|
Post by michcusejoe5 on Sept 24, 2018 11:05:47 GMT -5
So now, yet another woman is coming forward with accusations against Kavanaugh. As expected, The chief mysoginist himself is his loyal defender. No surprise there. Of course the same defense will play out the same way his mentor defends his own creepiness. Deny and blame the women. No doubt others are queuing up to tell of their experiences with this person. Interesting times. Did you read the New Yorker article Chuck? I hope not because otherwise you are just embarrassing yourself at this point. Even folks on the Left are knocking this as horrendous reporting. Its very likely this is a Jane Mayer hit piece (she has a history of this kind of thing, if I am not mistaken) that they decided to attach Ronan Farrow's name to in order to give it credibility bc of the good work he has done on MeToo. His credibility has taken a major hit with this. There is a reason that the NYT, WaPo, and NBC refused to move forward with this story. Not a single witness named puts Kavanaugh at the alleged Yale party ( "The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.") and every person the woman (Ramirez) named including her best friend from Yale says this didnt happen ( "The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge." + "This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their “larger social circle.” In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated."). The woman admits she was basically blacked out drunk and couldnt recall exactly what happened for 35 years nor mentioned it in all of that time but "after 6 days of consulting with attorneys decided that she now remembers it was Kavanaugh". She even admitted that she cannot be sure this was Kavanaugh at all. ( "Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.") The delay tactics engaged in as part of the Ford allegation have become completely transparent now; a vehicle to allow this story to roll out (no shocker that it was released near immediately after reports came down that Ford agreed to come in to testify on Thursday). This is a political assassination attempt because Kavanaugh is viewed as the potential swing vote on Roe v. Wade (same as Bork and same as Thomas btw). It is abundantly clear that due to your hatred for Donald Trump, your mind is already made up regardless of facts or any critical reasoning and you are willfully choosing to not take a thoughtful approach in pursuit of truth.
|
|
|
Post by domeplease on Sept 24, 2018 16:13:47 GMT -5
This is getting REAL Interesting = WHY WE need the FBI in on this...YEs, Tequila, you can laugh as hard & much as you want to.
--09-24-18: www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-does-michael-avenatti-have-on-brett-kavanaugh-what-we-know-so-far/ar-AAAAhNE?li=BBnb7Kz Michael Avenatti has entered the fray surrounding Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and the sexual misconduct and assault allegations against him.
He claims to have some explosive information — though the content of that information, and who is behind it, is unclear.
It all started Sunday evening. Avenatti, an attorney who rose to fame this year for representing porn actress Stormy Daniels in her battle with the White House, tweeted that he was representing a woman with “credible information” about Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh’s.
Christine Blasey Ford says Judge was in the room when Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulted her while they were in high school.
Avenatti wrote that he would be “demanding the opportunity to present testimony” to the Senate Judiciary Committee and called for Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn.
Around the same time Avenatti began tweeting, Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker published a story detailing allegations from a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, who says Kavanaugh drunkenly exposed himself to her and thrust his genitals in her face while they were in college. (Kavanaugh has denied both Ford and Ramirez’s allegations.)
Avenatti tweeted that his client isn’t Ramirez — and from there, things got stranger.
The attorney began to post emails between himself and Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee, in which Avenatti claimed that he has “significant evidence” of parties in Washington, DC, during the 1980s during which Kavanaugh, Judge, and others would “participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.”
He also tweeted about one of Kavanaugh’s yearbook entries and called for Judge to testify under oath to the judiciary panel.
Exactly what information Avenatti has — or whom he’s representing — isn’t known. The flamboyant lawyer with 2020 presidential aspirations shared on Twitter another email to Davis outlining his requests for the committee, followed by a tweet touting a court appearance with Daniels later in the day.
Here’s a rundown what we do — and don’t know — about what Avenatti claims to have on Kavanaugh.
What we know Avenatti on Sunday tweeted that he was representing a woman with “credible information” about Kavanaugh and Judge and would demand an opportunity to present testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
He said he would like Judge and others to be subpoenaed to testify and called for Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn.
Though news about Ramirez’s claims broke around the same time Avenatti began tweeting, he clarified that his client wasn’t Ramirez.
It’s not entirely clear what Avenatti’s client says happened, but according to the emails with Davis he posted, he says there is “significant evidence” Kavanaugh and Judge were involved in some sort of scheme to gang rape young women in the 1980s.
