She didn't change her claim. It was something Ben pointed out at the time. I figured she had something more than, "I saw them standing near the punch." However, it's clear now that she didn't. In her affidavit, she said "I became aware . . . ." It was a misleading affidavit written to seem more significant than it was. Again, not dating or "hanging out" with a girl isn't a defense to a sex crime. You're giving us a strained interpretation to try keep Kavanaugh from having perjured himself. Hell, you're "betting" on something based on pure conjecture. It's hard to take it seriously. You're asking us to assume things that don't logically follow what we know and what the testimony says.
What has happened over the last 2 weeks is just ridiculous. Ford should have reported the alleged assault to the appropriate Maryland law enforcement entity so they could investigate and prosecute, if appropriate. SHE …. did not do that. SHE messed up. ….. and may very well have a flawed recollection …… if SHE's not simply fabricating the incident. There exists as process for handling these matters ….. a Senate hearing is not the way to do it.
He wasn't asked when he heard of the specifics of Ramirez's allegations. He was asked when he had heard of her allegations, an event which necessarily precedes him asking his classmates to go on the record to rebut those allegations -- whatever they may be in substance. Even if you assume that he was just being intentionally misleading by answering a question in a manner completely removed from it's common understanding, knowing that such an answer would give an impression entirely divorced from the facts, that doesn't reflect any better on him. If a lawyer tried that kind of nonsense in his courtroom, how do you think he would react? "Oh golly Your Honor, when you asked whether I was aware of any adverse case law on this topic, I thought you were asking if I knew the detailed specifics of those holdings, so of course I said no!" Except that isn't analogous at all. Even you aren't claiming that Kav was referring to a different Ms. Ramirez. The only question is what do "sexual relations" and "Ms. Ramirez's allegations" mean, respectively. You (and the rest of the pubs impeaching WJC) wanted the first to be interpreted expansively, to encompass BJs as well as actual sex. But, at the same time, you want the latter to be interpreted in a bizarrely narrow fashion, and include only the specifics of the allegations, such that you can be simultaneously aware of the allegations but not be aware of THE allegations. It's nonsense. If you're asked if you are aware of something and say no without reservation or equivocation, that means you aren't aware of it in any respect. Not that you aren't aware of it to the maximum extent possible.
Yeaaah, no. Really wish you’d stop moving the goal posts. If we’re going to compare this to criminal hearings, then said accusation would actually have to be brought up for charges before there was ever any hearing. And you’ve already admitted there is no case. So there wouldn’t be any hearings if this didn’t involve a SCOTUS nominee. You keep contradicting your own logic.
This is the quote: "Kavanaugh was aware that Ramirez was calling around to former classmates. He said that he heard, not read, heard that she was doing it. That means he would have heard it before the story came out. Being aware that Ramirez was getting ready to accuse him of something fit is testimony of "And I, at least -- and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that." Not knowing the exact allegations she ended up making is also consistent with what you have quoted Kavanaugh saying. Especially as it was a very, very strange case of sexual misconduct. I've explained my positions on this and it is very clear. Kavanuagh will be able to point to this sentence, "And I, at least -- and I, myself, heard about that, that she was doing that." and say that he discussed it in his testimony. We clearly not going to agree on this so let's just move on.
She stated she was "aware of efforts by Kavanaugh and Judge to spike punch with drugs or grain alcohol." Now it is "handing out Solo cups by a punch bowl." That is a pretty big change in her story submitted under penalty of perjury. So she is now saying that she was not aware of efforts by JBK and MJ to spike the punch?
To be fair it was suggestive. Saying he worries more for his sons about it. The thing is not even in the era of me too has there been any evidence of something that would suggest so many false accusations as to truly worry. Im
In light of the NBC interview, the gist of her affidavit seems to be that she once saw Brett Kavanaugh standing near the drinks at a party and also saw him doing what may have well been waiting to use the bathroom, and somehow managed to wild-ass guess her way from that to swearing that she was aware that he was drugging women and waiting in line to gang rape them. When you combine that with a pretty healthy portion of folks who went to schools around Kavanaugh's saying that they have no idea who she is and didn't hang out with Gaithersburg High folks at all, and one of the people she said would have knowledge of her being raped saying that they don't recall knowing her, it wouldn't completely shock me to see Grassley send out a referral on her and Avenatti for submitting false statements and/or attempting to obstruct the Senate Judiciary Committee. I suspect the biggest thing cautioning against doing so is the feeling that it may be better to just ignore Avenatti rather than get down in the mud with him.
