New Texts Show Kavanaugh May Have Perjured Himself, Tampered With Witnesses

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

NBC claims to have them.

WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

One can "claim" anything

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: theantediluvian

So where are the transcripts of the texts?

NBC broke the story. I've looked for another source for the either the memo or texts and I haven't come up with anything yet.

I'd really like to see them too. I've never really appreciated being given quoted snippets and paraphrasing when texts or emails could simply be published. This is being done a lot recently and it's generally suspect.

That said, if this claims in this paragraph are true, I wouldn't get too hopeful that when the texts are published it's going to be any better:

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett's guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

What's important here is if Yarasavage confirms that prior to the publication of the New Yorker story, Brett Kavanaugh talked to her about refuting claims made by Ramirez.

That either happened or it didn't. If it happened, then Kavanaugh lied to Congress and perjured himself.

If she says it did and we've got contemporaneous texts messages from before the article was published of her telling Berchem that it's what happens, it's going to be a hard sell for Kavanaugh to say it didn't happen which would be his only defense. I would imagine this could further be substantiated with call records or worse for Kavanaugh, if it wasn't in a phone call, text messages.

originally posted by: Vector99
Gee Golly folks, I think we have us an attempt at a liberal hit piece.

originally posted by: notsure1
So text from 2 people neither of which is Kavanaugh is proof that kavanaugh lied to Congress?

If they have the texts between themselves why not Kavanaugh's lies?

That's why I said "may," "appear to," etc. And quoting myself from two posts ago:

What's important here is if Yarasavage confirms that prior to the publication of the New Yorker story, Brett Kavanaugh talked to her about refuting claims made by Ramirez.

That either happened or it didn't. If it happened, then Kavanaugh lied to Congress and perjured himself.

If she says it did and we've got contemporaneous texts messages from before the article was published of her telling Berchem that it's what happens, it's going to be a hard sell for Kavanaugh to say it didn't happen which would be his only defense. I would imagine this could further be substantiated with call records or worse for Kavanaugh, if it wasn't in a phone call, text messages.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: carewemust

George Hartmann, a spokesman for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said that “the texts from Ms. Berchem do not appear relevant or contradictory to Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony."

"This appears to be another last-ditch effort to derail the nomination with baseless innuendo by Democrats who have already decided to vote no," Hartmann said.

If I'm a Republican, I'm concerned that if Democrats take back control of Congress, they'll impeach Kavanaugh (something that hasn't happened since 1805) and possibly remove him. I'd also be concerned that if he's confirmed, it could be turned into a energizing issue for the Democrats in the midterms.

If I were Trump, I'd cut Kavanaugh now and try to claim the moral high ground. Then I'd hurry up to the next nomination with a goal of getting him/her confirmed before the end of the year.

So if you were Trump you would abandon your SCJ nominee on baseless accusations made by questionable people represented by the same lawyers as the Democratic elite? Makes sense considering your political leanings. A decision like that would be covered 24/7 by every outlet as a win for the Democratics galvanizing the far left SWJs leading into the mid-term elections. Of course that is what you and every other leftist is hoping for.

How can you ignore the fact that not a single accusation has any verifiable evidence or that any accuser has filed criminal charges regarding their claims? If people were able to sit their politics aside, I think we would all prefer to be presumed innocent and let the burden of proof fall on our accusers. The character assassination of Kavanaugh by Democrats in this court of public opinion is nothing less than an attack on an American citizen by it's government. All Americans should all be outraged by what Kavanaugh and his family have endured. All men should fearful of the
precedent being set here where this could lead.

So in other words...the attempt to ride the wave of a mass moral panic and bring false charges against Kavanaugh didn't work as expected - so now it is time for plan B. After you riled up the guy, go through with a fine tooth comb to see how he might have tripped up in an attempt to defend himself.

Look, as I've stated before, I couldn't care less whether or not Kavanaugh is confirmed. To me, he represents everything I keep hoping the Grand Ossified Party moves away from - that old overzealous social conservative. I care much more deeply about the integrity of the process and the introduction of toxic precedents into that process or even our society at large. And the new identitarian, authoritarian, illiberal left represents all the worst aspects of the old guard on the right except turned to 11. This is what I'm concerned about in this whole clown show.

originally posted by: theantediluvian.

