Kamala Harris Caught LYING About What Judge Kavanaugh Said

[Grokmaster]

Well, she is certainly shaping up as the ideal Dem candidate for 2020; much more attractive and charismatic than Hillary, has the preferred genitalia, and LIES THROUGH HER TEETH EVERY BIT AS WELL.

She posted a HIGHLY EDITED version of what Judge Kavanaugh actually said, to DELIBERATELY , COMPLETELY MISCHARACTERIZE IT:




Kamala Harris’s Big Kavanaugh Lie

( “Kavanaugh did not refer to contraceptives as ‘abortion-inducing drugs’ as his own view, he was summarizing Priests for Life’s case”)





Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) is the latest Democrat to jump on the deception shuttle to, she hopes, the White House in 2020. She tweeted an 11-second video of soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in which he says, “Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to.”



The problem? Kavanaugh was answering a question about and specifically citing the language of a specific case involving Priests for Life.



Harris takes deceptive editing to jaw-droppingly unethical depths by saying that Kavanaugh’s language, which is not actually his language at all, is a “dog whistle” for, she asserts, “going after birth control.”



https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/kamala-harriss-big-kavanaugh-lie/

 

[Cisero]

Well, she is certainly shaping up as the ideal Dem candidate for 2020; much more attractive and charismatic than Hillary, has the preferred genitalia, and LIES THROUGH HER TEETH EVERY BIT AS WELL.

She posted a HIGHLY EDITED version of what Judge Kavanaugh actually said, to DELIBERATELY , COMPLETELY MISCHARACTERIZE IT:




Kamala Harris’s Big Kavanaugh Lie

( “Kavanaugh did not refer to contraceptives as ‘abortion-inducing drugs’ as his own view, he was summarizing Priests for Life’s case”)





Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) is the latest Democrat to jump on the deception shuttle to, she hopes, the White House in 2020. She tweeted an 11-second video of soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in which he says, “Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to.”



The problem? Kavanaugh was answering a question about and specifically citing the language of a specific case involving Priests for Life.



Harris takes deceptive editing to jaw-droppingly unethical depths by saying that Kavanaugh’s language, which is not actually his language at all, is a “dog whistle” for, she asserts, “going after birth control.”



https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/kamala-harriss-big-kavanaugh-lie/

Yeah, the twisting of words in this case is pretty deceptive. Of course, the Democrat Party is going at Kavanaugh with everything they got, including using specific wording out of context to cast the judge in poor light. It's politics 101, not that I agree with said tactics.

Oh, and if cutting out two words from a quote is a "BIG LIE"... one has to wonder how low Trump stands in your esteem.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, the twisting of words in this case is pretty deceptive. Of course, the Democrat Party is going at Kavanaugh with everything they got, including using specific wording out of context to cast the judge in poor light. It's politics 101, not that I agree with said tactics.

Oh, and if cutting out two words from a quote is a "BIG LIE"... one has to wonder how low Trump stands in your esteem.

We've seen...many times...the Trump hating media and their echo chamber cut out a couple words or more and turn a perfectly reasonable Trump statement into a "BIG LIE".

Harris doesn't have a lock in Trump hating dishonesty, that's for sure.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Yeah, the twisting of words in this case is pretty deceptive. Of course, the Democrat Party is going at Kavanaugh with everything they got, including using specific wording out of context to cast the judge in poor light. It's politics 101, not that I agree with said tactics.

Oh, and if cutting out two words from a quote is a "BIG LIE"... one has to wonder how low Trump stands in your esteem.

Trump is not the issue here.

 

[Logician Man]

We've seen...many times...the Trump hating media and their echo chamber cut out a couple words or more and turn a perfectly reasonable Trump statement into a "BIG LIE".

Harris doesn't have a lock in Trump hating dishonesty, that's for sure.

