(10-01-2018 10:48 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  She's potentially destroying Kavanaugh's life.

If Bercham is a dyed-in-the-wool NE US dim, she's a Trump-hater. Destroying Kavanaugh's life and that of his family is small potatoes compared to doing the good work of protecting the American public from its mistake of electing His Orangeness.

(10-01-2018 11:00 PM)450bench Wrote:  The liberal lunacy is on full display when it comes to this topic. It's beyond ridiculous.
Everybody knows the guy is innocent. Everybody. There is not a spec of evidence indicating otherwise. Not a spec. Nothing. This is about delay and control. Period. It's despicable really.
The undecided voters are watching. It's like suicide by arrogance, selfishness and stupidity for liberals.

Yup. And when Republicans win 52+ seats in the Senate, Trump can nominate the most conservative judge this country has every seen. Flake will be gone and pleasing Collins/Murkowski won't matter because they'll have the votes. Dems are playing a very dangerous game, and they're gonna get burnt.

(10-01-2018 11:08 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 11:00 PM)450bench Wrote:  The liberal lunacy is on full display when it comes to this topic. It's beyond ridiculous.
Everybody knows the guy is innocent. Everybody. There is not a spec of evidence indicating otherwise. Not a spec. Nothing. This is about delay and control. Period. It's despicable really.
The undecided voters are watching. It's like suicide by arrogance, selfishness and stupidity for liberals.

Yup. And when Republicans win 52+ seats in the Senate, Trump can nominate the most conservative judge this country has every seen. Flake will be gone and pleasing Collins/Murkowski won't matter because they'll have the votes. Dems are playing a very dangerous game, and they're gonna get burnt.

Speaking of NE US Trump-hating dims, you must be a rarity up there, HuskyU. Amirite?

(10-01-2018 11:04 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 10:48 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  She's potentially destroying Kavanaugh's life.

If Bercham is a dyed-in-the-wool NE US dim, she's a Trump-hater. Destroying Kavanaugh's life and that of his family is small potatoes compared to doing the good work of protecting the American public from its mistake of electing His Orangeness.

so brave

(10-01-2018 11:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 11:08 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 11:00 PM)450bench Wrote:  The liberal lunacy is on full display when it comes to this topic. It's beyond ridiculous.
Everybody knows the guy is innocent. Everybody. There is not a spec of evidence indicating otherwise. Not a spec. Nothing. This is about delay and control. Period. It's despicable really.
The undecided voters are watching. It's like suicide by arrogance, selfishness and stupidity for liberals.

Yup. And when Republicans win 52+ seats in the Senate, Trump can nominate the most conservative judge this country has every seen. Flake will be gone and pleasing Collins/Murkowski won't matter because they'll have the votes. Dems are playing a very dangerous game, and they're gonna get burnt.

Speaking of NE US Trump-hating dims, you must be a rarity up there, HuskyU. Amirite?

I'm basically a unicorn.

(10-01-2018 10:32 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 10:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Can someone point out to me in that very confusing article where BK text anyone about Ramirez?

As I asked earlier about lies...I need a quote, not what you think you read. Maybe I missed it because context was missing and the structure of this article was all over the place.

Hell the article reads like one of my long post, where it doesn't make sense, till I go back and edit it a few times

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.

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett's guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

I've heard for weeks that a number of Yale people had this group text going around would the stuff on Brett come out in the open.

It's all kind of strange really - but then again I just watched the NBC show Manifest which makes no sense either.

So did the article show these texts or are we going by what someone told someone and they told someone? Because I saw no text from BK in that article or any text.

So with that we really dont know what someone was asking to back them up on or to confirm. Correct?

(10-01-2018 11:12 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 11:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 11:08 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 11:00 PM)450bench Wrote:  The liberal lunacy is on full display when it comes to this topic. It's beyond ridiculous.
Everybody knows the guy is innocent. Everybody. There is not a spec of evidence indicating otherwise. Not a spec. Nothing. This is about delay and control. Period. It's despicable really.
The undecided voters are watching. It's like suicide by arrogance, selfishness and stupidity for liberals.

