Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing

[TheDrake]

Drake, I agree with you that should be treated like any other Cryan.  But if you think the cops don’t show up on the scene of a burglary, or car theft, and start investigating the victim, then you live a very privileged and protected life

Probably depends on the neighborhood, I'll grant you that.

[TheDeamon]

Drake, I agree with you that should be treated like any other Cryan.  But if you think the cops don’t show up on the scene of a burglary, or car theft, and start investigating the victim, then you live a very privileged and protected life

Probably depends on the neighborhood, I'll grant you that.

The truth is somewhere in the middle on this. In most cases, in particular instances where insurance money is involved, the victim is a suspect from the start. That said, they generally aren't going to tell you that you're a suspect. In many cases there is also likely to be evidence pointing towards somebody else being the suspect, and they're going to pursue those leads first, as they're typically going to be the more difficult ones to potentially find later.

But Pete is correct, even as a (presumed) victim, you're a potential suspect until circumstances demonstrate otherwise.

Basically it boils down to a dynamic and ever evolving probability matrix they either are given(studies on crime statistics), or acquire anecdotally through the course of doing their job. It is why persons with low incomes tend to also get the most "hostile attention" from law enforcement, because most criminals tend to be in that income bracket, and it doesn't help when entire ethnic/racial groups can also boast significant portions of their numbers there as well.

[Pete at Home]

In Vegas, I called cops because my neighbor What is beating the hell out of this wife, and when the cops came they were more interested in pursuing the wife for traffic tickets

Someone broke into my trunk with a crowbar, and the Utah cop accused me of insurance fraud without even checking to see if I had comprehensive coverage.

In Richmond county GA I reported my car stolen and cops interrogated me 45 minutes to investigate if I had lent it to anyone.

It seems fairly ubiquitous to treat victims (especially male victims) as the first suspect.

[TheDeamon]

In Vegas, I called cops because my neighbor What is beating the hell out of this wife, and when the cops came they were more interested in pursuing the wife for traffic tickets

That one could be more complicated than first glance, the biggest problem with Domestic Abuse is the person being abused often refuses to pursue charges.

It also is standard procedure the check for warrants on anybody they're having to document interactions with(outstanding traffic tickets might have triggered a warrant).

Which brings us back to the first item.
1) They arrive at a location where domestic violence has clearly been taking place.
2) The victim refuses to press charges.
3) Pursuing the warrants on the traffic tickets removes the non-cooperative party(who actually is the victim in all of this) from the house, and removes them from danger at least for a little while.

[Pete at Home]

Here the abuser was walking down the street away from the house and they let him go, focusing on catching her. That was the focus before they even spoke to her.

Also Vegas will charge even if the victim won’t press charges

[TheDrake]

Pete, maybe you just don't seem trustworthy. You do have a law degree. 

[Seriati]

The felony domestic violence charges - which was the reason for the arrest - have been dropped.  Referral to city attorney for determination of whether there should be misdemeanor domestic violence charges.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/22/prosecutor-declines-felony-case-avenatti-1012550

This seems an odd type of defense you're pursuing here.  Prosecutors routinely decline to pursue domestic violence charges, that rarely means they are convinced that someone is actually innocent.  It's a just a reflection that proving a case where the only evidence is a witness testimony where one person is going to say "I'm innocent' and it's a crap shoot whether the other will say they did it or not (without regard to whether or not they actually did it), is not an easy case to bring.  Even with physical injuries, it's pretty easy for some one to recant and make up a story.

Then you're left with whether a jury will convict someone based on he said/she said (forgive the expression, the persons could be of any genders).  How exactly do you get beyond a reasonable doubt?  Unless there's a history you probably don't. 

This is of course exactly why #metoo came about, because there is no recourse and the person that did the crime can claim their innocence was "proven," Avenatti has wasted no time on that front.  Does it mean he's really innocent?  No.  Or more specifically, we can't know if he is or isn't.  And it's ridiculous to tear one man down, Kavanaugh, and give another a pass, Avenatti. 

As to why no prosecution here, I don't know a lot about the LA district attorney, but she is a Democrat and this would not remotely be an easy case to bring.  There's really no political benefit to a Democrat to bring it, ergo, seems an easy call and very consistent with how these are handled in the country in a non-celebrity context.

