Avenatti Client Swiftly Backpedals on Allegations
NBC News has now interviewed Michael Avenatti’s client Julie Swetnick. Kavanaugh was right: this is indeed a “farce.”
Gone, pretty much, are the rape train allegations that everyone laughed at. She can’t say whether Kavanaugh was even there when she was supposedly raped:
She says Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were in the same part of the house earlier that evening but she cannot be sure if they were involved.
“I cannot specifically say that he was one of the ones who assaulted me,” she said.
As for any “rape train” lines of boys, she didn’t know what was going on when she saw people in those lines, or groups, or whatever:
Swetnick says she saw boys gathered outside closed rooms at parties but did not know what was happening behind those closed doors until she says she herself was attacked…
Now she has substituted in new allegations, that I guess she hopes people will find more believable, that she saw Kavanaugh pawing multiple girls:
“He was very aggressive — very sloppy drunk, very mean drunk. I saw him — go up to girls and paw on them, try to, you know, get a little too handsy, touching them in private parts. I saw him try to shift clothing,” she told Snow.
If true, were the girls upset about it or were they … making out with him? She doesn’t say, and nobody has ever come forward to say they were one of them. That doesn’t describe Ford or the other woman who allowed herself to be coached into anti-Kavanaugh memories after denying them to friends.
Like Ford, there is zero (even negative) corroboration:
NBC News was unable to independently corroborate Swetnick’s claims and has not spoken with anyone who says they saw Swetnick at parties with Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has said he does not know Swetnick and has called her claims a farce.
Swetnick provided NBC News with the names of four friends who she said went to the parties with her. One is deceased, while two others did not respond to requests for comment. A fourth told NBC News he didn’t remember Swetnick and didn’t think he’d socialized with her.
A farce.
A farce indeed, but the narrative must be fed, and the headlines must be made, and the anger must be stoked. Mission accomplished.
B.A. DuBois (80f588) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:25 amif women would stop lying about rape all the time they could focus on pedaling forward and maybe actually get somewhere
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:42 amAlex “Squee” Griswold
@HashtagGriswold
So not only did NBC stealth-edit in Kavanaugh’s Sept 25th testimony, they cut the quote in a way that *specifically omits* his testimony he knew about the Ramirez allegation in the days beforehand…..
……this seems relevant in an article that’s tacitly accusing Kavanaugh of perjury for not revealing he knew about the story beforehand
__ _
Gianbattista
harkin (a4b010) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:46 am@dw2415
Replying to
@HashtagGriswold
Not from the network that edited 911 tapes to fit a narrative, I Am SHOCKED
The fact she was in charge of homeland security server, makes you feel all comfortable.
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:46 amAnd the George Zimmerman police video.
The Matt Lauer network. Pfui.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:49 amNo the video was ABC, then sent that reporter to Los Angeles where he covered San bernadino.
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:52 am“One is deceased, while two others did not respond to requests for comment. A fourth told NBC News he didn’t remember Swetnick and
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:58 amdidn’t think he’dprayed he had not socialized with her.Entonces:
http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/02/ryan-lizzas-hit-piece-on-devin-nunes-extended-family-is-deeply-flawed/
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:01 amThat Avenatti makes 180 turns
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:02 amHe’ll lose his license I hope he burns
That’s the real reason he got her to sign that “affidavit”. To cover himself.
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:08 amSwetnick is not right… in the head.
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:08 amAnother NBC person said it better, and she wasn’t immune from harassment by her previous employer.
Paul Montagu (0e687b) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:08 amWell, a big “Duh…?!!” on Nunes – no shock, him being a Central Valley California Porto and all that, why do you think he prioritizes the pelts of prominent Democrat perpetrators, it is but a trading piece.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:09 am“Swetnick allegations are a CIA false flag operation”
—- MSLSD
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:10 am11, she probably took some, ahem, “protein”, in the head, hopefully not as powerful as the shot in the eye that lady at the Ryder Cup took from Brooks Koepka.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:12 amBut it’s not hypocrisy, they just wanted keep the kids away from creepy pizza, btw when you’re already crazier than Charlie pierce.
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:15 amElaina Plott
@elainaplott
Senator Flake says Brett Kavanaugh’s interactions with members during his hearing was “sharp and partisan, and that concerns me.” “We can’t have that on the court,” he says.
This idiot is preparing to disappoint even further.
harkin (a4b010) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:19 amI think the phrase “_h_t or get off the pot” applies here to Frosted Flake.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:25 amRe Christine fair, she was a,supporter of Obama’s king Kong strategy on drones, which involved a very narrow grid in the northwest territories
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:27 amYou think it may have been Grassley’s referral to DOJ ?
