Yet another problem for Brett Kavanaugh
Now a friend of Brett Kavanaugh's, and someone who was at Yale at the same time he was, says she's seen and is in possession of text messages that communicate Kavanaugh's and Kavanaugh's "team's" efforts to recruit people to deny the accusations of Debbie Ramirez, the woman who claims he exposed himself to her.
In addition to concerns about what in criminal cases might be called "witness tampering," these text messages might open Kavanaugh to yet another charge of perjury because they were written BEFORE the September 23 New Yorker story that broke Ramirez' allegations. Why does that matter? Because under oath, Kavanaugh testified (in a VERY shaky voice! find the tape) that he first learned about Ramirez' allegations IN the New Yorker story. According to the text messages, the Kavanaugh camp's efforts to tamp down the Ramirez story might have started as early as July. WAY before the New Yorker story.
Perjury's a problem. Read about it HERE.
Comments
-
Nothing in this article except speculation Bill.
-
@reformed said:
Nothing in this article except speculation Bill.Review the YouTube video of Kavanaugh's response to Orrin Hatch as to when he first heard about the Ramirez allegations. In particular, compare his voice tone and demeanor when he tells when he first heard about those allegations to his voice tone and demeanor when he answers Hatch's many other questions.
Hatch's questions begin at the 3:52 mark of the video
The question about Ramirez is at about the 4:40 mark of the videoThe issue I raise here is perjury. If he knew about the Ramirez allegations BEFORE the New Yorker story, as the NBC News story clearly suggests is possible, then he lied under oath to the Committee. If he lied to the committee under oath, he committed perjury. In my view, that's a problem.
On that subject, I have to point out that you haven't addressed the question I asked in a previous post: You've posted your support for the investigation and possible prosecution of the person who told a false story about Kavanaugh on a boat in Rhode Island. If it is shown that Kavanaugh committed perjury before the Judiciary Committee last week, in the name of consistency, do you want him prosecuted for that offense?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Nothing in this article except speculation Bill.Review the YouTube video of Kavanaugh's response to Orrin Hatch as to when he first heard about the Ramirez allegations. In particular, compare his voice tone and demeanor when he tells when he first heard about those allegations to his voice tone and demeanor when he answers Hatch's many other questions.
Hatch's questions begin at the 3:52 mark of the video
The question about Ramirez is at about the 4:40 mark of the videoThe issue I raise here is perjury. If he knew about the Ramirez allegations BEFORE the New Yorker story, as the NBC News story clearly suggests is possible, then he lied under oath to the Committee. If he lied to the committee under oath, he committed perjury. In my view, that's a problem.
On that subject, I have to point out that you haven't addressed the question I asked in a previous post: You've posted your support for the investigation and possible prosecution of the person who told a false story about Kavanaugh on a boat in Rhode Island. If it is shown that Kavanaugh committed perjury before the Judiciary Committee last week, in the name of consistency, do you want him prosecuted for that offense?
Except there is nothing in the article that actually says he knew before. It doesn't give a date of the messages. There were quite a few days between the New Yorker story and the messages.
So until you have something a little more concrete you are really grasping for straws here.
Of course, if Kavanaugh committed perjury there should be consequences. But so far no credible allegation of perjury has been brought.
-
@reformed said:
Except there is nothing in the article that actually says he knew before. It doesn't give a date of the messages. There were quite a few days between the New Yorker story and the messages.
To quote from the article: (emphasis added)
"Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story."
Do you contend that "Kavanaugh's team" would have worked against the Ramirez allegations without Kavanaugh's knowledge?"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."
Do you contend that the "Brett" of this sentence is someone other than Brett Kavanaugh?
So until you have something a little more concrete you are really grasping for straws here.
My "straws" are quoted above.
Of course, if Kavanaugh committed perjury there should be consequences. But so far no credible allegation of perjury has been brought.
If he testified that he learned of the Ramirez allegations when they were published in the New Yorker, but ACTUALLY learned about them before the New Yorker story - perhaps WELL before the New Yorker story - will you consider that a "credible allegation of perjury"?
What about those yearbook words terms? Do you contend he told the truth that "Devil's Triangle" is a drinking game? If there is no evidence anywhere that "Devil's Triangle" is considered a drinking game by anyone other than Brett Kavanaugh, will you consider his testimony about it the subject of a "credible allegation of perjury"?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Except there is nothing in the article that actually says he knew before. It doesn't give a date of the messages. There were quite a few days between the New Yorker story and the messages.
To quote from the article: (emphasis added)
- "Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story."
Do you contend that "Kavanaugh's team" would have worked against the Ramirez allegations without Kavanaugh's knowledge?
Possible. But does it show what they were talking about?
- "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."
Do you contend that the "Brett" of this sentence is someone other than Brett Kavanaugh?