[Seriati]

I guess what I'd add on the "treat it like other crimes" angle is that it's pretty rare that other crimes involve so little evidence capable of objective analysis.  Almost all evidence of DV (barring a hotel video) has to be filtered through the - generally - two parties that were in the room by themselves when it occurred.

If two people were locked in a sealed room and both came out with bruises and broken bones, is there really any way to objectively decide which was the instigator and which the defender?  Wouldn't you literally, if you had to do something, have to dig into their histories?  I mean if it were Ghandi and a gang member would you have an idea?  Could you prove it?  I think most people would be very uncomfortable with deciding to prosecute either person as the aggressor in that case, yet, that's exactly what we routinely do in DV cases.  We start with the premise that the DV is real and one directional and then what?

[TheDrake]

Having lived in a time when men were routinely allowed to beat their wives by the authorities, I'm glad we've taken steps. I'm glad neighbors get involved more than they used to. Domestic violence is rarely a one-time thing, and usually, there is a pattern. There certainly was when my father used to knock my mom around the house.

It is a tricky situation. You don't want to leave the combatants in the house to start up again. You don't want to leave someone vulnerable. Then there's the even more confusing situation of same-sex domestic violence. There you don't even have a presumptive "must have been the guy" crutch.

The best defense against public accusations is probably character support from previous partners. Violent people don't generally just use force against a single person. The other would be to end a relationship or seek counseling if you're arguing so bitterly that it could lead to violence by either party - or lead to a false accusation to ruin your life.

[Seriati]

TheDrake, I agree with you, there usually is a history and it's important and laudable that we have made it possible for those situations to be redressed, even if it is still difficult.

What's troubling about the two cases in this thread is that there really isn't a history.  Kavanaugh, is a one off accusation from "sometime" in the 80's with holes left and right in the story.  Avenatti is a one time accusation against a highly public person that seems to be inconsistent with his own history (though his wife has at times made clear he was mentally/emotionally abusive, she drew the line at physical).  In both cases, politics is pushing the story far far harder than it otherwise would have been pushed.

Honestly, I have little empathy for Avenatti, I know the type of lawyer he seems to be, and I've never respected their abusive style.  It makes me suspect that it carries over into other parts of his life.  It's a true type A style.  And it's exactly the type of personality that led him to try and crucify Kavanaugh, and I suspect to not look too closely into the accusations that his client's brought (which will never be pinned on him by any court).  And its the exact same personality that will proclaim his own innocence even if there was objective proof, utterly convinced that he can fight off any claim in court.  Just the emotional/mental abuse ought to be disqualifying for political office, but we still have vestiges of the old system and only physical abuse will cut it (or in Ellison's case still be ignored).

Kavanaugh on the other hand, really did lead the kind of life you are referring to, with the support of women that have known him.  Still did him little good when the media and the left decided to try and take him down.  He was really only saved because he was such an over achieving dork that he saved day by day calendars from the 80's.  He literally did the impossible and provided an alibi for "the early 80s," without which he almost certainly would have gone down.

[Crunch]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is up next.

Astrophysicist and author Neil deGrasse Tyson has denied allegations of sexual misconduct made against him by three women.

Last month, three women told Patheos, a religion and spirituality website, that Tyson harassed them and made inappropriate sexual advances as early as 1984 and in recent years.

The 1984 case is a little beyond “inappropriate”:

A third woman, Tchiya Amet, alleges Tyson drugged and raped her in 1984 while they were graduate students at the University of Texas at Austin.

She recalled blacking out after Tyson gave her a drink and waking up naked on his bed.
She filed a police report years later, the website reported, and has written multiple posts about the incident since 2014.

Tyson denies all this, of course. But since we must believe all accusers, Tyson is guilty.

[LetterRip]

For those interested,

here is a description of the allegations at the patheos site,

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/nosacredcows/2018/11/two-more-women-accuse-neil-degrasse-tyson-of-sexual-misconduct/

Here is Tyson's response,

https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/on-being-accused/10156870826326613/

His responses and descriptions of events also seem perfectly reasonable and plausible and don't seem to be terribly different factually from the allegations but quite different in terms of perspective.

Hopefully an investigation will clarify the truth of the matter.

[Crunch]

Wait for an investigation?  What about believe all women?  Must be nice to be a member of the bien pensant, being more equal than others.