Neo (d1c681) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:49 amMeditation With Yoga, Group Therapy With Hypnosis,and Psychoeducation for Long-Term Depressed Mood:A Randomized Pilot Trial
others & Christine M. Blasey et al
http://www.academia.edu/30832978/Meditation_with_yoga_group_therapy_with_hypnosis_and_psychoeducation_for_long-term_depressed_mood_a_randomized_pilot_trial
Neo (d1c681) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:49 amSo a “friend” referred her to Avenatti? A Democrat leader? Stormy Daniels? Or did she just email him with her enticing story.
Patricia (3363ec) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:55 amall these different rape hoax permutations are getting super boring
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:02 amhttps://mobile.twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1047156196950597632
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:16 amSwetnick says she saw boys gathered outside closed rooms at parties but did not know what was happening behind those closed doors until she says she herself was attacked…
AVENATTI: Ms. Swetnick, how would you describe the closed rooms outside of which the boys would line up?
SWETNICK: Well, there would be a door that locked, and the room itself would generally consist of a toilet, a sink, and sometimes a shower and/or bathtub.
AVENATTI: And what make you think that girls were being raped in those rooms?
SWETNICK: Well, girls would generally emerge from those rooms one at a time, and sometimes they would be fastening their pants or adjusting their skirts as if they had just temporarily had them removed.
AVENATTI: And you saw boys go into the room too?
SWETNICK: Yes, and on several occasions I saw boys zipping up their pants fly as they were leaving the room.
AVENATTI: My God, the depravity.
JVW (42615e) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:17 amJVW,
Susanita (ea8d5d) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:36 amThat’s hilarious. Or it would be if this wasn’t so serious.
She was the one who attended 10 such parties?
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:42 amIsn’t this an opportunity to celebrate a bi-partisan compromise?
The Republicans wanted to vote on the nominee before 1 October, and the start of the new SCOTUS trials.
The Democrats wanted to delay voting on the nominee until after 6 November, the date of the Congressional (and other) elections.
If the vote is held between those two dates, isn’t that a reasonable compromise?
pouncer (df6448) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:46 amIn other news:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/france-freezes-iranian-assets-over-bomb-plot-blamed-on-tehran-1538487926?mod=hp_listc_pos5
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:46 am14: No confirmation yet on Swetnick, but the just-suspended Georgetown prof is as spooky as they come:
https://www.salon.com/2015/11/04/i_am_a_rambo_bch_meet_the_drone_defender_who_hates_neo_cons_attacks_glenn_greenwald_and_may_have_conflicts_of_her_own/
“In 2010, Fair boldly claimed that U.S. “drones are not killing innocent civilians,” wholly writing off all reports of civilian casualties. Fair rejected the research done by David Kilcullen, a former counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, and Andrew Exum, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, that said otherwise.”
“Critics have pointed that, aside from Fair’s outright rejection of an enormous body of research and double standards vis-à-vis the studies that have results that she likes, Fair also has a history of working with the U.S. government in a way some researchers would consider problematic.
Fair worked for almost 10 years for the RAND Corporation, a U.S.-based global think tank that scholar Chalmers Johnson has described as “a key institutional building block of the Cold War American empire” and “the premier think tank for the U.S.’s role as hegemon of the Western world.” Fair also served for three years at the U.S. government’s Institute of Peace and for several months at the U.N. Assistance Mission to Afghanistan. Since 2009, Fair has taught in Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program.”
My guess is she either switched sides or the CIA is now funding domestic terrorists for partisan operations. Either way, Twitter suspending her PROTECTS her correspondence and the correspondence of those who may have supported her.
Pencil-necked Pundit (5651b0) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:49 amI see the mob has pushed through a Maryland congressman’s door to get into his office. SDhoot first answer questions later.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:12 am“@jbendery
Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) just had his office door pushed through and was assaulted by demonstrators, a Cap Police officer tells me”
“@VeraMBergen
Pentagon: Multiple packages believed to contain the deadly chemical ricin were identified in DOD’s mail processing center. The packages were addressed to a person at the Pentagon, per spox. The FBI is taking the lead in investigating.”
“@byrdinator
NEWS: A hazmat team was dispatched to Ted Cruz’s campaign office in Houston this morning to investigate a mailed envelope containing a powdery white substance. It’s not yet clear whether it is toxic or not.”
No Deep State here, just completely random crazies who all somehow go crazy at the same time over an issue conveniently also of central importance to the Deep State!