There is nothing wrong with hating someone who hates anyone that doesn't put him before family and country. Or hating someone that makes fun of the disabled, mocking the way certain females look ( Carly Fiorina), mocking judges who are of Hispanic ancestry,thinks he can grab women's genetalia at will because he's a 'star', disrespects American veterans, discriminates against blacks in his housing projects, sucks up to the world's most dangerous dictators,plays golf every weekend,yet can't,or won't take time as Commander-in-Chief to go abroad and thank our troops for fighting and dying to protect our freedoms, double fist pumping at the most solemn memorials like he did today in PA.,as though he was attending one of his hate rallies, stripping children away from their their parents, etc,etc,etc.....

 

[jnug]

In the first place, I watched the hearing and Kavanaugh was responding to questioning form Ted Cruz, not Harris and Kabanaugh could very easily have framed his response such that he distinguished between contraceptives and "abortion inducing drugs" and chose not to do it. Would have taken nothing more than a simple qualifier like "my comment is not a comment on the description of birth control pills as abortion inducing drugs. But he didn't do that now did he. By uncritically repeating the term “abortion-inducing drugs,” Kavanaugh implies that this term is a neutral fact of the case when the position is in fact highly controversial.

In fact the way Kavanaugh actually ruled might be worse than the way he uncritically repeated the tern.

“The question was,” said Kavanaugh, “was this a substantial burden on their religious exercise, and it seemed to me quite clearly it was.”

His language here might actually be more revealing than his mention of “abortion-inducing drugs” — in his view, requiring religious employers to submit a form to opt out of covering birth control is akin to “forcing” them to provide a certain kind of health care, even though they are not actually required to provide coverage for birth control at all.

Since when is describing what you are and are not covering akin go forcing them to provide a certain kind of health care?

Harris is not lying at all. The entire exchange was quite revealing of Kavanaugh's position which would appear extreme both in accepting the Priests for Life definition as a statement of fact and in the way he actually ruled on the case.

If anything Kavanaugh has proven himself to be quite willing to accept controversial views as facts when they clearly are not and worse willing to ignore the principles of juris prudence that he espouses if it suits him to do so.

 

[Cisero]

Trump is not the issue here.

Agreed, that's why my first paragraph addressed the OP.

 

[Moot]

Yeah, the twisting of words in this case is pretty deceptive. Of course, the Democrat Party is going at Kavanaugh with everything they got, including using specific wording out of context to cast the judge in poor light. It's politics 101, not that I agree with said tactics.

Oh, and if cutting out two words from a quote is a "BIG LIE"... one has to wonder how low Trump stands in your esteem.

So does Kavanaugh believe that contraceptives are abortion inducing drugs or not? If he doesn't then why didn't he make that distinction like the plaintiffs did in their brief by saying "contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients? By not making that distinction he gave the impression that he believed that contraceptives are abortion inducing drugs.

 

[holbritter]

Well, she is certainly shaping up as the ideal Dem candidate for 2020; much more attractive and charismatic than Hillary, has the preferred genitalia, and LIES THROUGH HER TEETH EVERY BIT AS WELL.

She posted a HIGHLY EDITED version of what Judge Kavanaugh actually said, to DELIBERATELY , COMPLETELY MISCHARACTERIZE IT:




Kamala Harris’s Big Kavanaugh Lie

( “Kavanaugh did not refer to contraceptives as ‘abortion-inducing drugs’ as his own view, he was summarizing Priests for Life’s case”)





Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) is the latest Democrat to jump on the deception shuttle to, she hopes, the White House in 2020. She tweeted an 11-second video of soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in which he says, “Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to.”



The problem? Kavanaugh was answering a question about and specifically citing the language of a specific case involving Priests for Life.



Harris takes deceptive editing to jaw-droppingly unethical depths by saying that Kavanaugh’s language, which is not actually his language at all, is a “dog whistle” for, she asserts, “going after birth control.”



https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/kamala-harriss-big-kavanaugh-lie/

Politicians are all alike. Every single one of them has twisted statements to suit their purpose, or outright lied. Don't believe even half the things they say.