[LetterRip]

Wait for an investigation?  What about believe all women?  Must be nice to be a member of the bien pensant, being more equal than others.

"Believe all women" - means that the police should believe and investigate; or you should believe a family member and not ask questions that imply it was her fault.  For Kavanaugh - it was requested that a vote be delayed until a proper investigation could be conducted.  So no double standard involved, merely your own lack of knowledge.

Also I've always held consistent opinions - that some people misremember/misinterpret events and people and our memories readily conflate things and can even adopt others memories or stories (or even recollections of fictional accounts) as our own.  Thus individuals are frequently not lying, but their beliefs are mistaken.  Also I've consistently held that a small subset of individuals are psychopaths who will make false accusations for their own reasons (revenge or advancement are common, though sometimes for entertainment).

[cherrypoptart]

But what about all the people who insist that Kavanaugh isn't fit to serve on the Supreme Court? Maybe he should even be impeached.

That's where the believe all women comes into play. There is nothing more than Ford's word to go on and yet they are convinced he is guilty. Even now.

[LetterRip]

But what about all the people who insist that Kavanaugh isn't fit to serve on the Supreme Court? Maybe he should even be impeached.

Well I think he isn't fit and should be impeached.  Perjury should be an absolute disqualifier for any judge, let alone the Supreme Court.
 

That's where the believe all women comes into play. There is nothing more than Ford's word to go on and yet they are convinced he is guilty. Even now.

His frequent deception and lies to the committees suggest there was more there than Ford's word.

[cherrypoptart]

If that's enough to convict, either in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, then no man is safe no matter how innocent he is. There was much more in the Brian Banks case, even though he was totally innocent, and he went to prison for 5 years. At least he actually kissed his accuser, though it was consensual and there was no sex. I highly doubt Kavanaugh ever touched Ford or was ever in the same house as her. Without her false accusations none of the other stuff would ever have come into play at all. It's all fruit from the poisoned tree. Needless to say I didn't find his so called lies to be lies at all anyway. Just his version of the truth. Rashoman style. Ford on the other hand seemed to be completely making all of it up. Just my impression based on the evidence and lack of it. I suppose I could be wrong. But the point is if Ford can be believed, anyone can. We'll be hard pressed to find a woman making accusations with less evidence than Ford.

[TheDrake]

There was much more in the Brian Banks case, even though he was totally innocent, and he went to prison for 5 years.

I wonder what you would do if you didn't have Brian Banks to trot out. Let's not forget that he wasn't convicted, he took a plea deal. So discussion about convictions don't apply. We don't know what a jury would have done. You're also making an assumption that her accusations are false, when none of us know what happened based on the flimsy evidence.

Even being falsely accused doesn't remotely allow you to lie under oath.

You can believe Ford and also believe Kavanaugh. You can believe that she was telling the truth as she remembered it. "Believe the women" is as much about not scourging them as it is about determining facts. Or you could turn red and start weeping at a committee hearing, apparently. That's another option. So is lying through your teeth about your drinking habits in college.

[LetterRip]

If that's enough to convict, either in a court of law or in the court of public opinion, then no man is safe no matter how innocent he is.

He was being interviewed to become a Supreme Court justice - lying under oath is generally considered disqualifying for that job, so when you do so - it is strongly suggestive that you are trying to cover up something more serious.  Almost no innocent men would lie under oath, so I'm not sure why you think 'no man is safe'.

There was much more in the Brian Banks case, even though he was totally innocent, and he went to prison for 5 years. At least he actually kissed his accuser, though it was consensual and there was no sex.

Brian Banks pled guilty.  We have no idea how evidence compares, since the accussations against Kavanauagh weren't investigated to any significant degree (namely neither Ford, nor Kavanaugh were interviewed by police/FBI)

I highly doubt Kavanaugh ever touched Ford or was ever in the same house as her.

You seem to have no reasonable basis for your doubt.  There is no evidence of maliciousness or other motivation for Ford to make the accussation, there is nothing to imply psychopathy which is almost universal in false accussations.  She made it quitely and only went public on it when forced to.

Without her false accusations none of the other stuff would ever have come into play at all.

Actually he had purjured himself in seperate testimony in his 2004 and 2006 hearings regarding stolen documents.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html

He seems to have further perjured himself during his recent hearings.

