Posted on 10/02/2018 6:57:53 AM PDT by Jack Black
During Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony last week, Orrin Hatch asked the prospective Supreme Court justice, “When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?” Kavanaugh replied, “In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story.” Hatch was referring to Deborah Ramirez’s charge that Kavanaugh humiliated her by waving his penis in her face while she was intoxicated. Kavanaugh appeared to be saying he heard of the charges after they appeared in The New Yorker in September.
NBC reports that this, like many things Kavanaugh said in his testimony, is false. Kavanaugh’s friends gathered testimony attempting to refute Ramirez’s allegations weeks before The New Yorker’s story was published. Some of the witnesses were contacted by people working on Kavanaugh’s behalf as early as July, according to text messages one witness has shared with the FBI.
This demonstrates to a near-certainty that Kavanaugh knew about the incident weeks before the story came to light. It is possible he had somehow heard about false charges being circulated in advance, worked to refute them, and then misled the Senate about when he heard about them. An alternative, more direct explanation would be that he worked to refute the charge because he knew about it from having actually done what he was accused of.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
The plan has always been a 1-2 punch to knock out Kavanaugh. And, just like a skilled boxer, the One is a solid left jab the Two is a hard straight right to the face. That's the one that gets it done. Rameriz is that punch.
Most of the Kavanaugh supporting media is still mining for gold in Christine Blasey Ford's testimony, and there is a lot there.
I have a tard friend who always accurately predicts what the Left is going to do next and he was all about Deborah Ramirez's claims during our conversation yesterday.
New York Magazine is a thought leader (along with WaPo, Times and the New Yorker) among the leftist narrative setters. This was published late yesterday.
Today will be the "Day of Rameriz". Freepers who want to help Kavanaugh should start paying more attention to this accuser.
Her story is bolstered by happening "at Yale", meaning it's far easier to place people at the scene of the crime. It is lurid, but not stupidly over the top like the story of Accuser #3. The story says many people were present, ensuring it will not fail due to the he-said, she-said dynamic that ultimately was part of debunking Blasey Ford's story.
How hard will it be to find Yale alumni to say "I was there too" and "Kav was the guy".
Not sure how that is countered, other than pointing out that taken as a whole it looks, smells and quacks like a set up.
Tard friend "come on, there is a lot of smoke there". This is the next major smoke going into the anti-Kav smoke screen.
Count on it.
Kavanaugh's friends knowing does not equal Kavanaugh knowing.
‘The media IS the enemy.’ @AG_Conservative takes NBC’s hit piece on Kavanaugh ‘texting’ about Ramirez APART
Classic witch hunt.
Keep digging until you find something. Anything.
It would give Flake the excuse he seeks to vote no.
Fake news. What he testified to was that he became aware of her contacting fellow classmates trying to ‘refresh’ their memories about an accusation that he did not know about yet. This article is a total lie.
Relax, it’s just another fake story that’s already been demolished.
Kavanaugh is not referring to when the New Yorker story was published, he was referring to the when the New Yorker story was being written. When did Farrow try to contact Kavanaugh? That’s when he heard of it.
The “New Yorker Story” could have included the time right before the story where he was contacted by the New Yorker to address the accusations.
The Dems will charge that Kavanaugh committed perjury, lying about when he knew about the allegation. It matters not whether the allegation is true or not. Kavanaugh lied to Congress under oath they will say.
I agree that this one worries me more than the others. She identified 20 witnesses?? If that’s true, her spotty memory won’t matter much.
So, again, if Kavanaugh knew about it months beforehand and was actively countering it (and I don’t believe that for a second)
Then the judiciary committee AND the Democrats knew about it before hand too - why did they wait to bring it up?
Recall also that Feinstein sent the letter to the FBI (without notifying the committee?) who decided no action was warranted - at that point they might’ve questioned Kavanaugh about it but not necessarily exactly what. So his testimony could be still be factual.
Regardless - I don’t care. Even if the accusation is true she wasn’t even raped and at a drunken party high school party 49 years ago which only had one intention back then - get drunk and have sex.
Time to move on.
Of course Kavanaugh knew before the story was published. How could he not since the magazine contains a quote from him denying the allegation.
“Kavanaugh’s friends knowing does not equal Kavanaugh knowing.”
“Knowing WHAT, exactly?
That people were calling around looking for “dirt” on him (Kavanaugh)? He testified about this.
Perjury trap? They are trying.
Maybe he got wind of something, maybe he didn’t. He said he didn’t. Don’t really understand why these so called friends of his are coming out of the woodwork to screw him, esp this Ramierez lady.
The only reason is they’re making money on the side. Only reason.
there is no MONTHS before, did you read the article
This story has been posted a hundred times on here.
OP is a concern troll.
Story is not true.
“Kavanaugh appeared to be saying he heard of the charges after they appeared in The New Yorker in September.”
“appears to be saying” is conflated with “said”. This author, New York Magazine, and anyone who defends this article is twisting words to make them “appear” to mean something other than what was said. That’s not the basis for a perjury charge. The obvious explanation was that some of Kavanagh’s friends were contacted by Ronan Farrow who wrote the New Yorker story, and they gave Kavanaugh a “heads up”, which is legal and appropriate. Anyone who wouldn’t alert a friend to an upcoming false smear attack is not a friend. He says “in the period since then, the New Yorker story”, not in period since the PUBLICATION OF of the New Yorker story. It’s easy to add a word or two to a statement and then magically the true statement becomes a lie.
This has already been debunked.
yea of course he’s quoted with a denial in the damn NY’re article.
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.