Victim, The Contributor
I am the victim.
No. Rather, YOU are the victim.
That link is one of two inspirations for my username. The other being my abuse at the hands of horrible, power-hunrgy, trigger-happy mods.
You find a machine in your garage, and it seems intricately linked to your destiny.
A place where I test technical stuff
Recent PostsWorld Events 2: Nuclear Boogaloo on 12/9/2018 7:10:54 PM
It’s great. I hope they oust Macron before it’s over.
The Snowflake Generation in simple terms on 12/8/2018 8:27:49 PM
Ah, okay. I didn’t click into the link. In any case, The Atlantic tends to tolerate a wider variety of viewpoints from its writers than most MSM sources. Here are 2 articles from the Atlantic about political correctness written this year.
And a follow up to the article you linked, also from 2018.
The Snowflake Generation in simple terms on 12/8/2018 8:18:11 PM
I’ve never heard of Get Pocket, so I assume it’s not mainstream.
General World Events Thread on 10/27/2018 7:28:10 PM
How can they die from attrition when Soros & Co. are looking after them?
General World Events Thread on 10/24/2018 9:55:32 PM
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
General World Events Thread on 10/24/2018 6:19:45 PM
I’ve always hated gay marriage. I even spent a thread debating you about it.
General World Events Thread on 10/24/2018 3:27:09 PM
Sounds like a great guy.
General World Events Thread on 10/24/2018 3:26:27 PM
He tried that with the military already, and it got overturned by activist judges. This will never happen; America is fucked.
Fiddling, Diddling and Supreme Court twiddling on 10/9/2018 8:32:44 PM
"In regards to the calender, he did go to one on the first with at least Mark Judge and PJ."
Clearly it didn't match the description of Christine Ford's party since every news organization says that the calendar doesn't mention the house party described by Christine Ford. If the calendar were actually incriminating, he wouldn't have mentioned having one in the first place. You're going to have to cite a source backing up your ridiculous claim.
"That's what he said. You're right, there was only three. He was lying."
Okay. You're right about that one. However, that can't be considered perjury. It was probably just a slip of mouth or memory.
"He said that the witnesses claimed it didn't happen. All false."
No he didn't. This is his actual quote: "All of the people identified by Dr. Ford as being present at the party have said they do not remember any such party ever happening. Importantly her friend Ms. Keyser has not only denied knowledge of the party. Ms. Keyser said under penalty of felony she does not know me, does not ever recall being at a party with me ever." All of this is accurate.
"The witnesses didn't remember the incident or the party in question. That's quite likely, there were probably many college parties and you wouldn't remember them all"
I would certainly remember a party if a sexual assault happened. Even moreso, this was a small gathering of 5 people, so I would at least have a vague recollection of being at a party with Kavanaugh. One of the alleged witnesses says that she never even knew or met Kavanaugh. With such gaping holes in your story, any court of law would have long since thrown the case out.
"Miss Kaiser specifically said she believes it did happen."
That just means that she would have tried much harder to recall the event, and even so she couldn't. When someone who believes you still can't back up your story, that says a lot.
"Kavanaugh lied and said that they claimed it didn't happen."
"The claim that someone used words differently to their usage is pretty outlandish and barely worth anyone's time. You don't develop words that have the same slang usage as something else it could've easily meant by coincidence or intention."
Lots of your arguments are quite outlandish as well. Words, especially slang words in the pre-Internet age, change in meaning as they spread from place to place and generation to generation. Of course they didn't develop the slang words on their own, but they inherited the warped meaning of the words.
You're bullshitting by skipping the rest of the quote Renate had.
No I'm not. I just showed the important part that you neglected to mention because it would prove false your claim that Renate "admitted" the "true meaning" of the term. Renate did not know the true meaning of the term, as proven by the quote I quoted. The later part of the quote that you quoted above is her response to the media's interpretation of the quote which she now believes to be true (but can't be proven).
"Lynne Brookes and Liz Swisher both claimed that Kavanaugh had lied about his drinking habits. This is a fact you're meandering around."
