Witness Tampering from the Blasey-Ford team - and There's Evidence

1. 86

   RJ Schwartzposted 4 years ago

   Leland Ingham Keyser, a longtime friend of Christine Ford has already stated numerous times that she was not at the party nor has any recollection of any party (the one which Mrs. Ford states she was molested by Brett Kavanaugh.)
   
   In the recent BI Investigation by the FBI, Keyser stated that Democrats, led by former FBI Agent Monica McLean, pressured her to change her story to support the account told by Mrs. Ford - she did not lie but instead gave the text messages to the FBI.  These were sent in a separate package to the White House and the Senate.  The details have not been released on the exact details.
   
   Witness tampering is a felony.
   
   Monica McLean was the person suspected of getting training on how to pass a polygraph test from Mrs. Ford.  She worked for Preet Bharara (US Attorney for the Southern District of New York)
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If true, not surprising. I doubt any charges will come of it. Politically motivated shenanigans are the rule of the day.

      replyreport
   2. 69

      JAKE Earthshineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Seriously RJ, where do you get this nonsense or is it just made up?

      replyreport
      1. 94

         Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Jake, I thought you left. Oh well, here it is from the Canada Free Press.
         
         "Keyser told the investigators that she was — as the Journal notes — urged to clarify her statement by Monica McLean, a former FBI agent and friend of Ford’s, the paper reported, citing people familiar with the matter."
         
         https://canadafreepress.com/article/lel … ory-back-f

         replyreport
         1. 69

            JAKE Earthshineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            What does clarifying a statement have to do with 'witness tampering'?
            
            I knew it was bogus made up nonsense and unfortunately, that's the reputation HubPages is gaining because of it:

            replyreport
            1. 94

               Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Why you still here?  I thought you left.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  RJ Schwartzposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Propagandist's never leave Mike

                  replyreport
   3. 0

      promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      What is your source for these claims? Please include a link.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Since you guys decline to back up your claims with sources, I dug them up myself.
      
      According to Wall Street Journal sources, mutual friends of Ford and Keyser had contacted Keyser 'to warn her that her statement was being used by Republicans to rebut the allegation against Judge Kavanaugh.
      
      'The friends told Ms. Keyser that if she had intended to say she didn’t remember the party—not that it had never happened—that she should clarify her statement, the person said, adding that the friends hadn’t “pressured” Ms. Keyser.'
      
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … ement.html
      
      Wow. That's horrible. Asking her to "clarify" her statement in case it was being misused for political gain. 

      replyreport
2. 89

   IslandBitesposted 4 years ago

   You forgot this part from the same article.
   
   Judge Kavanaugh and his allies also lobbied former classmates to defend him. Ahead of a Sept. 23 New Yorker article about an allegation by Deborah Ramirez that Judge Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her in their freshman year at Yale, a former classmate, Karen Yarasavage, said she had gotten a call from “Brett’s guy” and that “Brett asked me to go on record,” according to a memo about the conversation by another former classmate. Ms. Yarasavage is quoted anonymously in the New Yorker piece, the memo said. The judge denied the claim that he exposed himself.
   
   (During the Senate hearing last week, Kavanaugh told the committee he first learned of Ramirez's allegations in the New Yorker article published on September 23.)

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The key point was that she was asked to lie.  Did Kavanaugh request his friends lie or just tell the story as they remember it?
      
      One is more than reasonable, one is unethical and criminal.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I haven't read the text msg. Have you? Because what I read is that they asked her to clarify her statement.
         
         Even if that's true... You forgot the other key point.
         Whatever his requests, he lied under oath. Is that unethical and criminal?

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, I should have included the qualifier "if true".  Necessary with things found on the web.
            
            From the OP: "Keyser stated that Democrats, led by former FBI Agent Monica McLean, pressured her to change her story to support the account told by Mrs. Ford"  does not mean that it is true.
            
            Sorry, but that you think he lied has zero to do with whether  there was witness tampering or whether Kavanaugh participated in it.  One might as well say that key points were that Ford lied, that Democrats turned an investigation into a media circus, that they failed to do their job, that they lied themselves. 
            
            None of which has to do with Kavanaugh tampering with witnesses.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               You don't know what she was asked to do. You don't know what BK asked his friends to do. I, certainly don't. Texts are not public, yet.
               
               So, the allegedly tampering with witness is just that, an allegation.
               
               That Kavanaugh contacted friends before the Ramirez article is another allegation for which there are supposedly texts or emails. Haven't read those yet.
               