Pencil-necked Pundit (ce4f91) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:23 amDetails about the Harris incident.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:26 amThe reporter says the police told her the Congressman unsuccessfully tried to hold the door shut, and some protesters were smoking weed.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:28 amCruz, Flake, now Harris.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:29 ampolitical violence, that’s what this is
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:35 amMao’s Red Guard has come to America. This is what the indoctrination of our children has done to society.
NJRob (1a47f7) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:54 amnot a “farce”.
jb (a3c1bc) — 10/2/2018 @ 11:20 ambut a “fraud”
This is hardly different from a Daily Caller journalist reporting on the white nationalist event where he was one of the speakers (link). The NYT response re Bazelon is no different from the DC editors’ excuse.
Paul Montagu (0e687b) — 10/2/2018 @ 12:05 pmSwetnick????
“……… it’s a drinking game….”
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2018 @ 12:14 pmWhat’s up with the Capitol police? Something very bad is bound to happen if they are not able to control the crazies.
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 12:41 pm@ nk: I’ve driven many a secretary or paralegal slightly nuts by my insistence that they invest a great deal more time and attention when notarizing a signature on an affidavit or other document — even my own signature — than they are accustomed to investing.
I insist that the notary look at the witness’ valid photo ID (typically a drivers license) and record its details in his/her logbook.
I insist that the notary ask the witness to raise his/her hand, and that the notary ask out loud: “Do you so swear, under penalty of perjury?”
Only when the witness complies, and says out loud “I do,” and adds a signature while the notary is watching, may a notary working under my direction add his/her own signature and notary stamp to a document.
I’ve met notaries who’ve notarized instruments based on assertions made to them by the affiant/witness over the phone. Those notaries, I subject to a short mock cross-examination regarding their compliance, or failure to comply, with their duties as a notary — something which has potential felony (perjury) implications in its own right.
I believe in ritual and ceremony, in other words. I also believe in being scrupulously accurate. Alas, the overwhelming majority of notaries take shortcuts on the process. I think society needs the deterrent effect — whether it’s large or small — of making someone raise his/her hand, and speak out loud to the officer administering the written oath.
And I despise 28 U.S.C. § 1746, which undercuts all of that, and which effectively turns a sworn statement into just another piece of paper with a signature on it.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:02 pm^^^ Re #42: I confess that even most other lawyers think I’m a paranoid prig about notarizations. But perhaps they haven’t seen a notary cross-examined in a video deposition over the steps she skipped, a cross-examination that ended up derailing a time-sensitive plan of her lawyer-boss, in an outcome determinative fashion. And I’ve seen that.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:06 pmI schooled with these people.
White privilege is real but it really is White Liberals who have it, and by default their similarly educated POC Ivy Brothers.
Left is a mental disease and nothing short of armed conflict will stop them. They will do and say anything because to them it is their FAITH that matters. Not facts. Not results. Not Democracies. Nothing.
The fact they control Academia, Bureaucracy, Media, Hollywood and Lawyerly Guild makes this fight even tougher.
It is THEM against the other 90%.
Go look at any Nation going Left and those are your traitors right there.
Bob the Builder (564d53) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:08 pm# Beldar,
I can attest to the Notary thing being a very convenient way to scam folks. I was scammed. “Not my signature” …. and some idiot Judge went right along due to his sympathies. So kudos to you Mr Beldar.
Sad.
Bob the Builder (564d53) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:09 pmFor most notaries and even their employers (including lawyers), it’s turned into a literal rubber-stamp, Bob.
When I’m Czar, I’ll fix that.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:16 pmNot sure if her interview covered this, but why was a college sophomore woman partying with high schoolers…and why doesn’t anyone remember it?
AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:28 pmWhy was a high schooler at a college sophomore’s party?
Colonel Klink (0e3d41) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:33 pmFrom a senior in high school to a college sophomore, 2 years. Heck Kavanaugh is 10 years older than his wife, so in 82, she was 7. So what does that mean? Nothing. Summer break in your home town when your somewhere between 16 and 20, btw the drinking age was 21 not 18, house parties where what you did.
Colonel Klink (0e3d41) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:37 pmRino Mitch bends over again for Pelosi. Will keep findings secret to senators only.
mg (9e54f8) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:39 pmWhat a spineless coward.
Lowering the bar, like a limbo stick:
https://www.steynonline.com/8891/post-democracy-and-the-populists
Narciso (54490f) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:40 pmBeldar, my old boss had a case hanging on a notarization. After a divorce, the husband sold the house (unknown to the wife) by having his mother, who had the same name as the wife, sign the quitclaim deed. They sold it and absconded with the funds.
