Kavanaugh accuser Deborah Ramirez refuses to talk to Congress: 'Read the New Yorker'

[Moot]

And you have the nerve to call me dishonest in another thread. Fascinating.

Oh please...get over yourself. I know I have.

 

[Moot]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but didn't Judge make his statement as a sworn affidavit? Maybe I assumed this.

His letter was not a legal affidavit and he didn't take an oath or swear on a bible or anything. He simply wrote a letter to congress telling them that he can't remember the incident and refuses to be questioned about it. And he then disappeared off the face of the earth and only to be recently discovered hiding out in a beach cottage in Delaware. Coincidentally, shortly after HS, Dr. Ford moved to a beach town in Delaware, too. It wouldn't surprise me if it was the same beach...and one that is right across the border from Maryland's eastern shore.

In the interview with WaPo, Ford said that years after the incident, she ran into Judge at a social function and that it was extremely awkward for both of them.

<sing> It's a small world, after all...

 

[smallvoice]

Well played, humbolt.

You should investigate the term "honor", and find out what it means. The chief problem with our politics today is the abandonment of that term, and all it implies.

 

[smallvoice]

Well, they should have started this important investigation the instant Ms Feinstein received the written charge. She let that train leave the station by sitting on it until the 11th hour.

We need an investigation of all this to determine what is bull**** (if any) and what isn't (if any).

 

[The Mark]

Well, they should have started this important investigation the instant Ms Feinstein received the written charge. She let that train leave the station by sitting on it until the 11th hour.

That does appear to be politically motivated, and I dislike it.

But then, I dislike Feinstein.

However, there are in theory some more legit reasons to hold off, maybe they were trying to find some supporting evidence?
Although that would be the FBI's job when they investigate, I'd think...


Like I've said elsewhere, the dems may be using these allegations against Kavanaugh for political reasons, but that doesn't mean they're false accusations.

 

[smallvoice]

Until they are proven, the accusations are neither true nor false. But what Feinstein did only pushed the evaluation back to the time when it would do the most damage to the timely confirmation, of ANY nominee, clearly a politically motivated action.

That does appear to be politically motivated, and I dislike it.

But then, I dislike Feinstein.

However, there are in theory some more legit reasons to hold off, maybe they were trying to find some supporting evidence?
Although that would be the FBI's job when they investigate, I'd think...


Like I've said elsewhere, the dems may be using these allegations against Kavanaugh for political reasons, but that doesn't mean they're false accusations.

 

[The Mark]

Until they are proven, the accusations are neither true nor false. But what Feinstein did only pushed the evaluation back to the time when it would do the most damage to the timely confirmation, of ANY nominee, clearly a politically motivated action.

If memory serves about when this started, didn't Ford get fed up waiting and go to the press or something?

Edit: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...llegations-timeline-supreme-court/1408073002/

Edit 2: If I'm reading this right, Feinstein was contacted by Ford July 30th, and Ford asked her to keep it quiet.
Then September 12th the senator sends the letter to the FBI after leaks and rumors from various dems about it.

And then more, of course.

So I was incorrect.

Assuming USAtoday is accurate.

 

[Exactice]

If memory serves about when this started, didn't Ford get fed up waiting and go to the press or something?

Edit: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...llegations-timeline-supreme-court/1408073002/

Edit 2: If I'm reading this right, Feinstein was contacted by Ford July 30th, and Ford asked her to keep it quiet.
Then September 12th the senator sends the letter to the FBI after leaks and rumors from various dems about it.

And then more, of course.

So I was incorrect.

Assuming USAtoday is accurate.

SO how about this...... Say the name Was never leaked PERIOD.

1) Would Feinstein given the report to the FBI a week before?

2) If the Report was NEVER made public, likely Kavannagh would be confirmed right about now?

3) BUT the investigation COULD continue behind the scenes while Kavannagh is appointed a SCOTUS judge right?

If he is guilt he would have to resign or be impeached no?

So why the school house games and WHY are we NOT trying to FIND the LEAKER. shouldn't Fords Attorney try to SOURCE who this leaker is as this was against her will and what initiated the death threats?

WHY DOES THE LEAKER GET OFF FREE. WHY ARE WE GOING AFTER THEM???

 

[The Mark]

SO how about this...... Say the name Was never leaked PERIOD.

1) Would Feinstein given the report to the FBI a week before?

2) If the Report was NEVER made public, likely Kavannagh would be confirmed right about now?

