[Stormsmith]

This guy might be squeaky clean, but honestly, he'said looking dirtier by the minute. This is not making the GOP look very good either. Isn't it enough Clarence Thomas is still there?

According to Michel Avenatti his client will make a televised statement Wednesday night

Avenatti is entering the fray surrounding Kavanaugh's roiled Supreme Court nomination with a tweet announcing he is representing "a woman with credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh." 

Avenatti on Sunday tweeted a screenshot of an email he sent to Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the email, Avenatti said he is “aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the early 1980s, during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.”

"There are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts and each of them must be called to testify publicly,” Avenatti wrote.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408151-avenatti-new-client-will-go-public-with-kavanaugh-accusations-in-next-48


Edit
By the way, all these ads to confirm Kavanaugh without giving the women a nanosecond to make their cases isn't helping either . The unjudged judge....

[jimjam]

They didn't conduct a Witch Trial against Merrick Garland. His reputation is just fine. It was a presidential election year in Obama's last term. Traditionally, presidents defer to the next president.

Over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees.

"Traditionally"?

So.... if I read you correctly #21, if this situation were exactly reverse, the Republican Plutocratic Party would never, never ever consider any course of action other than the moral high road and would be behaving with utmost integrity and purest of ethics??

Oh boy ….. what a croc of shit …..

[blackjack21]

Amnesty international seems to be concerned about Kavanaugh’s role in CIA black sites, and the abduction and torture associated with them.

Yeah, so it's pretty clear Feinstein was part of the engineering of the whole thing. She went out of her way to undermine the Bush administration on that matter, even though she was thoroughly briefed as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

This guy might be squeaky clean, but honestly, he'said looking dirtier by the minute.

No. He's fine. The Senate Judiciary Committee is looking like a dystopian medieval circus, and many Democrats who are not on the committee are destroying their own reputations in the process too. If JFK were alive today and he and his family didn't have such a stained reputation, he could write a book called "Profiles in Cowardice" to describe people like Dianne Feinstein, Christine Gillibrand, Richard Blumenthal, etc. For the Democrats to adopt the tactics of the Spanish Inquisition--for Jews like Feinstein and Blumenthal especially--as their moral standard is going to come back to bite them, I think. Lots of Democrats are men who are not relishing the idea of the their high school and college party shenanigans being brought to light in Senate hearings. There are also a lot of women who love their fathers, brothers, husbands, sons and other men in their life and don't want to see them subjected to inquisition-like tactics by the US government.

It has painted such a stark contrasts. I think you are going to be surprised in November. We'll see.

According to Michel Avenatti his client will make a televised statement Wednesday night

I think that's great! Avenatti is the porn star lawyer. He's basically a thug with zero credibility. I think some Democrats are slowly beginning to realize they've jumped the shark with this one, but I don't think they can stem the tide now.

"Traditionally"?

The Thurmond rule has been around since '68. I was born in '67, so that's pretty much my whole life. I wasn't around back in the 1850s when you were born.

So.... if I read you correctly #21, if this situation were exactly reverse, the Republican Plutocratic Party would never, never ever consider any course of action other than the moral high road and would be behaving with utmost integrity and purest of ethics??

The Republican Plutocratic Party? Barack Obama bailed out billionaires on the backs of middle class tax payers. I guess your memory is fading, eh? The situation was reversed 2 years ago. The Republicans simply refused to hold a vote on Merrick Garland. They didn't run around finding women who can't remember what year it is to charge him with raping them. Merrick Garland's reputation is firmly intact. It's not out of the question that a future president will nominate him, other than that he will be a bit older and they like to get 'em on the young side. People will always remember this charade just as they remember the Clarence Thomas hearings.

The charges against Kavanaugh are even more far fetched than they were in the Clarence Thomas case. The psychological profile of rapists is that they are typically repeat offenders. We would have something a little more believable and a little more recent to choose from if Kavanaugh were a sex offender. Bill Cosby had scores of women, but it was just one recent enough case where they were able to nab him, and still it took two trials. Basically, to prove this sort of thing you need evidence and a reliable witness (including the accuser). There is no evidence against Kavanaugh. There are no witnesses. The accuser is unreliable as a witness.

The whole thing was a sham. If the Republicans get some backbone, the Democrats will pay in November.

[Doug64]

I’m guessing that The Crucible and To Kill a Mockingbird aren’t going to be favored by Democrats for awhile. Interestingly enough, through all this the average polls on the generic ballot at RealClearPolitics has not only bee holding steady, but ticked down slightly in the Republicans’ favor.

