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: 6
27
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I am on a Diet Now , No Nothingburgers , Just Juice and FACTS ..............)




posted on Oct, 2 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   
OK, worth pointing out what BK actually said under oath:


“They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that — that she was doing that,” Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 25.


Red flag for NBC - they omitted that part from their story.

Fake News. It's also on the back of two other hit pieces, one of which they cite his ex-girlfriend having been pushed up against a wall. The girlfriend went on record to call that BS.

Sounds like NBC is working directly for the Democrat party.

I had given the OP the benefit of the doubt and now realise it's just spin and cherry picking to create a something out of nothing.

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



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:18 AM
link   
So I'm going to eat a little crow here.

Regarding Kavanaugh's response to Hatch, it is not as cut and dry as it looked at first blush. Two points:

1. Prior to publication of the Ramirez article, the New Yorker reached out to Kavanaugh for comment, a fact which is reflected in the piece.

2. And as UKTruth pointed out above, in the September 25th interview with the committee, Kavanaugh responded that he'd heard that Ramirez had been communicating with other classmates.

With that in mind, it's entirely plausible that his response to Hatch referred to being unaware of what Ramirez was actually alleging prior to reading about it in the New Yorker, not that he was unaware that an allegation of some sort was being made by Ramirez.

That said, there's still a possibility that Kavanaugh did in fact learn the nature of the allegation prior to its publication. Let's take another look at this quote:


“They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that — that she was doing that,” Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 25.


So he says that he heard that was "calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it." Now he may have misspoke here when he said "if they remembered it" but I'm trying to imagine how he would have been made aware that she was calling classmates to see if they remembered "it" — presumably because somebody who was asked it they remembered "it" communicated to Kavanaughhis team about having been asked — without being told what "it" was that this person was asked if they remembered.

Also, turning back to the same paragraph I've excerpted in previous posts:


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 this is accurate, and Yarasavage is the one who can attest to this, then what exactly was Kavanaugh asking her to go on the record to refute?

I also looked to see if the memo had been published today and I came up empty. Anyway, I stand corrected in regards to my initial assessment.



I'm still very interested to see the contents of the memo, the texts in particular, and to hear what Yarasavage has to say.
edit on 2018-10-3 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

That's a fake crow. Or can you provide the EXIF data for the image?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Aww talk about boner poison.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

When are you guys going to figure out this guy is a lawyer and the one thing he absolutely didn't do was perjure himself? First it was yale, then it was drinking, now it's this BS. None of that is perjury. None of that was lying under oath.

Now, what was lying under oath was Dr. Ford's assertion she didn't know how a polygraph worked and never coached anyone on it or received any coaching. That was a lie, with intent to deceive. It would be absolutely insane if she didn't know how it worked or strategies for overcoming a polygraph. It's a big part of the knowledge base used in her job. Notice she knew how the body reacted (what chemicals it released) when under stress and their effects? Yet we were to believe she hadn't a clue how to take a polygraph?

Well too late, since now it's out she has specifically coached people on how to take a polygraph (I'm not saying she tried to help anyone cheat, just that she understood the process and how it worked, which she denied under oath).
edit on 3-10-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Fair play.

I think that does indeed leave the last question as to whether Kavanaugh was aware of the specifics of the allegation prior to the New Yorker article.

On that, did Kavanaugh actually say that he first heard of the allegation the day the New Yorker published the story?
In the OP, he says 'in the New Yorker story". Given that he had been contacted by the New Yorker prior, it's feasible he is referring to the New Yorker story in general. Or did he say specifically the date?



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Statements from Ford's long time boyfriend claim Ford absolutely perjured herself though. I somehow don't think the Democrats in here will care.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Your added input is very much appreciated.
Thank you.



posted on Oct, 3 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I'm so proud of you, Ante.


You're a class act. Thank you for breaking this down for everyone and highlighting the weasel words and half-truths. This piss poor excuse for reporting does NO ONE any favors: not Ford, not any victim of sexual assault, and certainly not "we the people" trying to make sense of it all.

Your clarification is very much appreciated. As is your integrity and intellectual honesty. My respect to you!!!



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join