It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

man we could be on the same team man, they keep dividing you from me.

they tell me its for my own good

are they dividing us man?




posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Mcconnell called it.

Goal post moving.

Did the same to Trump.

Went from Russia collusion to white collar crimes by everyone not named Trump.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Double-dipping into the bag? Really impressive my friend. Most people would try to say something original on their second try, you just keep going back to the same old tricks though. Care to say it again? I would love to see you say it again.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Rewey

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.


Now that I’ve had time to read through the articles in the links here I still don’t believe the general premise of this thread or the actual allegation, for several reasons. I actually feel like, without knowing the content of the texts, they may actually support Kavanaugh’s claims.

First, the memory of the ‘assault’ sounds ludicrous. According to Ramirez:


Ramirez also recalled another student nearby yelling, “Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face.”


In what circle of friends close enough to refer to her as ‘Debbie’ would they refer to Kavanaugh by his full name? Even if there was more than one Brett in the room, people don’t yell out things like that using the person’s full name. Feels like a very convenient memory, but that’s the claim.

Second, the ONLY person who did seem to remember it said he:


remembered the incident as a “big deal” that had “been on my mind all these years when his name came up.”


Really? A freshman flashing a penis at someone at a college party is a ‘big deal’ that stays on your mind for ‘all these years’, nearly four decades??? Why would it have been such a ‘big deal’, if Kavanaugh was just another freshman college classmate at the time, and not a public figure? This person is also a male, which makes it even more unlikely that he would see it as such a big deal that another male flashed a penis because a penis is obviously far less taboo for males than females, particularly in their teens. Teen boys just would not see it as a big deal, sorry.

Third, Becham’s claim about Ramirez’s conduct at the 1997 wedding rehearsal was:


She “clung to me,” and “never went near” Kavanaugh and his friends


Do you really expect me to believe that having a penis flashed at her WHILE ADMITTEDLY WORD-SLURRINGLY DRUNK AT A COLLEGE PARTY cause her such mental trauma that FOURTEEN YEARS LATER she was still sufficiently scarred that she clung to her friend to avoid the evil man who did it? That is completely absurd.

Fourth, the New Yorker story said she had a lapse of memory about the incident until six days of ‘conversations with her attorney’. That further supports point three above, in that being so scarred after 14 years is absurd, because now apparently she doesn’t remember it at all.

Fifth, if she didn’t remember it until 6 days of discussions with an attorney, why did she have an attorney at all in the first place? Who suggested she organise one of those? Six days’ with an attorney does not come cheap, unless someone else is footing the bill, of course.

Sixth, claims that Kavanaugh was being untruthful when he said he was “probably at a wedding with her”, despite having seen the photo are false. He also stated “I’m pretty sure we were at a wedding together”, which means he wasn’t hiding anything, but more importantly the photo was of the REHEARSAL DINNER, not the wedding. Hence, yes – having seen the photo of a wedding rehearsal, he felt pretty sure they were at a wedding together. It makes perfect sense to be only ‘pretty sure’ they were at the wedding together because they weren’t friends. It would be different if he was only ‘pretty sure’ if his friend Mark Judge was there, but not someone he barely knew.

Seventh, with regards to the claims about ‘witness tampering’, we’ve been repeatedly told that ‘this isn’t a trial’, so I’m not sure how witness tampering even applies here. Certainly no charges are being faced.

Eighth, but more importantly, Kavanaugh made it quite clear that he was aware that someone was calling around former classmates BEFORE the article, ‘digging for dirt’. That doesn’t mean he is aware of the actual allegations that would eventually be printed in the paper. The article may well have been the first time he was made aware of the ACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. It sounds like classmates were being asked “Do you remember Brett Kavanaugh acting inappropriately at a party all those years ago…?” Very different from being aware of the actual claim that would eventually be made.

Ninth, this more than justifies him contacting former classmates to see if they recalled anything specific he was alleged to have done, and in the event that they didn’t – would they testify to that effect if needed. That’s perfectly logical given the enormous pile of sh!t that had just been dumped on the man in such a short space of time, at such an incredibly important time of his life.

In summary my reading of this whole sordid tale is that Berchem is the one trying to scrounge around for dirt on Kavanaugh, on behalf of Ramirez. His friend, Yarasavage (whose wedding he attended), got wind of it and let him know. She is trying to do the right thing by him and forwarding Kavanaugh the photo from the wedding as well as being asked for dirt, and trying to be partisan. The NBC News article has a number of obvious errors in it (such as claiming the photo was at a wedding, when it wasn't). I don't think this is a watertight case of investigative journalism.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Hopefully only a few more days of this kind of malarkey.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Okay do you not see media and democrat efforts to be “efforts to influence witnesses?”
a reply to: theantediluvian



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: SPNoble
NBC= FAKE NEWS as with the rest of the left leaning MSM


I’ll just add this to your statement cause i’m Sure you forgot to.


