I think this is incorrect. I believe Judge supplied a letter from his attorney, not signed by judge, and a later letter that Grassley read today signed by Judge, but not a sworn affidavit. I'll be happy to stand corrected if this is wrong, but this is my understanding at present. I don't doubt that the letter from Judge's attorney has been mis-characterized as a sworn affidavit signed by Judge.
Lyndsey Graham puts on his big boy pants.
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Ford is so lost in space that you cannot hold her accountable for lying or not lying. It is like saying you are lying when you communicate with the Mothership. No, you are not lying. You are doing the best you can. But that does not make it the truth.
There are only three people that could make such an affidavit that wouldn't be based on hearsay. Those would be Kavanaugh, Ford and Judge. I don't believe sworn affidavits from any of these three, that say what you claim they say, exist. Any other affidavit asserting "that Brett Kavanaugh never sexually assaulted Christine Blasey" would be hearsay. There is an oral statement under oath from Kavanaugh asserting that he did not sexually assault Blasey. And there may well be be written statements to that effect from him for the record as well. I don't think, however, there is a sworn , written affidavit from him to that effect.
Of course, minimize the accusations and dismiss her as somehow mentally deficient because attempted rape of a teenage girl is a whimsical topic.
That’s some filthy, filthy mud you wade in, sir.
You can go read all the affidavits - they have been submitted as evidence to the Senate. All the affidavits state very clearly that the events described by Ford involving Kavanaugh never happened with them as witnesses. Ford asserted the people signing affidavits were witnesses to the event. This is not true, and of course is not hearsay. The affidavits clearly and obviously refute Ford's claims.
There are only three witnesses to the alleged attack. One says it did not happen under oath. One said it did under oath .And the third said something. it is unclear what exactly, perhaps it was that he doesn't recall the incident, or that he did not witness such an incident, or words to that effect. That statement, was so far as I'm aware, not under oath. It may have been recounted in a letter to the committee from that person's attorney, or it may have been made over the telephone to the committee investigators, or both.
You are incorrect. As stated very clearly yesterday Judge provided a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, It was entered as evidence in the Senate panel hearing.
Which witness stated the attack occurred under oath?
Just business as usual in Scataphagostan.