Posted on 10/01/2018 8:59:37 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
My worry is that as this continues, a lot of decent people will bring their good optics to the debate: Trijicon, Burris, Leupold . . .
I read through the tweets and noticed a tweet from a woman named Cheri Jacobus. She used to be a GOP talk show regular and involved in Republican politics.
She tweeted that BK is a liar and is toast.
WTF!! What is with these traitors?? Joe Scarborough, Steve Schmidt, Nicolle Wallace, David Brock, Charlie Crist, and on and on and on....
If Ramirez was calling old classmates to ask them about her alleged experience, it stands to reason that at least one of those she called gave Kavanaugh a head’s-up. Thus, he knew about it before it went public.
NBC - Comey and the Clinton Email BS “suggests” collusion too at the FBI with Hillary.
“Oh! One exception. Every person who can, should vote for Sen Feinstein’s opponent in the CA Senatorial race. Eliminate her now and eliminate him in the next election.”
Yup. It’s time to put that harridan out to pasture.
SO WHAT! Obviously, Kavanaugh and his allies got wind of her plot during the six days she claimed she needed to ‘assess her memories’ - when she not only fabricated her story but contacted many of their mutual alumni, trying to recruit co-conspirators in her lie.
Once again NBC is pissing up a rope. Kavanaugh didn’t lie about anything.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/another-shoddy-perjury-claim/
NBC suggests that Judge Kavanaugh may have lied in his Senate testimony when he said that he had not “discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker” before it was published on September 23. As usual, this allegation seems to be the product of some choice sophistry. On Twitter, @AG_Conservative runs through what NBC has done here.
As AG notes, the accusation from NBC is as follows:
the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated that Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says in her memo that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.
Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of Ramirez’s allegation was in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.
But nothing Kavanaugh has said on the record contradicts that. On September 25th, Kavanaugh answered the following question under oath:
[Redacted Questioner]: All right. My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before the New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to the New Yorker?
Judge Kavanaugh: No.
If this were his only answer, it could at a stretch be cast as misleading — although it would be a big stretch, given that he was asked whether he’d heard about an “incident matching the description.” But — surprise! — this wasn’t his only answer. Indeed, just one page on in the transcript, Kavanaugh takes a break from protesting his innocence to tell the committee that he had heard that Ramirez was calling around before the specific accusation was made public:
[Redacted Questioner]: Well, actually, are you aware that the New York Times passed up on this story before the New Yorker ran the story? Judge Kavanaugh. That’s what I read in the New York Times. What’s your reaction to that?
Judge Kavanaugh: They couldn’t — the New York Times couldn’t corroborate this story and found that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it. And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that. And you know, that just strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people, is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out. That’s what it sounds like.
“And I, at least — and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.