Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[Joods]

Finally, we don't have access to the texts, just descriptions of them.  Until they are released, we can only rely on what we do know.  One thing we know is that the person Kavanagh was texting said he wanted her to "go on record in his defense". 

If he didn't know anything about the nature of the accusations yet, then what exactly was he asking her to go on record defending him from?  She is the one going to the FBI with this stuff.  We may never get to see the texts, just her description of them.

This defense that he (Kavanagh) didn't know the full nature of the accusations, only that Ramirez was looking for general dirt, is not backed up by what we know.  It's them trying to twist words and misuse semantics, and guess what Kavanagh must have meant in his answer (putting words in his mouth) when he himself has not made this distinction.

Clearly he was worried about something. Guilty people have a tendency to freak out when they are about to get in deep shit. For Kavanaugh, texting the other person is comparable to hitting the panic button in the hopes that someone can stop the shit storm from brewing.

---

Did you read it?  I don't understand the defense in this article.

The defense is this. Before the New Yorker article, he knew nothing other than she was going to bring up some kind of allegations and preemptively reached out to some friends who might have been involved. Only after the New Yorker article did he know the specific allegation being claimed. So there was no conflict in his statements and as such he did not perjure himself, reports to the contrary.

(BTW - it is really rich to dismiss reporting based solely on its source...and then quoting Vox! In this day and age we must consider all sources biased.)

This is where you are wrong. He did lie. He was asked directly: 

"Have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker? " 
bold mine for emphasis.

His answer was NO. And we can safely take that to mean that he knew what he was saying when he answered the question.  He later recanted that and admitted that he had some knowledge, but he didn't have specifics. Clearly, he's worried about something. 

Here's the thing: When you tell the truth, you don't have to remember as much. When you lie, you have to back track and then think about what you've said in order to keep up the pretenses of the lie. If he had told the truth from the get go, he wouldn't have had to recant his statement.