They call Bill Clinton a rapist with less...

[Oneuli]

How is that gibberish you dishonest hack?

It's gibberish because you say it doesn't rise to he-said/she-said because it's uncorroborated, when that's the exact definition of he-said/she-said.

This is buffoonish in light of the lack of facts Ford testified about and the FACT that FOUR people she claimed were at the party, including her BEST friend basically said she is lying

As you know, they didn't say that. In fact, one said she believed Ford. You're just parroting Kavanaugh's perjury on the topic. So, what do you think the penalty should be for him willfully deceiving the senate about what they said, while he was under oath?

How is that a lie?

She intentionally said something she knew was untrue. By definition, that's a lie and makes her a liar. The only question is whether she told a lie under oath, or later told a lie when she was free to do so without legal repercussions.

Ford claimed four people were there who said they weren't there

Incorrect. Kavanaugh falsely said they said they weren't there. That was a lie. What should the penalty be for Kavanaugh lying that way under oath?

 

[Truth Detector]

No, little one, you didn't. You posted a single word challenge: LINK. I provided four of them.

Yes I did.

 

[Truth Detector]

It was in Ivana Trump's 1990 divorce deposition. That was leaked later as part of the book Lost Tycoon. Trump had scalp-reduction surgery that went bad, and he took it out on Ivana, who claims that he raped her in his anger. Despite having sworn under oath that he raped her, she later backtracked, not by saying the incident didn't happen, but by saying it couldn't be rape since there's no such thing as marital rape:

That isn't evidence. Why do you think that is evidence? Did she make formal charges and was there a trial?

That was Trump's lawyer's line of defense, too -- not denying that Trump had violently force Ivana to have sex with him, but saying that you cannot rape your spouse (even though raping your spouse had been made illegal in New York before the alleged incident):

That isn't evidence. Why do you think that is evidence? Did she make formal charges and was there a trial?

 

[Truth Detector]

I answer questions directly. However, I also like to ask questions, because it's fun watching you right-wingers squirm away, afraid to answer even one of them directly.

How do you answer questions directly when they are questions?

To answer your question, I don't know whether they're to be believed or not. I laid out the information I'd need to consider to decide, and I don't have all that information.

Why don't you know whether to believe them or not? They have the same information you claim makes Ford believable?

 

[Oneuli]

How is that an odd set of non sequiturs?

Reread: "You are telling us that women are to be taken serious when they make such allegations. Yet you believe Ford and she was OBVIOUSLY lying."

The first sentence doesn't set up the second one. If I were telling you that women are to be taken seriously when they make allegations, then there would be nothing odd about me believing Ford. The "Yet" construction makes no sense, rendering the second sentence a non-sequitur.

What evidence do you have Ford was telling the truth?

She came across as credible and consistent, while the man she accused was reduced to wild evasions, emotional breakdowns, and outright lies. One of the two is lying. We don't have proof which, but we have a lot more cause to think it's Kavanaugh.

How am I, or Kavanaugh lying?

The four didn't say what the two of you claim.

How did he make it up?

I'm not sure -- presumably with very little effort, since it's such a bad lie.

How is it perjury?

It's an intentional and material untruth told under oath about a matter relevant to the inquiry -- that's perjury, by definition. He said they claimed they weren't there, but they did not, in fact, claim that. Instead, the claim was that they didn't have a recollection of it, which is a materially different thing.

So, what should his penalty be for that perjury? [don't worry, I know you'll dodge the question yet again.]

 

[Oneuli]

Yes I did.

Reread.

 

[Truth Detector]

It's gibberish because you say it doesn't rise to he-said/she-said because it's uncorroborated, when that's the exact definition of he-said/she-said.

How is that gibberish?

As you know, they didn't say that. In fact, one said she believed Ford.

LINK.

You're just parroting Kavanaugh's perjury on the topic.

How am I parroting anything?

So, what do you think the penalty should be for him willfully deceiving the senate about what they said, while he was under oath?

What do you think it should be for Ford?

She intentionally said something she knew was untrue. By definition, that's a lie and makes her a liar. The only question is whether she told a lie under oath, or later told a lie when she was free to do so without legal repercussions.

That isn't what she did. Why do you make shit up?

Incorrect. Kavanaugh falsely said they said they weren't there. That was a lie. What should the penalty be for Kavanaugh lying that way under oath?

LINK

 

[Oneuli]

That isn't evidence. Why do you think that is evidence?

Sworn testimony is, by definition, evidence.

Did she make formal charges and was there a trial?

There was a civil trial. Trump settled it -- for far more than Ivana was entitled to under the pre-nup. Apparently, they felt vulnerable enough to throw a bunch of money at her to make it go away.

That isn't evidence.

By definition, sworn testimony in a legal proceeding is evidence.

