Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

That's exactly right....and those don't prove anything because they can't prove those conversations took place. The only situation where there was evidence of the attempted rape conversation taking place was with her shrink and she never mentioned Kavanaugh any of the times she told different versions of the story.

Unfortunately our friends on the left simply can't accept that this woman's story has no evidence and is not corroborated by anything. They simply want to believe too bad to let it go.....just like the birthers before them.

 

I have no clue what "the reality of being a 15-year-old girl in the 1980s" is. And unless this woman is from that area, I don't believe she knows either. I know that 15 year old girls in the area where I grew up in (no cell phones or internet or uber) were shockingly mature, autonomous (and clandestine!) and went out with older boys all the time.
This is just a whole bunch of speculation. But this amount of drama and speculation is inevitable when there is no real investigation by an impartial entity to the claims.
When important things like conservative majority in SCOTUS is decided in this speculative way, it is no wonder why the government is dysfunctional and is universally despised by the electorate.

 

He's not, he's had 6 background checks done on him. None of them came up with anything. Of course no background check can find false allegations of crimes that didn't actually occur.

 

I fixed it for you. When you have no evidence or corroboration, all you can go on is drama and speculation and we've had a ton of that so far. Honestly we should just reject it altogether and require evidence and corroboration, but this is politics.

 

I am sure the dems are furious at avanetti right now for this stupidity. And of course as par for the course the lady names nobody else who can corroborate. Pizzagate for real.

 

There are ways to investigate old claims too - and impartially so. If the claim itself didn't leak and FBI would have taken it up, you'd be none the wiser that it happened and there would be no drama and there would be an impartial report that the claim is not well substantiated to be taken seriously.

For god's sake, can you not see the importance of putting up a justice into the main check on legistlative and executive branches of an impeccable reputation where he can't be coerced or blackmailed into some politically driven decisions that subvert the ways this government was designed to function?! And if you can't see it, that doesn't mean that it is not there. That double jeopardy stuff is already a good enough reason to be sure that the justice is impartial.

 

I think he'd have saved some face if he just said he got trolled by 4chan.

 

I never said that you couldn't investigate old claims, you just can't do it without any evidence whatsoever and no corroboration for the claim. In fact, without those things, you don't even get an investigation.

 

If he was indicted, it'd be on the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he assaulted Ford. If it were a lawsuit, Ford would have get a jury to believe it was more likely to have happened than not. This is a Senate confirmation, and I believe the bar should be different still. We want, foremost, to protect our high offices. The standard should be more like what we use for corruption -- avoid improprieties and the appearance of impropriety. Maybe it leaves a lot of nominees open to character assassination, but I think he needs to give the public reasons to trust him.

If he's innocent, btw, he should be asking for an FBI investigation too. This scandal is going to hang on him the rest of his life. If he's on the Supreme Court, he'll have journalists doubting his credibility on every women's rights or victim's rights case he ever decides. If he ultimately doesn't get nominated and returns to his present job, he could have lawyers too asking for him to recuse himself from cases. Trump has somehow dodged responsibility on this one, but he's screwed up the whole thing when he declined to have the FBI investigate.

 

Suggesting that the standard should be guilty until proven innocent means that so long as partisans are immoral enough, literally no candidate could ever be placed on the bench ever again. It's a really really really stupid standard to set. When people can derail the process with absurd claims without a single stitch of evidence or corroboration, that's how you destroy the entire system. You've just incentivised people to lie and make **** up. The next time there is a "birther" type accusation about someone being a secret foreign born Muslim that is trying to destroy the country, are you going to simply believe it until it is completely disproved?

I mean, this is effectively no different than in the past when a woman could cry rape and they'd find a black man to lynch for it without any evidence of guilt. We should be better than this as a society, there's a reason why we require proof before assuming guilt and if we aren't better than that anymore, then the system should come crashing down.

 

A Third Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details parties where girls allegedly were drugged and raped
​

• The lawyer Michael Avenatti on Wednesday identified another accuser of Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh, Washington resident Julie Swetnick.
• Swetnick, in an affidavit posted online by Avenatti, claims that Kavanaugh, as a high school student in the early 1980s, with others spiked the drinks of girls at house parties with grain alcohol and/or drugs to "cause girls to lose inhibitions and their ability to say 'No.' "
• Swetnick said these efforts by Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge were done so the girls "could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys." She said "I became the victim" of one such rape "where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present."

A third accuser of Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday publicly identified herself and alleged that Kavanaugh and others while in high school spiked the drinks of girls at parties to make it easier for them to be gang raped.

While he White House had no immediate comment on Swetnick's allegations, which were signed under penalty of perjury, Senator Grassley's said that his committee will look into the new accusation






Julie Swetnick's stunning claims, made on the eve of a Senate committee hearing for Kavanaugh and another accuser, came in an affidavit to a Senate staffer that was released by her lawyer. The White House had no immediate comment on Swetnick's allegations, which were signed under penalty of perjury.

Swetnick, 55, identified herself as a resident of Washington, D.C., who has held multiple clearances for work done at the Treasury Department, U.S. Mint, IRS, State Department and Justice Department, among others.


Swetnick, in the affidavit posted on Twitter by Avenatti, claims that she saw Kavanaugh, as a high school student in Maryland in the early 1980s, "drink excessively at many" house parties in suburban Maryland. She said he engaged in "abusive and physically agressive behavior toward girls."

During the years of 1981 and 1982 she said she learned of efforts by Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge and others "to spike the drinks of girls at house parties I attended with grain alcohol and/or drugs so as to cause girls to lose inhibitions and their ability to say 'No.' " Certain girls were targeted by those boys, and "it was usually a girl that was especially vulnerable because she was alone at the party or shy."

Swetnick said these efforts by Kavanaugh and his buddy Judge were done so the girls "could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom 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," Swetnick said.



https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/michael-avenatti-identifies-kavanaugh-accuser-as-julie-swetnick.html

 

This is essentially the "full r****d" version of the other 2 uncorroborated, baseless accusations. You never go full r****d.

 

I know there are a lot of things that I "can't understand" or shouldn't weigh in on because I am male or because I didn't experience the same event.

But, are we really parsing it down to the level of you have to have lived in the same neighborhood (or maybe attended the same school) to draw conclusions based on human nature, life experiences, etc.?

If so, seems like our entire justice system is flawed because jurors are asked to use their common sense routinely in evaluating conflicting evidence and somehow manage to do it without having been there or had the identical life experiences.

 

Kavanaugh is Toast.

 

LOL why does it not surprise me that you'd be swayed by the "full r****d" version of the same uncorroborated, baseless allegations?

 

I am going to go ahead and guess you don't have any daughters.

 

Are you suggesting that having daughters makes someone stupid? That's quite a bold statement.

 

3rd allegation that MIRROR the other 2. The woman did a SWORN statement and is willing to testify. A woman with security clearances. This one is a Huge problem for Frat boy Kavanaugh.

 

Kavs is sobering up and kinda surprised...

https://politics.theonion.com/kavan..._RSS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_term=