Judge, a classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Preparatory School in Maryland and conservative writer, has become an important figure in the Kavanaugh allegations, as Ford says he was present when Kavanaugh allegedly sexually assaulted her.
Judge has previously written about his drunken escapades while in high school, including seemingly referencing Kavanaugh (using the name “Bart O’Kavanaugh”) but has denied memory of the assault Ford says took place. He has also said he doesn’t want to testify before the judiciary panel.
Some of Avenatti’s suggested questions for the committee to ask Kavanaugh include whether he targeted women for sex or rape at house parties or assisted Judge in doing so, whether he saw men lined up outside bedrooms at parties where a woman was inside as part of a “train,” and whether he was aware of or tried to stop such incidents.
Avenatti said the committee should also ask Kavanaugh about an entry in his yearbook that reads “FFFFFFFourth of July,” which he believes stands for “Find them, French them, Feel them, Finger them, F*ck them, Forget them.”
He also mentioned the term “Devil’s Triangle,” a phrase that refers to sex between two men and one woman. The Daily Kos published a picture of references to both in Kavanaugh’s yearbook.
In subsequent emails between himself and Davis, it becomes clear that Avenatti is pushing for Judge to be subpoenaed and therefore forced to testify under oath.
He said his client — who is still unknown — is willing to meet with the FBI for an investigation and take a polygraph test.
Avenatti also asked whether some Republican staffers were aware of other allegations against Kavanaugh prior to them coming to light publicly.
The New Yorker reported that GOP staffers knew about the Ramirez allegations last week, and then lawmakers tried to speed Kavanaugh’s confirmation up.
In the New Yorker story on Ramirez, one of Judge’s former girlfriends, Elizabeth Rasor, said that Judge once “told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman,” but that he deemed it consensual. A lawyer for Judge said he “categorically denies” Rasor’s claim. It’s not clear whether it’s connected to Avenatti’s accusations.
What we don’t know The identity of the woman Avenatti claims to be representing. On Monday, he tweeted out portions of her résumé, apparently in an attempt to demonstrate credibility.
What specific accusations Avenatti or his client may make, and what evidence he purports to have.
Whether the claims are tied to what Rasor told the New Yorker, or a separate report in the Montgomery Sentinel on Monday that investigators are aware of a sexual assault complaint against Kavanaugh during his senior year of high school after a witness came forward over the weekend.
|
|
|
Post by inger on Sept 24, 2018 16:38:53 GMT -5
I know a fellow who went to college with a future NFL quarterback who later also became an NFL coach. He claims that he witnessed a line of young ladies waiting outside the QB’s dorm room in hopes of being chosen to be a part of his evening’s entertainment. When he was sated, the player would simply poke his head out the door (no, not THAT one) and say “That’ll be all tonight, girls”.
That was quite consensual of course. We don’t know it these “trains” were consented to by the women inside the rooms. While most ladies would not engage in such behavior, there are certainly some that will.
When it comes to consensual sex, as far as I’m concerned...let ‘em do whatever makes ‘em happy...
When it comes to non-consensual sex, rape is rape. It’s wrong...
|
|
|
Post by inger on Sept 24, 2018 17:20:48 GMT -5
Meanwhile, time for sentencing in the Cosby case. The defense is pleading for leniency because he is blind and elderly, rendering him unlikely to do it again. Sounds like we finally have a sideways admission of guilt. Allowing a light sentence is license to older folks or those with a handicap, is it not? It’s not like he’ll be sentenced to break rocks or even make license plates.
Bill, you did the crime. Now pay the time...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2018 19:37:13 GMT -5
Mich, you have to stop making Fox News your go to library of truth. I guess the deep state is conspiring once again to derail this paragon of virtue. Whatever happens now, a lot of decent Republicans are going to lose in November due to this totally unnecessary fiasco. There are tons of decent conservative judges out there who would have been unanimous picks across the aisle. The fact that this person was selected and that his defense is identical to Trumps speaks volumes. People are sick and tired of the old white man’s club tripping over their dicks due to their out of step values. Check out every poll with regard to this charade. Women deserve better representation on the SC than this. Oh yeah, Alex Jones, not Smith. I did have football on the brain unfortunately. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by inger on Sept 24, 2018 20:00:30 GMT -5
Mich, you have to stop making Fox News your go to library of truth. I guess the deep state is conspiring once again to derail this paragon of virtue. Whatever happens now, a lot of decent Republicans are going to lose in November due to this totally unnecessary fiasco. There are tons of decent conservative judges out there who would have been unanimous picks across the aisle. The fact that this person was selected and that his defense is identical to Trumps speaks volumes. People are sick and tired of the old white man’s club tripping over their dicks due to their out of step values. Check out every poll with regard to this charade. Women deserve better representation on the SC than this. Oh yeah, Alex Jones, not Smith. I did have football on the brain unfortunately. My bad. Alex Jones, Alex Smith. Does it matter? They’ve both thrown their share of pick sixes... (: Chuck, I admire that you’ve picked a side on this and are sticking to it. Me? Despite what I’ve written here, I really can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys anymore. That seems to be the standard in politics anymore. We get muck-raked to death anymore. There’s no joy in it. It’s killing my national pride, I’ll say that. We embarrass ourselves in front of the world far too often...