Meanwhile, here’s some cases making their way to the Supreme Court that Kavanaugh will be ruling on if he’s confirmed, that Liberals will not be happy to see. I wonder if there will be Liberal calls for him to recuse himself? After all, having been on the receiving end of a witch hunt could bias him in favor of those that have suffered the same:

Judges Toppling Rigged Campus Sex Trials

Students wrongly accused of sexual misconduct by campus disciplinary systems stacked in favor of the accuser are winning vindication in court. Judges are tossing out the life-ruining punishments meted out by these "guilty until proven innocent" campus tribunals.

This month, Judge Amul Thapar of the federal Sixth Circuit appeals court declared that students charged with sexual misconduct have a right to due process, including a courtroom-like hearing, where the both the accuser and the accused are cross-examined. Thapar's ruling describes cross-examination as "the greatest legal engine ever invented" for "uncovering the truth."

Of course, that's not how it works on most campuses today, where the accuser is prematurely deemed a "survivor" before any evidence of a crime, and doesn't have to face the accused.

Challenges to these Kafkaesque proceedings are heading to the Supreme Court, where Brett Kavanaugh is nominated to serve. If he's seated, he'll have to rule on this question, after having endured his own gauntlet of allegations that he misbehaved sexually as a student. Count on Democrats to demand he recuse himself.

For now Senate Democrats, like campus administrators, are insisting Kavanaugh's accusers "need to be believed," even without cross-examination.

But unlike politicians, judges aren't buying the notion that accusers must always be believed. Across the country, judges are skewering colleges for tilting the system to favor accusers.

In fact, courts are having a bigger impact so far than Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, whose proposed reforms of sexual assault proceedings nibble around the edges without actually guaranteeing that accused students will be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Since 2011, more than 300 students have gone to court, claiming campus administrators wrongfully disciplined them. The colleges were implementing Obama administration guidelines regarding sexual misconduct. These guidelines discouraged colleges from subjecting the accuser to questioning. The guidelines also set the standard of proof at the lowest possible level, a mere preponderance of evidence. In short, 50 percent plus a feather. On that meager basis, a student could face expulsion and be tarred for life as a sexual predator.

Last year, DeVos rescinded the Obama-era guidelines and promised reforms. But so far the real action is in the courts.

On Sept. 7, Thapar issued a blockbuster ruling for fairness. The case involved two students at the University of Michigan who had sex in their dorm after a party. The male student said it was consensual. The female student claimed she was too drunk to consent, and accused him of sexual assault. The university sided with her and forced him to leave the school. But the court ruled the university erred by refusing to allow the female student to be cross-examined. Coddling the accuser by shielding her from questioning violated the accused's due process rights. The University of Michigan is appealing, teeing the case up for a Supreme Court battle.

A year earlier, the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of a University of Cincinnati graduate student accused of assaulting a woman student. She failed to show up for a campus hearing, but the university still suspended the male student for a year. That suspension, said the court, violated his due process right to a fair hearing.

State courts are also rejecting campus kangaroo courts. A California appeals court ruled recently that Claremont McKenna College, though private, is obligated to provide due process and assess who is telling the truth in any "he said, she said" sexual misconduct complaint. The college has to allow cross-examination so fact-finders can observe the "demeanor" of each party. The female accuser in that case should have been required to answer questions posed directly or indirectly by the accused man, said Judge Helen Bendix, citing the Sixth Circuit's position.

These rulings are good news for college students. In the future, they'll face less risk of having their lives derailed by a false accusation and the crazy notion that all accusers should never be doubted.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I’m guessing that The Crucible and To Kill a Mockingbird aren’t going to be favored by Democrats for awhile.

Savage.

[Drlee]

This month, Judge Amul Thapar of the federal Sixth Circuit appeals court declared that students charged with sexual misconduct have a right to due process, including a courtroom-like hearing, where the both the accuser and the accused are cross-examined. Thapar's ruling describes cross-examination as "the greatest legal engine ever invented" for "uncovering the truth."

It is about time. These kangaroo courts are a national disgrace.

I am uncomfortable with colleges conducting "trials" of any kind especially when there are controlling state laws. Either an assault occurred or it did not. If so it is a matter for the police not an English Literature professor.

I am also concerned that these 'rules' go to far toward placing the onus for all sexual behavior on the male. Actions by men are not always predatory and those by women victimization. Clearly there is an issue but, unpopular as it is these days, sometimes women are responsible for their own behavior.

We have created a system in which women are automatically absolved of all responsibility for their behavior. Some of the cases (not all and this is no time for inventing what-ifs before you post a reply) truly border on the absurd. Note to women. You are not the only ones who wake up with regrets after a drunken evening. We men do not run to the authorities to absolve ourselves from responsibility for our own drunken stupidity.