That either happened or it didn't. If it happened, then Kavanaugh lied to Congress and perjured himself.

Even if it did, I'd rather throw my support behind a person acting to defend himself against politicised slurs than a 50 year old valley girl telling 6 different versions of attempted rape allegations, or a secretary of state simply saying 'I don't recall' nearly 40 times. Just saying...

a reply to: Grambler

The article does not say they saw the texts, only that the woman claimed that she had been in contact with Brett

Actually, it specifically says that they obtained texts:

WASHINGTON — In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Blumenthal and Grassleys office have at least seen the info discussed in the article

Blumenthal doesn’t seem to confident this is a smoking gun and grassleys office said nothing in this in contradictory to Kavanaughs testimony

It sounds to me like another effort to delay the vote by presenting more witnesses, but I guess we will see

I don't know that I'd say Blumenthal doesn't seem too confident but yes, Grassley's spokesman dismissed the contents of the memo as not being contradictory of Kavanaugh's testimony and we'll have to wait and see what developments.

The authors of the article are Heidi Przybyla (Twitter) and Leigh Ann Caldwell (Twitter).

Przybyla tweeted an interview she did with Katy Tur. As I was saying in another post, if this paragraph is accurate, it's a problem for Kavanaugh:

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett's guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

If the relevant texts are from before the New Yorker story, if Yarasavage did indeed say that Kavanaugh was in contact with her about Ramirez in those texts and if Yarasavage wasn't lying to Berchem, then it seems pretty clear that Kavanaugh was lying in his response to Hatch.

If the texts aren't from before the story or don't contain a statement about her being in contact with Kavanaugh about Ramirez, then they've Sara Cartered us.

Anyway, we'll have to see what comes of this. What are you thoughts on if it turns out that Kavanaugh was in contact with Yarrasavage about Ramirez before the New Yorker article? Would that be disqualifying in your eyes?

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yessir!!!

We got him!!! Oh boy did we ever get him!!!

TOTALLY. This piece proves beyond any doubt that not only did Kavanaugh lie and perjure his face off to the Committee, but it also of course totally and completely proves to ANY sane logical person, that Kavanaugh DEFINITELY sexually assaulted Ms. Blasey-Ford in that bedroom over 30 years ago. It also proves he's a raging alcoholic who lies and perjures himself about his high school and college drinking habits. He ought to be disqualified based on that alone, because not ONE other single Representative, Senator, Supreme Court judge or any other public servant in DC has ever undersold the drinking habits of their youth. He is the first one and thank Heaven these journalists caught him out before it was too late! NONE of the folks currently in DC have ever drank too much, or downplayed their drinking (because of course, they never drank too much),so we need to uphold that same high standard to Kavanaugh. So he should be disqualified, maybe even charged with perjury.

ABSOLUTELY got him now! I'm happy for AnteDilluviian and the other fine members who have been hoping that their own upstanding moral character and superior human-ness would finally shine through once Trump and his ilk and The Russians go down.

a reply to: Rewey

Why would you think that you have to choose between supporting those two things? Regardless of whether or not Ford's allegation is true, which is for all intents and purposes, impossible for us to know, if he perjured himself, he perjured himself.

And that's on top of some arguably intentionally misleading statements which are self-evident and possibly what amounts to perjury in regards to his responses about his drinking habits, considering statements from a number of individuals which contradict his responses.

I'd also remind you that there are what appear to be substantive claims that he lied in the confirmation for his circuit appointment.

He could very well have a credibility problem and be completely innocent of what Ford alleged. Not supporting Kavanaugh on those grounds is not supporting Ford. What you describe is a false dilemma.

a reply to: Grambler

And now we get to the point!

Hahahaha!

Yep cut him now based only on allegations with no evidence!

I guess maybe my composition was a little unclear because that's not what I said or intended to say anyway. I started with:

If he perjured himself and lied to Congress

and then all this applies if that's the case:

I would say it raises serious questions about him even continuing to serve as a Circuit Judge.

If I'm a Republican, I'm concerned that if Democrats take back control of Congress, they'll impeach Kavanaugh (something that hasn't happened since 1805) and possibly remove him. I'd also be concerned that if he's confirmed, it could be turned into a energizing issue for the Democrats in the midterms.

