Patterico's Pontifications

9/26/2018

A Third Woman Accuses Brett Kavanaugh

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:14 pm



[guest post by Dana]

A third accuser has come forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, saying “he was physically abusive toward girls in high school and present at a house party in 1982 where she says she was the victim of a “gang” rape.” Michael Avenatti is representing the woman, Julie Swetnick. I’m quoting from the Washington Post’s report about the claims, but with this caveat, per the Washington Post:

The Post has not independently verified her allegations regarding President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.

The New York Times added a similar caveat to their report about Swetnick’s allegations, as well:

None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.

Megan Twohey reminds readers:

Not a judgment on the underlying claims, but worth noting that unlike the first two allegations against Kavanaugh, this one is not coming through a news story that was reported out and vetted by journalists.

(Which is amusing in that Kavanaugh himself was vetted six times by the FBI and yet, here we are…)

Perhaps the biggest caution is that this latest allegation involves Michael Avenatti.

Anyway, make of it what you will:

In a declaration, Julie Swetnick, who attended Gaithersburg High School, said she observed Kavanaugh drinking excessively at house parties and engaging “in abusive and physically aggressive behavior toward girls.”

Swetnick said she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and others to get girls inebriated so they could be “gang raped” in side rooms at house parties by a “train” of numerous boys.

“I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh.”

In her declaration, Swetnick recounts an alleged incident in approximately 1982 in which she says she was the victim of a “gang rape” at which Kavanaugh was present.

She does not say Kavanaugh participated in the alleged rape or what, if any, role he played, nor does she say where the alleged episode took place.

“During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me,” Swetnick says. “I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking.”

Here is the affidavit:

Specifics:

“I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be “gang raped” in a side room or bedroom by a “train” of numerous boys. I have firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting their “turn” with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh.”

In 1982, I became the victim of one of these “gang” or “train” rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present. Shortly after the incident, I shared what had transpired with at least two other people. During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys who were raping me. I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking.

Kavanaugh has denied the allegations, saying he doesn’t even know who Swetnick is, and that it never happened:

This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone. I don’t know who this is and this never happened,”

A couple of points: If you read the affidavit, Swetnick said she attended “over ten house parties” during 1981-1982 where these alleged “gang rapes” were taking place. It doesn’t seem reasonable that a young woman who was upset by what was happening would not only continue to go to parties where “gang rapes” were happening, but also apparently never notified the authorities or any other adults about it. If girls were being regularly victimized, she just let it go on without saying anything to anyone, or without at least warning the “especially vulnerable” or “shy” girls? While I understand an individual being reluctant, or even so traumatized as to be unable to report her own attack, it doesn’t make sense that Swetnick would not, at the very least, step in to protect other girls from having this happen to them. Even anonymously contacting the authorities. Also, by virtue of her statement, if it’s true, just how many victims and assailants are out there?

–Dana

211 Responses to “A Third Woman Accuses Brett Kavanaugh”

  1. Good post.

    Why is a female college sophomore hanging out with high school boys? I don’t remember that happening in my experience ever.

    Patterico (3a7c4f)

  2. Hello.

    Dana (023079)

  3. this is gonna go down on her permanent record you know

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  4. Ford has racked up nearly $200k in #ResistanceBucks from GoFundMe. This is an incentive for non-credible people to emerge out of the woodwork.

    Patterico (3a7c4f)

  5. ResistanceBucks – new from the Illinois Lottery (after JB Pritzker takes the oath in January).

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  6. gofundme is the one what said sweet cakes by melissa couldn’t do a gofundme cause they were being sued by the state

    bit disgraced FBI criminal Andy McCabe who’s probably going to jail for his crimes gets to do one because gofundme is a socialist front group that hates freedom and democracy

    do not give your money to gofundme

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  7. I heard that McCabe was the guy who outed Rosy, so does he get a wrist slap/GOOJ card?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  8. i heard that too but rosy didn’t deny it

    and dirty corrupt jeffy sessions is pretending not to notice any of this

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  9. None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times

    It sounds like even the relatively left-wing news sources are getting wary of unsubstantiated claims.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  10. fake rape’s becoming such a lucrative industry it’s like the new crypto

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  11. Several things she doesn’t say:

    1) when, other than summer, any of this happened.
    2) who actually raped her.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  12. all of them raped her!

    all the guys at these parties were rapacious rapey rapers!

    and they woulda got away with it too if it wasn’t for the creepy stripper lawyer and the scooby gang

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  13. Like I said, there are five reasons why we should think Swetnick is lying:
    1. Avenatti
    2. Avenatti
    3. Avenatti
    4. Avenatti
    5. If it were even remotely plausible, the Democrat Media Smear Machine would have run with it ahead of Ford and Ramirez.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. knock knock

    who’s there

    gang rape

    hi come on in my name’s Julie do you come to these parties a lot? i never seen you before and I been to every one so far!

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  15. (Which is amusing in that Kavanaugh himself was vetted six times by the FBI and yet, here we are…)

    People miss things: QAD tested post assembly, retested, shipped to the Cape, tested, retested upon delivery; installed, tested, retested on the pad- Apollo 13 was launched, and they still missed a fused switch and the 02 tank blew up; engineers repeatedly suggested management review fight critical problems w/O-rings; they balked, Challenger blew up; teams recommended outside, independent agency ‘resources’ review images of STS-107 post foam strike; managers balked; Columbia was incinerated… =sigh=

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  16. they shoulda had a creepy stripper lawyer double-check them o-rings Mr. DCSCA

    i’ve said that for years

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  17. “This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone. I don’t know who this is and this never happened,”

    That’s kind of non-denial denial language.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  18. Not only was she a college student attending a lot of high school parties that were, by her account, marked by repeated gang rapes, by her timeline she continued to go to the parties after she herself was raped. She says that she attended these parties in 1981-83, yet “In approximately 1982″ she was raped. So any party she attended in 1983 would be after that.

    Not only had she graduated from high school by the time she supposedly met Kavanaugh in 1980 or 1981, she graduated from Gaithersburg High School. Georgetown Prep is in North Bethesda. So, not only was she attending a bunch of rape-riddled high school parties, she was driving a few towns over to do so.

    Additionally, the media has been swarming around alums of Georgetown Prep and the Holton School, trying to get corroboration of Ford’s story, or at least some dirt on Kavanaugh. They’ve gotten unflattering quotes from classmates who clearly aren’t fond of him……yet not one single person ever intimated that they’d even heard a rumor that Brett Kavanaugh was a member of the infamous Georgetown Prep Gang Rape Posse. Swetnick says that these were fairly large parties with a lot of attendees. Presumably, with Kavanaugh and Mark Judge always present, there were other students from Georgetown Prep and the Holton School there. Wouldn’t they have known about this long-term gang rape party scheme? Shouldn’t the press have gotten at least one statement from a member of the Georgetown Prep class of ’83 who may have an ax to grind with Kavanaugh that says “You know, I heard a rumor that he was at parties where girls were raped and he may have even participated”?

    It’s ludicrous, and easily dismissed. Add that to the fact that Ford’s polygraph report, now released, is a joke that contradicts a)her terror at the idea of flying, since she took it in Maryland on August 7th yet was back in California on August 10th b)the number of people at the party – she wrote to Feinstein that there were 5 people, herself and four others, but wrote a statement at the polygraph that there were “four boys and a couple of girls”, AND the fact that her lawyers just stated that she will not release her therapist’s notes, and this all is plainly a repulsive, slanderous hatchet job for political purposes.

    radar (83b6d8)

  19. “this never happened” is a non-denial denial?

    radar (83b6d8)

  20. Yes, 3 years older than them, she returns for the alleged gang rapey parties!

    Rule 69: Older women are not to mix and party with younger men until they hit CougarStatus.