I'm not meandering around anything. I'm exposing your blatant lies. You said that they claimed he blacked out, which is either untrue or unknowable. As for his drinking habits, Kavanaugh never claimed to be light drinker. He said that he liked beer, but he didn't black out. Neither of those 2 statements have been proven false.
"On March 28, 2003, Kavanaugh received eight pages of the leak with the subject "For use and not distribution,"."
And? That doesn't in any way prove that Kavanaugh knew where Miranda got the information from. Lots of confidential information and marked "for use and not distribution".
"Yes, giving legal advice on a matter in involving yourself, that's kind of why companies have lawyers. Legal advice."
The Bush administration isn't a company. Kavanaugh briefly advised it on all kinds of matters, but that doesn't make him "involved" in them. He would only be involved if he were part of the decision-making process on the policies themselves.
"Not that I think Victim's in any way a real person, he's a notable troll who doesn't really believe anything"
I haven't responded to one of your political argument baits in a long time, but there are some things I simply won't stand for. Misinformation is one of them. I will not allow you to spread outlandish misinformation and lies unchecked.
Fiddling, Diddling and Supreme Court twiddling on 10/8/2018 10:47:56 PM
That's a whole lot of misinformation in one post. I'll respond to them point by point.
"Kavanaugh firstly said he'd never been to an event like the one Dr Ford described when his weird personal calender showed he had."
Even The Huffington Post admits that the calendar doesn't mention the party.
"He lied and said that the four witnesses at the event said it didn't happen, which is blatantly false."
Well, first off there's only 3 supposed witnesses, not 4. Secondly, Kavanaugh claimed that the witnesses "refuted" Dr. Ford's testimony. Dr. Ford claimed that all 3 witnessed the sexual assault, one of whom is Dr. Ford's close friend. All 3 said that they had no recollection of any party that both Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford attended. When 3 of your own witnesses say that they can't remember anything like what you're describing, that's a pretty clear refutation of your claim. Even if you were to say that they all forgot about the incident somehow, it still greatly damages your credibility. To claim that it is "blatantly false" takes quite a bit of spin.
"He also lied about the meaning of several slang words such as "Devil's Triangle" and "boofing"."
You can't say that. Kavanaugh went into the hearing already knowing the more mainstream usage of those terms since the story about his yearbook had already broken in the media. However, he claimed that his friends used and understood the terms differently, and you can't refute that. The meaning of slang terms are inherently murky, and it's not like there was an "Urban Dictionary" to refer to for a standard definition during Kavanaugh's high school era.
"He lied about saying he was Renate Alumni being an affectionate thing rather than, as the girl herself admitted, a demeaning sexual thing."
Renate said, "I don't know what 'Renate Alumnus' actually means." As for Kavanaugh lying about it being an affectionate thing, that is only your belief. You don't have any actual proof he lied about it.
"In regards to the blacking out thing, we have more than one person, including Chad Luddington, LIz Swisher and Lynne Brookes all saying that he was lying about his drinking habits."
Chad Luddington is the only one who outright claims that Kavanaugh blacked out. How he knows whether or not Kavanaugh blacked out is anyone's guess since only the drinker himself could possibly know the next morning by whether or not he recalls the events of the previous night. The only way he might have known is if Kavanaugh told him about it, but he doesn't say that. Lynne Brookes says that she doesn't find it "plausible" that Kavanaugh "remembers everything he did that night" based on his behavior, but behavior can't actually tell you whether someone has blacked out. The final one, Liz Swisher, only claims that he was a heavy drinker but not that he had blacked out.
"He said he never knew about the Memogate Scandel until the media reported on it, although reports show he absolutely did and received files."
That is just your belief that he lied. Kavanaugh claims that he didn't know the memos were stolen, and you have absolutely nothing disproving that.
"He said he wasn't involved with any questions of detaining non-combatants with the Bush administration, when it was revealed he had advised lawyers on the matter."
Kavanaugh claimed that he was “not involved” in “questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.” This is a true statement. He advised lawyers about whether or not the policy would be seen as legal once or twice. Giving a legal opinion is not "involving" yourself with the matter.
So in conclusion, your list of supposed lies under oath are all based on baseless assumptions or outright lies.