I'm saying you can't rule it out, and just because you can think of a better way for him to have answered the question, doesn't mean that therefore his answer is indicative of him lying. He did not say whether he had heard what the allegations were, and his answers do not betray that he did in fact know what they were, prior to the NY'r article. Hence you (among others) are --as you must, to make your theory work--inferring that he did know. You need more than having to make a leap (which could easily, logically go in other directions and still make sense) to connect dots, to establish just that the statement was inaccurate. You need more still, to establish it as a lie; and of course even more still, to get to the point of calling it perjury. It's not at all like that. Your contention would be more like if Clinton said 'yes, I had sex with that women', and concluding that he committed perjury, because you assume that by 'that woman', he was referring to his wife, rather than Monica Lewinsky, when you were asking about Monica...
How do you arrange a defense for an allegation you don't know if it's made up? I'll be very interested in hearing that one. She could have accused him of any number of things if we believe she made it up (I don't). Other than the fact that it was reported in the New York Times? The New Yorker article came out on September 23rd. They didn't interview him until September 25th. Also, I just explained to you why he (or his team) would call around after the story came out.
Are you paying attention to what we are talking about here? The question is whether or not Kavanaugh was aware of Ramirez calling around to classmates and/or what the allegation she was going to make against Kavanaugh.
Based on the fact that perjury, by its very nature, is very difficult to prove and it took Clinton (for example) saying in one sworn deposition that he did not have an affair with Flowers and in a subsequent sworn deposition stating he did before he had any real exposure to perjury charges. This doesn't take a crystal ball to figure out. Unless you have something that is official, that proves, without a shadow of a doubt that Kavanaugh contradicted himself on what his understanding of "boofing" means (for example), then you don't have a perjury. Hearsay (ie his college buddies) doesn't prove perjury. It is just very difficult to pursue unless you have two clearly contradictory statements made subsequently in a legal proceeding. Kavanaugh did not do this.
1. It's easy. JBK: "Do you all remember that girl Ramirez from college?" Friends 1-8: "Why yes, we do." "Great, she is about to accuse me of something, probably of a sexual nature, seeing as what the other woman claimed I did in high school." "Yup, that make sense." "Can you back me up that I never dated her or hung out with her while at Yale?" "Yes, I/We can verify that." 2. Kavanaugh could be very well aware of Ramirez about to accuse him of something and his team making arrangiments to defend him without knowing the exact allegation. All of that squares with what he testified to. He didn't know the exact allegation but knew that Ramirez was calling around to classmates and was going to accuse him of something, so his team worked to get other students to back him up that he never dated Ramirez.
Swetnik is not credible. The woman who testified seems credible to me. The other woman didnt she say he exposed himself in front of her. Sure ok that is weird.
I just opened one of the conservative outlets complaining about it. They complain that they didn't add an editor's note. The NBC article says updated at the top of the article instead. So I don't think you're right about that. Can you provide a screenshot? The second woman, Ramirez, accuses him of pulling his pants down, sticking his penis in her face, and causing her to touch it when she pushed him away.
Except for the fact that they did hang out while at Yale. Not even Kavanaugh disputes that. So there's no defense he could ask for without knowing what she's alleging. Again, you're jumping through a bunch of hoops to find an alternative reality where what you want to believe is true can be true. Him and Ramirez never dating isn't a defense to a sex crime. The woman in the text messages characterized it as a defense of Kavanaugh. You can't set up a defense if you have no idea what she's alleging. Also, Kavanaugh never said in his testimony what I just bolded in your post.
I would say there is no compelling case wrt sexual assault on BK. Not that he absolutely didn't do it, but there is definitely no case. Agree he clearly perjured himself in the hearings. Or at least lied repeatedly regardless of whether perjury charges would typically be prosecuted in a case like this. He should not be confirmed based on those actions as well as his paranoid partisan ranting and other inappropriate behavior. As far as convicting him on perjury charges, he also allegedly committed perjury in his 2006 hearings. I think all of that should be heard and considered wrt disbarment and losing his current appointment.
If there is no case, you're charging Kavanaugh with supposedly lying in a hearing that never should have taken place to begin with.
Grassley has already referred perjury charges against the person who claimed that Kavanaugh rape someone he knew in California. Swetnick might be headed for something similar as she changed her story last night from what she submitted to the committee. She changed her claim from "I saw Kavanaugh and Judge spiking punch at the parties with grain alcohol" to "I saw Kavanaugh handing out Solo cups at the punch bowl." Pretty significant difference.
You think a woman should have no hearing unless she can clearly prove the accusations? Interesting. That would effectively eliminate almost every sexual assault case from ever getting heard.
No DJT Jr., there aren't more false accusations than reported rapes and/or sexual assaults. Not even in the same universe. People really need to stop making sh*t up.
I was using the phrase "hang out" as a synonym for going out on a couple dates with but not dating. Used in a sentence, "Well we weren't going steady but we hung out together a couple times." It is how my cousin describes how his college age kids describe dating. Kavanaugh and his social circle could verify that Kavanaugh never dated or went out on a couple dates with her, which is what was likely what the text are about. I'm not jumping through anything. It was well know that Ramirez was calling around to Yale alumni about something. Kavanaugh stated in his testimony that he was aware that she was calling around about something. Seeing at how unusual the accusation turned out to be, it's not exactly shocking Kavanaugh would not know what the specific allegation was until after it came out. I'm betting that his team though Ramirez was going to accuse him of doing something while out on a date with her.
You're correct. It looks like the article was updated at around 7:15 this morning, however NBC News did not state what was updated.
I will quote you: "He didn't know the exact allegation but knew that Ramirez was calling around to classmates and was going to accuse him of something". Now, I will quote 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." He never said what you claimed he did. You twisted a couple different comments into what you WANT them to say. Kavanaugh never specifies when he heard she was calling around (I asked you to provide a quote if he did, and you have never offered one up). Kavanaugh never says anything about him knowing anything about her allegations prior to the New Yorker story. Kavanaugh explicitly denied knowing her allegations prior to the New Yorker story. He did that while under oath.