    Creepy P0rn Lawyer is teh bomb!

    Colonel Haiku (501bf0)

  21. 15… stop trying to attach your leash to the Right Stuff, DCSCA. It’s unbecoming.

    Colonel Haiku (501bf0)

  22. I’m so disgusted with Avenetti I don’t have words to describe it. Given his history, how can anyone take him seriously?:

    Rochf (877dba)

  23. Maybe she was a female Wooderson. Did she drive a 1970 Chevelle? Did she say she had to just keep livin’, L-I-V-I-N?

    radar (83b6d8)

  24. Flake on The Hill:

    If we cannot have a human — rather than a political — response to these witnesses, if we are heedless to the capacity that we have to do real and lasting damage, then maybe we shouldn’t be here.

    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408550-flake-rips-trump-lawmakers-over-handling-of-kavanaugh-allegations

    Humanity before party sounds right to me.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  25. @21. Per the new commenting rules please refrain from personal attacks. It’s unbecoming. Thank you.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  26. or could have been gross-out ugly in High School, comes back hot (as opposed to + freshmen 10 lbs) and decides to be a manipulator of young dudes not unlike the Jr.Hi/HS teachers of now.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  27. flake’s such a cream cheese licking weirdo

    this is why he doesn’t have any friends

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  28. This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone. I don’t know who this is and this never happened,”

    That’s kind of non-denial denial language.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 9/26/2018 @ 12:49 pm

    DCSCA… how is that a non-denial?

    “I don’t know who this is and this never happened” is an emphatic denial.

    whembly (b9d411)

  29. This is ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone

    No, Sliders.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliders

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  30. Let’s keep the focus on the arguments, please.

    Patterico (3a7c4f)

  31. 25… no attack, just advice on the continued employment of an odd analogy

    Colonel Haiku (501bf0)

  32. Humanity before party sounds right to me.

    Humanity would preclude making unsubstantiated charges. And if you are going to make accusations of serious offenses, you’d better be prepared for serious questioning.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  33. Is there a limit to the lengths the Left will go to deliver on Schumer’s solemn promise of “doing whatever it takes to stop this confirmation”?

    Apparently not.

    Colonel Haiku (501bf0)

  34. Kavanaugh wrote the other day about a “co-ordinated effort” </i?

    That's another word for a conspiracy.

    It's about time to admit there are some "conspiracy theories" that are true, and you can't be against all conspiracy theories.

    Really, the only question here is: Are the Republicans engaged in a conspiracy or are the Democrats engaged in a conspiracy?

    But you have to be careful to distinguish between realistic conspiracies and unrealistic ones. FAir onesw and unfair ones.

    Carol L Moore, author of a book about Waco, had maybe agood word about conspiracy theories. She wrote on Friday, June 13, 1997 3:51 PM:

    > As with many other things in life, one must
    > be discriminating in giving credence to
    > various conspiracy theories. Some are totally
    > on target, others off the wall, with a whole
    > range in between. Some are enragingly true,
    > some fun, some tedious, some just plain annoying.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  35. “Humanity would preclude making unsubstantiated charges.”
    Well, I’m glad Chuck has it all figured out for us. You assume to know what happened. But actually, no one really knows the certain truth except the handful of people involved in all this.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  36. @31. Disagree. It is a perfectly legitimate analogy- particularly as government agencies are involved.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  37. 18. Christine Blasey Ford had also not released her therapists notes, according to Rush Limbaugh.

    Questions for Christine Blasey:

    1) Was this the only time anything like this happened to you? (A YES answer means she potentially could have confused or lied about two different incidents – she will want to say no. A NO answer means that should anyone find evidence of some other incident – she may have incoporated something real that haoppened at a different time and place and she can’t claim themn she BK did it too>)

    2) Did you ever warn any other girls about Brett Kavanaugh, even if you didn’t tell them anything sepecific? (this happened with some people who dealt with Harvey Weinstein) (She could answer she had no occasionn to, but that establishes also limited contact)

    3) Did you tell your therapist about this more than once in 2012? (More than once means the therapist less likely to have gotten some essential facts wrong, like about two boys and not four and the age of 15 and not late teens.)

    4) Have any of the scientific papers you were involved with been retracted because of fraud or not following established procedures, like data dredging or cherry picking? (this goes to her integrity, and it’s not something her handlers and promoters are likely to have screened out)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  38. Well, I’m glad Chuck has it all figured out for us. You assume to know what happened.

    I assume nothing. So far, none of the charges made by any of the women have been substantiated. That makes the charges, by definition, “unsubstantiated”.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  39. Unproven does not imply untrue, Chuck.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  40. Attacking Michael Avenatti seems odd; he may not be the popular messenger with this, but that doesn’t change the content of the message delivered.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  41. have you tried the punch mmm so good it’s fruity but also there’s some floral notes in there

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  42. Attacking Michael Avenatti seems odd; he may not be the popular messenger with this, but that doesn’t change the content of the message delivered.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 9/26/2018 @ 1:51 pm

    Not really…

    He’s Leeeeeeeeroy Jenkining this as he’s offered even more uncorroborated allegation.

    whembly (b9d411)

  43. Yes, Tillman. Unproven does not imply untrue. But Chuck didn’t say the charges were untrue. He said they were unsubstantiated. I believe the exact quote you responded to was “humanity would preclude making unsubstantiated charges.”

    Now, I don’t know if I necessarily agree with Chuck on that statement as a universal principle. If I knew someone had done me in injustice, and I knew there was no way to prove it, I might still go public with my story, in the hopes of warning off other people who might find themselves in a similar situation.

    But in this situation, I absolutely do agree with him. Because, in my judgment, the balance of the evidence I have seen tends to favor Kavanaugh. And no, I don’t mean something like “Well, there is no evidence against him, so we have to presume in his favor until and unless some evidence turns up.” What I mean is that the context around these allegations makes them appear incredible to me. And I don’t mean “incredible” as in “awesome.” I mean “incredible” as in “not credible.”

    Demosthenes (7fae81)

  44. Unproven does not imply untrue, Chuck.

    Did I say “untrue”? No, I said “unsubstantiated”. Don’t mischaracterize my statements.

    Tell me, what substantiation is there so far for Christine Ford’s accusation? Let’s start with that one, and move on to the others.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  45. I’ll try this one more time.
    In order to dismiss this as all lies, you have to know for a fact that the alleged attacks did not happen. But nothing is proven here. This is not a court of law where we are sentencing anyone for a crime (which does correctly have a higher bar of proof). Instead, we should listen to the testimony without thinking we know all the answers beforehand, because there is no certainty here. Only those who were there at the time know.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  46. Patterico (3a7c4f) — 9/26/2018 @ 12:16 pm

    Why is a female college sophomore hanging out with high school boys? I don’t remember that happening in my experience ever.

    She has to say that, because she can’t place herself in proximity to Brett Kavanaugh any other way. It also has to jibe in some way with the other stories.

    Other problems:

    1) She wnet there ten times, knowing what was going on.

    2) No victims or witnesses ever reported it. In spite of the feminist movement already existing. And you can’t say some political machine dominated the area for that whole time. No one claiming to the District Attorney is alleged to have threatened any of the victims.

    3) You don’t need a Supreme Court nomination for this to be a major story, yet no publication ran anything about this for over 35 years. Rolling Stone wasn’t interested?

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  47. More lying liars.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  48. #45 LOL. Another vile lying liar happy to destroy innocent people’s lives to achieve what they could not in the ballot box.