[Pants-of-dog]

I’m guessing that The Crucible and To Kill a Mockingbird aren’t going to be favored by Democrats for awhile.

This is a victim narrative.

Kavanaugh is not even being charged with a crime much less being found guilty of one without a trial.

Ia sked you before and you ignored the question: should the press bot be allowed to report on this?

Also, should these women not be allowed to come forward with their stories?

[Victoribus Spolia]

should the press bot be allowed to report on this?

I don't think thats the problem, the problem is a moral one right now, not a legal one.

Is it right for the press to report on this in the manner that they are doing and for the politicians to be using these allegations in the manner that they are using them.

That is the more accurate question and is quite frankly, the elephant in the room.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't think thats the problem, the problem is a moral one right now, not a legal one.

Is it right for the press to report on this in the manner that they are doing and for the politicians to be using these allegations in the manner that they are using them.

That is the more accurate question and is quite frankly, the elephant in the room.

If @Doug64 is going to implynthat Kavanaugh is a victim of being found guilty without a trial, then it is worth pointing out that he is not being tried or charged at all.

If the claim is that he is being presumed guilty in the court of public opinion, then the implied claim is that the press is wrong, and the press should be quiet. If that is what @Doug64 is saying, he should answer the question.

If this is just a bunch of conservatives feeling victimised because the press is not being biased enough to his side, then this is a tempest in a teacup.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If @Doug64 is going to implynthat Kavanaugh is a victim of being found guilty without a trial, then it is worth pointing out that he is not being tried or charged at all.

Don't be childish, everyone here knows that he is not being tried in a court of law right now, so you are simply engaging in sophistry here instead of addressing the real complaint being made from his supporters.

If the claim is that he is being presumed guilty in the court of public opinion, then the implied claim is that the press is wrong, and the press should be quiet. If that is what @Doug64 is saying, he should answer the question.

This is closer to being true, but you also know that no one is necessarily arguing that the freedom of the press should be curtailed, so once again, you are engaging in sophistry and talking points to try to push some sort of hypocrisy on the part of the right instead of discussing the actual substance of the issues the right has.

That is what I am trying to show you, no one is claiming that he is in an actual court being tried without due process and no one is saying we should abolish the freedom the press. Full-Stop.

If this is just a bunch of conservatives feeling victimised because the press is not being biased enough to his side, then this is a tempest in a teacup.

Its a moral question, is it morally right to libel a person's reputation in the public as if he were guilty when no trial has taken place and all we have are allegations, Yes or No? Is it right for the Democrats to use these women and these allegations as a tool for stalling the confirmations process given their spurious nature, Yes or No?

Those are the questions and complaints being levied.

[Pants-of-dog]

Don't be childish, everyone here knows that he is not being tried in a court of law right now, so you are simply engaging in sophistry here instead of addressing the real complaint being made from his supporters.

You should go back and read all of the posts that @Doug64 has contributed to this thread. He has made repeated comments about being charged with a crime without a proper trial.

When I addressed this, he also brought up the press, so that is why I am asking him if he thinks the press should be forbidden to report on it.

If the claim is only that you and other conservatives feel the press is not being biased enough in support of Kavanaugh, then that is a discussion about your feelings and not a real issue.

This is closer to being true, but you also know that no one is necessarily arguing that the freedom of the press should be curtailed, so once again, you are engaging in sophistry and talking points to try to push some sort of hypocrisy on the part of the right instead of discussing the actual substance of the issues the right has.

That is what I am trying to show you, no one is claiming that he is in an actual court being tried without due process and no one is saying we should abolish the freedom the press. Full-Stop.

Again, if you are not saying these w9men or the press should be silenced, then the only “issue” is your feelings about supposed bias.

Your emotional reaxtion to your own imagined victim narrative is not actually an issue.

Its a moral question, is it morally right to libel a person's reputation in the public as if he were guilty when no trial has taken place and all we have are allegations, Yes or No? Is it right for the Democrats to use these women and these allegations as a tool for stalling the confirmations process given their spurious nature, Yes or No?

Those are the questions and complaints being levied.

If there is libel occurring, then Kavanaugh can sue. As far as I can tell, there is no libel occurring whatsoever. It is a fact that Ford has this allegation. It s a fact that other women have allegations. So, unless you have evidence of libel, this is a non-issue.

As far as the Democrats’ behaviour, they are trying to obstruct the appointment of Kavanaugh by any means necessary, and this is exactly like,the Republican efforts to obstruct Obama’s many nominations. If it is morally right for one, then it is right for the other. Either way, I do not care nor does it seem to have anything to do with @Doug64‘s claims.