Texts that have not yet been seen.
So until you have something a little more concrete you are really grasping for straws here.
My "straws" are quoted above.
Fair enough but there is still no evidence.
Of course, if Kavanaugh committed perjury there should be consequences. But so far no credible allegation of perjury has been brought.
If he testified that he learned of the Ramirez allegations when they were published in the New Yorker, but ACTUALLY learned about them before the New Yorker story - perhaps WELL before the New Yorker story - will you consider that a "credible allegation of perjury"?
I'd have to review his actual statements but it would seem so.
What about those yearbook words terms? Do you contend he told the truth that "Devil's Triangle" is a drinking game? If there is no evidence anywhere that "Devil's Triangle" is considered a drinking game by anyone other than Brett Kavanaugh, will you consider his testimony about it the subject of a "credible allegation of perjury"?
I think the fact that you are worried about a yearbook is pretty ridiculous.
- "Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story."
-
@reformed said:
Fair enough but there is still no evidence.The existence and alleged content of the text messages is more consistent with the contention that Kavanaugh knew about the Ramirez allegations before the New Yorker story - and therefore, that Kavanaugh lied under oath - than they are with the contention that he did not know about them in advance.
If he testified that he learned of the Ramirez allegations when they were published in the New Yorker, but ACTUALLY learned about them before the New Yorker story - perhaps WELL before the New Yorker story - will you consider that a "credible allegation of perjury"?
I'd have to review his actual statements but it would seem so.
Additional reporting I've seen about the matter leads me to back away from confidence as to predicting which of Kavanaugh's many falsehoods under oath would lead to perjury prosecutions. Just because a statement is intentionally false doesn't mean it would be prosecuted.
I think the fact that you are worried about a yearbook is pretty ridiculous.
I value truth-telling highly. I expect truth-telling from Supreme Court nominees as much or more than I expect it from other government officials. I am greatly troubled when a Supreme Court nominee lies under oath. If he or she lies under oath, why should I believe he or she won't lie from the bench?
More to the point of the yearbook entries, those words are a look into the mind and priorities of the high school student Brett Kavanaugh. He filled his yearbook page with sexually aggressive terms. When I add sexually aggressive imagery to a penchant for heavy drinking that, according to multiple witnesses, in Kavanaugh produced a mean, nasty drunk, I am inclined to find MORE credible Dr Ford's allegations that the "stumbling drunk" high school Brett Kavanaugh aggressively pushed her onto a bed, covered her mouth, and groped her.
I think the yearbook matters.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Fair enough but there is still no evidence.The existence and alleged content of the text messages is more consistent with the contention that Kavanaugh knew about the Ramirez allegations before the New Yorker story - and therefore, that Kavanaugh lied under oath - than they are with the contention that he did not know about them in advance.
If he testified that he learned of the Ramirez allegations when they were published in the New Yorker, but ACTUALLY learned about them before the New Yorker story - perhaps WELL before the New Yorker story - will you consider that a "credible allegation of perjury"?
I'd have to review his actual statements but it would seem so.
Additional reporting I've seen about the matter leads me to back away from confidence as to predicting which of Kavanaugh's many falsehoods under oath would lead to perjury prosecutions. Just because a statement is intentionally false doesn't mean it would be prosecuted.
I think the fact that you are worried about a yearbook is pretty ridiculous.
I value truth-telling highly. I expect truth-telling from Supreme Court nominees as much or more than I expect it from other government officials. I am greatly troubled when a Supreme Court nominee lies under oath. If he or she lies under oath, why should I believe he or she won't lie from the bench?
More to the point of the yearbook entries, those words are a look into the mind and priorities of the high school student Brett Kavanaugh. He filled his yearbook page with sexually aggressive terms. When I add sexually aggressive imagery to a penchant for heavy drinking that, according to multiple witnesses, in Kavanaugh produced a mean, nasty drunk, I am inclined to find MORE credible Dr Ford's allegations that the "stumbling drunk" high school Brett Kavanaugh aggressively pushed her onto a bed, covered her mouth, and groped her.
I think the yearbook matters.
You were a Clinton supporter which shows you don't actually value truth telling.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You were a Clinton supporter which shows you don't actually value truth telling.If you can't beat the message, beat the messenger.
[NOTE: Seems like only last Saturday I posted that very same reply HERE. I guess it's true what they say: What goes around, stays around.]
That's not beating the messenger Bill. That is fact. You have a double standard. You support a candidate that is caught in multiple lies, proven, but you are flat against a SCOTUS nominee that may or may not be caught in a lie.
That shows you don't actually value truth telling. That's not beating the messenger, that is beating your message.
You threw that out there and I showed it to be false.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
That's not beating the messenger Bill. That is fact. You have a double standard. You support a candidate that is caught in multiple lies, proven, but you are flat against a SCOTUS nominee that may or may not be caught in a lie.