    Yes, they are all lying TIllman. Why? Because not one of these hyperbolic, over-the-top, it would be all over campus in two seconds incidents ever happened.

    This is why no one as yet has been willing to say “I saw it” — they all speak of it third person and none are willing to set themselves up for jail with perjury situation.

    Yes. All. Liars.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  49. No one “saw it” = not one witness describes by the folks making allegations that sound like some very cheap Porn Video.

    Sad this passes for “news” and even one soul takes these lies seriously.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  50. She said she saw this activity numerous times before she fell victim to it. Why did she keep coming back to these parties?

    AZ Bob (885937)

  51. No one “saw it” = not one witness described by the folks lying has provided a similar account. In fact they all have called out the “no on my watch” defense even when trying to help the accusing liars.

    Sad this passes for “news” and that even one soul takes these lies seriously disappoint the logical me.

    Cheap fables intended to smear which will go away the second he is confirmed or knocked out.

    Same as Trump assaulting all those women. It all went away. I mean if true, where are the witnesses and the Prosecutors?

    Please. This is nonsense that is shameful and immoral.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  52. #50 Those HS boys must have been quite well endowed for a Sophomore College Girl to go and keep going back. 10 times.

    And yet all these rape parties and not one person knew enough to call the police.

    Please tell me more cuz that is one cool story Bro!

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  53. In order to dismiss this as all lies, you have to know for a fact that the alleged attacks did not happen.

    I’ll try this once more: I never dismissed this as all lies. I have said on multiple occasions that the accusations all lack substantiation.

    The more time that passes without substantiation, the less likely the charges are to be true.

    Stop mischaracterizing my positions.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  54. I mean if she went to 10 rape parties …. like where these rape parties a weekly thing??

    I would have to think a rape party such as this would have had boys from every HS in the DC Metro knocking on the door to attend.

    Like literally ever HS boy with a car would be at the door given the frequency this lunatic fantasizes about.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  55. Tillman: One need not dismiss the accusations as lies, one need only dismiss them as weak, unsubstantiated, unlikely et cetera.

    The real issue is what standard does one use.

    I have read a few lefty blogs who seem to be saying that no hint of scandal must attach to a SCOTUS judge. Some conservatives say that criminal accusations must be proven on the criminal burden of proof, namely beyond a reasonable doubt. A lot of English common law courts use that standard for accusations of criminal conduct in civil proceedings.

    What do you say is the proper standard here? Is Kavanaugh to be Caesar’s wife, who must be above suspicion, a civil defendant, a criminal defendant or something else?

    Me, I favor a simple civil standard of balance of probability, because nobody on this planet is wholly innocent. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

    Fred Z (05d938)

  56. Truth: They went to school parties.

    Lies: I was attacked/raped by Brett

    Why? Cuz not one classmate recalls anything similar. Cuz the accuser does not have any facts. Cuz Resist Types have one objective and truth is not that. Cuz all these false memories are invented in the past few weeks with tons of legal outs and crafted by Democrat Lawyers..

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  57. Fred Z

    The question is not is Brett is without sin.

    The question is why are Democrats fabricating stories of this guy attacking women.

    When absolutely zero in the last 40 years would lead one to that accusation.

    These women are all liars. And they should be told so to their faces in front of the nation.

    They are a disgrace and so are the lawyers representing them.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  58. Enuff of the BS. Civility and process is not working.

    The nicer they are treated the worse they behave.

    Off. With. Their. Heads.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  59. it’s literally impossible to take rape accusations seriously anymore without pictures and a police report and, you know, evidence and such

    women have pissed away their credibility on this subject

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  60. It might be a violation of the law not to report multiple instances of gang rape parties, no?

    Colonel Haiku (501bf0)

  61. Off. With. Their. Heads.

    Bob the Builder (564d53) — 9/26/2018 @ 2:31 pm

    Take a break, Bob.

    DRJ (15874d)

  62. One of the biggest concerns my wife and I have is sending our sons into these toxic dumps called “Higher Education” where any mentally deranged prima donna who spreads her legs for weekend sport decides 2 weeks later she does not like my kid cuz he did not take her for Chipotle afterwards and ruins his life.

    Anyone who has SONS should be OUTRAGED at these injustices. ….. And yes, I have a daughter too.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  63. DRJ

    Off. With. Their. Heads.

    These are evil people.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  64. #60 You’d think given how often it happened someone would have heard about it.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  65. “In order to dismiss this as all lies, you have to know for a fact that the alleged attacks did not happen.”

    No, not really. Decisions are made based on the relative plausibility of available evidence all the time. And extraordinary claims generally require extraordinary evidence, unless you’re just smiling and nodding while a crazy person tells a story.

    “But nothing is proven here. This is not a court of law where we are sentencing anyone for a crime (which does correctly have a higher bar of proof).”

    ‘This is not a court of law’ so therefore we entertain accusations that we would never entertain in business, interpersonal relationships, or even most daytime talk shows?

    “Instead, we should listen to the testimony without thinking we know all the answers beforehand, because there is no certainty here.”

    Sotto voce: ‘and there never will be so long as it’s a Republican up for confirmation’

    “Only those who were there at the time know.”

    Those who were there at the time were either too drunk to remember or categorically denying the allegations. Why are you denying their testimony by elevating the least plausible candidate?

    Professor Squirrel (e24c7c)

  66. We should note: It’s not only Brett Kavanaugh being smeared: It’s also Mark Judge. Judge has published a few books – not just about being an alcoholic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasted:_Tales_of_a_GenX_Drunk (published 1997)

    Wikipedia says the book criticizes Alcoholics Anonymous for its lack of acknowledgement of physiological causes of alcoholism. It also says:

    Judge recounts a hookup culture involving binge drinking, especially during a period of time at the school known as “Beach Week”.[6][7][8] Judge defined “Beach Week” at Georgetown Preparatory School as a “week-long bacchanalia of drinking and sex, or at least attempts at sex”.[8][28][29] The author discusses a phrase, “100 Kegs Or Bust”, in relation to excessive alcohol drinking during his times at Georgetown Preparartory School.[30][27][31] Judge remembers a student he refers to as Bart O’Kavanaugh who passed out and threw up in a car.[32][33][34] The author recounts going to drink alcohol with his friends at bars for many evenings in a row.[2] He presents in-depth memories of orgies and attempts to have sex fueled with alcohol at residences along the beach shoreline.[2][35]

    One of his other books, published 2005, was about GeorgeTown Prep, and delves further into this period.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_Man_at_Georgetown_Prep

    He laments that at Georgetown Preparatory School during his time as a student there, the faculty appeared to embrace sexuality and New Age views in favor of Catholic doctrine.[3] Judge writes that the faculty at Georgetown Prep contained a multitude of homosexual priests.[15][22][5]

    Now there’s a claim that he maybe did something similar to what Michael Avenatt claims (he and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunken woman, attributed by the New Yorker to an ex-girlfriend that he had for three years named Elizabeth Rasor but Judge’s lawyer categorically denies this. *) but even that claim does not say Brett Kavanaugh was there, or in what year and what place it happened, or that it happened more than once, and Michael Avenatti first raised his allegation in a tweet one hour after the New Yorker posted its story. (he said he had “significant evidence” that Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and others, gave women alcohol and drugs in order to gang rape them.)

    * The New Yorker also has an anonymous female source “who attended high school in Montgomery County, Maryland” circa that time, who claims that male students would get women blind drunk and then try to take advantage of them. No connection made to Brett Kavanaugh or his school, other than that students from Georgetown Prep students were also supposedly involved in this. This was happening supposedly all over Montgomery County in the early 1980s.

    https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/mark-judge-kavanaugh-prep-school-new-yorker.html

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  67. Jeez… our Captain is going full Queeg in his presser.

