Will Boulder’s Deborah Ramirez Sink Brett Kavanaugh?

UPDATE: Jonathan Chait at the Daily Intelligencer:

Kavanaugh’s friends gathered testimony attempting to refute Ramirez’s allegations weeks before The New Yorker’s story was published. Some of the witnesses were contacted by people working on Kavanaugh’s behalf as early as July, according to text messages one witness has shared with the FBI.

This demonstrates to a near-certainty that Kavanaugh knew about the incident weeks before the story came to light. It is possible he had somehow heard about false charges being circulated in advance, worked to refute them, and then misled the Senate about when he heard about them. An alternative, more direct explanation would be that he worked to refute the charge because he knew about it from having actually done what he was accused of.

There is no doubt, however, that Kavanaugh intentionally misled the Senate. [Pols emphasis]


Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh (left) meeting with Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Yuma) in late July.

NBC News’ Chuck Todd and the political team at the network report on new developments in the investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh by Boulder Yale grad Deborah Ramirez–in particular, an assertion under oath from Kavanaugh about the allegations by Ramirez that may be demonstrably false:

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story [published on Sept. 23]. [Pols emphasis]

But NBC News’s Heidi Przbyla and Leigh Ann Caldwell write that Kavanaugh and his team were trying to refute Ramirez’s allegations BEFORE they became public.

“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.”

More: “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.’”

If this timeline of events is correct, it directly contradicts the statement Kavanaugh made in committee that he hadn’t heard about the allegations from Ramirez before they were published in the New Yorker. Needless to say, evidence of foreknowledge of those allegations by the accused after denying such knowledge lends them substantial credibility.

But the real problem is that Brett Kavanaugh appears to have lied under oath. Why would Kavanaugh lie under oath about an allegation from Ramirez he insisted had no credibility? There’s no good answer to that question. Irrespective of the result of the investigation into those allegations, committing perjury in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing is a disqualifying event–as Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona says, and if he’s true to his word will decide his vote.

This is a lifetime appointment to a position of great power. We can’t have rapists or liars on the Supreme Court.

18 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Davie says:

    I agree, that is very telling of Kavanaugh's unsuitability for the job.

    Even more is this from Slate:

    Friend Who Said Kavanaugh Wasn’t Aggressive When Drunk Was Arrested in Bar Fight Kavanaugh Allegedly Started

    One of the individuals who has been recently vouching for Brett Kavanaugh’s character in the press is Chris Dudley, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s who went on to play in the NBA

    Kavanaugh himself cited Dudley during last Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the course of arguing that he’d never been a blackout-level “sloppy drunk,” as another classmate had alleged in a Washington Post piece

    Kavanaugh instigated by throwing ice at another patron who’d cursed at him. (Yale’s campus is in New Haven.) Dudley then allegedly smashed a beer glass on the man’s head, opening a wound on his ear that required treatment at a hospital.

    friend Chris Dudley was arrested in 1985 bar incident.
    New Haven police have provided CNN with an unredacted copy of the police report which states “Mr. Dudley was transported to Union Ave detention facility by prisoner conveyance”

    As the article concludes: "Chris Dudley might have been the wrong choice as a character witness." 

  2. Moderatus says:

    So what you're saying is that Kavanaugh might have done exactly what Bill Clinton did?

    Both the sexual stuff and lying under oath?

    Why then is Bill Clinton your hero and Brett Kavanaugh is evil?

    HYPOCRITES, THAT'S WHY. You make me and all true Americans SICK.

    • Davie says:

      Last time I checked Bill Clinton wasn't up to become a supreme court justice.  And unfortunately, Kavanaugh, who learned a long time ago how to lie like a trump, is.

      And yes, I think most of us agree, you are very sick.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Neither Bill Clinton nor Kavanaugh belongs on Supreme Court. Are you and I in agreement Nutlid?

    • spaceman65 says:

      True Americans would not confirm Kavanaugh.  You aren't a true American, Moddy. You are an Americanazi

    • unnamed says:

      True Americans don't believe in putting children in cages moron.  What about all the sexual assault allegations against Trump?  You won't talk about them.

    • Republican 36 says:

      You’re forgetting some history. In Bill Clinton's case, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment and he was tried before the U.S. Senate with Chief Justice Rehnquist presiding. There was an investigation, additional review of the evidence in the House, and a full trial in the U.S. Senate.

      The House considered four articles of impeachment and adopted two of them. The two articles included perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. A second perjury count and one of abuse of power were voted down by the Republican controlled House. After the trial in the Senate, that body voted 45 to 55 against the perjury charge and 50 to 50 on the obstruction charge. It takes 67 votes to impeach, a two-thirds majority. Five out of the 55 Republican senators voted not guilty on at least one of the two counts.