‘NBC= FAKE NEWS as with the rest of the left leaning MSM and also the right leaning”

Now that statement is correct
Right, Fox News is bad too.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer
Don't care. As long as we get a Judge that believes in the constitution and slaps down the whole creating law done by lower judges then he's golden. Congress in it's legislative capacity makes the laws not the judiciary.


What about his rulings on rendition of American citizens, or torture? To me these are far more serious than questionable assault charges.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown

OK let me get this straight.

Ramirez was contacting friends in a attempt to rally people behind her position and it was OK .

But when Kavanaugh did the same to defend himself. It’s suddenly became a crime ?



Leftist logic.




posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Before Sept 23.

Brett's Friend: Hey Brett that Ramirez lady has been messaging us asking us if we remember this crazy thing. We all told her no.
Brett: If she does make an allegation will you go public saying she didn't?

That would be something entirely consistent with what Brett said. Asking people if they know who did a certain thing is not making an allegation against Kavanaugh.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Rewey

Took me all of 5 seconds to see this was a hit piece of crappy journalism designed to sell a narrative not report news.

Fake News.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are asking people to show proof, however in multiple threads you state nonsense and then ignore the outcome when what you have said is incorrect.

That makes me think you are either being paid to do this or are so far gone you are beyond help.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: SPNoble
NBC= FAKE NEWS as with the rest of the left leaning MSM


I’ll just add this to your statement cause i’m Sure you forgot to.


‘NBC= FAKE NEWS as with the rest of the left leaning MSM and also the right leaning”

Now that statement is correct


What right leaning MSM? FOX is forced to have liberal shows and hosts so it doesnt qualify. There is no right leaning MSM. There is left leaning, and there is balanced (FOX), there is no right leaning MSM.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

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.


Anyone can pick up a phone and send a text. A voice call would be better evidence, IMO.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: SPNoble
NBC= FAKE NEWS as with the rest of the left leaning MSM


I’ll just add this to your statement cause i’m Sure you forgot to.


‘NBC= FAKE NEWS as with the rest of the left leaning MSM and also the right leaning”

Now that statement is correct


What right leaning MSM? FOX is forced to have liberal shows and hosts so it doesnt qualify. There is no right leaning MSM. There is left leaning, and there is balanced (FOX), there is no right leaning MSM.
Fox News is still more right than left. I will grant you that the other major media outlentd are at least ostensibly liberal leaning.

However let’s break that down a bit. It depends on what policy area.

If you mean identity politics or social programs, then yes re cnn, msnbc, etc. If we are talking about war and foreign policy, absolutely not. A true leftist would consider them all to be shills for neo imperialism, colonialism, militarism, things like cia torture, nsa mass surveillance, etc. Many scholars such as Chomsky and Greenwald agree on that point.

An argument can be made that they all cover for corrupt politicians and pro Wall Street, pro oligarchy policies, again not liberal nor left.
edit on 2-10-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470

FOX ... 50/50 reporting negative/positive for Obama and Trump. It's too conservative!!!!
CNN ... 40/60 on Obama and 90/10 on Trump. Completely fair.

www.chicagotribune.com...




posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Can we just wait until the FBI is finished and then let the SJC come to a conclusion? Either he gets confirmed or he doesn't. And trust me, the world isn't going to end either way.

A2D



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: 3n19m470

FOX ... 50/50 reporting negative/positive for Obama and Trump. It's too conservative!!!!
CNN ... 40/60 on Obama and 90/10 on Trump. Completely fair.

www.chicagotribune.com...

They (fox) shilled like little b’s for Bush and a lot of other conservatives though..



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
It's this simple: If Kavanaugh/his team were talking to these mutual acquaintances about refuting Ramirez's claims before September 23rd, then Kavanaugh definitely lied to Congress and did so under oath.


No. Not definitely.

From your source:



In now-public transcripts from an interview with Republican Judiciary Committee staff on September 25, two days after the Ramirez allegations were reported in the New Yorker, Kavanaugh claimed that it was Ramirez who was “calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it,” adding that it “strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people? Is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound — good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out.”


So they knew she was fishing for something, but not definitively the specific allegations printed in the New Yorker. You build in a tremendous number of assumptions to get to your conclusion.


originally posted by: theantediluvian
Furthermore, it's not only highly inappropriate for a nominee to contact potential witnesses with the goal of influencing their testimony, but some argue it could constitute witness tampering.


I thought this was a job interview and not a trial?

Moreover, it is absurd to now claim you know the objective was to 'influence' testimony. It is NEVER illegal to encourage someone to testify on your behalf.

Unless you can show that he was encouraging witnesses to lie, all you have is just another baseless 'conclusion' with unsupported 'facts'.

ETA: And NBC? Really? Pretty much done with anything they print.
edit on 2-10-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)







 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join