    Sleep well, America.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  68. It doesn’t matter that this is not in court.

    It is written:

    https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0519.htm

    15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  69. I get that you think they are lying. There are reasonable ways to argue that. Talking about violence is not a reasonable argument.

    Again, take a break.

    DRJ (15874d)

  70. @68: I agree that no violence should be advocated (before you have the police and courts on your side, like antifa does,) but it’s important to remember during this emotional coping process that fraud is just force by other means, and the people perpetrating those frauds are unsmiling moral scolds who do not take breaks from their destructive designs when they see a possible win in sight.

    Professor Squirrel (b74de6)

  71. @52 Chuck B I’ll try this once more: I never dismissed this as all lies. I have said on multiple occasions that the accusations all lack substantiation.

    So let’s lay off Bartowski, already. I don’t know exactly what he means by “unsubstantiated”, you likely don’t know either, and I suspect that he may not know himself.

    If I had to take an educated guess, when he uses the term “unsubstantiated” he really means “independently substantiated”, which leaves it still up in the air as to what he’d mean by that.

    After all, the first-hand report of a victim of a crime (or the participant in any activity) is proof (= evidence of = substantiation of) the crime (or activity) – independent of whether there is any other evidence which bears on relevant questions of the credibilty of the witness, independent physical evidence of the crime and/or identity of the accused, blah, blah, woof, woof.

    Clearly, it would be helpful if Bartowski used a different term or spelt out what he means by the term “unsubstantiated”, but there seems to be mostly talking-past-one-another going on here. And if Bartowski is content to be vague on the subject, well, that’s his look-out.

    Q! (86710c)

  72. if anyone’s instigating violence it’s the dirty cnn jake tapper fake news

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  73. Study: TV News Is Rigged Against Brett Kavanaugh

    “During the twelve days since Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein publicly announced the existence of an unspecified allegation against Brett Kavanaugh, the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows have spent nearly six hours (344 minutes) regurgitating various unproved allegations against the Supreme Court nominee.

    But only a tiny percentage of that coverage — a measly eight percent — has been devoted to Kavanaugh’s denials and the lack of corroboration for his accusers’ accounts.

    MRC analysts pored over all of the coverage from September 13 through September 24. Most of the airtime (305 minutes) was spent on the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford, which were the only known charges for most of this period. The charges leveled by Deborah Ramirez drew 37 minutes during the September 24 morning and evening news shows; an additional two minutes of airtime was spent on an unknown third accuser teased by Democratic lawyer Michael Avenatti.

    Back on September 14, Kavanaugh issued a statement “categorically and unequivocally” denying Ford’s charges. For most of the coverage that followed, his flat denial was relegated to a few seconds in lengthy stories about the charges — sometimes no more than a parenthetical clause that reporters mechanically inserted in stories that bombarded viewers with the salacious details of each accusation.

    On September 24, however, the three evening newscasts ran a combined three minutes showing clips of Kavanaugh’s interview on Fox News, in which he stated his denials on camera for the first time. That night’s coverage boosted the total airtime spent telling viewers about Kavanaugh’s denial to 14 minutes, barely four percent of the overall coverage.“

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2018/09/26/study-tv-news-rigged-against-brett-kavanaugh

    Imagine this site discussing Kavanaugh and over 90% of the comments were from Tillman/DCSCA and the like….

    harkin (a4b010)

  74. Why don’t we assume Chuck knows words have definitions? For instance, unsubstantiated is defined as “not proven to be true.” Do you really think no one knows this word, Q?

    DRJ (15874d)

  75. Yeah, yeah … he really means “independently substantiated” … should read … he really means not “independently substantiated” … Again, apologies for the bother (hopefully there was no actual confusion).

    Q! (86710c)

  76. Some of the details in this latest accusation seem odd. Standing in line to have sex? I know people do odd things but that seems more like a porn movie than real life. It just seems boring if nothing else.

    frosty48 (8d3d62)

  77. “Ford has racked up nearly $200k in #ResistanceBucks from GoFundMe. This is an incentive for non-credible people to emerge out of the woodwork.”

    Sort of counters the claim made by a few here that the accusers would have no reason to do so unless they were telling the truth……

    ….or they they had political incentive
    …..or they had monetary incentive
    ……or they are deranged people who believe 90% of the skewed press coverage.

    Innocent until proven guilty’ was created for a reason folks.

    harkin (a4b010)

  78. I don’t think Bob is so fragile that he needs an emotional coping intervention from you, Professor Squirrel. If he does, that is another reason he should take a break.

    DRJ (15874d)

  79. Off with their heads.

    My new catchphrase to trigger keyboard defenders of freedom.

    But these, these people deserve to be ruined.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  80. JULIE
    SWETNICK
    WAS
    SUED
    FOR
    DEFAMATION
    IN
    OREGON
    IN
    2000

    that’s from the comments at Mr. Ace’s i think it’s an interesting comment cause it’s a way fresher accusation than the gang rape accusation that’s for sure (stale gang rape)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  81. Heavy.com: Defamation Lawsuit Against a Julie Swetnick was Voluntarily Dismissed

    DRJ (15874d)

  82. @70:

    “After all, the first-hand report of a victim of a crime (or the participant in any activity) is proof (= evidence of = substantiation of) the crime (or activity) – independent of whether there is any other evidence which bears on relevant questions of the credibilty of the witness, independent physical evidence of the crime and/or identity of the accused, blah, blah, woof, woof.”

    So until actual police reports are actually filed by any of the ‘victims’, what does that make the Kavanaugh accusations?

    “Clearly, it would be helpful if Bartowski used a different term or spelt out what he means by the term “unsubstantiated””

    Clearly, you lack strong evidence to defend your position and are attempting to smokescreen your loss by bringing up rules unrelated to the discussion.

    Professor Squirrel (ee64a1)

  83. More importantly when someone say a “con job” was is “con” short for?

    Did Swetnick lose in 2000?

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  84. Trump doing non-sequitors galore but effectively selling himself and his policy vision.

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  85. Confidence

    harkin (a4b010)

  86. @73 DRJ Why don’t we assume Chuck knows words have definitions? For instance, unsubstantiated is defined as “not proven to be true.” Do you really think no one knows this word, Q?

    Frankly, I don’t think Merriam-Webster’s gonna solve this issue for us. :) I take it that you find my comment unhelpful or wrong-headed. I can live with that, without devolving into a (likely fruitless) multi-post exegesis on language and law (e.g. “not proven to be true [M-Webster]” to whom ???; e.g., read some comments roundabout lately, and you’ll find a disconcerting number of those (on “the left”, likely) who take the radical “Believe the women” stand to justify or compel a judgment that Ford’s allegations have “been proven to be true” by virtue of their having been made by Ford. And hence “substantiated” by definition.)

    Q! (86710c)

  87. Defamation Lawsuit Against a Julie Swetnick was Voluntarily Dismissed

    so doesn’t that most likely mean they reached a settlement i think that’s what that means and I have extensive experience with civil tort litigation cause a friend of mine got sued once

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  88. @76: You know, what I’ve found is that one of the greatest looseners of emotional tension is a calm restatement of the facts at issue without any intimations regarding the ’emotional fragility’ of the poster.

    Emotionally distraught people are less likely to go off on their own and do self-destructive things if they feel that the things they’ve seen and experienced are getting a fair hearing among their peers, after all.

