Kavanaugh Can Join Thomas.

[LadyForCamus]

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.

[Aroura]

That's the truest thing ever spoken.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

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.)

[RoadRunner79]

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.)

I think that when your have to rely on gossip about a teenage boy's yearbook comments from 30+ years ago, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.  What's next, complaints that he bit someone in pre-school?

[The Grand Nudger]

I love how, in the drive to excuse the roekiller...preschool biting and sexual assualt are playmates.

Fucking craven, lol.

[Amarok]

I love how, in the drive to excuse the roekiller...preschool biting and sexual assualt are playmates.

Fucking craven, lol.

That's amazing only in how awful it is .

[RoadRunner79]

I love how, in the drive to excuse the roekiller...preschool biting and sexual assualt are playmates.

Fucking craven, lol.

I'm not comparing the gossip concerning the year book, or the pre-school comment to sexual assault.  That is an entirely different matter.  Hence why I didn't mention it.

[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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Keywords: incident matching. You cannot make a match to something only vaguely hinted.

[RoadRunner79]

Questioning and investigating is not victim blaming.  It's not even saying that it is not believed or untrue.   It's also not saying that Kavenaughs claims are untrue either.   There just isn't enough information to form a rational opinion and especially not for the lynch mob mentality that is being seen.

I don't think that special pleading in these cases is justified to dispense with the principles of innocent until proven guilty and due process.  I don't see that it is unreasonable for ask for a reason to believe one persons claims over another.

It's amusing the inconstancy  seen here, vs discussion's about witness testimony (when people think we are talking about God).    There's no lists of issues with testimony or memory.   It appears that it is being demanded that it be believed against evidence and mostly based on feelings.  Quite the contrast.

The testimony about god and jesus have had time to be investigated and found wanting.

But the claims against Brett haven't been investigated and given the time limit wont be. So you will have potential rapist on the supreme court as well as the white house.

Apparently Brett and his friends lined up to rape women. So lets investigate that and do it properly.

Yeah.... seems like double standards to me...... reasons you give for one set of claims are then contradicted when concerning other claims.  Which this, and the comments lead me to suspect that you lot, base most of this on feelings and emotions rather than reasons and evidence. As to the investigation, the FBI seems to have gotten done earlier than required. If you think that the multiple investigations into this man, are lacking, then I ask how, what type of further investigation do you require, and how much time (reasonably) do you think that will take? These seem like rational questions that would justify the calls for delay that are not being answered.

And if you have warrant for a justified belief that Judge Kavenaugh raped women, then I would suggest pressing criminal charges. There is nothing which prevents investigation and due process after the confirmation. Make a solid case, and then we can talk again. (Perhaps a peer review scientific paper that prooves that Kavenaugh did what he was alleged to have done. My observations are however, that the more information that comes out seems to be weakening Fords case, not strengthening it.