3) BUT the investigation COULD continue behind the scenes while Kavannagh is appointed a SCOTUS judge right?

If he is guilt he would have to resign or be impeached no?

So why the school house games and WHY are we NOT trying to FIND the LEAKER. shouldn't Fords Attorney try to SOURCE who this leaker is as this was against her will and what initiated the death threats?

WHY DOES THE LEAKER GET OFF FREE. WHY ARE WE GOING AFTER THEM???

Cause at some point after the leaks she decided to go fully public and is running with it.

 

[Exactice]

Cause at some point after the leaks she decided to go fully public and is running with it.

Of course that obvious.... but is it "SHE" thats going full public, or is it her lawyer and the backing of the DNC to go running with it.

If she sent the letter to Diane Feinstein dont you think she brought it up to your Democratic group and someone was saying GAWT DAMN we got gold here..... they wanted this NO they wanted this discourse.....

YET why has NOT a single case been open locally where the crime was committed?

 

[The Mark]

Of course that obvious.... but is it "SHE" thats going full public, or is it her lawyer and the backing of the DNC to go running with it.

If she sent the letter to Diane Feinstein dont you think she brought it up to your Democratic group and someone was saying GAWT DAMN we got gold here..... they wanted this NO they wanted this discourse.....

YET why has NOT a single case been open locally where the crime was committed?

Outside statue of limitations?
Still investigating?
Lack of evidence after 35+ years (I assume any physical would have been destroyed or degraded in that time)?

 

[Exactice]

Outside statue of limitations?
Still investigating?
Lack of evidence after 35+ years?

1) Its been noted there is NO Statute of limitation in Maryland
2) Due to the Catholic Priest the underage sexual accusation statues of limitation is removed (they were both under 18 considered minors)
3) Lack of evidence after 35 years, so if it lacks for the lower local Policy department what do they expect the FBI to do?

 

[Slingshot Bob]

Actually that's exactly what he said. So........... He's combating the people like you who are doing nothing but spreading doubt. Even as stuff gets updated I've seen people claim it's fake news. The magazines just making it up as they go along, when not even in the same thoughts do they realize that Kavanaugh has changed his story four times and the most egregious of all was on the record.

Link?

 

[Atomic Kid]

From the Washington Times:

A Yale University classmate of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is refusing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee about her charges of sexual misconduct against him, a panel member said Tuesday.

Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana Republican and a panel member, told a gaggle of reporters that a lawyer for Deborah Ramirez told him that she already has told her story to the press.

“Our counsel repeatedly tried to reach him,” Mr. Kennedy said. “They finally did reach him, and he said we are not issuing a statement. He said if you want our statement, read the New Yorker.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/25/deborah-ramirez-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-wont-testi/

So that's that. The Committee will have to rely on a magazine article rather than hear from Ms. Ramirez herself.

Not true. Ramirez says she is willing to testify before the committee. As is the 3rd accuser Ms Sedgewick. Although both would prefer the FBI to investigate. Why is it that is only these women who would welcome an FBI investigation and not any of the Republican committte members, Mr Kavanaugh and his Mr Judge? If they are so supremely confident that the truth is their side what do they have to fear from the FBI?

 

[The Mark]

1) Its been noted there is NO Statute of limitation in Maryland

Depends. The least of the sexual crimes there has a statute of limitations, I think.

2) Due to the Catholic Priest the underage sexual accusation statues of limitation is removed (they were both under 18 considered minors)

Wasn't aware of this, does it apply if both are minors or only if one is?

3) Lack of evidence after 35 years, so if it lacks for the lower local Policy department what do they expect the FBI to do?

Unsure, I'm no expert on how they do their thing.
Maybe investigate the more recent allegations to see if there is any indication of intent to falsely accuse?

 

[Exactice]

Depends. The least of the sexual crimes there has a statute of limitations, I think.
Wasn't aware of this, does it apply if both are minors or only if one is?
Unsure, I'm no expert on how they do their thing.
Maybe investigate the more recent allegations to see if there is any indication of intent to falsely accuse?

My understanding Maryland has No statute for sexual crimes

For the Minor I dont think it matters if a minor was sexual assaulted, by it by an adult or another minor, a MINOR was sexually assaulted.

Finally your point of points.... bringing forth a case that is 35 years old. IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE. which all of these are seeming to LACK there of.... only way to potentially get more is to get an investigation going FILE with the local police department. BUT also the 2nd accuser was "calling" classmates to verify, NY Times was trying as well 2, dozen people and none to corroborate.