    Professor Squirrel (d27067)

  89. so Leviticus forgetting who is the accused, would you take this case, with this lack of evidence?

    narciso (d1f714)

  90. now this is the same publication, that insisted that ford was as clean as the wind driven snow, despite what we’ve discovered from her expurgated high school year books,

    narciso (d1f714)

  91. I never thought I’d live to see the day where the US Senate stooped so low. Is there nothing that the Democrats won’t say or do to get their way? The next thing you know, Avenetti or someone will be producing a witness who says that they had Brett Kavanaugh’s illegitimate child, or that he sacrificed chickens during some satanic ritual, or some equally absurd story. The stories these people are coming up with just keep getting more bizarre by the moment; no serious, non-partisan attorney would take these cases.

    Rochf (877dba)

  92. herpes Bill Clinton has at least one illegitimate child for sure two if you count chelsea

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  93. Judge James R. Ellis ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice. This means that the case was dismissed and the plaintiffs could not bring the back the same case back. The records indicate that the case was dismissed with prejudice

    That could mean that it was settled, it could mean that the plaintiffs decided to drop the case, or it could mean that the judge tossed it, with prejudice.

    But what it does mean, is that she has not lost a case for defamation.

    Also, I happened to be in the same industry as Webtrends, and they are exactly the kind of company to sue first when they lose a competition, sue employees for leaving for competitors, sue basically anyone for any reason, and their cases get tossed routinely.

    Colonel Klink (0e3d41)

  94. Is the “third time” really the charm?

    felipe (023cc9)

  95. furthermore, it would seem unlikely if she was a tech worker in Oregon, that she end up even a mid level treasury exec, in dc, see evidence allows you to establish patterns,

    narciso (d1f714)

  96. @72. Imagine this site discussing Kavanaugh and over 90% of the comments were from Tillman/DCSCA and the like….

    ‘NewsBusters – In the summer of 2005, Media Research Center launched NewsBusters, a website “dedicated to exposing & combating liberal media bias,” in cooperation with Matthew Sheffield, a conservative blogger involved in the CBS Killian documents story. NewsBusters is styled as a rapid-response blog site that contains posts by MRC editors to selected stories in mass media.  Although the site is advertised chiefly as a conservative site, it frequently defends Neoconservatives as well. Not only does the site highlight journalists it deems are liberally biased, but also non-journalists (writers, musicians, producers, scientists, etc.) who they perceive have liberal viewpoint. In addition to conventional media outlets, NewsBusters has attacked Wikipedia over perceived liberal bias in its John Edwards discussion pages. At the NewsBusters site, a semi-weekly mock newscast called NewsBusted parodies recent events. The NewsBusted programs are often uploaded to sites such as YouTube.’ – source, wikifacts

    Imagine that.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  97. They should delay the vote. At this rate the next accusation will involve either aliens or satanic rituals. I’d really like to see which.

    With all of this getting packed into the summer of ‘82. Pretty soon we’re going to need something like the Primer timeline analysis to at least sequence the unspecified dates.

    frosty48 (353032)

  98. I am having trouble reconciling your 68 and 86, Professor. 86 strikes me as the better approach but then what was your point in 68?

    DRJ (15874d)

  99. #96 Good take.

    I mean this guy was a fiend if you are to believe these women (but they are all liars)

    Bob the Builder (564d53)

  100. Tick-tock, tick-tock. NBC News is reporting this evening there is now a fourth woman accuser regarding an incident w/a drunken Kavanaugh in 1998.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  101. 15: Compares everyday FBI police work on a case with zero parts but an extremely recent testimony to NASA work on a bleeding-edge space project with hundreds of thousands of parts.
    17: Mischaracterizes a straightforward statement without explanation.
    36: Poorly defends 15 on the basis of ‘they’re both government’
    40: States that attacking a man with a history of actually-credible sexual and financial allegations against him who continually overpromises and underdelivers at a level rivaling Louise Mensch ‘seems odd’.
    66: Makes a oblique reference to a character nobody knows about.
    94: Attacks the source without once responding to the dataset.

    and of course:

    25: Please don’t personally attack me over this.

    I would never do this, I absolutely see where you’re coming from (probably Shareblue or Moveon or some other haven for the tempermentally manic) and would like to recommend that you slow things down and maybe get out of the rat race of forcing yourself to reply to everything, even if you’ve got like a quote to meet it really lowers the tone of the discussion to let these fragmentary replies pass on unremarked.

    Professor Squirrel (cb5d31)

  102. Ford’s lawyers have published her prepared testimony, so it appears the hearing will really take place.

    I didn’t see anything new or revelatory in the written testimony. It doesn’t mention the polygraph test, and of course glosses over the Democrats’ responsibility for leaking her identity.

    Dave (445e97)

  103. It’s possible they might go with sex trafficking, aka project risky business. We need the FBI to investigate every mechanic in the area to find out whose car had to be fixed on the quick. Then we’ll have a time and place for sure.

    At least then we’ll be working from a better movie than Porkies.

    frosty48 (353032)

  104. Pivot to assault!

    “According to NBC News, an ‘anonymous complaint sent to Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado [alleged] Kavanaugh physically assaulted a woman he socialized with in the Washington, D.C., area in 1998 while he was inebriated.’”

    ““When they left the bar (under the influence of alcohol) they were all shocked when Brett Kavanaugh, shoved her friend up against the wall very aggressively and sexually. […] There were at least four witnesses including my daughter.””

    “Judge Kavanaugh denied the allegations in a phone call to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the report said.”

    Professor Squirrel (cb5d31)

  105. when he was on Kenneth starr’s staff, good grief this really is paint by numbers,

    narciso (d1f714)

  106. Have any of these accusers even gotten their statements past a notary public, much less a police officer?

    Professor Squirrel (cf1670)

  107. “Testify! Testify!”— Sing it, Bing!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjFyX2sSTGs 

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  108. if kavenaugh is put on court conservatives happy and some will not vote. democrats will be angry and come out of woodwork to vote. republicans will try to stop them voting thru cross check and tuff voter ids laws this will make democrats even angrier we will see what happens next.

    lany (9293a3)

  109. creepy p0rn lawyer
    you make teh rockin’ women
    hang on poles and dance

    Colonel Haiku (568097)

  110. creepy p0rn lawyer
    just how low will a guy go?
    low as snake’s belly

    Colonel Haiku (568097)

  111. okay I get it
    Democrats have no limits
    no holds will be barred

    Colonel Haiku (568097)

  112. oh carp, she worked for homeland security as well as state, that’s the scariest part of this shamarama, like kate mara in 24, 6th season, we’re in good hands,

    narciso (d1f714)

  113. And now there’s a report, filtered through Sen. Cory Gardner’s office (R-CO), of a woman who says that she and four other witnesses saw Kavanaugh assault a friend of her daughter when he was drunk, in 1998. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/senate-probing-new-allegation-misconduct-against-kavanaugh-n913581

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  114. I meant 86 and 69 (not 68), Professor.

    DRJ (15874d)

  115. Aphrael and DCSCA,

    Regarding the report from Colorado: the woman writing the letter on behalf of her daughter is anonymous, her daughter is anonymous, as are the witnesses of a gently involved. There is no reason to take this seriously give in that and amenity of everyone involved. How could this even be investigated???

    This defies credibility .

    Dana (023079)

  116. @ 105 DCSA “Testify! Testify!” … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjFyX2sSTGs

    Gotta give it to you DCSA. That is just super-brilliant for this discussion, on so many levels! Kudos, kudos, kudos! Even if you stole the notion from someplace else (and I’m not asking for substantiation of your independent genius (one the one hand) or of your possible thievery (on the other)) …. In either event, you deserve the Oak Barrel Cluster, with Garlands and Bows, for that post! (And not those coulda-been-shoulda-been Merrick Garlands, either – rather, bona fide wait-‘im-out-delays-the-name-and-crux-of-the-game Gorsuch Garlands!)