If I were Trump, I'd cut Kavanaugh now and try to claim the moral high ground. Then I'd hurry up to the next nomination with a goal of getting him/her confirmed before the end of the year.

So no, I'm not saying that based on an allegation, Trump should drop Kavanaugh.

How kind of you to try to be helpful to trump!

I'm a nice guy like that.

How much BS does the left think we can swallow?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So Ramirez was calling around about him and a friend told him so... The issue is?

You missed a few things apparently. What the article says is that in texts from before the publication of the New Yorker article, Yarasavage tells Berchem that Kavanaugh had asked her to refute Ramirez's claims. If that happened, then Kavanaugh lied to Congress and perjured himself.

As for the photo, and? There are people I've worked with for 10 years whose names I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it. I recognize them as coworkers when I see them, but if I was asked "Do you know person XYZ?" I could honestly say "The name is familiar, but I have no recollection of when I last saw them because I'm not connecting a face to the name" and not be in any way lying.

You skimmed the source material?

n Sept, 22nd, Yarasavage texted Berchem that she had shared the photo with “Brett’s team.”

But when Kavanaugh was asked about the wedding during a committee interview on Sept. 25th, he said he was “probably” at a wedding with Ramirez. Asked if he interacted with her at the wedding, Kavanaugh replied, “I am sure I saw her because it wasn’t a huge wedding,” but added that he “doesn’t have a specific recollection.” Lying to Congress is a felony whether testimony is taken under oath or not.

There's some wiggle room here because he can claim, truthfully or not, to have not been made aware of the photo or to not have recognized the people in it. That is, unless Yarasavage identified everyone in the photo, in which case he could only claim to not have been aware of it. Even without Yarasavage identifying everyone, if he saw that photo and this is in the contact of him being in contact with Yarasavage, do you not think he'd realize that was Ramirez in the photo or think to find out? So yea, really just denying that he was aware of it works.

If he saw the photo at all, it's hard to believe he was being anything but misleading in his responses.

a reply to: Vector99

It's crazy to see this reaction opposed to the one it would be if this were anyone going against Kavanaugh. If the roles were reversed you would be behind it 100% regardless of whether there was proof or not.

It's amazing that hardly anyone notices just how convenient these stories have been for distracting people from real issues. It's all contrived and a script is being followed.

I wouldn't be surprised if this whole act wasn't decades in the making. The narrative is so predictable at this point, no one important will go to jail and people will forget all about it in a few months when they're being outraged by a new controversy handed to them on a silver platter.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You missed a few things apparently. What the article says is that in texts from before the publication of the New Yorker article, Yarasavage tells Berchem that Kavanaugh had asked her to refute Ramirez's claims. If that happened, then Kavanaugh lied to Congress and perjured himself.

Kavanaugh and the Whitehouse both had a statement in the New Yorker article regarding the allegations, clearly knowing the allegations before the article’s publication.

In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote, “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name—and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building—against these last-minute allegations.”

a reply to: theantediluvian

What's important here is if

Liberals,democrats,progressives

Sad, you are the party of IF

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If you reacted plain and simple TPTB got to you and divided you man.

Accept it, your a tool of the TPTB.

Next you will be saying he perjured himself because some asked how is day was and he replied good, when really there was no way he had a good day with his firecracker temper and frustration without being able to openly rape someone.

I find it very disturbing that the Democratic party in general keeps talking about what is good for the party and how you need to be a member of the party and how they are at war with all others and how violence and intimidation is justified for the good of the party. When a group stops asking if it is good for the country or acting for the good of the country then you should really be concerned.

If they use this weak of arguments to vilify people, what happens when that party turns against you, and you don't even have a chance to get your word out to the American people.

That is really the issue here, and if you do not completely appreciate the danger of such philosophies then you should probably review your history books on how repressive dictatorships have risen over time.

Iron fist and a velvet glove.

Trust them. Ya right.

Need a virus to eradicate all the dems.

Relegate them to a museum where they belong.

The world won't miss them.

a reply to: Vector99

Good one. Nothing to come back with so you grab the low-hanging fruit. I'm impressed, usually it takes a few more posts for someone to pull that one out of their "most used" bag. Kudos for pulling it out straight away.