• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brett Kavanaugh caught tampering with witnesses in Deborah Ramirez accusation

JacksinPA said:
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/tampering-brett-kavanaugh-witnesses-ramirez/13176/

Even as Deborah Ramirez was coming forward to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Kavanaugh and his team tried to coordinate with the witnesses involved, according to a stunning new report from NBC News. Kavanaugh’s scheme backfired when one of his old acquaintances – who happens to be an attorney – got dragged into it and decided to come forward. Remarkably, there are text messages which substantiate what was going on.

As the New Yorker was assembling its story which detailed Ramirez’s accusations, Brett Kavanaugh began reaching out to his old friends and asking them to come to his defense. It’s not illegal to ask people to publicly defend you from an allegation made in a magazine article. But because Kavanaugh was being accused of a felony, and because he was in the process of being investigated as a nominee by the Senate, he had a reasonable expectation that this could turn into a law enforcement investigation.
======================================================
Sounds to me like they've got Kavanaugh right where the Dems want him: with no job & behind bars.
Click to expand...

Well, he is not exactly acting like an innocent person, and he seems to really think he is entitled to that supreme court seat.
 
Fledermaus said:
And your EVIDENCE Kavanaugh did anything illegal is ________?
Click to expand...

His testimony was that he first heard about Ramirez accusaion when it broke in the media, but the texts predate that by months. Manafort went to prison for less.
 
Manc Skipper said:
His testimony was that he first heard about Ramirez accusaion when it broke in the media, but the texts predate that by months. Manafort went to prison for less.
Click to expand...
Manafort was already under federal investigation when he tried to influence witnesses. Kavanaugh is not involved in any criminal investigations. I seriously doubt he violated any laws.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/tampering-brett-kavanaugh-witnesses-ramirez/13176/

Even as Deborah Ramirez was coming forward to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Kavanaugh and his team tried to coordinate with the witnesses involved, according to a stunning new report from NBC News. Kavanaugh’s scheme backfired when one of his old acquaintances – who happens to be an attorney – got dragged into it and decided to come forward. Remarkably, there are text messages which substantiate what was going on.

As the New Yorker was assembling its story which detailed Ramirez’s accusations, Brett Kavanaugh began reaching out to his old friends and asking them to come to his defense. It’s not illegal to ask people to publicly defend you from an allegation made in a magazine article. But because Kavanaugh was being accused of a felony, and because he was in the process of being investigated as a nominee by the Senate, he had a reasonable expectation that this could turn into a law enforcement investigation.
======================================================
Sounds to me like they've got Kavanaugh right where the Dems want him: with no job & behind bars.
Click to expand...
Sounds more like wishful think. The incident wasn't under investigation when he asked for support.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/tampering-brett-kavanaugh-witnesses-ramirez/13176/

Even as Deborah Ramirez was coming forward to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Kavanaugh and his team tried to coordinate with the witnesses involved, according to a stunning new report from NBC News. Kavanaugh’s scheme backfired when one of his old acquaintances – who happens to be an attorney – got dragged into it and decided to come forward. Remarkably, there are text messages which substantiate what was going on.

As the New Yorker was assembling its story which detailed Ramirez’s accusations, Brett Kavanaugh began reaching out to his old friends and asking them to come to his defense. It’s not illegal to ask people to publicly defend you from an allegation made in a magazine article. But because Kavanaugh was being accused of a felony, and because he was in the process of being investigated as a nominee by the Senate, he had a reasonable expectation that this could turn into a law enforcement investigation.
======================================================
Sounds to me like they've got Kavanaugh right where the Dems want him: with no job & behind bars.
Click to expand...



Ah, this gets more interesting now that we have been reminded that Kavanaugh said he didn't know about Ramirez' allegations until the New Yorker article cae out.

Senator Flake, you said if it's found that Kavanaugh lied, he's done. Is that enough of a lie for you?
 
Visbek said:
Kavanaugh is not being accused of a federal offense.

It may be unethical, and if he told people to lie for him then it might disqualify him for the position (in a rational world, that is). However, I seriously doubt that he violated any laws.
Click to expand...

Lying to the Senate, even if you are not under oath, is a felony offense.

~ snip ~ Federal law makes it a crime to "knowingly and willfully" give "materially" false statements to Congress, even if unsworn -- which is not to be confused with the more general crime of perjury for lying under oath.

The consequences for either crime are serious: one can face up to five years in prison.


Like many criminal statutes, however, proving a witness "knowingly" sought to mislead sets a high bar for prosecution -- meaning the omission can't be merely a mistake or accident. And the "materiality" requirement means the false statement has to actually matter -- i.e., a tendency to influence the listener. ~ snip ~

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/24/politics/penalty-for-lying-to-congress/index.html
 
I don't know reaching out to friends for support...is not an illegal or bad thing in my book.
However if he asked those friends to lie then this guy has no ethics and shouldn't be a judge.
What s bothering me is the friend that just read a statement on national tv because he and others can not reach the fbi to give their statements.
Mark judges girlfriend says she s trying to reach the FBI and can't.
Is there an investigation or not?

At this point Republicans are going to ram this thru no matter what comes out...I say let them.
The judge openly lied to Congress on numerous fronts. Impeach his ass later and get every decision overturned he is part of.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/tampering-brett-kavanaugh-witnesses-ramirez/13176/

Even as Deborah Ramirez was coming forward to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Kavanaugh and his team tried to coordinate with the witnesses involved, according to a stunning new report from NBC News. Kavanaugh’s scheme backfired when one of his old acquaintances – who happens to be an attorney – got dragged into it and decided to come forward. Remarkably, there are text messages which substantiate what was going on.