    Q! (86710c)

  117. @110. ‘How could this even be investigated?’

    Apparently government can work wonder when it chooses to [the ‘I’ in FBI for example]; Senator Grassley’s office has apparently just released the text of the letter, which was sent to Senator Gardner’s office, and per NBC News the SJC is actively ‘investigating it.’ It’s a fast moving story.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  118. Postscript to #112…

    “Day ain’t over yet.” – Curly [Jack Palance] ‘City Slickers’ 1991

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  119. @110. ‘How could this even be investigated?’

    Apparently government can work wonder when it chooses to [the ‘I’ in FBI for example]; Senator Grassley’s office has apparently just released the text of the letter, which was sent to Senator Gardner’s office, and per NBC News the SJC is actively ‘investigating it.’ It’s a fast moving story.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 9/26/2018 @ 5:13 pm

    Oh BS, DCSCA. It’s not a fast moving story. Not only is every player surrounding the letter anonymous (except for Kavanaugh), it was also without a return address, no forwarding address with with to respond to the original letter. It’s a “fast moving” investigation because people with a vested interest need it to be:

    I wonder if this is “we got an anonymous letter and we asked Kav and he said no and that’s the end of it,” and then NBC spun it up into “it’s being investigated,” because that’s a headline.

    Dana (023079)

  120. What?

    Colonel Haiku (568097)

  121. Hm:

    Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of attending house parties where women — including herself — were sexually assaulted, had a restraining order filed against her years later in Miami by her former boyfriend.

    A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up.

    According to Vinneccy [ex-boyfriend], Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.

    “Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. “I know a lot about her.”

    “She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”

    Avenatti didn’t know about this, according to the report, yet came out swinging anyway:

    “Complete nonsense. No truth to this at all. Her ex-boyfriend fraudulently used her resume to apply for and obtain jobs and was caught by her,” said Avenatti. “Why are you all attacking a sexual assault victim? Would that be appropriate in a court of law?”

    *Ex-boyfriend is a registered Dem.

    Dana (023079)

  122. 94 – was that supposed to mean something?

    That entire comment refuted nothing I posted, which based on my observation of CNN, NBC looked very accurate.

    harkin (a4b010)

  123. His eight track tape of manfred turner overdrive is jammed tight

    narciso (d1f714)

  124. Just plain loca, should have just been Crazy ExGirlfriend instead of that sow Rachel Bloom.

    urbanleftbehind (c8c554)

  125. @114. Your opinion, Dana. But it’s obviously a fast moving story. Apparently the letter has been known about for several days, and of course, leaking anything about an ‘anonymous’ letter now favors the ‘it’s all a smear’ crowd. Too many armchair Columbos in this now. This is why this whole mess should have been referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the WH oh-so-many-days-ago and by now it all would likely have been run to ground or close to it. This is what happens with any product when you package it to market and try to sell it as something more than it is.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  126. Game plan is to delay, lie, delay, lie, and delay some more. Keep throwing dirt to move the nomination or stop it.

    I’ve said from the beginning this is just Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown. And now we see how many are willing to lie, cheat akd steal for their cause of totalitarianism.

    NJRob (fadf05)

  127. if i told you i was raped would you believe me

    or would you want to see some evidence

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  128. “Elana Schor

    Verified account

    @eschor
    Follow Follow @eschor
    More Elana Schor Retweeted Jennifer Epstein
    Senior Senate Dem aide tells me there’s a concern the GOP is “now releasing anonymous allegations in an effort to make all allegations look frivolous. We’re focusing on the ones that have names attached.””

    Possibly true. The Democrats only allow the most prestigious and pre-vetted of idiotically slanderous charges, they have years of experience in deniably fabricating narratives, deniably tampering with witnesses, and deniably keeping their media team on the same page, they’re professionals, not some anon banging rocks together.

    Professor Squirrel (caa1b1)

  129. Really stable people:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/JeffreyCatala16

    He may be a skrull, anyways the premiere of the gifted was disspointing.

    narciso (d1f714)

  130. i only watch cause i heart amy acker

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  131. Sonsay we all,they had the crazy red headed Georgian (from
    The caucasus) but they killed her off last season.

    narciso (d1f714)

  132. “This is why this whole mess should have been referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the WH oh-so-many-days-ago and by now it all would likely have been run to ground or close to it. This is what happens with any product when you package it to market and try to sell it as something more than it is.”

    My word, has DCSCA moved to ‘yes, it’s a terrible mess, but it’s TRUMP’S FAULT!!!’

    For not…what, going over the local jurisdiction who’d be reasonably expected to investigate problems in their district BEFORE referring the case to the FBI?

    “Donald J. Trump

    Verified account

    @realDonaldTrump
    Sep 21
    More
    I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents. I ask that she bring those filings forward so that we can learn date, time, and place!”

    Looks like when both Trump and the Republican party are actually both on the same page and both willing to fight on the same issue, they follow both proper procedure and proper political timing with terrifying efficiency. Would that the rest of the Republicans could do the same on the Wall!

    Professor Squirrel (cb5d31)

  133. Now if they could bring Eliza dushku as guest star.

    narciso (d1f714)

  134. I’ve said from the beginning this is just Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown. And now we see how many are willing to lie, cheat akd steal for their cause of totalitarianism.

    NJRob (fadf05) — 9/26/2018 @ 5:56 pm

    Even if that was the Democratic gameplan, the GOP gameplan was and is getting 51 votes. The Republicans would have lost 2-3 votes and could not have confirmed Kavanaugh if they had insisted on voting without a hearing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  135. plus the polaris chick lacks charisma

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  136. Calling it now. At least once at the hearing, if there is a hearing, Ford will refuse to answer on the advice of counsel.

    Ed from SFV (6d42fa)

  137. @127. Trump’s not going let himself take any more heat for this than necessary. They’re pretty much committed now unless K totally craters on Thursday. A guess would be Grassley will get this guy of of committee ASAP no matter what the vote and lateral over to McConnell to muster the votes and to try to get the ball across the goal line. Trump is gonna make Mitch take the heat for any loss on this one and claim the win if they score. No way Trump is going to let himself get burned on this.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  138. ^out of committee – typo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  139. DRJ,

    That’s quite possible, but as we saw with Obamacare, the left stays United while the right pretends.

    NJRob (fadf05)

  140. 136 at least 4 maybe 6 democrat senators are maybe votes it depends on how many more women kavenaugh and mark judge sexually assaulted.

    lany (b4e8df)

  141. One looks at the motive, for this Last woman to come forth, and it becomes rather clear why this story came to light.

    narciso (d1f714)

  142. That would be zero lany. But carry on.

    NJRob (fadf05)

  143. This is ridiculous:

    Sen. Merkley (D-OR) has filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, among other things, an injunction preventing the Senate from holding a vote until the National Archives has delivered a huge number of documents they haven’t delivered.

    https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Complaint-Merkley.pdf

    Granted I’m not done reading the complaint, but I don’t understand how a court even has the authority to order Congress to not hold a vote. Seems inconsistent with the seperation of powers, as well as Article 1 Section 5 Paragraph 2.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  144. Well it’s the ninth circus so anyone can happen.

    Narciso (4505f5)

  145. Narciso: it’s the US District Court for the District oF Columbia. He’s the Senator from Oregon, but he filed his complaint in DC.

    The complaint doesn’t even attempt to address the question of how and why a court has the power to issue the kind of order it’s looking for. So it looks like a political stunt rather than a real lawsuit.