|
|
|
Post by inger on Sept 24, 2018 20:01:41 GMT -5
Geez. I used anymore in like three consecutive statements in that post. I won’t do that any more... (:
|
|
|
Post by michcusejoe5 on Sept 24, 2018 20:47:42 GMT -5
Mich, you have to stop making Fox News your go to library of truth. I guess the deep state is conspiring once again to derail this paragon of virtue. Whatever happens now, a lot of decent Republicans are going to lose in November due to this totally unnecessary fiasco. There are tons of decent conservative judges out there who would have been unanimous picks across the aisle. The fact that this person was selected and that his defense is identical to Trumps speaks volumes. People are sick and tired of the old white man’s club tripping over their dicks due to their out of step values. Check out every poll with regard to this charade. Women deserve better representation on the SC than this. Oh yeah, Alex Jones, not Smith. I did have football on the brain unfortunately. My bad. I dont watch Fox News nor do I have any respect for Alex Jones (the parody videos that get created from his insanity are pretty hilarious though), but thanks for your concern and recommendation. Taken under advisement. However, you have offered nothing of substance in this discussion and almost nothing you've said is true. People who take baseless "Fox News/Alex Jones" pot shots at their opposition generally dont have anything intelligent to add. I literally quoted the exact New Yorker and NYT articles back to you in that last post, illustrating quite plainly what trash this was, and you come up with some platitude about "women deserve better." Give me an effing break. You arent interested in discussing ideas or the issues on their merits, that much is obvious...you are interested in signaling virtue and showing your disdain for anything even remotely associated with Donald Trump. Both useless. I've given you two extremely substantive responses that should have generated a legitimate discussion and you've all but ignored both responding with nothing but empty comments. The one piece here that I will comment on further, even though that's likely a fools errand, is the "There are tons of decent conservative judges out there who have been unanimous picks across the aisle." This point of view is utter nonsense for a couple of reasons. First of all, Neil Gorsuch was unanimously voted onto the 10th circuit and that didnt stop the Democrats from trying to make him out to be a monster and forcing McConnell into the nuclear option. Kavanaugh has received the highest rating from the American Bar Association's judicial rating committee; the reason he was confirmed to the DC court of appeals along fairly partisan lines was largely political due to his involvement in the Ken Starr investigation of Clinton. Secondarily, and perhaps more importantly, this is larger than just Kavanaugh at this point. Putting aside the fact that there is no substantiation or corroboration to the four decade old allegations against him (yet people like you are still perfectly happy to destroy his professional and personal life regardless), to believe that the hard-Left will not pull this shit over and over against with their precious Roe v. Wade potentially at stake (at least so they think), is incredibly obtuse and ignorant of history. To be willing to set this standard...that presumption of innocence is a simply a thing of the past, due process is dead, and that the burden of proof is on the accused to disprove their guilt (an insane sentiment that has now been parroted by multiple Democrats in the United States Senate)...this so radically dangerous and wildly destructive its appalling to me that anyone who cares even a little bit about the ideals of this country would be okay with it.
|
|
|
Post by inger on Sept 24, 2018 20:58:19 GMT -5
Mich, i’ve found your posts to be educative on the subject. Oddly, I haven’t followed the story that much in the press. It’s just become one of those stories that it seems the constant chirping won’t go away.
