2 Oct 2018 9:41 pm
Wow, look at all the Kavanaugh quotes you cited.Misty » 01 Oct 2018 11:13 pm » wrote:The crime would be perjury.Termin8tor » 01 Oct 2018 8:20 pm » wrote:Wow, that's one heck of a strong case you have there.
Suggest!
So what's the crime, illegal early knowledge?
He told Orrin Hatch under oath that he only learned about Ms. Ramirez's accusation when The New Yorker article came out.
He also lied under oath about the drinking age in Maryland and that he had 'no connections' to Yale and only got in by 'busting his tail' when he was actually a legacy student.
Apparently there is not much this guy did NOT lie about.on
If you had actually watched the hearing, you would have seen one Senator use the expression, 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' which is a Latin phrase meaning 'false in one thing, false in everything.'
It is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter.
I know how you hold National Review in such high regard as you trash my other sources on false grounds.
So I'm sure you'll accept this.
The Perjury Farce
By THE EDITORS
.....None of this comes close to rising to the level of perjury. And none of it, despite the hopes of his enemies, substitutes for the weakness of Christine Blasey Ford’s original charge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNptuaRk4bM