Yup. And when Republicans win 52+ seats in the Senate, Trump can nominate the most conservative judge this country has every seen. Flake will be gone and pleasing Collins/Murkowski won't matter because they'll have the votes. Dems are playing a very dangerous game, and they're gonna get burnt.

Speaking of NE US Trump-hating dims, you must be a rarity up there, HuskyU. Amirite?

I'm basically a unicorn.

A unicorn in his right mind.

(10-01-2018 09:53 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:38 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:28 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  may have initiated an anticipatory narrative
Stop it man, you're killing me.

The Ramirez case is the one that's provable and the one with the trail. If his text messages suggest he was trying to squash this story back in July... then there's something to it and he clearly didn't learn of it September 24th as he swore under oath.
good thing about texts is they are easily retrievable.

Let's see, he knew her, they had contact since graduating, she had probably made certain opinions known to him. I can see where it would be reasonable for him to think, she's the kind of person who would do anything to torpedo my appointment, let's try to get out in front of it, without knowing any specifics.

Except that, unless I'm missing something, they're talking about friends of Kavanaugh contacting people they knew at Yale in anticipation of asking them to be character witnesses for Kavanaugh.

It looks to me like the Rameriz chick and her friend are trying to extrapolate those contacts into: Kavanaugh was trying to squash my story before it ever gained traction.

Has Rameriz produced a single witness who was at the supposed pecker-in-the-face party? Has she?

Jesus, this looks to me like dims trying to spin an overcoat out of a hair, a pubic hair at that.

She was calling around trying to find someone to make something up. One of them probable alerted Kavanaugh of this. Of course he would want to get out in front of it.

(10-01-2018 10:00 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:38 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:28 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  may have initiated an anticipatory narrative
Stop it man, you're killing me.

The Ramirez case is the one that's provable and the one with the trail. If his text messages suggest he was trying to squash this story back in July... then there's something to it and he clearly didn't learn of it September 24th as he swore under oath.
good thing about texts is they are easily retrievable.

Let's see, he knew her, they had contact since graduating, she had probably made certain opinions known to him. I can see where it would be reasonable for him to think, she's the kind of person who would do anything to torpedo my appointment, let's try to get out in front of it, without knowing any specifics.

Yet he told the Judiciary Committee he first heard of Ramirez's claims in the New Yorker...

and what reason would she have for torpedoing his appointment unless he knew she had compromising info... otherwise, what could she possibly say?

How about........anything?

(10-01-2018 10:12 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The FBI has talked to Ramirez. If there is something more to the story, then they will get to the bottom of it and I would like to hear the rest of the story as the saying goes. That NBC story said that Ramirez was trying to avoid him in 1997 even though they were members of the same wedding party (he was a groomsman, she was a bridesmaid of the Bercham lady who was mentioned earlier in this thread).

I'm not sure why Tech Rocks thinks it's so odd that Bercham contacted Blumenthal. She's a Ct. resident, he's a CT Senator who is on the Judiciary Committee.

I'm also not sure why conservatives here think prominent Yale graduates would try to possibly destroy their own careers in an effort to derail Kavanaugh. Ludington is an author and NC State professor. Bercham is a partner at a prestigious law firm. Even if their politics differed greatly from Kavanaugh, they have a lot riding on their own personal careers to put their names out in front of the media - especially if they're not telling the truth. You really should be getting mad at the FBI for not returning these people's phone calls when they both tried to reach the FBI on their own and not go to the media (or local Senators) with their stories.

They don’t have anything. Can’t you people get a grasp on that. Let me say it again, THEY DON’T HAVE ANYTHING! Make an accusation that has some substance and we will all listen. Otherwise STFU!

(10-01-2018 10:02 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 10:00 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:38 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:28 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  may have initiated an anticipatory narrative
Stop it man, you're killing me.

The Ramirez case is the one that's provable and the one with the trail. If his text messages suggest he was trying to squash this story back in July... then there's something to it and he clearly didn't learn of it September 24th as he swore under oath.
good thing about texts is they are easily retrievable.

Let's see, he knew her, they had contact since graduating, she had probably made certain opinions known to him. I can see where it would be reasonable for him to think, she's the kind of person who would do anything to torpedo my appointment, let's try to get out in front of it, without knowing any specifics.