It's all fruit from the poisoned tree. Needless to say I didn't find his so called lies to be lies at all anyway. Just his version of the truth.

He pretty unequivocally committed perjury.  It isn't something subject to opinion.

Ford on the other hand seemed to be completely making all of it up.

There seems no basis for this belief - she seems to completely and sincerely belive her testimony.

Just my impression based on the evidence and lack of it. I suppose I could be wrong.

You almost certainly are.  Ford's testimony seems utterly sincere.  She could be confused, mistaken etc, all of the things that cause memory to be in error, but there is no rational basis to think she is lying.

But the point is if Ford can be believed, anyone can. We'll be hard pressed to find a woman making accusations with less evidence than Ford.

We actually have a lack of investigation, we don't know if there is a lack of evidence because the FBI was directed to avoid interviewing the two most important witnesses and further to avoid investigating.  If he was actually believed innocent by Republicans and that Ford were lying they would have insisted that Ford and Kavanaugh be interviewed. To me this is pretty indicative that Republicans believe that Kavanaugh perjured himself and believe that Ford is telling the truth.

[Seriati]

"Believe all women" - means that the police should believe and investigate; or you should believe a family member and not ask questions that imply it was her fault.

Police should investigate all allegations, but they may attune their efforts to credibility reasonably.  No one  in law enforcement should default to believing allegations, that's literally not their job.

Implying fault is an interesting one.  In fairness, we routinely and appropriately imply fault in innumerable other criminal contexts.  We frequently tell those that get beat up that they deserved it, sometimes accurately.  We routinely tell those who have been robbed that they were foolish to be were they were, or not to take reasonable precautions (like a bike lock).

In the context of sexual assault though we're playing against a history where the old rule was to attribute unreasonable blame.  "You must have led him on by letting him see your ankles"  "You must have wanted it"  So much so that we're over correcting by even ruling out reasonable claims of acting stupid.  It's true no one deserves to be the victim of a crime, but that doesn't mean that acting stupidly is not still stupid.  Putting oneself into a place to be vulnerable means living with consequences that could have sometimes been avoided.

As a pyschological matter, you're probably right, we shouldn't be heaping the blame on any victim of a crime, no matter whether they made themselves vulnerable or not.  They know they made themselves vulnerable and their going to have that self doubt as part of that forever.

But what absolutely shouldn't be doing is treating making yourself vulnerable as an excuse for the person who took advantage, and I think that's were sexual assault really differed historically.

For Kavanaugh - it was requested that a vote be delayed until a proper investigation could be conducted.  So no double standard involved, merely your own lack of knowledge.

I think there's a completely reasonable basis to believe that the request for delay on Kavanaugh had nothing to do with a need for a proper investigation.  In fact I think it's really hard to claim that the request for delay was even marginally connected to a need to investigate.

I note, Ford still hasn't filed criminal charges, nor have the other women, and it doesn't appear as if any actual investigations have been continued by any police or investigative body (that won't stop  the Democratic House from doing so in the new year, but the idea that there is any legitimate investigation to be done is pretty much a fail).

But what about all the people who insist that Kavanaugh isn't fit to serve on the Supreme Court? Maybe he should even be impeached.

Well I think he isn't fit and should be impeached.  Perjury should be an absolute disqualifier for any judge, let alone the Supreme Court.

Last time you made this claim you linked to a pretty unconvincing web site, can you give some insight into what perjury you think has been demonstrated?

Perjury is being completely abused with people not understanding that it was intended to apply to knowing falsehoods.  Most everything I've seen cited to on this topic isn't even clearly untrue.

His frequent deception and lies to the committees suggest there was more there than Ford's word.

Again frequent?  In what world do you have evidence of frequent deception and lies?

[LetterRip]

I note, Ford still hasn't filed criminal charges

Probably because at the time the offense is alleged to have occurred, the crime he is accused of was considered a misdemeanor with a statute of limitations of 1 year.

The charge of attempted rape was considered a misdemeanor at the time. As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/amid-the-ford-kavanaugh-exchanges-have-the-local-police-been-asked-to-investigate/2018/09/27/7787d8c0-c297-11e8-a1f0-a4051b6ad114_story.html

Regarding perjury, I provided a link for his past perjuries.  You may find his perjuries during the recent hearing debatable, but we have email directly contradicting his previous perjuries during testimony of his prior confirmation hearings.

