She hasn't produced any footage, and has given various different reasons why no one else can view it (ranging from that it was lost to that it would be traumatic), even privately. No one has independently established the tape even exists or ever existed.
I will defer to you on this one. I'll go with whatever you said should have happened to Clinton back then when it was proven he perjured himself, that it should happen when it's proven Kavanaugh perjured himself. Please let me know what your position was then on Clinton's perjury.
By the way, @CaptUSMCNole there is a problem with your assumption: Kavanaugh's testimony is starting to look more and more problematic “The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.” Assuming arguendo that you are right (and to make it clear, I still wholeheartedly disagree with the stance you're taking), how do you go on record in somebody's defense if they don't know the allegation? In order to make that request, Kavanaugh has to know what the allegation is.
I can't honestly say what I said back then as its been awhile, but getting disbarred seemed appropriate. I didn't think it rose to the level of removing him from office at that point, as consensual sex isn't something we ought to be spending government time investigating to begin with. FWIW, I always thought the Whitewater investigation was a ridiculously expensive burden over fairly trivial issues meaningless to the Presidency, and in the end distracted from potentially very real problems that should have been investigated wrt handing technology to the Chinese in exchange for campaign support.
I'm confused. If Kav supposedly knew that Ramirez had made allegations against him as early as July (and was asking classmates to go on the record in his defense) how is his testimony that he had first heard of Ms. Ramizrez's allegations against him "in the period since then, the New Yorker story" anything but a lie?
Case in point: Kavanaugh starting a bar fight would clearly be aggressive behavior while drunk. The best you can say is, "Well, Kavanaugh said, 'Basically, no,' so it wasn't a categorical denial. It was only a misrepresentation."
I haven't tried to delve into whether Kavanaugh lied about this Ramirez situation, but I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised as he's lied about a bunch of other stuff, apparently dating back to his 2006 confirmation hearings. And how important is it that he also lied about this, when we already know he lied repeatedly under oath? For people who don't care, it's just one more lie. For people who do care, it's just one more lie.
The issue is that some people are disputing that he lied under oath. Whenever confronted with something that looks like a lie, they jump through hoops to find a reality where it might not be a lie. If it were one statement, that might be excusable. But it's a bunch of statements that they have to use the defense of, "Well, if you assume this, he didn't TECHNICALLY lie."
It isn't purely that he was aware of them. It is that he knew them and considered them an important enough part of high school to include them in his yearbook. A person that isn't interested in sex might know a fee words like that from friends or from around school, but, in a section designed to help communicate about himself and remember his time at high school, he is unlikely to go for a bunch of sexual slang. And he is unlikely to make what are pretty obvious sexual boasts (Renate alumnae).
I get you. But again, it's just one more lie. For people who don't care, as well as people who do care. And it's clear for people who don't care, it didn't matter how many times he lied or how relevant the lies were to the case at hand or how egregious the lies were. Nor any of his other inappropriate and paranoid partisan behavior. In fact, the latter may just have them salivating all the more to get him confirmed.
What??? How does learning that Ramirez [might levy] allegations against him, amount to him knowing what htose allegations would entail??? As for rallying his friends, that's as easy as seeking character witnesses to counter character assassination. It is not at all necessary--that is, not at all an exclusive deduction--to determine that he was speaking to the specific allegations. Here's what would be needed to make y'alls case--texts, emails, written correspondence, from BK--or testimony from someone who can testify to what BK said-that would unequivocally show that he knew WHAT Ramirez was going to allege--before the NY'r. That would establish his answer is inaccurate, and leave the door open to possibly lying, and even possibly perjuring himself--but none of it, is automatic, and for certain, not even the first part (i.e.--that he knew what the allegations entailed), has been established.
Some people wonder why it matters if Kavanaugh lied. Here's a jury instruction from the 11th Circuit (the federal circuit where Florida is located): You should also ask yourself whether there was evidence that a witness testified falsely about an important fact. And ask whether there was evidence that at some other time a witness said or did something, or didn’t say or do something, that was different from the testimony the witness gave during this trial. But keep in mind that a simple mistake doesn’t mean a witness wasn’t telling the truth as he or she remembers it. People naturally tend to forget some things or remember them inaccurately. So, if a witness misstated something, you must decide whether it was because of an innocent lapse in memory or an intentional deception. The significance of your decision may depend on whether the misstatement is about an important fact or about an unimportant detail. Whether a witness lied under oath is extremely probative to determining the credibility of his testimony.