    Part of me would like to have one of the respondents’ lawyers file for sanctions.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  146. @142 Narc Well it’s the ninth circus so anyone [sic?] can happen.

    Huh? Say what?

    Q! (86710c)

  147. I stand corrected, but you think the only endorser of Sanders in the Senate will let the law get in the way.

    Narciso (4505f5)

  148. Doesn’t Cavanaugh sit on the d.c. circuit?

    Narciso (4505f5)

  149. I agree, aphrael. There is no jurisdiction to hear this claim.

    DRJ (15874d)

  150. Well, okay:

    Judiciary is also talking to someone who thinks he forced himself on Dr. Ford not Judge Kavanaugh

    The committee is having a second interview with the man who believes he was the one who had the encounter with Blasey Ford. Apparently he provided details about the event.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/burgessev/status/1045139770513477632

    Dana (023079)

  151. Tillman…….This is not a court of law where we are sentencing anyone for a crime (which does correctly have a higher bar of proof)……
    This whole affair will most likely result in him being stigmatized. Should he not get confirmed, what career path would be open to him. If the burden of proof is sufficient for him to not be confirmed, why would they not also be sufficient to serve on the District Court he currently works? If this is not a conspiracy theory and political play, and he is not railroaded into seclusion, who is responsible should he rape someone else……….this road is being traveled, this can only end in his destruction or its a farce………..so what is the level of burden of proof needed to end this man? It perhaps should be something substantial even if not a court of law because this will have an ‘enormous’ effect.

    Rich (de9149)

  152. > what career path would be open to him.

    he’s a sitting federal judge with a lifetime appointment. does he need a different career path to be open for him?

    aphrael (3f0569)

  153. (((AG)))
    @AG_Conservative
    I just got a letter that said Brett Kavanaugh was behind the JFK assassination. Can’t decide whether to give this scoop to NBC or CNN….

    harkin (a4b010)

  154. aphrael… he’s a sitting federal judge with a lifetime appointment. does he need a different career path to be open for him?

    You didn’t read the whole post. I will be more clear. Should he not be removed from his current post based on these allegations if they are such that he can not be confirmed to the SCOTUS? The real issue is level of burden of proof. Please don’t truncate my point to distort my point.

    Rich (de9149)

  155. I believe aphrael is correct Rich. I don’t believe that this threatens his career.

    Also, don’t forget Spanky! Our Perv-In-Chief is still at the helm, guiding the ship of state off the cliff. We could laugh at him if he wasn’t our leader.

    Tillman (61f3c8)

  156. >Should he not be removed from his current post based on these allegations if they are such that he can not be confirmed to the SCOTUS?

    I would say no he should not be, and I think he will not be.

    Impeaching a federal judge is *extraordinarily* difficult. As a practical matter, I cannot imagine the Senate approving impeaching him by the required 2/3 margin, even if this nomination is not approved.

    But fundamentally what I think we’re seeing is an incoherent assertion that the burden of proving fitness for the Supreme Court lies with the nominator and the nominee, rather than the burden of proving lack of fitness lying with the opposition. If that’s the framework people are operating from, then a lot of people will think he shouldn’t have been confirmed for his current job but will not extend that to removing him from it.

    aphrael (3f0569)

  157. Aloha
    I wonder if the democrats have suited up a football team of mud throwers?
    3 down 8 to go? I’m losing count.

    mg (617a2e)

  158. aphrael……..Impeaching a federal judge is *extraordinarily* difficult. As a practical matter, I cannot imagine the Senate approving impeaching him by the required 2/3 margin, even if this nomination is not approved

    I would find that to be hypocritical due to the accusations being asserted and the vitriol voiced by politicians that are opposed. How do they walk back this stuff, they are allowing a potential serial rapist to sit on an very important court. Additionally, these allegations are not being vetted in the Senate JC, they are now being vetted in the public arena. Without specific proof, and only she said he said, this guy gets to exist in this world now, fairly or unfairly regardless. He may not have been tried in a court of law, but these things will forever effect him unless as these esteemed Senators contend ‘he can prove his innocence”. This is a great way of suppressing anyone ambitious enough to step up to something like this again. The bar for these accusations had better get raised on Thursday because it isn’t right if all it ends up being is unsubstantiated and evolving facts. I pray that’s not all this is because that is also evil.

    Rich (de9149)

  159. American Dreamer
    @AmericanDreamio
    This is becoming a publicly administered IQ test. The results are self evident, Democrats who are standing by these accusers are proving to everyone just how mentally insufficient they are.

    harkin (a4b010)

  160. But fundamentally what I think we’re seeing is an incoherent assertion…

    Well said. I hope the committee makes that clear in the televised witch trial tomorrow. Hopefully that will stop the madness.

    Patricia (3363ec)

  161. “Elana Schor

    Verified account

    @eschor
    Follow Follow @eschor
    More
    Senate Judiciary Rs release a Kavanaugh investigative summary that includes:

    -an anonymous claim of rape fwded by Harris’ office
    -two intvus & a written statement from a man “who believes he, not” Kav, assaulted Ford in 1982
    -phone intvu w/a 2nd man who believes same as above”

    After all, since this isn’t a court of law or a legal proceeding, the Republicans are fully within their rights to listen and believe every man who bravely stands up and says “I AM SEXTUS ASSAULTICUS” (anonymously and with no legal liability to their own persons, of course.)

    But as much as I’m tempted to say that we should give Congress time for the rape clown car to unload all of its passengers, it’s probably better to bring this circus to a close and call the vote.

    Professor Squirrel (6f7585)

  162. Its,been a disgusting spectacle. Patricia, more redolent of major renaults Vichy than anything recognizably america.

    Narciso (4505f5)

  163. Rapists favor abortion
    Most favor Life

    mg (9e54f8)

  164. Getting out of the weeds and going up to 30,000 feet and looking at the totality of the timing of the allegations, this to me is a 21st century borking of yet another conservative nominee to our highest court. I see this as a gambit by the Left to defer the Kavanaugh confirmation until after the November election, on the gamble that the Dems will retake the Senate and shoot Kavanaugh down. Given all this bad faith from the Left, this is all the more reason for the GOP to confirm Kavanaugh, if only to give the Dems and liberals one big middle finger, and send them the message that this tactic will not work.

    Paul Montagu (0e687b)

  165. The media should be up on racketeering charges.

    mg (9e54f8)

  166. The best part of this whole brouhaha is that it’s finally dawning on a lot of the Congressional Republicans that the Dems have really gone off the rails and are getting dangerous. The in-your-face hostility and psychopathy have finally worn away the thick carapace of normalcy bias the GOPers have built up over the decades feeding side by side with the Dems at the public trough.

    I’m starting to think the Dems are triple- and quadrupling down to signal that if they don’t start getting their way again, and the GOPe doesn’t put Trump back in the box, they are willing to burn the entire thing down. Pushing and amplifying obvious and ridiculous lies can be intended as a display of power, which they are certain they have.

    But they don’t have it anymore, they haven’t recognized that they lost the mandate of heaven. If they hadn’t they wouldn’t be in this fix now. So hang on. Whatever happens, Congress may have finally woken up to fighting back usefully.

    Professor Squirrel (7e96bb)

  167. Ford has racked up nearly $200k in #ResistanceBucks from GoFundMe. This is an incentive for non-credible people to emerge out of the woodwork.

    Then there is the sinecure that awaits a gal who succeeds in thwarting the foul Republican power grab.

    . (d6cbf1)

  168. The result of this will be to keep good-looking women off the Court, as they will have incredible sexual baggage. So, no Kamala Harris, so sorry. More in the mold of RBG or Sotomayor.

