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: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

They only shilled if you think saying anything positive is shilling. If you look there was equal positive / negative reporting. Fair and balanced is what I would call that.




posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown



I read the article didn’t you ?


I did. I read where Kavanaugh accused Ramirez of calling around and texting friends, while he was actually calling around and texting friends. Do you have proof that Ramirez was actually calling around and texting people. Do you have access to those texts? Does NBC have access to those texts, the article doesn't say that they do.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Actually read Kavanaugh was in communication with friends. Nothing in there is indicative of Kavanaugh being the one to reach out and in fact it is stated nothing here contradicts what Kavanaugh said.

Berchem ... said: “I understand that President Trump and the U.S. Senate have ordered an FBI investigation into certain allegations of sexual misconduct by the nominee Brett Kavanaugh. I have no direct or indirect knowledge about any of the allegations against him. However, I am in receipt of text messages from a mutual friend of both Debbie and mine that raise questions related to the allegations. I have not drawn any conclusions as to what the texts may mean or may not mean


So the person pushing this has no knowledge of anything happening and after having the text messages in her possession she is unable to conclude Kavanaugh lied.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

They only shilled if you think saying anything positive is shilling. If you look there was equal positive / negative reporting. Fair and balanced is what I would call that.
No, they shilled and were apologists for the worse elements of the Bush era, from cia torture which is a war crime to the illegal and dishonest war in iraq, not to mention the Patriot Act. It was far from fair and balanced, and far from “journalism.” Yes other outlets did the same for Obama, but you need to be able to admit your own side with Fox.
edit on 2-10-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Grambler

It's a last minute stall tactic, don't be silly.

Well now we have THIS for the FBI to investigate.



There's probably plenty in store that they "held" onto the second Kav was picked. I'm sure they have something lined up for every nominee already.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Are you in possession of Kavanaugh’s texts? Or is the only ”proof” you have are allegations that the text were made?

Sounds to me like both of our claims are in the same boat .



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: carewemust



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.


And now we get to the point!

Hahahaha!

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

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



Best part about all of this is while liberals have had Kavanaugh tunnel vision since July, Trump has killed NAFTA and started USMCA. Without Kav living in their heads, there would have been huge country destroying effects with USMCA. Democrats might be manipulative, but when they get their sights set on someone, you can piss straight down their boots and they won't notice a thing.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Here's what I think happened, and this is purely my own speculation.

When the FBI investigated Kavanaugh, it's possible sexual assault allegation came up, and the White House warned Kavanaugh of rumors that need to be cleared up or headed off. So, Kavanaugh has his team got their phones and started to do some damage control.

This activated Kavanaugh's friends own social network, and perhaps Ramirez was contacted about old rumors, and conversations happened outside of Kavanaugh's efforts at damage control. I remember seeing some of these texts/emails from a little while back. One read: "Remember the Floppy Bandit? Turn on CNN". Those blogs and posts were quickly erased from the internet. But now, they're in the news!

The crux of the matter really isn't whether or not Kavanaugh assaulted Ramirez. The crux of the matter relies on whether or not Kavanaugh lied under oath about when he first learned of Ramirez' claim of sexual assault. If he did, that's disqualifying.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: theantediluvian

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

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.


If that was used to show democrats hanging out, the media would tell us that they weren't standing beside each other so there's nothing to connect.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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?


Obtain*ed*, meaning they have them, yet here they are sitting them. No surprise. Toss em out and get on with the nomination. Day late, dollar short.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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?


Obtain*ed*, meaning they have them, yet here they are sitting them. No surprise. Toss em out and get on with the nomination. Day late, dollar short.


Yep.

The reason they are waiting....is because if the FBI report comes back and says there is no corroboration of stories and the claims are false then they would look like the fake news they are if they released it.

They are kinda stuck really. I have a feeling the FBI report is being held from public for a bit just to see what else pops up in relation to these accusers so when they do release it they can really lay into the MSM.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   


Trump again backs Kavanaugh but says lying to Senate would be unacceptable

Donald Trump once again defended his embattled supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Tuesday. But the president also warned that his support could be withdrawn if an FBI investigation determined the judge had lied to the Senate.