That shows you don't actually value truth telling. That's not beating the messenger, that is beating your message.
You threw that out there and I showed it to be false.
Ad Hominem attacks, of which your previous post was an example, are attacks on people, not ideas, work products, or other "things."
Here's the sentence from your post that I contend was an ad hominem attack:
"You were a Clinton supporter which shows you don't actually value truth telling."
What's the core declaration of that sentence? What's its point? That I don't value truth-telling. The Clinton supporter clause serves only as "evidence" for your core declaration.
So what's the subject of your post's core declaration? Me. Your post basically said, "Bill does not value truth-telling." And you made that claim - and ONLY that claim - in response to a post in which I offered a substantive take on...
- The text messages which at that time we were discussing
- My acknowledgement that I was stepping back from confidence about the likelihood of perjury charges
- The predictive relevance of Kavanugh's false statements
- And the significant impact played by the sexually aggressive images found in Kavanaugh's yearbook entry.
In response to THAT MESSAGE - a post in which I didn't mention you even in passing! - your only response was "You don't value truth-telling."
That's beating the messenger, not the message.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
That's not beating the messenger Bill. That is fact. You have a double standard. You support a candidate that is caught in multiple lies, proven, but you are flat against a SCOTUS nominee that may or may not be caught in a lie.
That shows you don't actually value truth telling. That's not beating the messenger, that is beating your message.
You threw that out there and I showed it to be false.
Ad Hominem attacks, of which your previous post was an example, are attacks on people, not ideas, work products, or other "things."
Here's the sentence from your post that I contend was an ad hominem attack:
"You were a Clinton supporter which shows you don't actually value truth telling."
What's the core declaration of that sentence? What's its point? That I don't value truth-telling. The Clinton supporter clause serves only as "evidence" for your core declaration.
So what's the subject of your post's core declaration? Me. Your post basically said, "Bill does not value truth-telling." And you made that claim - and ONLY that claim - in response to a post in which I offered a substantive take on...
- The text messages which at that time we were discussing
- My acknowledgement that I was stepping back from confidence about the likelihood of perjury charges
- The predictive relevance of Kavanugh's false statements
- And the significant impact played by the sexually aggressive images found in Kavanaugh's yearbook entry.
In response to THAT MESSAGE - a post in which I didn't mention you even in passing! - your only response was "You don't value truth-telling."
That's beating the messenger, not the message.
Ah now who is beating the messenger not the message? Oh yeah, @Bill_Coley That being said, I clarified my statement to show your double standard on this. Is that not allowed in Bill Coley's kingdom?
-
@reformed said:
Ah now who is beating the messenger not the message? Oh yeah, @Bill_Coley That being said, I clarified my statement to show your double standard on this. Is that not allowed in Bill Coley's kingdom?
The subject of your post, reformed, was me. Your core claim was that I don't value truth-telling.
The subject of my post was the sentence that communicated your claim. My core claim was that your sentence was an example of beating the messenger, not the message.
Your post was an ad hominem attack. Mine was not... at least not in "Bill Coley's kingdom."
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Ah now who is beating the messenger not the message? Oh yeah, @Bill_Coley That being said, I clarified my statement to show your double standard on this. Is that not allowed in Bill Coley's kingdom?
The subject of your post, reformed, was me. Your core claim was that I don't value truth-telling.
The subject of my post was the sentence that communicated your claim. My core claim was that your sentence was an example of beating the messenger, not the message.
Your post was an ad hominem attack. Mine was not... at least not in "Bill Coley's kingdom."
Apparently, Bill Coley is allowed to call out double standards but nobody else is. I'll make a note.
-
@reformed said:
Apparently, Bill Coley is allowed to call out double standards but nobody else is. I'll make a note.While you're at it, reformed, please also make a note that prominent among the outcomes generated by your decision to spend your post alleging that I don't value truth-telling was that you avoided/evaded/disregarded/failed even to mention any of the matters that were at-issue in my post to which your truth-telling allegation responded. To wit, you avoided/evaded/disregarded/failed even to mention that...
- ... I argued that the existence and alleged content of the text messages (on which a news story reported) are in fact "evidence" that Judge Kavanaugh lied under oath to the Judiciary Committee.
- ... I acknowledged backing away from confidence as to predicting which of Kavanaugh's many false statements might generate perjury charges.
- ... for me, a Supreme Court nominee's failure to tell the truth when under oath raises troubling questions as to his or her believability should he or she make it to the high court.
- ... Kavanaugh's yearbook entries are in fact relevant to the current discussion of his worthiness to serve on the Supreme Court.
Instead of engaging - even mentioning - any of those substantive contentions, you chose to declare that I don't value truth-telling....