      Now lets look at the allegations and procedures in Judge Kavanaugh's case. First and foremost, Bill Clinton's dalliances in his impeachment trial were consensual. The allegations before the Judiciary Committee are the opposite. The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, except for Jeff Flake, have attempted to stymie any investigation by the FBI until last Friday when they were forced into one by Senator Flake. Why? They failed to call witnesses who were named as someone (Mr. Judge) in the room at the time of the alleged assault. Why? Don't they want to get to the bottom of this and find out the facts? By taking Mr. Judge's word for it, they attempted to insulate from public questioning any statement or evidence that supported their position on the nomination. Why? Mr. Judge is beyond question a key witness. 

      Based on the contents of your comment, since you believe Clinton should have been impeached for perjury under oath and "sexual stuff,"you also firmly believe that Judge Kavanaugh should not be confirmed if it is proven he committed the same transgressions.  Right?

      If Judge Kavanaugh is not confirmed it won't be because he drank too much beer in high school and college. His nomination will fail if the ongoing FBI investigation establishes he lied before the Judiciary Committee.

      • As people here keep telling me, that was a lot of words wasted on Moddy's deaf eyes.

        • mamajama55 says:

          But a well-written review of history and its  logical consequences for the rest of us. Thanks, R36.

          • Duke Cox says:

            Agree. R36 never gives us less than logical and well-written. Fluffy never gives us more than smelly, imbecilic, piles of words.

            T***ps' comments last night about the Kavanaugh matter were as cruel as they were stupid. Is there any act or word coming from any corner of T***pworld that isn't hateful, selfish, or ignorant?

            Which….now that I think of it…makes the Fluffy one a perfect spokesperson for T***p and his army of Orcs…

      • Genghis says:

        If Judge Kavanaugh is not confirmed it won't be because he drank too much beer in high school and college. His nomination will fail if the ongoing FBI investigation establishes he lied before the Judiciary Committee.

        That's true. It'd also be grounds for booting Kavanaugh off the D.C. Circuit via impeachment and removal, although that'd never happen given the current composition of Congress.

        • RepealAndReplace says:

          I don't even think it will happen if the Dems pick up control of the House and Senate in January. There would still be 49 Republican Senators and Miss Lindsey Graham would whipping all 49 to vote to acquit if the House impeached him.

          • Genghis says:

            Oh yeah, I agree. Last I checked, there'd been 15 federal judge impeachments and 8 convictions, some for stuff like being drunk on the job or showing favoritism in appointing bankruptcy receivers. The bar for removal is relatively low, but lying under oath constitutes sufficient grounds only if a Dem does it.

            But don't take my word for it. Ask Dame Lindsey Graham.

    • Genghis says:


      Medical science is making great strides in the treatment of Clinton Tourettes. Please seek help.

  3. Early Worm says:

    It is rarely the original offense that takes down the powerful, it is the cover-up. How many times have we heard this? Luckily, the old, white males in the Senate (and White House) are too stubborn and scared to admit defeat and advance the nomination of someone more conservative, and less toxic (and maybe even female). They don't have to condemn or convict Cavanaugh, just exile him back to his old job, and allow him to collect an advance of 7 figures for his book. No, they will appoint him and further poison the well for generations.

  4. notaskinnycook says:

    Even more than anything he may have done 30-some years ago, what bothers me about Kavanaugh is his demeanor under fire. He was indignant, he raged and he cried when asked to account for his actions. I know more than I wish I did about such things, and I saw an alcoholic personality in that chair. I don't know if he still indulges or not, but I know a drunk when I see one. M.J., I know you have some wisdom on this subject, too. What do you think?

    • mamajama55 says:

      Oh yeah, definite alkie vibe there. They say that a person stops maturing emotionally at the age when they first start abusing their brain with a substance. I saw that whiny, blame-everyone-but-me, I'm the victim here mode in action. It was gross, considering the mounting allegations against this assclown. 

      I see that same lack of emotional maturity with Trump, though, who by repute is a teetotaller in reaction to his brother and father's alcoholic excesses.

      With all of the sniffling Kavanaugh was doing, I actually wondered about cocaine or some other inhaled drug, too. He seemed about to burst apart like a rotten tomato. Not the guy you want on the Supreme Court.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Ditto. I too know more about the subject than I wish but it was clear when he took off on Amy Klouchar who had the temerity to ask him about his drinking. That defensiveness and projection is classic alcoholic/addict behavior.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.