 

[Cisero]

So does Kavanaugh believe that contraceptives are abortion inducing drugs or not? If he doesn't then why didn't he make that distinction like the plaintiffs did in their brief by saying "contraceptives, sterilization and abortifacients? By not making that distinction he gave the impression that he believed that contraceptives are abortion inducing drugs.

Nobody knows what Kavanaugh believes, he doesn't answer questions and when he does they're really vague and don't really show his position on said issues. He's hiding his cards, which in my opinion is really bad news.
I agree that the fact Kavanaugh didn't specify his position on the "abortion-drug" issue, especially considering the wording of the sentence, seems definitely suspicious. We now he's against abortion and has hinted at Roe v Wade many times. Not good news.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Well, she is certainly shaping up as the ideal Dem candidate for 2020; much more attractive and charismatic than Hillary, has the preferred genitalia, and LIES THROUGH HER TEETH EVERY BIT AS WELL.

The Democrats have had 1 female nominee for President in 200 years, and apparently that the dared to nominate a female pissed you off so much that you make up this nonsense about "preferred genitalia". The GOP actually requires a penis to even run.

 

[nota bene]

David French writes in NRO that Democrats have chosen to take the low, dishonorable road here. He asks why so many people have rushed to believe the worst about Kavanaugh’s character and motives and says that they think they’re engaging in character revelation rather than in character assassination and that they see everything “through the prism of their distaste” [bolding mine]:

That’s negative polarization at work. You see it all the time. The very idea that Kavanaugh was appointed by Trump means that he’s “lost the benefit of the doubt.” The very notion that he thinks the original public meaning of the Constitution may not include federal protection for a right to an abortion means that he hates women. Heck, even originalism itself (in the telling of the truly blinded activist) is believed to be a ruse — a philosophical disguise for naked partisanship and outright bigotry.

It’s sad that this is news to some, but people of good faith and high character can and do come to competing conclusions about originalism, abortion, gun control, and religious liberty. Evidence of opposition is not, by itself, evidence of evil, and we would be well-served by ceasing to pretend that it is. There is overwhelming evidence that Brett Kavanaugh is a good and intelligent man who is a faithful adherent to a particular judicial philosophy. You can honorably oppose that philosophy, but you cannot honorably smear the man. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-character-assassination-by-democrats/

 

[WCH]

Harris is a former prosecutor. If someone had done this on her watch, there would be Hell to pay.

 

[Acadia]

Well, she is certainly shaping up as the ideal Dem candidate for 2020; much more attractive and charismatic than Hillary, has the preferred genitalia, and LIES THROUGH HER TEETH EVERY BIT AS WELL.

She posted a HIGHLY EDITED version of what Judge Kavanaugh actually said, to DELIBERATELY , COMPLETELY MISCHARACTERIZE IT:




Kamala Harris’s Big Kavanaugh Lie

( “Kavanaugh did not refer to contraceptives as ‘abortion-inducing drugs’ as his own view, he was summarizing Priests for Life’s case”)





Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) is the latest Democrat to jump on the deception shuttle to, she hopes, the White House in 2020. She tweeted an 11-second video of soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in which he says, “Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to.”



The problem? Kavanaugh was answering a question about and specifically citing the language of a specific case involving Priests for Life.



Harris takes deceptive editing to jaw-droppingly unethical depths by saying that Kavanaugh’s language, which is not actually his language at all, is a “dog whistle” for, she asserts, “going after birth control.”



https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/kamala-harriss-big-kavanaugh-lie/

Harris is a feckless Alinsky acolyte. Accuse, shame, make outrageous claims and never apologize. Only turn up the volume.
I'm so sick of it.

Frankly, Kavanaugh's hearings were a real eye opener for me. Kamala used his testimony to pander to the darkest, lowest hatred and fear, while Corey Booker took the opportunity to do the same and raise funds.
All while the hearings were still ongoing.

There's just not bottom when it comes to the shameless tactics.

