General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums***Let's put a laser focus on the open-and-shut PERJURY case involving Kavanaugh & Ramirez.***
Last edited Tue Oct 2, 2018, 05:47 PM - Edit history (3)
Perjury committed by a judge is beyond excuse. The whole justice system depends on telling the truth.
So lets put a laser focus on these 3 provable lies all perjuries. No need to prove his drinking. No need to prove an assault. No she said, he said. This would be proven by documents. Lets all get on the phone and write emails with these undeniable facts.
Exhibit 1: The texts put together by Kerry Berchem, which show classmates discussing with Kavanaugh weeks ago how to defend him against allegations that werent publicly known till the Sept. 23 New Yorker article. The FBI has these texts now.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566
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 Bretts team too.
Exhibit 2: Kavanaughs three different statements under oath testifying that he didnt learn of the Ramirez allegations till the New Yorker article of September 23. These are public record.
I think the Ramirez story is what he was worried about all along. Thats why he had the 65-women character reference letter ready to put out as soon as Christine Ford came forward. He had forgotten about Christine, but was ready with the all-purpose letter. Unfortunately, though Christines story touched all our hearts, and she has the polygraph, and she told people years ago, there are still many who will use some excuse not to believe her.
But there is a very simple, undeniable perjury case to be made with regard to Ramirez. They botched it up. He should have come out long ago with a I was just a stupid kid story and that would have probably been the end of it. Instead, he perjured himself about it, not once but three times.
This wasnt an accident, a misunderstanding, or a slip of the tongue. He purposely lied 3 times in response to 3 different questions knowing all the while that he had been talking to his Yale classmates about Ramirez starting weeks earlier.
The New Yorker story came out on Sept. 23.
The first two lies were in a telephone interview he had with Judiciary committee members and staff on Sept. 25; and then he lied again in the hearing on Sept. 27.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.2b0c131572cb
Sept. 27 Hearing transcript
HATCH: When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirezs allegations against you?
KAVANAUGH: In the last in the period since then, the New Yorker story.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09.25.18%20BMK%20Interview%20Transcript%20(Redacted)..pdf
Sept. 25 transcript of telephone interview
p. 10 Question: The article reports that an anonymous classmate is 100 percent sure that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez and that he independently recalled many of the same details offered by Ramirez, including the party's location. The article also suggests that some of your classmates have discussed this alleged event.
At any point, have you ever heard a rumor that you exposed yourself to Ms. Ramirez?
Judge Kavanaugh. No, and I would have, because it would have been the talk of campus.
p. 18 Question: All right. My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?
Judge Kavanaugh. No.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)All we have at this point is someone characterizing texts about texts (with lots of weasel words like "may"... "and/or"... etc.) We don't know that there's anything specific in any of those texts that would document that he had heard specific allegations against him or that he (or his handlers) were doing anything more than rounding up character witnesses against accusations in general.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)BK testified 3 times that he first heard about the allegations in the New Yorker story. But texts from Yarasavage say that before that New Yorker article came out, she had already been in contact with Brett, who wanted her to help him refute Ramirez.
And NBC news has seen these texts. The NBC reporters are describing them below.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566
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 Bretts team too.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)could literally see BK taken aback ("Holy shit - this senator is helping me through a lie !"
There is something extremely fishy about Hatch's motives.
FBaggins
(26,757 posts)First of all... too many people here listen to a statement from someone they oppose and leap from "I don't believe that's true" to "he just committed perjury!!!"
There's a massive gap between the two and proving perjury is much harder than most people realize.
BK testified 3 times that he first heard about the allegations in the New Yorker story.
True. And those statements would not be perjury unless he had heard her specific allegations. He could easily have been aware that she was alleging sexual misconduct while drunk and be able to truthfully say that he didn't know what she was claiming until he read the article (assuming, of course, that he didn't already know what she was claiming because he remembered doing it). Demonstrating perjury would require the texts to actually lay out her specific allegations (which hasn't been claimed).
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Look at his answer and he disassembles as he figures out if he should lie or not.
Friend said that Kavanaugh was sending texts before the New Yorker article
tableturner
(1,683 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)Cha
(297,532 posts)ooky
(8,926 posts)If the texts show he knew earlier about Rameriz' allegations then he is caught dead to rights in a big lie that he can't explain away. That would be enough to garner the "no" votes we need.