[Doug64]

Edited because my iPad hiccuped.

This is a victim narrative.

Kavanaugh is not even being charged with a crime much less being found guilty of one without a trial.

We have an accuser, an accused, and two juries—the Senate, and the People. It’s a trial.

Ia sked you before and you ignored the question: should the press bot be allowed to report on this?

Also, should these women not be allowed to come forward with their stories?

Of course, in both cases. And we should judge them according to their merits, based on the presumption of innocence.

[Pants-of-dog]

Of course, in both cases. And we should judge them according to their merits, based on the presumption of innocence.

And is there any evidence that this is not what is happening?

[Doug64]

And is there any evidence that this is not what is happening?

Did you hear the chant of the mob that verbally assaulted Senator Cruz and his wife? “We believe survivors.”

[Pants-of-dog]

Did you hear the chant of the mob that verbally assaulted Senator Cruz and his wife? “We believe survivors.”

So, chanting protesters asdressing Cruz are now an example of how the press is biased against Kavanaugh to the point of being a kangaroo court?

That makes no sense. It seems like you are tying together separate events in order to bolster a victim narrative.

[Suntzu]

After this is over and Kavanaugh is confirmed the women need to have their asses sued off.

If Kavanaugh isn't confirmed he will still be a federal judge for a looong time. I hope he is a little vindictive.

[SpecialOlympian]

Avenatti's client is coming forward:

Swetnick's Statement (click through):

Wow, who would think the guy who already committed perjury re: stolen emails (haha, remember when conservatives used to care about things like that?) would also be lying about his, "I'm a gay virgin cuck, my children aren't my own and someday I hope to fuck my wife" defense?

Also shut up about the whole "presumption of innocence" thing. This is a job interview, not a trial. At the end of the day the worst punishment Kavenaugh will ever face is that he doesn't get a job he wants. And it's not like there aren't other qualified candidates out there who don't have a history of sexual assault. The fact that he already lied during his job interview should be enough to disqualify him.

However, as we have seen since Trump assumed office, conservatives will gladly embrace nazis, rapists, nazi murderers, etc. in order to "own the libs" because they have no actual ideology other than anger and spite.

[Doug64]

So, chanting protesters asdressing Cruz are now an example of how the press is biased against Kavanaugh to the point of being a kangaroo court?

No, it’s an example of people not judging the charges according to their merits. Mind, one could argue that the New Yorker article is the same.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Wow, who would think the guy who already committed perjury re: stolen emails (haha, remember when conservatives used to care about things like that?) would also be lying about his, "I'm a gay virgin cuck, my children aren't my own and someday I hope to fuck my wife" defense?

Also shut up about the whole "presumption of innocence" thing. This is a job interview, not a trial. At the end of the day the worst punishment Kavenaugh will ever face is that he doesn't get a job he wants. And it's not like there aren't other qualified candidates out there who don't have a history of sexual assault. The fact that he already lied during his job interview should be enough to disqualify him.

However, as we have seen since Trump assumed office, conservatives will gladly embrace nazis, rapists, nazi murderers, etc. in order to "own the libs" because they have no actual ideology other than anger and spite.

The fact that you considered something come from Avenatti, the solicitor of Stormy Daniels, as credible is quite amazing.

Thats the fun part about 35 year old improvable accusations, you can just stack them like legos and hurl them about and demand more stalling in the process without any repercussions.

Imagine there was a scenario where Congress could "suspend" the midterm elections and decided to do so to allow for the investigation, would the Democrats still care so much about #MeToo victims under that scenario?

We all the know the answer to that.

[SpecialOlympian]

Victoribus I know you're really biased about this because, as you have admitted previously, sexual assault is something you have committed and consider to be normal. So I can see why one rapist would sympathize with another. However, if you bother to click through you can see Swetnick's sworn statement and previous employment history with multiple government background checks. I know as an admitted rapist you will instinctively reject all claims that something can be sexual assault or that sexual assault claims are credible, so I guess I'm talking to a wall here.

Also your ignorance in comparing a SCOTUS nomination to an election is laughable. We had an 8 judge court for over a year. Getting pissy about time constraints now is laughably and transparently dishonest pearl clutching. Further, for a job so important we only allow 9 people to have it in the entire world at any time it's entirely possible to find a candidate who: 1) hasn't already committed perjury during his own hearing and 2) doesn't have legions of women coming forward to describe his history of being a drunken rapist.

I know as an admitted rapist you sympathize with Kavenaugh, but please try to put your own biases aside.