“A lot is going to depend on what comes back from the FBI,” Trump said, adding that his nominee was doing “very well”.
He also said: “I don’t think you should lie to Congress. For me that would not be acceptable.”

...snip ...

Speaking on the Senate floor on Tuesday, minority leader Chuck Schumer said Kavanaugh’s testimony was riddled with misstatements and inaccuracies and accused him of having “grossly mischaracterized his relationship with alcohol”.

“Even if you feel that what happened when he was 15 and 18 shouldn’t matter, what happens when he’s 53 does matter and his credibility is in real doubt,” Schumer said. “Doubt enough, I think, for most Americans to say, ‘This man does not belong on the supreme court.’”


Looks like Trump is getting ready to bail out on "The Kav"



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   

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."


They've seen the texts and they are part of the investigation.
As yet we do not know if it was Ramirez who initiated the text messages or one of Kavanaugh's friends.

Let's wait and see.

No doubt, IF Kavanaugh was trying to manage the story in July, this would be a red flag.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
If this is not a criminal investigation, and BK does not have counsel to represent him and investigate to bring a counter against the accused to find reasonable doubt, who else is going to ask his current and previous friends if the remember anything that this worman is leveling against him and accusing him of?

How else is he to defend himself and bring facts and proofs to such a charade as what we have been witnessing?

Is Ms. Victim being investigated for said potential perjury charges? What about 'tampering with witnesses'? Did she not reach out to folks to see if they remembered?

There is way too much about this entire disgusting show of #slinging that I wouldn't believe a single freaking thing they showed me, or said to me, that showed BK in the negative. That is not say I think he's perfect,

I just think the collective crazies are backhanded a-holes that I honestly cannot and will not trust ... EVER. WITH ANYTHING



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Vector99
Good question. I will offer a guess though. If this is as substantial as it suggests it is, it will be picked up and turned into headline news throughout the msm by tomorrow afternoon, don't you think?

Probably, even if it not "as substantial as it suggest", it will be picked up and turned into headline news throughout the MSM.
This only goes to serve one purpose, like all the other claims brought against Kavanaugh, The right to kill babies at any stage of development.
That is all.
Mrs. Ford? Left wing activist.
Other accusers?
Lefties as well.
The Dems are using this as a ploy, nothing more.
They want to keep him off the SC at any cost. "The ends justify the Means".

edit on 2-10-2018 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Jusvistn

I think the issue is not that he may have reached out to friends, but that he said he only heard of the allegations when The New Yorker published it.

That said - under oath he said he only heard of the allegations from the New Yorker - the texts may not mention the allegations and might only be in relation to Ramirez contacting one of his friends and asking questions.

As for the wedding itself - Kavanaugh said he was 'sure' he met her there, so that's fine.

It comes down to the details of the text messages.. if it was 'Hey, Brett, this Ramirez woman has asked me if I remember a party', then again there is no perjury. Given that the photo was part of what was sent, it may well be that the conversations were about the wedding not sexual assault allegations. I find it unlikely that Kavanaugh would be discussing sexual assault allegations via text messages - if he was, then he is actually too stupid to be on the SC, never mind that it would mean he committed perjury.



edit on 2/10/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

That was cleared up.

Kavanaugh's texts were supposedly non-specific, saying only that there was something going on. He did not know the specific allegations at the time.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: UKTruth

That was cleared up.

Kavanaugh's texts were supposedly non-specific, saying only that there was something going on. He did not know the specific allegations at the time.



If that is true then he did nothing wrong and did not commit perjury, which aligns with what Grassley's spokesperson said.



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

If this Story was Reported here on ATS By ANY OTHER Poster , I Could Possibly Take it Seriously , but You Sir , Are a Devious Weaver of Words for Sure..........

edit on 2-10-2018 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Well, the OP's first claim of perjury is a nonsense. Kavanaugh's response to the wedding question was that he was sure he met Ramirez there. Quite how that translates to perjury, only the OP knows.

The second claim of perjury is speculation - which assumes the texts referenced the sexual assault allegation. It appears they do not.

The OP is rather dramatic, without any real substance we can see...



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join