Disregard my request that you make a note about this stuff, reformed. I just made one for you.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Apparently, Bill Coley is allowed to call out double standards but nobody else is. I'll make a note.While you're at it, reformed, please also make a note that prominent among the outcomes generated by your decision to spend your post alleging that I don't value truth-telling was that you avoided/evaded/disregarded/failed even to mention any of the matters that were at-issue in my post to which your truth-telling allegation responded. To wit, you avoided/evaded/disregarded/failed even to mention that...
- ... I argued that the existence and alleged content of the text messages (on which a news story reported) are in fact "evidence" that Judge Kavanaugh lied under oath to the Judiciary Committee.
Yet we haven't seen the texts yet.
- ... I acknowledged backing away from confidence as to predicting which of Kavanaugh's many false statements might generate perjury charges.
True
- ... for me, a Supreme Court nominee's failure to tell the truth when under oath raises troubling questions as to his or her believability should he or she make it to the high court.
We don't know if that happened yet.
- ... Kavanaugh's yearbook entries are in fact relevant to the current discussion of his worthiness to serve on the Supreme Court.
I don't see it.
Instead of engaging - even mentioning - any of those substantive contentions, you chose to declare that I don't value truth-telling....
You don't. Unless you only value truth telling from those you oppose.
Disregard my request that you make a note about this stuff, reformed. I just made one for you.
Ok...?
-
At some point I should publicaly announce that I feel badly and apologize that @Bill_Coley feels badly beaten by me and needed to run to the moderator for help. Again. Sorry about that.
-
@GaoLu said:
At some point I should publicaly announce that I feel badly and apologize that @Bill_Coley feels beaten by me and needed to run to the moderator for help. Again. Sorry about that.FYI...
- I do not currently, have never, and don't ever expect to feel "beaten," defeated, owned, overwhelmed, or in any other way bested by you.
- The only time I contacted the CD moderator for "help" was to ask him, via PM on January 10 of this year, to change my CD user name from "bcoley" to "Bill Coley." I expect that @jan will confirm that contact as my only outreach to him, when he sees this post.
-
In spite of everything that has happened, 60% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed.
-
> @Bill_Coley said:
> @GaoLu said:
> At some point I should publicaly announce that I feel badly and apologize that @Bill_Coley feels beaten by me and needed to run to the moderator for help. Again. Sorry about that.
>
>
>
>
>
> FYI...
>
>
> * I do not currently, have never, and don't ever expect to feel "beaten," defeated, owned, overwhelmed, or in any other way bested by you.
> * The only time I contacted the CD moderator for "help" was to ask him, via PM on January 10 of this year, to change my CD user name from "bcoley" to "Bill Coley." I expect that @jan will confirm that contact as my only outreach to him, when he sees this post.
———
Oh dear, Bill. Maybe someone else thought you felt beaten by me. I apparently have no idea who or why.
On the other hand, Bill, you specifically said you thought someone was beating the messenger and the implication seemed to me that I was beating you. You said that. You may have actually felt that. Who felt the need to run to Jan and why I have no idea.
Again to whom ever it was that felt that way (Apparently not Bull—who said as much) I apologize for making him, from your (mystery person) perspective feel so badly beaten as to plead for assistance.
We have from the messenger’s own keyboard rendering that the messenger doesn’t feel beaten at all.
Hmm. Whom are we to believe here. -
Sorry about the misunderstanding. @C_M_ was the one feeling attacked personally, and contacted me about the thread.
-
C_M_??!
In the past it was typically Bill.
Well, then I apologize to C_M_ and to all again.
I know we banter here some and don’t always realize how we come across. I’m sometimes insensitive to that in myself and find it a weakness. I invite others to help me with that. Determining where the lines of fun and “boys” and Real Hurt from a sharp tongue is no small matter. Again. I am sorry. -
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley FYI on Devil's Triangle: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kavanaugh-hearings-devils-triangle-drinking-game/In the 1980's, the terms Kavanaugh used in his yearbook were sexual terms. "Boofing" was sexual. "Devil's Triangle" was sexual. "FFFFFF" was sexual. Either that, or his vocabulary had more double-entendre in it than anyone's in history!
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley FYI on Devil's Triangle: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kavanaugh-hearings-devils-triangle-drinking-game/In the 1980's, the terms Kavanaugh used in his yearbook were sexual terms. "Boofing" was sexual. "Devil's Triangle" was sexual. "FFFFFF" was sexual. Either that, or his vocabulary had more double-entendre in it than anyone's in history!
Um, people involved say otherwise. So I guess liberals who want to say otherwise to put out a false narrative just have perverted minds. You have no proof to your claim.
-
Perverted minds see perverted meanings.
-
@GaoLu said:
Perverted minds see perverted meanings.Exactly
