Posted on 10/02/2018 2:49:01 AM PDT by SilvieWaldorfMD
People may not know but keyword searches are merely for research, not for checking on whether or not something’s already posted.
I was told to make a ‘title search’ and to make the headline match exactly with the title. If they fail to match the headline — they are in the wrong. You can add a word or so in [brackets] at the end, and the title search still works.
Then all you would need to do is add missing key words.
The press date of the story is immaterial. They’re not put together overnight
we know for a fact that Ramirez was phoning around during the ‘six days’ - after she initially contacted the NYer - to soul-search - that is, to find a sucker to back her story.
we also know for a fact that the NYer contacted Kavanaugh prior to print about the accusation and received a statement in return, which would have taken a day or two, was part of information-gathering for the story and included in the article: “In a statement, Kavanaugh wrote, “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple.”
we also know for a fact that Kavanaugh was questioned privately by the Judicial committee concerning a second accusation
we also know for a fact that when Kavanaugh was selected, his alumni began to buzz with the news - one of their own making the big court
we also know for a fact that in July the FBI was conducting the 6th background check - which would have entailed contacting people about Kavanaugh
what we don’t know yet - is when Ramirez decided to concoct her story, and which congresscritter steered her to the NYer.
and we don’t know yet: why Ramirez came up with, surprise, one female and two males, as central figures to her story
and we also don’t know yet - is why Ramirez refused to cooperate with the US Senate, expressing her preference for a) media coverage and b) insisting on an FBI investigation
well, that’s not really fair. the quarterlies used to be far less than currently, so of course it’s going to take longer to fundraise.
This is all the MSM gasping on the cusp of another punch in the mouth by the normal people. News this AM Manchin and Heitkamp are most likely ‘Yes’ votes when the FBI report showing JK comes back clean. That means a big middle fingers finger to the Cee U Next Tuesday’s from Alaska and Maine. Sorry NBC it’s over and your supposed Blue Wave died last week also, no chance in the Senate and hopes are just about gone in the House(I think we pickup actually). You guys can all thank the brainless Democratic women on the Judiciary committee, dummies. Remember how it felt that November night, you guys will definitely need safe spaces. It’s all Trump all the time from 2018-2020..MAGA baby!
” In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News. “
The New Yorker reached out to Kavenaugh BEFORE publication of the article. FOr his take, comments, whatever. Normal process before publication. They also allow enough time prior to pub for editing, based on Kavenaugh’s comments.
So if Brett reached out after, so friken what? Who wouldn’t?
But the dems will try to say perjury based on his exact remark, rather than “when they contacted me.”
Maybe.
Whatever. Don’t care, neither does anyone with a pulse. But dems will still try to go for “perjury!” crap.
Exactly, he did absolutely nothing wrong. The left has no evidence whatsoever, so are they are trying to create it through innuendo.
They gave him a standing ovation when he entered the room, and the link is around on twitter...
At any rate, about an hour long, Lindsey talks about the Kav thing a great deal. Among other things he mentions that he has known Brett for 20 years.
So there is another possibility for Brett to learn about Ramirez coming prior to MSM.
Take note that NBC omits most of the actual transcript. All their evidence simply shows that someone in his group seemed to know Ramirez was trying to accuse him of something. Here is the relevant part of the interview Kavanaugh did:
Note: “Incident matching this description” pic.twitter.com/YlBdRMEjma
What did NBC omits?
Deborah Ramirez had been calling mutual friends for weeks looking for dirt on him. That’s how we know that she had admitted she wasn’t even sure it was Kavanaugh.
Here is Kavanaugh later in the same interview with the committee: pic.twitter.com/ex4Dsww8R0
In other words, Kavanaugh had already heard and testified in the very same interview that Ramirez was calling around looking for dirt on him. He didn’t know the specific allegation, but he had every reason to try to pre-empt something from her.
So, How does NBC print that article without acknowledging that the very same testimony they are citing included him mentioning he had heard about her having some accusation against him for weeks? Which explains why he was trying to pre-empt her accusation... He doesn’t have the right to do that now?
I think I have been debunking at least 3-4 stories a day from the press since the Kavanaugh stuff started. Why do I have to do that? Why can’t people count on mainstream outlets to honestly present the facts themselves?
And no other reporter could check and call them out?
To make it simple for people: Nothing in the story shows Kavanaugh discussed or heard discussion about an incident matching the description. He clearly had heard that Ramirez was looking to accuse him of something and openly said so, which led to him trying to refute her.
Lighten the f up
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.