As the New Yorker was assembling its story which detailed Ramirez’s accusations, Brett Kavanaugh began reaching out to his old friends and asking them to come to his defense. It’s not illegal to ask people to publicly defend you from an allegation made in a magazine article. But because Kavanaugh was being accused of a felony, and because he was in the process of being investigated as a nominee by the Senate, he had a reasonable expectation that this could turn into a law enforcement investigation.
======================================================
Sounds to me like they've got Kavanaugh right where the Dems want him: with no job & behind bars.
Click to expand...
There is no trial, no indictment, NO REPORTED CRIME...there are NO LEGALLY DESIGNATED WITNESSES.


The left gets goofier every minute...
 
Amelia said:
Ah, this gets more interesting now that we have been reminded that Kavanaugh said he didn't know about Ramirez' allegations until the New Yorker article cae out.

Senator Flake, you said if it's found that Kavanaugh lied, he's done. Is that enough of a lie for you?
Click to expand...

His team is not him, is it?
 
Grokmaster said:
There is no trial, no indictment, NO REPORTED CRIME...there are NO LEGALLY DESIGNATED WITNESSES.


The left gets goofier every minute...
Click to expand...

It's scary to see people divorce themselves from reality, especially when they were already tenuously tethered to it to begin with.

The allegations are getting more surreal every day.
 
Amelia said:
Ah, this gets more interesting now that we have been reminded that Kavanaugh said he didn't know about Ramirez' allegations until the New Yorker article cae out.

Senator Flake, you said if it's found that Kavanaugh lied, he's done. Is that enough of a lie for you?
Click to expand...

He didnt. As he testified, he knew the NY TIMES was reaching out to her, but had no idea about what.
 
Acadia said:
It's scary to see people divorce themselves from reality, especially when they were already tenuously tethered to it to begin with.

The allegations are getting more surreal every day.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised a "He said a racist thing to me in ____" hasn't cropped up yet. But then again, that thing is old hat. Sexual assault allegations is the newest trend.
 
Superfly said:
Lying to the Senate, even if you are not under oath, is a felony offense.
Click to expand...
1) I'm pretty sure that is usually reserved for something more serious than claiming to not know something, when you knew it.

2) Read the section I quoted. We were talking about witness tampering, not lying to Congress.
 
Athanasius68 said:
He didnt. As he testified, he knew the NY TIMES was reaching out to her, but had no idea about what.
Click to expand...
Not quite.

Kavanaugh explicitly told the Senate that he had not heard of the accusations prior to the 23rd, when the New Yorker (not New York Times) published them. In the texts, sent before the 23rd, he was asking people to refute the story (not easy to do, if you don't know the claims). They were apparently also preparing counterclaims.

Kavanaugh actually then contradicted himself during the same interview, saying he had heard that Ramirez was calling former classmates and asking who remembered the event. Ooops.
 
Visbek said:
1) I'm pretty sure that is usually reserved for something more serious than claiming to not know something, when you knew it.

2) Read the section I quoted. We were talking about witness tampering, not lying to Congress.
Click to expand...

What part of "lying to the Senate is a felony" do you not understand? You said you seriously doubted he violated any laws.

If he is found guilty of lying to the Senate, he is guilty of violating the law.

U.S. Code sections 1621 and 1001 of Title 18.

Section 1621 covers general perjury, and stipulates that anyone who "willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true" is guilty of perjury and shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both. Section 1001 covers false statements more generally, without requiring an oath. The section stipulates that "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the government of the United States, knowingly and willfully" falsifies or conceals information, including before a congressional committee's inquiry, may also be fined or imprisoned up to five years.
 
Visbek said:
Not quite.

Kavanaugh explicitly told the Senate that he had not heard of the accusations prior to the 23rd, when the New Yorker (not New York Times) published them. In the texts, sent before the 23rd, he was asking people to refute the story (not easy to do, if you don't know the claims). They were apparently also preparing counterclaims.

Kavanaugh actually then contradicted himself during the same interview, saying he had heard that Ramirez was calling former classmates and asking who remembered the event. Ooops.
Click to expand...

He was asked if he had discussed the specific allegations made by the NEW YORKER prior to its publication.

He said he hadnt.

He also stated he knew that Ramirez was peddling the story around. He did not say he discussed it with anyone.
Oops.
 
JacksinPA said:
Witness tampering could be obstruction. I'm not a lawyer. But trying to influence witnesses in the midst of a Federal investigation is pretty heavy stuff. Sticks ti your prison sandals.
Click to expand...

There is no Federal investigation. They re-opened the background check.
 
PirateMk1 said:
You guys want this guy in jail? Not just not on the SC but in jail?
Click to expand...

Imagine that!

Some want a serial rapist in Jail...Others want him as SC judge! I am so glad that Trump called himself law and order president!

Diving Mullah
 
Lutherf said:
Kavanaugh may have been in contact with someone from Yale just before the New Yorker piece came out. If that's the case then he wasn't tampering with anything ... From the sound of things he got wind that the story was coming out and, quite reasonably, started to look for support.
Click to expand...

So you are saying he committed perjury?

From his testimony:

"My last question on this subject is since you graduated from college, but before [The] New Yorker article publication on September 23rd, have you ever discussed or heard discussion about the incident matching the description given by Ms. Ramirez to [The] New Yorker?"

"No," Kavanaugh said, according to the transcript.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom