(October 3, 2018 at 3:19 pm)Aroura Wrote:(October 3, 2018 at 2:56 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Thank you. I do actually appreciate your research. It was more thorough than mine. I am no more immune to implicit biases than anyone else. I agree; that was dishonest on the part of NBC, and I will stand corrected on that particular claim going forward.
Did you read it? I don't understand the defense in this article.
Kavanaugh admitted, in a deposition conducted by Senate Judiciary Committee investigators, that he knew Ramirez was looking for dirt and calling around to a handful of shared acquaintances trying to substantiate her own claims, and that he discussed the flurry of activity with an "inner circle" of associates.
But Kavanaugh didn't find out precisely what Ramirez was telling reporters until reporters for The New Yorker asked him for comment.
That's the claim, but that wasn't the question, which was:
So he knew this woman had a claim she was looking for verification of, but he didn't know the details of that claim (is the claim on his behalf).
The question was if he ever discussed or heard discussion about it before the New Yorker, and it still appears to me that he did. Yeah, he didn't know the full description, but he absolutely discussed what the accusations from Ramirez might be, that's what the texts were about. He had a chance to elaborate and didn't.
It's also not the only possible substantive lie.
Daily wire is highly bias and has a poor fact check rating
Further, these are not the only facts in this case. There was quite a lot more to the line of questioning than the supposed Twitter Gotcha moment there reported by The Daily Wire.
SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?
KAVANAUGH: … In the New Yorker.
HATCH: Did the ranking member [Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)] or any of her colleagues or any of their staffs ask you about Ms. Ramirez’s allegations before they were leaked to the press?
KAVANAUGH: No.
The first answer is still possibly a lie, if the texts exist as we have heard. He knew she was making allegations before hand. Vox says:
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.”
Underline is mine. If he wanted her to refute Ramirez, but didn't know what the allegations even were, what the hell would she even be refuting?
Don't appreciate his research, it's biased BS.
All good points as well. I think this is going to get really ugly before it’s over.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.