SOOOO... Lack of evidence means lack of case. Sorry even if Kavannagh is guilty that is how our justice system works. With that was listingening to a show earlier about a "Physiologist" That could review this. If Kavannagh was a Predator @ 16,17 etc and for teh last 30 years he has been working for the Federal Government with NO other accusations. The tendencies are not consistent. usually there are patterns and trends YET all during his professional career there is NO edification of being a predator? Thats odd... No?

 

[Kal'Stang]

His letter was not a legal affidavit and he didn't take an oath or swear on a bible or anything. He simply wrote a letter to congress telling them that he can't remember the incident and refuses to be questioned about it. And he then disappeared off the face of the earth and only to be recently discovered hiding out in a beach cottage in Delaware. Coincidentally, shortly after HS, Dr. Ford moved to a beach town in Delaware, too. It wouldn't surprise me if it was the same beach...and one that is right across the border from Maryland's eastern shore.

In the interview with WaPo, Ford said that years after the incident, she ran into Judge at a social function and that it was extremely awkward for both of them.

<sing> It's a small world, after all...

Bold: And that was enough that if he is found to be lying it will constitute a perjury charge.

 

[Samhain]

That's right. His lawyer signed the statement. Now if Mark Judge himself testifies under oath, that will be a very different matter.

Just to close this out, he released a second statement with the same information to the judiciary last night that he signed.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

How is that different than the Committee relying on a book instead of Judge himself?

Of course, the committee could always ask the president to request an FBI investigation. So why won't they?

Start another witch hunt. Why didn't the democrats report this to the authorities when they first got the information and start a criminal investigation? The answer is simple. They don't care about the truth just their political agenda to delay the appointment process.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

The GOM have already denied the FBI investigations for both women... I would not be surprised if they aren't taking their questions anymore.

So there cannot be a criminal investigation? Really. So I go to the police and report a crime and the DA or police say hold on let me check with the GOP before we look into this. Right.

 

[Cardinal]

Just to close this out, he released a second statement with the same information to the judiciary last night that he signed.

Link?

 

[Samhain]

Link?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...-letter-to-committee-cillizza-sot-ctn-vpx.cnn

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/im... to Grassley, Feinstein - Ford Allegation.pdf

 

[Cardinal]

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...-letter-to-committee-cillizza-sot-ctn-vpx.cnn

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/im... to Grassley, Feinstein - Ford Allegation.pdf

I'd have to wait for the opinion of a qualified law professional to know how legally enforceable that letter is, but it's moot now. Even if he wrote a letter admitting that he and Kavanaugh raped a hundred women, including Dr. Ford, the Republican-led Judiciary Committee would just toss it in the garbage.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Even with a ringer prosecutor going after her Thursday.

I wasn't impressed by that "ringer prosecutor", she didn't question the woman about the allegation's details, didn't try to confirm any facts. I think she could have delved into the woman's statement she felt coming forward was her "civic duty" but wanted to do so anonymously, that she could have asked about why Ford thought all her witnesses denied this, even about her excuse for earlier testimony due to fear of flying (after she indicated her frequent travels around the world). I suspect this was intended, we knew the woman had no corroborating evidence, no surprise witnesses, wasn't going to produce anything that could verify her claim, it was just a concession to the grossly exaggerated Democrat outrage and mainstream media's outcry. The "ringer prosecutor" was helpful in that it avoided the impression the bunch of old Republican men on that Judiciary Committee were "grilling" this poor "horrified" woman who suffered such a traumatic experience it required psychiatric treatment.

 

[Chomsky]

I wasn't impressed by that "ringer prosecutor", she didn't question the woman about the allegation's details, didn't try to confirm any facts. I think she could have delved into the woman's statement she felt coming forward was her "civic duty" but wanted to do so anonymously, that she could have asked about why Ford thought all her witnesses denied this, even about her excuse for earlier testimony due to fear of flying (after she indicated her frequent travels around the world). I suspect this was intended, we knew the woman had no corroborating evidence, no surprise witnesses, wasn't going to produce anything that could verify her claim, it was just a concession to the grossly exaggerated Democrat outrage and mainstream media's outcry. The "ringer prosecutor" was helpful in that it avoided the impression the bunch of old Republican men on that Judiciary Committee were "grilling" this poor "horrified" woman who suffered such a traumatic experience it required psychiatric treatment.

I thought she provided decorum though, keeping the interview on topic and evidential though. The Kavanaugh hearing rolled into an emotive ****-fest, getting away from its fact-finding mission.