Deborah Ramirez’s Attorney to Senate Judiciary Comm: “if you want our statement, read the New Yorker.” 

Deborah Ramirez (Facebook)

According to member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana), were unsuccessful in their efforts to reach out to Deborah Ramirez and her attorney, John Clune.

Clune’s response to the Committee boiled down to, “if you want our statement, read the New Yorker.”  In the meantime, was party to a conference call with Progressive members of the Committee.  As of last evening, Deborah Ramirez has refused to testify due to the inability to shame and bully Republican members of the Committee into comply with their demands

“Our counsel repeatedly tried to reach him,” 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.”

Source: Kavanaugh accuser Deborah Ramirez refuses to talk to Congress: ‘Read the New Yorker’., Washington Times.

John Clune playing from the same playbook as Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys and Communist bureaucrats’ on the Committee and in the Senate prefers to roll out their dog and pony show in the court of public opinion which is absent of the rule of law, a forum in which the right to due process for the accused is kicked to the curb.

Fellow propagandists in the Communist media complex willingly spread fake news, lend their platform to fellow Marxists and smear the real victims aka targets of the left’s search and destroy missions.

Case in point:

Within hours of John Clune issuing his “if you want our statement, read the New Yorker” non-statement, participated in a conference call with Senate Communists on the Judiciary Committee, the following thread of tweets were despatched:

“…our client remains adamant that is the appropriate venue for her to discuss her trauma…”  What trauma?  The woman doesn’t remember anything and what she purports to remember is so faulty and has so many gaps that you have to wonder if someone over six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney conducted a memory plant.  That would explain the gaps and the reason why Deborah Ramirez will not testify before  the Judiciary Committee.

“Ms. Ramirez is ready to swear to the FBI under penalty of perjury.”  Except, in reality, Deborah Ramirez is not “ready to swear to the FBI “ or the Senate Judiciary Committee under penalty of perjury. (Progressives and their propaganda are destroying  the reputation of attorneys.)

Not long after, CNN ran a pre-aired segment between Mr. CIA’s Anderson Cooper and Clune.  During the airing, the follow story broke on twitter from the Denver Post.

During his interview with Anderson Cooper, Clune who choosing his words carefully often repeating the accusation that Republican members of the Judiciary changed the rules, were not taking his phone calls and were not involved in the Democratic’s arm of the Senate Judicary Committee’s conference call.

Clarity:  The Committee emailed Clune to request that Deborah Ramirez submit a testimony and evidence. Clune on behalf of Deborah Ramirez has refused to provide testimony and evidence to Grassley and the Committee. Is it possible that Deborah Ramirez whose memory escapes her does not want to perjure herself? She should be. Yet, as expected, they demanded (and continue to) an FBI investigation.

Clune’s accused Republicans of moving the goal post and not treating his client fairly. While doing so, he was sure to distance himself with how his client “recalled” the alleged incident and those involved in bringing said recollection about.

Below is last night’s Anderson Cooper’s interview with John Clune.

Speaking of which, below is an excerpt of a letter that Senator Chuck Grassley, on Tuesday, sent to Dianne Feinstein regarding Deborah Ramirez.

In fact, the obvious connection between the two claims is that Senate Democrats hid both allegations of misconduct from the Committee and the public. Indeed, it was reportedly Senate Democratic staff who conveyed the allegations to the media rather than alert Republican staff to conduct a bipartisan investigation.

Finally, you ask that the FBI investigate Ms. Ramirez’s claims. As you know, Judge Kavanaugh has gone through six FBI background investigations over the past 25 years. The FBI’s investigations covered his time at Yale and uncovered nothing remotely similar to the misconduct alleged by Ms. Ramirez. Additionally, as the New Yorker story itself states, the publication could “not confirm[] with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” And the New York Times spoke to several dozen people to corroborate Ms. Ramirez’s allegations but “could find no one with firsthand knowledge.” Indeed, the Times reports that Ms. Ramirez herself said she could not be sure Judge Kavanaugh did what she alleged in the New Yorker article. It’s not clear how the FBI could further illuminate what transpired at a dormitory party 35 years ago. Even the liberal New York Times did not find these allegations “fit to print.”

As of now, the only allegations of which the Committee is aware with respect to Ms. Ramirez are the allegations described in the New Yorker. As you know, false statements made to the press are not subject to criminal penalty, but false statements to Congress are. If Ms. Ramirez submits testimony and evidence to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Committee investigators have requested, we can decide how to proceed. But, at this time, Democratic staff has not shared any such evidence it has with Republican staff.And, because Ms. Ramirez’s allegations are unrelated to Dr. Ford’s, there is no reason at all to delay the hearing on Thursday in light of these new allegations.

Source:  Letter from Senator Chuck Grassley, Majority Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to Senator Dianne Feinstein, Minority Member, pages 1-2, dated September 25, 2018.  See letter in its entirety below:

If unable to view above, you can read it here.

About Puma ByDesign 637 Articles
Unhyphenated American female, born and raised in the Empire State and who like most New Yorkers, in spite of being a registered Democrat, I voted for the candidate, not the party which meant voting often across party lines throughout the years. In 2008, coming to terms once and for all with the fact that Democrats and I had nothing in common, I left the liberal cesspool forever. Of course, I now have a grudge to settle after decades of being lied to and so I blog to right the wrongs and expose the lies.