 

[Acadia]

Yeah, the twisting of words in this case is pretty deceptive. Of course, the Democrat Party is going at Kavanaugh with everything they got, including using specific wording out of context to cast the judge in poor light. It's politics 101, not that I agree with said tactics.

Oh, and if cutting out two words from a quote is a "BIG LIE"... one has to wonder how low Trump stands in your esteem.

Attribution is everything. Kamala misled thousands of people and he knows damn well that the original version of her propaganda piece is the one that's going to stick.
Is this the best the Dems have??

 

[Acadia]

There is nothing wrong with hating someone who hates anyone that doesn't put him before family and country. Or hating someone that makes fun of the disabled, mocking the way certain females look ( Carly Fiorina), mocking judges who are of Hispanic ancestry,thinks he can grab women's genetalia at will because he's a 'star', disrespects American veterans, discriminates against blacks in his housing projects, sucks up to the world's most dangerous dictators,plays golf every weekend,yet can't,or won't take time as Commander-in-Chief to go abroad and thank our troops for fighting and dying to protect our freedoms, double fist pumping at the most solemn memorials like he did today in PA.,as though he was attending one of his hate rallies, stripping children away from their their parents, etc,etc,etc.....

What does any of the have to do with the imminently qualified Brett Kavanaugh?

 

[Linc]

David French writes in NRO that Democrats have chosen to take the low, dishonorable road here. He asks why so many people have rushed to believe the worst about Kavanaugh’s character and motives and says that they think they’re engaging in character revelation rather than in character assassination and that they see everything “through the prism of their distaste” [bolding mine]:

That’s negative polarization at work. You see it all the time. The very idea that Kavanaugh was appointed by Trump means that he’s “lost the benefit of the doubt.” The very notion that he thinks the original public meaning of the Constitution may not include federal protection for a right to an abortion means that he hates women. Heck, even originalism itself (in the telling of the truly blinded activist) is believed to be a ruse — a philosophical disguise for naked partisanship and outright bigotry.

It’s sad that this is news to some, but people of good faith and high character can and do come to competing conclusions about originalism, abortion, gun control, and religious liberty. Evidence of opposition is not, by itself, evidence of evil, and we would be well-served by ceasing to pretend that it is. There is overwhelming evidence that Brett Kavanaugh is a good and intelligent man who is a faithful adherent to a particular judicial philosophy. You can honorably oppose that philosophy, but you cannot honorably smear the man. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-character-assassination-by-democrats/

You are accusing Democrats of acting like Republicans. You and your ilk have such a short memory.

Democrats have 20 years of McConnellism to catch up on.

Republicans have ZERO good faith and extremely poor character covering up for this Criminally Insane Traitor.

 

[Linc]

What does any of the have to do with the imminently qualified Brett Kavanaugh?

You mean the immense liar kavanaugh.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Well, she is certainly shaping up as the ideal Dem candidate for 2020; much more attractive and charismatic than Hillary, has the preferred genitalia, and LIES THROUGH HER TEETH EVERY BIT AS WELL.

She posted a HIGHLY EDITED version of what Judge Kavanaugh actually said, to DELIBERATELY , COMPLETELY MISCHARACTERIZE IT:




Kamala Harris’s Big Kavanaugh Lie

( “Kavanaugh did not refer to contraceptives as ‘abortion-inducing drugs’ as his own view, he was summarizing Priests for Life’s case”)





Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) is the latest Democrat to jump on the deception shuttle to, she hopes, the White House in 2020. She tweeted an 11-second video of soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in which he says, “Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to.”



The problem? Kavanaugh was answering a question about and specifically citing the language of a specific case involving Priests for Life.