[Seriati]

I note, Ford still hasn't filed criminal charges

Probably because at the time the offense is alleged to have occurred, the crime he is accused of was considered a misdemeanor with a statute of limitations of 1 year.

Your link is the only one I've seen that says that attempted rape was a misdemeanor (and I note it says there was a felony version that could have been charged without a SOL at the time).  Groping was a misdemeanor with a one year SOL, I suspect that the source conflated the two.

Regarding perjury, I provided a link for his past perjuries.  You may find his perjuries during the recent hearing debatable, but we have email directly contradicting his previous perjuries during testimony of his prior confirmation hearings.

And several of us went to the link you provided and found it pretty weak sauce.  That's what prompted me to ask specifically what testimony you found to be directly contradictory.  I still ask, as you seem absolutely convinced by something, I'd like to know what it is.  I haven't found any of it to be even arguably a basis for a perjury claim.

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

the opinion that it would have fallen under a misdemeanor was the opinion of the ex-chief prosecutor - he seems likely to have the most informed opinion on the law at the time.

Regarding Kavanaugh and perjury,

this is the link I was refering to.

For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”

In 2006, Sen. Ted Kennedy asked him if he had any regrets about how he treated documents he had received from Miranda that he later learned were stolen. Kavanaugh rejected the premise of the question, restating that he never even saw one of those documents.

Back then the senators did not have the emails that they have now, showing that Miranda sent Kavanaugh numerous documents containing what was plainly research by Democrats. Some of those emails went so far as to warn Kavanaugh not to distribute the Democratic talking points he was being given. If these were documents shared from the Democratic side of the aisle as part of normal business, as Kavanaugh claimed to have believed in his most recent testimony, why would they be labeled “not [for] distribution”? And why would we share our precise strategy to fight controversial Republican nominations with the Republicans we were fighting?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html

To me that seems a slam dunk on perjury.  I've no idea how you could consider it 'weak sauce'.

His recent testimony it would be harder to prove it is perjury, but I don't think there it can be reasonably believed that he didn't do so.  If you are talking about the difficult of building a case for his recent perjury, I'd agree it would be challenging.  My characterization as frequently deceptive or lying though I think is a perfectly fair characterization.

[Seriati]

Seriati,

the opinion that it would have fallen under a misdemeanor was the opinion of the ex-chief prosecutor - he seems likely to have the most informed opinion on the law at the time.

It was a misdemeanor because groping is a misdemeanor.  My point is that they conflated the two offenses (you know the one her claims would have supported factually, and the one that people "wanted to be true).

Regarding Kavanaugh and perjury,

this is the link I was refering to.

For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”

And do you have evidence that any of those documents appeared to have been drafted or prepared by such persons?

Were they signed, or on letterhead?  Seriously, the basic threshold for claiming that was a perjured answer requires that you show he received documents that have evidence they were so drafted.  By the most critical accounts (including yours) they are "implied" to be evidence of Democratic drafting because of content (or do you see where your author states they were labelled as such?).  However, content could have been compiled in any number of ways, including by say the operative summarizing stolen documents and Kavanaugh's answer would have been true.

The source may have recognized the documents but that means little since it's widely acknowledged the staffer in question did steal them.  If they were not identifiable by others that's not perjury.

Back then the senators did not have the emails that they have now, showing that Miranda sent Kavanaugh numerous documents containing what was plainly research by Democrats.

Emphasis added.  Did the emails show documents labled as such?  Or did they show analysis.

I get wanting to claim he "must have known" but that is not the standard for claming perjury.

To me that seems a slam dunk on perjury.  I've no idea how you could consider it 'weak sauce'.

Because the facts have already been investigated and criminal charges applied?  Or maybe because if the claim was a slam dunk it would have been written to include allegations that the documents were labled in a manner that proves the case?

Again, it's premised on "he must have known" the source of the information but that's a logical leap in a town where both sides routinely have ad hoc leaks to each other, where I guarantee every politician and staffer has seen documents whose source could only have been the other side and would answer the question the same way Kavanaugh did.  Unless they were labled or you can show he had actual knowledge of the source, it's weak sauce to claim those are perjury.