Patricia (3363ec) — 10/2/2018 @ 1:54 pm#52 Devious.
Bob the Builder (564d53) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:04 pmWaiting for the WaPo to start awarding 5 Pinocchios to some of these liars.
Kevin M (d6cbf1) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:10 pm@ Patricia: That’s the best reason I’ve ever heard for not naming kids after either of their parents! 😉
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:11 pmThey sold it and absconded with the funds.
Not funny. In order, I’d expect the harm to fall on:
1. The title insurer.
2. The buyer.
3. The ex-wife.
I’d hate to be the notary, too.
I hope they were caught and went to prison for many years.
Kevin M (d6cbf1) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:13 pm@ #48: “Why was a high schooler at a college sophomore’s party?”
Unfortunately, Swetnick never claimed she hosted parties that high schoolers would attend. She was enrolled at the University of Maryland where she received degrees in Astrophysics and Computer Science. She’s currently 58 (Kavanaugh is 53) so in 1981-82 that would make her at least 20 at the time of first meeting Kavanaugh who would have been 15 or 16. If you went to college, do you distinctly remember many parties where 20-year-old women were hanging out with 15-year-old high schoolers…watching them spike punch? Yeah, me neither. More brain…less rage.
AJ_Liberty (ec7f74) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:18 pmIf I were well-capitalized enough to start up a biotech company, I’d start one devoted to creating a highly-secured (probably using blockchain technology) device that cleans and then pricks the affiant’s finger — reducing the pain from this prick is not a priority, but the refill kit comes with bandaids. The device would then instantly analyzes the resultant blood to create a record of the DNA within, which would then be encrypted — along with a digital image of the affiant’s photo ID and a fresh digital video clip of the affiant confirming his oath out loud — onto a golden-colored hologram-embedded tamper-proof seal, about three inches across, with about five inches of red-white-and-blue ribbon dangling down. The controller would include a menu of individually checked items, failure to complete which, in sequence and individually, would result in the operator receiving a nasty electrical shock. Bible-involvement is optional.
That’s how documents ought to be notarized IMHO. Now I’m going to go chase those kids off my lawn again.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:21 pmHmm, I’m in moderation again, and I think I know why this time. Trying again with a workaround:
If I were well-capitalized enough to start up a biotech company, I’d start one devoted to creating a highly-secured (probably using blockchain technology) device that cleans and then pr!cks the affiant’s finger — reducing the pain from this pr!ck is not a priority, but the refill kit comes with bandaids. The device would then instantly analyzes the resultant blood to create a record of the DNA within, which would then be encrypted — along with a digital image of the affiant’s photo ID and a fresh digital video clip of the affiant confirming his oath out loud — onto a golden-colored hologram-embedded tamper-proof seal, about three inches across, with about five inches of red-white-and-blue ribbon dangling down. The controller would include a menu of individually checked items, failure to complete which, in sequence and individually, would result in the operator receiving a nasty electrical shock. Bible-involvement is optional.
That’s how documents ought to be notarized IMHO. Now I’m going to go chase those kids off my lawn again.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:23 pmSigh. I can’t figure out this moderation filter. Is even my attempted work-around a proscribed word?
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:24 pmTeenager in the ’80’s. Very uncommon for girls to pay attention to guys even one year younger. Never saw a college girl at a high school party.
No way that story holds water unless she’s a hooker working for college money.
frosty48 (6226c1) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:27 pmWelp, you know, being a women in the Astrophysics and/or Computer Science department in 1981-82, it would have been next to impossible to meet guys her own age…
Dave (445e97) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:28 pmSure… teh *FCA
Future Cougars of America
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:30 pmWelp, you know, being a woman in the Astrophysics and/or Computer Science department in 1981-82, it would have been next to impossible to meet guys her own age…
They probably all assumed she was taken. But it does explain why she kept going back to those rape-parties. Must have been frustrating, all those males and no action.
Kevin M (d6cbf1) — 10/2/2018 @ 2:44 pmA summer party in the 80’s in Northern Virginia with an age extreme of 5 years, sure. I remember lots of parties when I was a junior or senior in high school where freshmen and sophomores from college attended, especially with a mixed group of public/private school kids, probably sophomores in high school too I’d imagine, the kids that went to GU, UVA, Tech, etc were around quite a bit. Then there were the commuter kids that still lived at home.