Regardless of what the truth turns out to be, I refuse to condemn unless condemnation becomes a reality. I’ve had people lie against me before. Never about an issue like this one, but it’s not fun defending yourself from shit dredged out of a harbor of hate.. I wish the best to all parties involved and hope the real truth is uncovered...
|
|
|
Post by michcusejoe5 on Sept 24, 2018 21:04:07 GMT -5
Mich, i’ve found your posts to be educative on the subject. Oddly, I haven’t followed the story that much in the press. It’s just become one of those stories that it seems the constant chirping won’t go away. Regardless of what the truth turns out to be, I refuse to condemn unless condemnation becomes a reality. I’ve had people lie against me before. Never about an issue like this one, but it’s not fun defending yourself from shit dredged out of a harbor of hate.. I wish the best to all parties involved and hope the real truth is uncovered... And Im perfectly happy to change my tune should evidence comes out that would justify it. Like I mentioned in an early post, I was a major critic of Roy Moore and thought the voters in Alabama fked up so badly picking that creep. His allegations were credible and corroborated. Allegations with historic consequences need to be held to a very high standard...not the flimsy standard they are being held to currently for the purpose of partisan revenge politics. But given the information currently at our disposal, this appears to be perhaps the most despicable political character assassination in the history of American politics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2018 21:16:08 GMT -5
All you seem to be interested in is defining what is political and what is not by going off on political commentary of your own. In your view, the women are pawns in some conspiracy cooked up by the Dems. It’s interesting that you dismiss their claims based not on their statements, but your interpretations of a couple of articles. Hey, I’ve got a great idea. Instead of rather pointless back and forth, how about a real investigation into the allegations. Anita Hill at least received a whisper of that treatment. You totally correct about one thing. Any candidate supported by a man who made his stock and trade by hurting women will inevitably draw comparisons when his actions mimic his enabler. We will see how Ford plays to the nation on this issue very soon.
|
|
|
Post by inger on Sept 24, 2018 21:24:32 GMT -5
All you seem to be interested in is defining what is political and what is not by going off on political commentary of your own. In your view, the women are pawns in some conspiracy cooked up by the Dems. It’s interesting that you dismiss their claims based not on their statements, but your interpretations of a couple of articles. Hey, I’ve got a great idea. Instead of rather pointless back and forth, how about a real investigation into the allegations. Anita Hill at least received a whisper of that treatment. You totally correct about one thing. Any candidate supported by a man who made his stock and trade by hurting women will inevitably draw comparisons when his actions mimic his enabler. We will see how Ford plays to the nation on this issue very soon. It’ll be real interesting. If she was wronged I hope she gets her justice. If not, I hope she gets what she deserves, even if it’s just shame...
|
|
|
Post by michcusejoe5 on Sept 24, 2018 21:30:52 GMT -5
All you seem to be interested in is defining what is political and what is not by going off on political commentary of your own. In your view, the women are pawns in some conspiracy cooked up by the Dems. It’s interesting that you dismiss their claims based not on their statements, but your interpretations of a couple of articles. Hey, I’ve got a great idea. Instead of rather pointless back and forth, how about a real investigation into the allegations. Anita Hill at least received a whisper of that treatment. You totally correct about one thing. Any candidate supported by a man who made his stock and trade by hurting women will inevitably draw comparisons when his actions mimic his enabler. We will see how Ford plays to the nation on this issue very soon. I dont dismiss their claims based simply on their statements nor my interpretation of a couple of articles...I dismiss them, at this stage, based on a holistic view of all the evidence available. Alternatively, you have appeared to accept them lock, stock, and barrel without considering anything except the statements despite inconsistencies, denials of literally every named witness, and lack of a single shred of corroboration. As always, Im fully up for any discussion on these topics, should anyone prefer to have one rather than virtue signaling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2018 21:50:24 GMT -5
Well, virtue wouldn’t play very well given the identity of his main enabler, would it? At least you are semi aware of the limitations with regard to your argument. Again, given your doubt of the womens veracity, all the more reason for a full investigation.
|
|
|
Post by michcusejoe5 on Sept 24, 2018 21:53:22 GMT -5
Well, virtue wouldn’t play very well given the identity of his main enabler, would it? At least you are semi aware of the limitations with regard to your argument. Again, given your doubt of the women veracity, all the more reason for a full investigation. What full investigation of a 35-40 year old claim with no evidence, on the record (w/ US Senate) denials of every witness and missing the basic details of where, when, etc. would you like to have conducted Chuck? This talking point is a tired ploy. My argument is based on the full slate of facts at our disposal. Yours is based on hatred for Trump and partisan talking points which is why you've offered nothing of substance in two days. Sensing a trend.
|
|