His recent testimony it would be harder to prove it is perjury, but I don't think there it can be reasonably believed that he didn't do so.  If you are talking about the difficult of building a case for his recent perjury, I'd agree it would be challenging.  My characterization as frequently deceptive or lying though I think is a perfectly fair characterization.

Well it's "fair" as an opinion I grant.  You don't have to believe him.  It's however a far cry from asserting that he clearly perjured himself.

For a source from the other side on the same controversy, emphasis added https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-perjury-claims-totally-baseless/

During Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony in 2004, Orrin Hatch asked him if he had received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh said no. In 2006, Ted Kennedy asked him about the same documents, and Kavanaugh issued another denial, saying, “I don’t know what the universe of memos might be, but I do know that I never received any memos, was not aware of any such memos.”

At the same time, however, Kavanaugh was careful to say that he might have unknowingly seen information “derived” from the memos. So, to be clear, to demonstrate perjury the Democrats would have to show clearly and unequivocally that Kavanaugh didn’t just see information taken from the memos but that he clearly and knowingly viewed the actual memos themselves.

Whether you think he saw the information, and knew its source, is not enough for a perjury claim. 

While hedging that he doesn’t know what the “universe of memos might be,” he also says, “I never received any memos.” There is not a single email or document showing that he actually received a stolen memo, much less that he did so knowingly.

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

for a 'more likely than not' standard - I think 100% of the time he would lose.
for a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard - I think 100% of the time he would lose.
for a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard - I think 90% of the time he would lose.

So I think an amazing lawyer might be rarely able to convince a jury that he didn't purjure himself 'beyond a reasonable' doubt upon occassion with the right jury.

I don't think we as the public should view it as anything other than he clearly purjured himself.

There is quite a difference between 'a skilled lawyer might be able to establish reasonable doubt' - and it being reasonable on the face of it to deny he perjured himself.

[TheDeamon]

I guess it all boils down to the definition of "is" at the end of the day.

[Seriati]

Seriati,

for a 'more likely than not' standard - I think 100% of the time he would lose.

More likely than not he lied?  If he didn't see a memo with democratic labelling he didn't lie.  Go back and look at what he said.

There's 100% chance he saw materials that originated from the stolen server.  It's a different question as to whether he knew he saw stolen materials, and the question of provability is whether any of the materials that can be shown he saw where clearly identifiable to a neutral observer as stolen materials. 

As far as I can tell from the record, the actual evidence fails to show he received materials that were identifiably stolen.

This brings us back to you believing he's guilty - without clear evidence.

On these facts, there is no question it fails beyond the shadow of a doubt.  Fails preponderance of the evidence, or that it even even meets clear and convincing.  I think you are conflating the issue of whether he saw information that was stolen - which he admitted was possible - with whether he saw indentifiable materials - for which you have his email records and there is still apparently no evidence.  Unless you believe that the link I provided represents lies, and you can explain why the link you provided never directly states that the materials he recieved would have been identifiable as stolen to a third party, I'm finding it hard to see how you got to an opposite conclusion? 

So I think an amazing lawyer might be rarely able to convince a jury that he didn't purjure himself 'beyond a reasonable' doubt upon occassion with the right jury.

A prosecutor may be able to get a jury to ignore the evidence and convict on an impression that he's a bad guy, but if you used the same standard you applied with Clinton then there's no question he's not perjured himself.  If you use a standard of what can be proven, he didn't perjure himself.  You only get to a perjury claim when you apply analysis and decide he must have known.

In any event, there's nothing about this that rises to the level of certainty you are expressing, and it wouldn't take a skilled lawyer to show that, it would take a skilled and charming prosecutor to get there.

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

feel free to believe what you will. I really can't understand how you can reconcile your beliefs with the facts.  I've offered up evidence that he has committed multiple acts of perjury, you don't agree - that is fine - neither of our opinions matter much ultimately, and I'm certainly not going to convince you to change your opinion.

[Seriati]

Fair enough.  In my view you haven't offered any evidence that what he said wasn't true, again the test is not whether he saw information from the stolen files, it's whether his actual statements were false.  Take a look at the link I provided and his actual quotes.  At the very least, can you agree that your assesments of 100%, 100% and 90% are far overstating the case?