               But thta Kavanaugh said under oath that the first time he knew about Ramirez claims was in the article is a fact.
               
               If the texts and/or emails show that in fact he did, for whatever reason... Did he lied under oath?
               Is that unethical and criminal?

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  That's what I said; we don't know.
                  
                  Did Ford lie when she said she was too afraid to fly to testify?
                  Did Feinstein lie when she said her office did not leak the letter?
                  Did the entire Democratic committee fail to do their duty to investigate (asking no questions of Ford?_
                  Did Ford lie when she said Kavanaugh tried to rape her?

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Psss, you forgot the "Did Kavanaugh" questions.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        No I didn't - the topic is witness tampering. 
                        
                        Have you gotten the impression that I'm not real interested in changing it to the evils of Kavanaugh?  I haven't researched the particular one you mention, but I've looked at the others (that I'm aware of - claims are a dime a dozen and come up almost hourly) and concluded there is nothing to raise concern.  Those folks gnashing their teeth over exaggerated claims of lying aren't going to stop doing it no matter how irrational it is.  IMO.
                        
                        Would you like to discuss the probability or likelihood that the Democrats committed witness tampering re: Ford's testimony?

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           No I didn't - the topic is witness tampering. 
                           
                           
                           Then you forgot "Did Kavanaugh contacted his friends (before Ramirez public accusation) because he knew what she was going to say? Did Kavanaugh did what Ramirez said? Did Kavanaugh asked his friends to cover for him?" and so...
                           
                           But you wouldn't, I know.
                           
                           Would you like to discuss the probability or likelihood that the Democrats committed witness tampering re: Ford's testimony?
                           
                           Sure.
                           
                           Would like to discuss the probability or likelihood that Kavanaugh committed witness tampering re: Ramirez accusations?

                           replyreport
                           1. 91

                              GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              Wait, wait, hold on a minute. buttttt. for both of you. From what I have read, or could find to read. No one has, (of us 'common folk'), seen the texts yet.
                              
                              As it stands the Republicans are saying they do not say what the Democrats say they say. And, from what I could find, the active actors have not clarified just what they say.
                              
                              "Brett's people, "a friend of a friend," Ramirez called to check, Brett's people called to check ....
                              
                              Come on folks, where is there anything but a slick handgrip to grab here?
                              
                              Geesh,..
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                 Exactly. That's what I said.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 91

                                    GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    yeah, but I wanted to say it too. ;-)
                                    
                                    
                                    

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 89

                                       IslandBitesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                       Salud!

                                       report
                                 2. 95

                                    wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                                    At least we can both agree on that!

                                    replyreport
3. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 4 years ago

   Time to give up on the phony , unproven , baseless accusations just because of  airheaded ideologies ,  Kavanaugh's a shoe in for tomorrow or if not tomorrow when Trump and senate  reapplies for confirmation .  There has been no phonier or more timely a movement that #Mettoo in today's Trump Obstruction .
   
   Get over it .

   replyreport
   1. 69

      JAKE Earthshineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And if Satan wins tomorrow and conspiracy peddler drinker Brett KavaNUT is somehow confirmed, he's also a shoe in for impeachment just like Bozo Trump:

      replyreport
   2. 86

      RJ Schwartzposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Jeff Flake just announced he is a YES vote.....in case anyone was uninformed.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         No surprise. He has to kiss the Right now and then to get his Republican nomination for President in 2020 -- unless Corker beats him to it.

         replyreport
         1. 91

            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Damn promisem, you really seem to be in my sights today. 2020? Not a chance. If Flake has any presidential aspirations,  as a Republican candidate, it will have to be the 2024 elections.
            
            Well.... I guess should have qualified that with if Pres. Trump doesn't get impeached, or something. Do you not see Pres. Trunp as a 2020 candidate? Does Flake have to "kisss" whatever, 6 years ahead of time?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I caught that, too, but wrote it off as just another subtle little spin that Trump will not survive the next 2 years.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  No spin, just logic. Being President doesn't guarantee Trump the nomination in 2020 even if he survives the next 2 years.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     How many sitting presidents didn't get the party nomination if the last 50 or 100 years (if they wanted it and were still sitting at the time of the election)?
                     
                     That's logic, not an assumption it won't happen because you don't want it to.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        The fact that it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't happen, especially in this unique historical case.
                        
                        Corker and especially Flake are positioning themselves as Trump opponents. They could easily stay quiet and avoid the heat as they "retire" from political office. But they aren't.