    . (d6cbf1)

  169. Mr “dot” is Kevin M, using a new laptop with a poor keyboard.

    Kevin M (d6cbf1)

  170. the Dems have really gone off the rails and are getting dangerous.

    The case would be easier to make with a different President.

    Kevin M (d6cbf1)

  171. All this nonsense would stop if they just took Chuck Schumer out and shot him.

    It’s worth a try.

    Kevin M (d6cbf1)

  172. 170 who is they? and you wouldn’t like his replacement.

    lany (b4e8df)

  173. 170… strange days often call for desperate measures.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  174. The Democrats have chosen the “by any means necessary” path. I hope they will be made to regret it.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  175. It’s a few hours until dawn on the west coast. I wonder what this day will bring in DC?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  176. For DCSCA, on the topic of why anyone would make up claims — ask Dick Durbin:

    Senators say they’ve received claims of multiple alleged incidents, ranging in credibility and brought to their staffs attention.

    Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), recalling how his staff found out about Ramirez’s allegation, told reporters that “people call with rumors.”

    “Some of these are completely incredible and the staff dismisses it,” he said. “I asked the same thing [about the Ramirez allegation], ‘why didn’t you tell me this,’ they said ‘do you know how many calls we get.'”

    DRJ (15874d)

  177. 170-173: Disappointing, both of you.

    DRJ (15874d)

  178. I wonder what Merrick Garland thinks of all this.

    Leviticus (49db53)

  179. So let’s lay off Bartowski, already. I don’t know exactly what he means by “unsubstantiated”, you likely don’t know either, and I suspect that he may not know himself.

    How about you laying off the personal insults?

    Chuck Bartowski (211c17)

  180. Mary Steenburgen was hired by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee??

    noel (e07fb0)

  181. I imagine Merrick Garland’s sympathies are entirely with Kavanaugh.

    nk (9651fb)

  182. @179 Bart How about you laying off the personal insults?

    No insult intended. Just suggesting that you may not have thought through exactly what you mean/meant by “unsubstantiated”, ’cause notwithstanding the former back-and-forth, you certainly had not made clear what it is that you mean/meant. imo. If I were to suggest that you seem kind of “prickly” and “sensitive” and wholly non-responsive and unenlightening on the subject in any substantive sense, would you take that as an “insult” as well?

    Q! (86710c)

  183. Let the games begin!

    Q! (86710c)

  184. 177… shot him full of Thorazine…

    Colonel Haiku (a0489d)

  185. Well Durbin repeated similar slanders against the us military and intelligence services, defending the 20th hijacker, Mohammed manea qahtani who would have struck the capitol, who knew the courier who led to bin laden.

    narciso (d1f714)

  186. 176… Do you know that Durbin is alleged to have been communicating with the late fellow who tried to shoot and kill a number of Republicans playing softball in 2017?

    Colonel Haiku (a0489d)

  187. Any thoughts on the news reporting of the 4 affidavits Ford sent to the committee? They’re generally reported as backing up her story with some reports including the word corroborate.

    Should this be rated as true, unintentionally incorrect, intentionally misleading, or something else?

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  188. has a single rancid nevertrump what gleefully participated in the Roy Moore pedo hoax apologized yet?

    i haven’t seen a single one

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  189. 187… she told me all about it when we shared a pizza in 2013.

    Colonel Haiku (a0489d)

  190. Apologized for what? Mercilessly dispatching a political incompetent who was already up to his neck in dirt? Surely you wouldn’t begrudge the opposition a few more shovelfuls.

    Leviticus (49db53)

  191. After this circus and what seem to be several false or mistaken claims, who will believe real claims?

    DRJ (15874d)

  192. Another in a long list of reasons why fair-minded people should stay OFF Facebook… https://www.halseynews.com/2018/09/26/amy-dryden-found-herself-banned-from-facebook-after-sharing-truth-about-cnn/

    Colonel Haiku (a0489d)

  193. Hold. The. Vote.

    Colonel Haiku (a0489d)

  194. But enough about bill richardon, so would you take this case, why or why not?

    narciso (d1f714)

  195. 190… why stop there? There are many who deserve the shovels-full treatment, brother.

    Colonel Haiku (a0489d)

  196. yes yes women lie so much about rape it’s really hard to take them seriously anymore unless they have hard evidence

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  197. Apologized for what?

    the fake baseless hoax on Roy Moore provided the template where you can use v-word women to smear ANYBODY without evidence

    it was a very short-sighted nevertrump ploy

    plus now we’re in the weird pickle where the classless nevertrumps are stuck defending weaksauce harvard-ponce Brett Kavanaugh (one of their boys) against evidence-free charges when they hypocritically threw Mr. Moore under the bus for similarly baseless charges

    it turns out nevertrump are vapid snots what don’t use logics just their stunted class-snobbery based emotions

    (and then in the next breath they whine about the poor widdle luckless fetuses to do some gratuitous virtue signal all up in it)

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  198. They prifferef falsified evidence in this Moore case.

    narciso (d1f714)

  199. No insult intended. Just suggesting that you may not have thought through exactly what you mean/meant by “unsubstantiated”, ’cause notwithstanding the former back-and-forth, you certainly had not made clear what it is that you mean/meant.

    I’ve been pretty clear about what I meant by “unsubstantiated”. It means there is no evidence for the accusations made. Christine Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of having attempted to rape her; what support has there been for her claim? The four people she said were there have all denied it happened. Deborah Ramirez claimed Kavanaugh waved his junk in her face; again, what support has there been for this claim? Julie Swetnick claimed she saw Kavanaugh several times getting girls drunk in order to gang rape them; what support is there for this claim?

    Let’s be clear: a claim is not substantiation. An accusation is not proof.

    If I were to suggest that you seem kind of “prickly” and “sensitive” and wholly non-responsive and unenlightening on the subject in any substantive sense, would you take that as an “insult” as well?

    Yes, that would also be an insult. And contrary to Patterico’s guidelines for comments. This is not good-faith arguing.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  200. yes yes i know he went to yale it’s the same snotty school they both hate asian people and capitalism

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  201. Proferred, but at least there was the pretense of evidence there, there isn’t anything like this here, he showed calendars back to 1982, but they are determined to hand him regardless.

    narciso (d1f714)

  202. Justice is just another word lawyers have raped

    mg (617a2e)

  203. Pretty much, swetnick btw worked for justice and homeland security, how does that grab you?

    Narciso (5ea76b)

  204. #204 I’m not sure it “grabs” me at all. Seems like there isn’t even a reach around

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  205. @199 Bart …I’ve been pretty clear about what I meant by “unsubstantiated”. It means there is no evidence for the accusations made…

    Okie-doke. “no evidence”. Okie-doke. You’re wrong. An account by a person with personal knowledge is, of course, “evidence”. And not “no evidence”. Lawyers (and ordinary civilians) often encounter situations which fundamentally are a “he-said-s/he-said” conflict, & where there isn’t “direct” additional evidence, one way or the other, in support of one version or the other. Sometimes there may be some “direct” additional evidence on one or both sides. In all such cases, a “finder of fact” is generally entitled to resolve the controversy at issue, by judgments arrived at re: the credibility of the accounts -slash- account-givers. This really should not be news, or remotely controversial.

    …Yes, that would also be an insult. And contrary to Patterico’s guidelines for comments. This is not good-faith arguing…

    No. No. And No. Regards.

    Q! (86710c)

  206. “After this circus and what seem to be several false or mistaken claims, who will believe real claims?”

    – DRJ

    People who are inclined to do so.

    Leviticus (efada1)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5528 secs.