When I was in college I didn’t go back, but I played the football, so summers were busy for me, and fall, and spring, winter was a bit of a bacchanalia. I also didn’t go home again, ever again, but that’s probably not normal, as my parents retired and moved to Hawaii, so if I’m going anywhere from Columbus Ohio in college, I’m going to Waimea, but in the 80’s that was a LOOONNG trip, still is.
Some kids peaked in high school, especially the sporty ones that were stars but didn’t shine so bright in college. Even if they’ve gone on to be very successful, I know quite a few who still can’t get over it. I was a defensive lineman, so there was no sexy stigma to a nose tackle to live up/down to, and a computer nerd before it was cool. Plus after my freshman year, I realized that I was going to have to get a real job after college because I was only going to sniff the field if we’re up 77-0 over Northwestern, and only maybe in that instance.
Colonel Klink (efee99) — 10/2/2018 @ 3:11 pmSwetnick sounds like a real piece o’ work… https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-02%20Signed%20Ketterer%20Statement%20-%20Swetnick%20Allegations.pdf
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 3:15 pmBeldar, given my profession I enjoyed your DNA-link-to-signature machine. Given how DNA evidence has been slagged so often, I just hang my head.
If you ever read Robert Heinlein’s SF, you would have encountered the whole idea of “Fair Witnesses.” It could never work in our sewer of a society, but it’s nice to think about.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 10/2/2018 @ 3:40 pmAccording to this source, she’s 55, which puts her just two years older than Kavanaugh, but still weird because she was out of high school and older than Kavanaugh’s contemporaries.
Paul Montagu (0e687b) — 10/2/2018 @ 3:41 pmI’m a few years older than Kavanaugh and there was no shortage of access to beer and keggers in high school, even in WA State where the drinking age is 21. In college, I joined a frat and beer was available 24/7 if I wanted it.
I’m not sure if it was 1973 or 1974, but in one of those two summers, a buddy and I, on behalf of the Lamesa (Texas) Young Republicans, attended the Texas Young Republicans annual meeting at the Hilton on Mockingbird Lane in Dallas. We were high school juniors-turning-seniors.
Among the speakers was Dr. Ron Paul. I chatted with him after his speech, attracted very much by his pro-individual liberty themes. He might have concluded that I was a little bit crazy, but after interacting with him, I concluded that he was definitely a little crazy, an opinion I still hold.
We went to the conference mostly to get an unsupervised weekend in Dallas. As my friend and I had expected when we finagled our folks into approving and paying for this trip, almost all of the other participants were college students, including female college students.
As we expected, there was, during the evening, drinking and partying (including under-aged drinking among the few attendees who weren’t yet 18). But as we should have known, and confirmed beyond any doubt: Our chances, as almost-high-school seniors, of getting the romantic attention of the college girls at these parties was like the square root of negative one — an imaginary number.
My buddy, like Judge Kavanaugh apparently when he was about the same age, over-indulged. He could, however, clearly remember all of the rejections he’d gotten from college girls en route to that epic drunk, which made his hangover recovery on the long drive home Sunday all the more painful.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 4:08 pmIf I can get the money to start the company, I’d like you to be a consultant, Simon Jester. 😀
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 4:12 pmThe offending word was n*a*s*t*y.
DRJ (15874d) — 10/2/2018 @ 4:14 pmHow did your wif3s conference go Simon?
narciso (d1f714) — 10/2/2018 @ 4:39 pm“To Kill a Mockingbird stands firmly for the proposition that an accusation can be false, that unpopular defendants presumed guilty must and should be defended, and that it is admirable and brave to withstand the crowd — at times in the story, literally the lynch mob — when it wants to cast aside the normal protections of justice.
Exactly what has made Atticus Finch such an honored figure in our culture would make him a very inconvenient man at many college campuses today, where charges of sexual misconduct are adjudicated without the accused being allowed to confront the accuser or make use of other key features of our system of justice. Finch is a rebuke to the shift from a presumption of innocence toward a presumption of guilt that now attends accusations of sexual harassment and assault. He didn’t believe that someone’s being accused of something is enough to establish his wrongdoing, or accept that a category of people were, by definition, to be under a pall of suspicion.
Atticus Finch is not the man for this moment, but we need him, and his reasoned yet unshakable commitment to fairness and justice, more than ever.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/atticus-finch-was-on-the-wrong-side/
harkin (a4b010) — 10/2/2018 @ 4:48 pmThank you, DRJ. I’m pretty sure I can guess whose overuse of that word caused it to be added to the list of proscribed words that trigger the moderation filter. I guess the rest of us just have to limit our vocabularies accordingly.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 4:48 pmThey may have to invent a name for what’s happening to Swetnick, some sort of corollary to the Streisand Effect, for very badly considered efforts to jump into the public limelight for purposes of bolstering or undercutting someone else’s story.