Yet he told the Judiciary Committee he first heard of Ramirez's claims in the New Yorker...

and what reason would she have for torpedoing his appointment unless he knew she had compromising info... otherwise, what could she possibly say?

That he jumped on top of her in an unknown house, in an unknown month, in an unknown date, in an unknown year? Oh wait, that one was already taken.

(10-01-2018 10:32 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 10:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Can someone point out to me in that very confusing article where BK text anyone about Ramirez?

As I asked earlier about lies...I need a quote, not what you think you read. Maybe I missed it because context was missing and the structure of this article was all over the place.

Hell the article reads like one of my long post, where it doesn't make sense, till I go back and edit it a few times

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.

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett's guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

I've heard for weeks that a number of Yale people had this group text going around would the stuff on Brett come out in the open.

It's all kind of strange really - but then again I just watched the NBC show Manifest which makes no sense either.

Why is that even problematic? Did the text say hey, I know they got me on all this but can you stand up for me against the truth? Or was it more like , hey, I need your help with this situation, I need you to serve as a character reference.

Surely you know as it appears you've seen the texts, right?

(10-01-2018 09:53 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:38 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 09:28 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  may have initiated an anticipatory narrative
Stop it man, you're killing me.

The Ramirez case is the one that's provable and the one with the trail. If his text messages suggest he was trying to squash this story back in July... then there's something to it and he clearly didn't learn of it September 24th as he swore under oath.
good thing about texts is they are easily retrievable.

Let's see, he knew her, they had contact since graduating, she had probably made certain opinions known to him. I can see where it would be reasonable for him to think, she's the kind of person who would do anything to torpedo my appointment, let's try to get out in front of it, without knowing any specifics.

Except that, unless I'm missing something, they're talking about friends of Kavanaugh contacting people they knew at Yale in anticipation of asking them to be character witnesses for Kavanaugh.

It looks to me like the Rameriz chick and her friend are trying to extrapolate those contacts into: Kavanaugh was trying to squash my story before it ever gained traction.

Has Rameriz produced a single witness who was at the supposed pecker-in-the-face party? Has she?

Jesus, this looks to me like dims trying to spin an overcoat out of a hair, a pubic hair at that.

No and she was calling everyone she knew for weeks.

(10-01-2018 10:55 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 10:48 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 10:42 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  He testified he first learned of these accusations in September. How would he know to go after Deborah Ramirez back in July? At that point, she had told no one and was quietly living in Colorado. Why would Kavanaugh start trying to discredit her months before he said he learned of her accusations? Perhaps he remembered waving his junk in her face and how awkward it was years later when they were together at their mutual friends wedding. Perhaps he knew she had compromising information and did not know with whom she had shared it... or if she may one day share it with th press.

JRsec told you why. Are you bothering to read any of the responses to your questions?

Again, Ramirez said there were a bunch of people at that party where Kavanaugh waved his junk in her face. Has a single person come forward to say they saw the incident?

and his hypothetical defense makes zero sense. these same "friends" are the ones going to the press and the FBI with his texts.

they warned him of trouble brewing with Debbie then later turned his texts over to NBC News and the FBI? Really?

You keep going on and on and on about perjury. This isn't a criminal trial, remember?

(10-01-2018 10:32 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(10-01-2018 10:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Can someone point out to me in that very confusing article where BK text anyone about Ramirez?

As I asked earlier about lies...I need a quote, not what you think you read. Maybe I missed it because context was missing and the structure of this article was all over the place.

Hell the article reads like one of my long post, where it doesn't make sense, till I go back and edit it a few times

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.

In a series of texts before the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett's guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

I've heard for weeks that a number of Yale people had this group text going around would the stuff on Brett come out in the open.

It's all kind of strange really - but then again I just watched the NBC show Manifest which makes no sense either.

What is strange about getting character references? Could you get over 100 people who have known you since HS to vouch for you in writing?

Its more of this might have, could have bs that you leftists just swallow whole.

And all of this and not ONE thing since college.

They haven't even brought up a parking ticket.