(Kinda OT) Chris Dudley getting caught up in this whole Kavanaugh mess

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Ok, you asked for it: Read all of this. Feel free to rebut it point by point, if you can.

barfo

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-allegations-farce/

 

[barfo]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-allegations-farce/

Doesn't exactly do the job required. Nor does it discuss the more serious perjury allegations against him, which don't have to do with the yearbook or drinking.

barfo

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I have a Chris Dudley for Governor Bumper Sticker still hah

 

[Sedatedfork]

I knew Chris Dudley was a legit Jail Blazer. Now we finally have proof.

 

[Boob-No-More]

If the FBI investigation concludes the following is true and accurate:

"Deborah Ramirez

Alleged Incident Takes Place: 1983-1984

Ramirez alleges that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a “drunken dorm” party their freshman year at Yale University.

Allegations Become Public: September 23, 2018

Allegations become public in a story written by The New Yorker. Ramirez details how Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself to her and forced her to touch him without her consent. Other classmates testify to Kavanaugh’s lewd, drunken behavior during his undergraduate years. Kavanaugh denies the allegations in a statement released by the White House.

Report Indicates Kavanaugh Knew About Accusation Before It Became Public: October 1, 2018

A report by NBC News shows that Kavanaugh may have known about Ramirez’s accusations before they became public. Text messages obtained by the news outlet show that Kavanaugh had been trying to talk to former Yale classmates days before The New Yorker story was published.

In one message, Karen Yarasavage, a former Yale classmate, said that the judge asked her to go on the record in his defense. Other messages show that Kavanaugh’s legal team had been communicating with other classmates in advance of the allegations coming to light.

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he had heard about Ramirez’s allegations was in the article published on September 23. The NBC report comes as the FBI is conducting its investigation into the allegations of assault brought forward by Ford."

If in fact, he knew about the Ramirez accusation prior to the publication of the article, does lying about it under oath constituent perjury (it should - by definition), and if it does, is that enough to disqualify him from this nomination? This one seems like it would be pretty easy to prove, disprove. But, I have a feeling that it won't matter unless the FBI finds a "smoking gun" regarding the Ford accusation. I think most Republican senators have already decided to vote for him and it will take more than a "little white lie" under oath to get them to change their minds.

Unless, Trump steps in:

"The president also for the first time suggested that he would pull the nomination should the inquiry show the nominee lied to the Senate Judicary Committee .

“I don’t think he should lie to Congress. There’s been a lot of people over the last year that have lied to Congress," Trump said."

BNM

So, none of the prolific Kavanaugh backers want to take a stab at this one? Evidence of perjury doesn't hinge on the he said/she said aspect of Ramirez' accusations. In fact, it doesn't depend on Ramirez at all. All the FBI needs to do is look at a few phone records and text messages and they can determine whether or not Kavanaugh knew about the Ramirez accusations before the article was published on September 23. If he did know, he lied under oath and that is perjury. Since it would have happened less than a week before his sworn testimony, he can't even fall back on the "I don't recall" excuse.

Is this lie not big enough for you? How big does the lie need to be to charge him with perjury and disqualify him from the nomination?

Keep in mind, this is just one of the "alleged" lies Kavanaugh told under oath, but it's one that should be easy to prove/disprove within the 1 week time frame the FBI has been allotted for their investigation.

BNM

 

[dviss1]

What i thought. Nothing

He lied about the legal drinking age at the time. It's been proven.

He was not a legal drinker at the time and he said he was.

 

[dviss1]

One of the most disrespectful moments in NBA history.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

He lied about the legal drinking age at the time. It's been proven.

He was not a legal drinker at the time and he said he was.

:MARIS61:

 

[dviss1]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-allegations-farce/

Did you read any of @Boob-No-More's post above?

Other messages show that Kavanaugh’s legal team had been communicating with other classmates in advance of the allegations coming to light.

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he had heard about Ramirez’s allegations was in the article published on September 23.

Why lie under oath about it??

 

[dviss1]

:MARIS61:

But why lie under oath about it? Answer that for me please?

If it's nothing, why lie?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

But why lie under oath about it? Answer that for me please?

If it's nothing, why lie?