                        replyreport
                        1. 95

                           wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           So we should morph "possible" into "probable" or even "certain" as you did?  I don't see that as logical at all; merely spin.
                           
                           Although it is possible that ET's will come tomorrow and push the moon into the earth, 4 billion years says that's it's logical to conclude that isn't going to happen.  And 100% experience with past presidents says the same thing; it isn't going to happen.  (Would absolutely love to see it happen, though...followed by the election of a newly independent Donald Trump).
                           
                           Nor is this a "unique historical case" at all.  We've had hated presidents, presidents that fall far outside the statesman category and presidents that were called "mad".  Nothing new going on here.
                           
                           Personally, I think our legislators have not gotten that clear message sent with Trump's election - that "business as usual" in the hallowed halls of Congress WILL change.  Perhaps the midterms will reinforce it (though I find that doubtful), but I expect that "we the people" are going to need yet another outsider injected into the swamp.  And those two do not fit the bill.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              Let's stick to my point. Is it possible for a sitting President to lose the party nomination for a second term?

                              replyreport
            2. 0

               promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I believe Flake and Corker are not running for re-election because they both plan to go after the Republican nomination in 2020 and push out Trump. They are sure acting like it.
               
               They would make a formidable ticket together in part because they would represent both the east and west half of the country, they are not far right, they are clearly appealing to a much broader base than just Republicans.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I can tell you as someone who has been part of the Republican party for a LONG time and has worked for Republican candidates for a long time there is NOTHING to stop President Donald Trump from getting the Republican nomination in 2020.  His approval rating with the base is over 88 percent.  He is seen as a man who stood up against the crooked media and crooked Democrats.  Now, I say this as someone with a extensive history and experience with the party.  If you are an outsider...I don't expect you would understand why his support is so strong.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm not an outsider, and my family and I have had deep connections to the Republican Party my entire life. I just don't mindlessly follow everything the party says or does.
                     
                     I have simply quit identifying myself as a Republican and quit voting 100% Republican because of extremist policies.
                     
                     The party will nominate the person who can win the Presidency. If the economy tanks between now and that time -- just look what's happening to inflation and interest rates -- Trump will not get the nomination.
                     
                     His base approval rating will decline, and his base is not enough to get him elected. Besides, party leadership can't wait to get rid of him.
                     
                     Nothing is certain in life, especially politics.

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        I disagree.  I believe the new trade deals and other factors will keep the economy strong for a long time.  President Donald Trump knows how to make money.  Many Republicans want to get rid of the party leadership.  Unless something really unanticipated and drastic happens, I don't see another Republican that would even stand a slim chance of challenging President Donald Trump.
                        
                        I think the only sitting president to not get his party's nomination was Lyndon Johnson in 1968.  He quit before his party chose a candidate.  That's the only incident I can think of in history.

                        replyreport
               2. 91

                  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  As they would say on 'Family Feud'  Good answer!
                  
                  But ... for any chance, the Republican party would have to back them over their incumbent. (yes, I am aware the party is supposed to be unbiased in support of all Republican candidates, but, we saw a taste of how that plays out with the DNC and Bernie Sanders) Hmm ...
                  
                  Flake and Corker? What a name joke bonanza that would be for comedians. Wait, that's not such a flaky idea, I can see some real corkers coming out. (ugh, that was lame)
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Thanks, GA. I'll add one more point. Isn't it interesting that the retiring Jeff Flake is doing such a great job of getting the spotlight on himself over and over again just in recent months.
                     
                     And yes, those names are a problem. I can see the Democrat ads now: "Don't elect a Flake!"

                     replyreport
4. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 4 years ago

   Mike Pence = Tie breaker .................
   
   Guess what obstructionists ?

   replyreport
5. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 4 years ago

   Oh no !     Now we're really worried ! *Weekly Standard .
   

   replyreport
6. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 4 years ago

   Anyone who hasn't listened to Susan Collins speech shouldn't even be posting in forums at this point .

   replyreport
7. 94

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   This needs to be carefully read to be understood.  Focus on intimidation, etc.
   
   TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS
   Title 18, U.S.C., Sec. 1512, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to use intimidation or physical force to threaten another person with intent to influence the testimony of a witness in any Court proceeding.
   
   A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the witness was scheduled to be a witness in court; Second: That the person used intimidation/physical force against such witness; and Third: That the person did so knowingly and willfully with the intent to influence the testimony of the witness.

   replyreport