Or is there already a name for that?
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 4:52 pmBigfooting, but that usually doesn’t have a negative connotation.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/2/2018 @ 4:55 pmTwatwaffle?
nk (dbc370) — 10/2/2018 @ 4:56 pmKavanaugh’s 1983 Letter Offers Inside Look at High School Clique
The letter is signed ‘FFFFF, Bart.’
The article concludes with: ‘Through his lawyers, Judge Kavanaugh declined to comment for this article, other than to say of his letter: “This is a note I wrote to organize ‘Beach Week’ in the summer of 1983.”’
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/brett-kavanaugh-georgetown-prep.html
Jeez…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKZqGJONH68
DCSCA (797bc0) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:02 pmWhat’s teh latest on Icegate!?!?
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:03 pmSwetnick has had her business placed on the street.
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:07 pmIts very fizzy, can this get anymore ridiculoid.
narciso (d1f714) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:13 pmJust like Russian collusion, this has nothing to do with the original accusation, it’s all about collecting info and trying to find something they can say is outrageous, compromising and a reason to disqualify, no matter that Democrats big and small have done much worse, MUCH WORSE and skated like Hans Brinker.
Hundreds of Democrats can repeatedly act as if laws are for the little people and the constitution is history but if Kavanaugh makes one slip it’s a reason to burn him alive prime time in the village square, both as retribution for daring to counter the Groupthink and (bonus) as caution to anyone thinking about public service.
harkin (a4b010) — 10/2/2018 @ 5:59 pmThere is no corroborating evidence. Brett “‘Teflon Don’ Gotti” Kavanaugh through evidence that self-destructed.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:07 pm*Threw. Damned homonyms.
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:09 pmBtw, dke didn’t have a clubhouse through the early 80s, and may not have had one in 1987, just in case you’re floating that next rumor.
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:31 pmhttps://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/boom-former-long-time-boyfriend-of-christine-ford-drops-a-bomb-proves-ford-lied-under-oath-to-sen
Is this something?
Susanita (8bc977) — 10/2/2018 @ 6:50 pm@ Susanita (#85): That’s an interesting link, which I followed despite my instant skepticism based on its URL (I don’t frequent Gateway Pundit). For those similarly disinclined to visit that site (no offense at all intended to you, Susanita!), here’s an alternate link to a Fox News story on Sen. Grassley’s letter to Ford’s attorneys, which I agree might indeed turn into something.
I was surprised at the time that Mitchell asked in such detail about whether Ford had ever coached or advised anyone about polygraphs. Now we know why.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:15 pmYou’re kidding, right?
//
Beldar, I would term Swetlick’s problem a Histrionic Personality Disorder.
Patricia (3363ec) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:17 pmBeldar…I guess I should have explained that it was from Grassley himself. Don’t know that site’s reputation cause I’ve been around (not like Swetnick) and don’t know what it is.
Susanita (8bc977) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:22 pmThe Fox News link has a copy of Ford’s alleged ex-boyfriend’s letter, along with Grassley’s letter. Both letters are dated October 2 (today), and the alleged ex-boyfriend’s letter also has the time (“8:01 [presumably a.m.] PDT”). Assuming he or an authorized representative submitted it to the Committee directly (as opposed to it’s having been stolen since this morning and given to the Committee without authorization by someone outside his control), the alleged ex-boyfriend is subject to, as we’ve been saying, “penalty of felony” (shudder) — meaning subject to “false statement” (not perjury) felony criminal jeopardy under 18 U.S.C. 1001(a) & (c)(2).
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:23 pmYep… ex-boyfriend of Blasey Ford says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph… friend was applying for a government job. She also never mentioned Kavanaugh or a sexual assault.
Colonel Haiku (f4c5a5) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:27 pmGateway Pundit is very popular with very enthusiastic Trump supporters, and our host and others (including me) have faulted it from time to time for, shall we say, being insufficiently critical and therefore unreliable when it comes to POTUS-45. Obviously others disagree, including many commenters here, and YMMV.
This will be tomorrow’s news cycle, I think. What’s the over/under on which the alleged ex-boyfriend’s name comes out? Surely dozens of people knew both of them during a six-year exclusive (until just before the end, alas, by his report) relationship (1992-1998).
And the alleged ex-boyfriend has lots to say; by no means is his letter limited to polygraphs!