 

[Truth Detector]

Reread: "You are telling us that women are to be taken serious when they make such allegations. Yet you believe Ford and she was OBVIOUSLY lying."

The first sentence doesn't set up the second one. If I were telling you that women are to be taken seriously when they make allegations, then there would be nothing odd about me believing Ford. The "Yet" construction makes no sense, rendering the second sentence a non-sequitur.

It makes perfect sense. Why do you think it doesn't?

She came across as credible and consistent, while the man she accused was reduced to wild evasions, emotional breakdowns, and outright lies. One of the two is lying. We don't have proof which, but we have a lot more cause to think it's Kavanaugh.

What part was credible?

The four didn't say what the two of you claim.

What did they say?

I'm not sure -- presumably with very little effort, since it's such a bad lie.

You said he made it up. What part did he make up?

It's an intentional and material untruth told under oath about a matter relevant to the inquiry -- that's perjury, by definition. He said they claimed they weren't there, but they did not, in fact, claim that. Instead, the claim was that they didn't have a recollection of it, which is a materially different thing.

What is the truth then? What did these four people say?

So, what should his penalty be for that perjury? [don't worry, I know you'll dodge the question yet again.]

What do you think it should be? I am not dodging anything. Why are you saying that?

 

[Oneuli]

How is that gibberish?



LINK.



How am I parroting anything?



What do you think it should be for Ford?



That isn't what she did. Why do you make shit up?



LINK

Here's his perjury:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.b1c90d76d0bc

"..... all four witnesses who were allegedly at the event have said it didn’t happen, including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, who said she’s never…"

That was an intentional lie by Kavanaugh, under oath. He knows they didn't say it didn't happen, they said they didn't recall.... and, in fact Ms. Keyser said that although she didn't recall it, she believed Ford.

So, what should Kavanaugh's penalty be for that perjury?

 

[Truth Detector]

Sworn testimony is, by definition, evidence.

What sworn testimony?

There was a civil trial. Trump settled it -- for far more than Ivana was entitled to under the pre-nup. Apparently, they felt vulnerable enough to throw a bunch of money at her to make it go away.

LINK

By definition, sworn testimony in a legal proceeding is evidence.

Isn't evidence supposed to be something to ascertain the truth with? What truth was ascertained?

 

[Truth Detector]

Here's his perjury:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.b1c90d76d0bc

"..... all four witnesses who were allegedly at the event have said it didn’t happen, including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, who said she’s never…"

That was an intentional lie by Kavanaugh, under oath. He knows they didn't say it didn't happen, they said they didn't recall.... and, in fact Ms. Keyser said that although she didn't recall it, she believed Ford.

So, what should Kavanaugh's penalty be for that perjury?

How is that a lie? Do you have something that says they said they were there? LINK.

 

[Oneuli]

It makes perfect sense. Why do you think it doesn't?

Because I'm smart. Check with any smart or even moderately intelligent poster here and he or she will confirm for you that it makes no sense the way you wrote it.

What part was credible?

The overall effect.

What did they say?

That they didn't recall.

You said he made it up. What part did he make up?

The part about them saying it didn't happen.

What is the truth then? What did these four people say?

See above.

What do you think it should be?

Rejection for the job. How about you -- what do you think the penalty should be for his perjury? Or are you going to dodge again?

 

[Oneuli]

What sworn testimony?

Hers.

Isn't evidence supposed to be something to ascertain the truth with? What truth was ascertained?

The truth of the sexual misconduct.

 

[Oneuli]

How is that a lie?

Because they didn't say what he claims they said. And he knew they didn't say it, at the time he swore under oath they did. That's perjury. So, what should his penalty be for perjuring himself that way?

 

[Truth Detector]

Because I'm smart. Check with any smart or even moderately intelligent poster here and he or she will confirm for you that it makes no sense the way you wrote it.

But your not smart. You haven't give any evidence of being smart. You have proven you are dishonest, smarmy and full of shit however.

The overall effect.

What overall effect?

That they didn't recall.

LINK.

The part about them saying it didn't happen.

How did they say it did happen?

See above.

See above.

Rejection for the job.

Why?

How about you -- what do you think the penalty should be for his perjury? Or are you going to dodge again?

I think Ms. Ford should be charged with lying under oath in front of the Senate and the American people and spend some jail time. Liars who smear good men should pay.

 

[Truth Detector]

Hers.

Who is "her?"

The truth of the sexual misconduct.

How is it true when it is uncorroborated?

 

[Truth Detector]

Because they didn't say what he claims they said. And he knew they didn't say it, at the time he swore under oath they did. That's perjury. So, what should his penalty be for perjuring himself that way?

What did they say?

 

[Oneuli]

But your not smart.

Let's just take a moment to appreciate that sentence in all its glory.

 

[Oneuli]

What did they say?

I've told you. See above.