SCOTUS justice because the president is trying to hide his own corruption.
If we’re going to be honest, lets be brutally honest. The whole thing was a facade. Nothing happened that is going to change a nearly evenly split Senate from voting along party lines. I previously linked a CNN article that sums it up nicely. Kavanaugh didn’t stumble, those with political ambitions got their moment and the media moves on to the next story
The Twitter mob accused her of flashing a white power sign, so she decided to troll them.
Citation needed. These were the articles I readYeah, I don't think so. She flashed a sign of some sort and she got called out for it (and the call out was for something pretty divisive). If you think she was trolling, you are seeing things that you want to see . She was intentionally trying to make it look like she was doing legitimate things. I am not saying she flashed a malicious sign, but she was likely pulled aside and read the riot act for doing whatever she did. The response was pathetic. It was like watching a fucking mime it was so exaggerated. She was not being clever and trolling, she was trying to cover her ass for getting caught doing shit on TV.