Maybe he assumed incorrectly

 

[dviss1]

Maybe he assumed incorrectly

WTF does that even mean?

He fucking lied. Why did he lie about when he knew about Ramirez' allegations?

He knew well before the date he testified to.

Why lie about that?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

WTF does that even mean?

He fucking lied. Why did he lie about when he knew about Ramirez' allegations?

He knew well before the date he testified to.

Why lie about that?

I'll address this tommorow
Going to dinner

 

[dviss1]

Maybe he assumed incorrectly

MFs don't "assume incorrectly" under oath.

 

[Gronk Brady]

MFs don't "assume incorrectly" under oath.

BREAKING NEWS

Under penalty of perjury Dr. Ford’s boyfriend says the following:

- Ford never mentioned sexual assault
- Ford never mentioned Kavanaugh
- Ford not scared of confined spaces
- Ford not scared of flying
- Ford knew how to beat polygraph
- Ford cheated on him/committed fraud

 

[Gronk Brady]

WTF does that even mean?

He fucking lied. Why did he lie about when he knew about Ramirez' allegations?

He knew well before the date he testified to.

Why lie about that?

Kavanaugh: I drank a lot but I never blacked out.
Witness: He drank a lot!
Media: Perjury!

Ford: I never helped anyone prep for a polygraph.
Witness: I saw her prep her best friend for a polygraph.
Media: How dare you!

 

[Gronk Brady]

MFs don't "assume incorrectly" under oath.

FORD'S BOYFRIEND: "I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam." MITCHELL TO FORD: “[H]ave you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?” FORD TO MITCHELL: "Never."

 

[Gronk Brady]

There is no if. He committed perjury. Multiple times. In this hearing, in the previous one, and in his confirmation hearings back in 2004 and 2006.

barfo

FORD'S BOYFRIEND: "I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam." MITCHELL TO FORD: “[H]ave you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?” FORD TO MITCHELL: "Never."

 

[Gronk Brady]

We’ll see what the FBI says.

FORD'S BOYFRIEND: "I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam." MITCHELL TO FORD: “[H]ave you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?” FORD TO MITCHELL: "Never."

 

[barfo]

FORD'S BOYFRIEND: "I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam." MITCHELL TO FORD: “[H]ave you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?” FORD TO MITCHELL: "Never."

Ok, so let's not put her on the supreme court either. Deal?

barfo

 

[barfo]

BREAKING NEWS

Under penalty of perjury Dr. Ford’s boyfriend says the following:

Sending an anonymous letter to Fox News does not involve a risk of perjury.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

If this is only a dem tactic to delay confirmation and ALL the accusations are lies (not just Fords), then why didn’t the Dems do the exact same thing to Gorsuch?

They had not got their shit together yet. But Kavanaught is just a tune up. Wait until you see their shit next time around.
It will blow your mind!

 

[CupWizier]

They had not got their shit together yet. But Kavanaught is just a tune up. Wait until you see their shit next time around.
It will blow your mind!

More bullshit.

 

[CupWizier]

Sending an anonymous letter to Fox News does not involve a risk of perjury.

barfo

rotflmao! some of these kids now days aren't real bright.

 

[Gronk Brady]

rotflmao!

It wasn’t an anonymous letter, it was a sworn statement under penalty of pergury from her ex boyfriend of 6 years.

 

[yankeesince59]

...^^^ummm, no.

 

[julius]

It wasn’t an anonymous letter, it was a sworn statement under penalty of pergury from her ex boyfriend of 6 years.

From the current FBI investigation?

 

[yankeesince59]

They had not got their shit together yet. But Kavanaught is just a tune up. Wait until you see their shit next time around.
It will blow your mind!

...baseless statement. Among other things, unlike Gorsuch, Kavanaugh's testimony and demeanor indicates his ability be a fair and objective and impartial SCOTUS is very questionable.

 

[The Professional Fan]

They had not got their shit together yet. But Kavanaught is just a tune up. Wait until you see their shit next time around.
It will blow your mind!

That makes no sense. If anything, the Dems would have been more geared up to take down Gorsuch as they viewed that was the seat that was stolen from Merrick Garland (and they're right). Dems were WAY more bitter about the Merrick thing than Kavanaugh as a stand alone appointee. Wake up.