I posted statistics on sexual assault cases earlier in this thread. Less than four percent of filed cases get referred to prosecutors and less than two percent result in convictions. Are you saying you expect that a woman trying to stand up and be heard years after an assault, to just go through a CJ system with less than a two percent success rate as their only recourse?
Disagree with pretty much your entire take in your post (except that I agree that my analogy wasn't perfect--but it wasn't intended to be--just by degrees, to show how much of a leap would have had to be made, to resemble your leap in this case....). Now, to the part actually quoted above--problem is, that ain't at all what happened. He wasn't asked if he was aware of Ram's allegations, and denied being aware--he was asked when he became aware of them, and said after the article came out--and again, nothing shows that he was aware of what the allegations were, prior to the article (not that I've seen anyway)--only that he was aware that she (Ram'z) was likely going to levy allegations. ...and it struck me as an incredibly minor point in the proceeding. Had he been asked again, asked to clarify, asked to elaborate, and he doubled down, clarified that he meant that he had not even heard anything of any kind of allegation from Ram'z... ...then y'all might have a point. As it stands, it's just way too ambiguous to sustain any kind of nefarious inference, imho.
Noise. It is what it is. I think enough info will exist by end of week to make a good decision. I’m not saying Pubs will make a good decision but they will have enough info to do so. Guys not right for it.
When I said there was no case, I meant there was no prosecutable case. As occurs with 96% of police reports on sexual assault per the statistics I linked earlier in this thread. The fact that sexual assault is a he said / she said even when they can find who the he is, means that most will never have a prosecutable case.... "beyond a reasonable doubt". Does that mean that 96% of the women who file reports should just pipe down? These women deserve an avenue to be heard. Civil suits and hearings like this are legit avenues to be heard.
Where is that quote? Or are you changing the meaning of the quote in the second paragraph again? First of all, people use "heard" all the time for things being reported by the media. Second of all, even if he did hear it instead of reading it, that doesn't mean he heard it BEFORE the story. He said that he, HIMSELF, heard about that. He could have read it and then personally heard about it later from others. Again, I need you to provide a quote from him while under oath that says that he heard about it before the Ramirez allegation. I have a quote saying the opposite with specificity. And the rest of us will be able to point to his two other statements on the record claiming he never discussed or heard about her allegation until the New Yorker story.
I do believe, in this case, she should have at least made an attempt to take this to the Montgomery County Sheriff's office back in July. But of course, as you've already admitted, they would have likely told her that she has no case (assuming there was no statute of limitations) and this would have been bad for appearances. That said, even if she had done so, there would have been nothing stopping her from still taking this to Feinstein and in hindsight, would have gone a long way in proving this wasn't merely a political hit.
Fact is that Kavanaugh is a lawyer. He's a federal judge. He knows what a blanket and unequivocal "no" means. He could have easily elaborated. "No, I was not aware of the exact allegations, but I was aware that she was going to allege some sort of wrongdoing on my part." You can't get away with that (giving a blanket answer that isn't honest instead of a specific answer) in court or in pleadings. People need to stop treating Kavanaugh as if he's not an expert on the law and language. Even if we assume the best case scenario is true (which is what the Republican defenders have claimed), you're arguing that Kavanaugh was dishonest but didn't technically perjure himself. That's an embarrassing stance to take on a potential SCOTUS Justice.
I don't have to provide any quote other than the one I have been providing. Kavanaugh said he heard that Ramirez was calling around about something during his testimony. He doesn't say what it was she was calling around about or if it was before the story came out or after. Kavanaugh will point to that statement and if questioned by the JC and say he discussed this during his testimony and heard it about Ramirez calling around before the story came out.
Of course I would counter that if you know you are wasting your time filing a police report, why waste your time? We all agree Feinstein appears to have played games with this holding it instead of demanding an investigation. That is really what should have happened here, after she received the accusation letter. Then hopefully you get a real FBI investigation with time for it.
They do have an avenue to be heard. It's called reporting crime to the police. Our justice system will likely never be perfect, but they have an avenue. Just like every other victim of violent or sexual crime. Since you are apparently so so sympathetic to victims of sexual assault, why don't you tell me how many victims get the opportunity to write and have correspondence with their Senator about it before they even go to the police?
An avenue that results in 4% of cases going to prosecution and half that getting convicted isn't an avenue... it's a tiny crevice.