Harris takes deceptive editing to jaw-droppingly unethical depths by saying that Kavanaugh’s language, which is not actually his language at all, is a “dog whistle” for, she asserts, “going after birth control.”



https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/kamala-harriss-big-kavanaugh-lie/

Watching the entire video, I don't see that anything changes. He wasn't quoting them directly, he was paraphrasing, but used their same language. Analogous example:

I hear a white man call an Arab Muslim a "sand-nigger" before shooting him. When speaking to the police afterward, I repeat the man's exact words from start to finish as I recall them. That's disquotational speech, and not necessarily indicative of my views. But if I use the same word merely paraphrasing (i.e. when I could have said "I heard the guy say to the victim" something like "x"), then it is me actually using the term "sand-nigger."

Sounds like Kavanaugh thinks at least some forms of birth control are like abortion.

 

[Linc]

Trump is not the issue here.

Tho Criminally Insane Traitor nominated this Liar who will kill the Mueller Report. Of course trump is the issue here. He already has one stolen seat in the scRotus.

 

[Acadia]

The Democrats have had 1 female nominee for President in 200 years, and apparently that the dared to nominate a female pissed you off so much that you make up this nonsense about "preferred genitalia". The GOP actually requires a penis to even run.

No, not even close. Hillary was a crap candidate who ran a crap campaign because she made crap choices and said crap things.
Three are SO many reasons that people didn't vote for Hillary, including and especially because they didn't want a 3rd term for Obama. That's the way the pendulum swings.
4/5 elections where Dems tried to get a candidate elected into office after 8 years of having the Oval, they FAILED.



But yeah...whaaaaaaaaaaaaa...victim, sexism, oppression, misogyny...blah blah blah the litany of Hillary's excuses.

 

[nota bene]

You are accusing Democrats of acting like Republicans. You and your ilk have such a short memory.

Democrats have 20 years of McConnellism to catch up on.

Republicans have ZERO good faith and extremely poor character covering up for this Criminally Insane Traitor.

Whenever I read "your ilk," I tune out the hyper-partisan bile sure to follow.

Use somebody else's posts as your platform for yet another screed.

 

[Grokmaster]

Yeah, the twisting of words in this case is pretty deceptive. Of course, the Democrat Party is going at Kavanaugh with everything they got, including using specific wording out of context to cast the judge in poor light. It's politics 101, not that I agree with said tactics.

Oh, and if cutting out two words from a quote is a "BIG LIE"... one has to wonder how low Trump stands in your esteem.

Deliberately CHANGING A QUOTE to totally misrepresent what was said, IS A LIE.


Nice dance moves.

 

[Grokmaster]

There is nothing wrong with hating someone who hates anyone that doesn't put him before family and country. Or hating someone that makes fun of the disabled, mocking the way certain females look ( Carly Fiorina), mocking judges who are of Hispanic ancestry,thinks he can grab women's genetalia at will because he's a 'star', disrespects American veterans, discriminates against blacks in his housing projects, sucks up to the world's most dangerous dictators,plays golf every weekend,yet can't,or won't take time as Commander-in-Chief to go abroad and thank our troops for fighting and dying to protect our freedoms, double fist pumping at the most solemn memorials like he did today in PA.,as though he was attending one of his hate rallies, stripping children away from their their parents, etc,etc,etc.....

TDS much? Has NOTHING TO DO WITH HARRIS'S LIES.


Your desperation to CHANGE the TOPIC is understandable.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Deliberately CHANGING A QUOTE to totally misrepresent what was said, IS A LIE.


Nice dance moves.

Don't know if you saw my post, or understand much about linguistics or philosophy of language.* I watched the entire video. Kavanaugh was using, not mentioning, the term "abortion inducing drugs."

*In case it's not clear: consider the difference between these two statements:

1. Bananas are sweet.
2. "Bananas" has seven letters.

The first uses the term "Bananas," while the second mentions the term. You mention terms that you quote directly or when you refer to the words themselves, but use terms when you paraphrase or make assertions, ask questions, etc. Kavanaugh was not making a direct quote. He wasn't even really paraphrasing. He could have said "birth control" but instead said "abortion-causing drugs," and in doing so he was revealing his own views.