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:29 pm*on when the name comes out, I meant to type.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:30 pmI bet it won’t, too threatening to the narrative.
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:30 pmAlthough I think they mentioned his name during the weekend when they said who the fbi would look into.
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:32 pmThat was an odd exchange mainly because I assume everyone talks about the underside of their field. Just like computer guys talk about hacking, engineers of various sort talk about destroying things, and chemists talk about drugs or blowing stuff up. Maybe I just hang out with a low crowd.
It just seemed natural for a psychologist to talk about beating a lie detector but I guess she’s been packaged as the little girl psychologist and victim who would never discuss anything like that.
frosty48 (6226c1) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:34 pmBrian merrick is who they mentioned three days ago.
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:36 pmWell, very enthusiastic Trump supporters are not my peeps. Although, I have frequently referenced a quote I saw here from … sorry don’t remember… but the fist was “I can’t stand Trump supporters and I get frustrated, but then I read his detractors and feel sick, so I read Trump supporters…repeat”
Susanita (8bc977) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:41 pmApologies in advance for a Beldar Wall-o’-Text™.
Yesterday I spent about 45 minutes brainstorming topics that I’d want to cover with Ford were I taking her deposition in a civil case — all limited to the threshold question of her identification of Kavanaugh as her alleged assaulter (which necessarily includes not only historical facts but her capacity to recognize her assaulter during the alleged attack, and thus her own drinking).
I stopped when I got to 30 questions, but that was an arbitrary limit, and these aren’t necessarily the 30 questions I’d ask if I had time limits, and I’d surely reorganize them. And I haven’t made a proofreading pass yet to weed out arguably sexist or accusatory questions, or to prune unfairly leading questions. It’s the roughest of starts, despite its length.
Still, if Ford actually cooperates, then when she’s questioned later this week (still not scheduled) by the FBI, I hope the FBI agent(s) ask at least some of them, and that we learn the results.
*****
Here is Ford’s supposed predicate, from her opening statement, for how she was able to identify Kavanaugh as her attacker:
1. What do you mean by “intersected”?
2. What were the intersections other than through parties?
3. Are you relying on any other sorts of contacts you might have had with students from Kavanaugh’s high school?
4. Did you see him compete in basketball games, or bump into him at a multi-school competition or event, or see him at the movies or a concert?
5. Are impromptu parties, at someone’s house, the only sort of party you had in mind when you claim to have had these “intersections” between your group of friends and Brett and his friends?
6. How many of them had parental chaperones or supervision?
7. How many included alcohol? What form or forms of alcohol.
8. Did you have more than one beer at any of them?
9. Did you have any pattern or practice at parties regarding how much you’d drink?
10. You mentioned that you were embarrassed after the incident because you feared your parents would disapprove. Did they know you were at this party?
11. Did you regularly hide from your parents your attendance at these parties?
12. How about other drugs: Did you see anyone else take any? Did you take any?
13. Who was in your “group of friends”? What are their names now, if you know, and where can they be found?
14. And now, who was in Kavanaugh’s group of friends, and tell us how you came to know their names, please, and the nature of their friendship.
15. Did they tell you they were friends, in addition to being students at the same Catholic high school? Or was just that your assumption?
16. Why did you say, “For a short period of time”?
17. Do you mean that during these two years, all of the intersections took place in a very short period of time? Or did you mean that the intersections were each short in time?
18. How short? What quantities of time were you thinking about when you prepared your opening statement with this testimony?
19. Were the intersections spread equally throughout both school years, or were they all in one season (e.g., the summer)?
20. At what percentage of these parties comprising the intersections between your friend group and his was Kavanaugh also in attendance?
21. At what percentage were you in attendance?
22. Before the alleged assault, did you ever discuss with anyone in either friend group the fact that Kavanaugh had or hadn’t attended, or otherwise discuss him with anyone in either friend group?
23. Did you ever discuss with anyone in either friend group whether he had a girlfriend, or whether he was good-looking, or otherwise interesting?
24. Give us your best estimate as to how many parties you were both at. [Get this down to a range, at least, even if it’s “somewhere between 1 and 20 and I can’t say more accurately than that.”]
25. Tell us everything you remember about the first party [or if she can’t recall a sequence, “the party you remember best”], when Kavanaugh was also there. [Develop fully.]
26. Was that the first time you saw him or had even heard of him?
27. Tell us when you next saw him or heard about him after that party, either in person or in media (print, TV) or conversation.
28. Regarding your assurance that you knew him and he knew you, can you quote for us, verbatim, anything that he said to you, or in your presence, which demonstrated that he knew your name and could identify you on sight before the night of the alleged assault?
29. Same question, but for the night of the assault, before you went upstairs. Do you have a clear present memory, for example, that he greeted you by name, remarked on the past intersections of your social circles, and discussed the parties you’d both attended?
30. Before the night of the alleged assault, did you know Kavanaugh’s voice well enough that you could recognize it even if you couldn’t see the speaker’s face? How did you come to be that familiar with his voice?
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:45 pmsomeone should ask her if she was aware how unattractive she was at that age
happyfeet (28a91b) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:49 pmI check GP for the next hot rumor, and kind of have the same reaction. “Is this real deal or nonsense” then I watch to see if it has legs or not. Do the same at CT when I get bored.
steveg (a9dcab) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:51 pmThis one should have a chance at Ford’s credibility.
Of course the left will say that Kavanaugh lied about how many beers he really drank back 35 years ago and try to get us to believe that is more important than lying about a polygraph
She looked like blonde Molly ringwald, Whelan may have backed into the truth accidentally re the connection but not the circumstance.
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:52 pmFord isn’t a psychologist.
She’s a research scientist with a Ph.D. in psychology. She has no clinical practice in which she treats or counsels patients.
She still has a lot of knowledge that might be useful to someone trying to influence the outcome of a polygraph test. (But, then too, so might a voodoo witch doctor or a self-improvement guru.)
Regardless of how you rate the credibility of polygraph “evidence,” the alleged ex-boyfriend’s statement is certainly inconsistent with Ford’s denials in response to Mitchell’s questions on that subject.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:55 pmWell the outlet is,only as good as the source material in this case the anonymous boy friend who may actually have confirmation,
Narciso (e03e6b) — 10/2/2018 @ 7:56 pmRUH ROH! In other backpedaling news:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/10/grassley-judiciary-comm-has-evidence-of-christine-blasey-ford-coaching-a-friend-on-polygraph-examinations/#more-261603
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:02 pmI can’t imagine a prosecutor of Rachel Mitchell’s experience agreeing to ask these questions unless she already knew the answers, and the answers had not only been thoroughly vetted but had undergone a colonoscopy. Because I’m not one to mix metaphors; this is going to unleash a s***storm on the Soros-funded left, particularly the new KKK, the #MeToo movement.
Beldar, you may be proven more right than you suspected earlier. Blasey-Ford’s choice of legal representation was “unfortunate.”
Steve57 (0b1dac) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:07 pmSo far her lawyers have bullied anyone who suggests any sort of cross-examination or production of documents. Of course she sounded sincere! No one got to challenge her.
The longer she drags it out, the louder the demand for such will be.
Patricia (3363ec) — 10/2/2018 @ 8:28 pmThe trauma of that 30-second incident over 35 years ago interfered with her memory, poor thing!
Dave (445e97) — 10/2/2018 @ 9:48 pmDave: The utter absence of even her best estimation of a time frame is one of the things I find the most troubling about her testimony.
I think her testimony is actually consistent with the entire incident taking even less than 30 seconds. I’m pretty sure I could stage a re-enactment which takes no more than 10, from her being pushed into the bedroom through her escape from it. The closest thing I can find in any of her testimony that would help us infer a time frame is that Ford supposedly jumped on top of her & Kavanaugh on the bed twice. Okay, let’s see, 32 feet per second squared, assume a perpendicular launch angle, what does that work out to? Someone here can assess the physics. Was it a bounce, or did he re-launch himself?
Did the door lock from the inside? If so, why did she think that was to keep her in, rather than someone else out? Did either of them attempt to prevent her from unlocking and opening the door? Did either of them chase her back to the bathroom? Knock on the bathroom door? Did they threaten her if she tried to escape? If Kavanaugh covered her mouth, preventing her from screaming while he was on top of her, what prevented her from screaming as she was making her escape, before she’d “perfected” it?
She may have perfectly persuasive answers to all these questions, and a thousand of others that are absolutely relevant. But we haven’t heard them, if so. And if indeed her answers are perfectly persuasive, or even only a little bit persuasive, why haven’t her own lawyers brought out these details?
The fair inference is that at best (for her), she can’t answer them (again, claiming memory loss), or at worst (for her), she has answers to them that are incredible or disprovable.
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:01 pmSorry, I ought have written, “… incredible or disprovable, or exculpatory of Kavenaugh, or inculpatory of her.”
Beldar (fa637a) — 10/2/2018 @ 10:03 pm