Kavanaugh Confirmation

#12,403
#12,403
Then we have this...

'Gang Rape' Accuser: Actually, I Don't Know What Kavanaugh Did -- and I Don't Have Proof Anyway



Megyn Kelly recently said that it's time for Michael Avenatti to 'put up or shut up' regarding the lurid and dramatic claims being advanced by one of his clients against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Based on that client's interview with NBC last night, it looks like it's time for the celebrity lawyer to do the latter -- though the chances of that are nil. He's running for president and vowing to expand and pack SCOTUS, no less.

In her first sit-down interview, Julie Swetnick -- the woman who tied Kavanaugh to a gang rape ring when he was in high school (and she was in college) -- hedged and backed away from a number of her outlandish accusations. NBC News, like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, has been unable to verify anything about Swetnick's account. They ran her interview anyway, for some reason, noting up front that she's already changing her story. "There are things that she told us on camera that differ from her written statement last week:"

Swetnick cannot remember when she came forward with her claims, shifting the dates around (was it six weeks, or a "few" weeks?), and asserting that her goal was to reinforce Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh. In her sworn statement, Swetnick attested that she was personally aware of Kavanaugh and Mark Judge spiking the punch at parties and funneling dangerous drinks to girls. This was part of the gang rape process, according to her. But in the NBC interview, she admits that she only remembers seeing the two boys near the punch, and that she never "specifically" saw either of them spike it. Oh. "I don't know what he [Kavanaugh] did," she continues, in perhaps the most honest sentence she's uttered on this entire matter.

As for the serial gang rape portion of her story, Swetnick says she actually "didn't know what was occurring" at the parties in question, but later surmised that there must have been other gang rapes happening after she herself was gang raped. Allegedly. Was Kavanaugh one of her rapists? Well, she can't say. But she's pretty sure he was at that party. Plus, she says, it would be "too coincidental" for him to have attended these rape parties (she figures they must have been rape parties, right?) without raping someone. She goes on to state that "if Brett Kavanaugh is one of the people that did this to me," he shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. Well yeah, but she won't say that he was. Indeed, she provides zero evidence that anyone did any such thing to her.
 
#12,405
#12,405
luthervol said:
Garland? Wait a couple of months?
We all know he will recommend someone even more conservative. He's nothing if not dedicated to pleasing his base at all costs and against all reason.
Click to expand...
You don’t believe he should make another nomination? Garland is obviously out of play here.
 
#12,406
#12,406
Smokey'sHandler said:
One thing I am pretty puzzled about. It was asked of BK in the Senate Judiciary meeting whether he thought this was a job interview or not. I have seen several on here refer to the meetings as a job interview. So can we conclude that this was a job interview?

If so have you ever been on a job interview where the interviewers ask zero questions about your previous experience and ask you questions about your previous experience to see what you bring to the table?

I am finding this to be pretty interesting. BK has been serving on the 2nd highest court, has made many decisions that have affected the course of our nation, has many written documents on his stances and has been in the public court system for 25+ years.

If he were so "unfit" for this position wouldn't it be so easy to find in his mound of public documentation? Wouldn't they be able to point to specific decisions that have caused them spread fear amongst their voting bases? You can't tell me that these Democrats have taken little effort to have their resources scavenge through his work and find even the smallest thing to make their case that he would be a terrible SC judge. The fact that there hasn't been one single report on any of his decisions is leading me to believe that this fiasco is their last ditch effort because they cannot find anything on him professionally.

This dude may just be highly qualified for the job and make one heck of a SC judge.
Click to expand...

Kudos. I’m pretty sure you’re the first person in like 12000 posts to bring up his actual qualifications.

There are, I think, 180 United States Circuit Court judges, so he is technically as qualified as those other 179 or so individuals.

His biggest academic criticism is his stated belief that the president is immune from criminal prosecution. From an purely objective, legal standpoint that is a disturbing position.

For me, personally, the fact that he apparently hasn’t always felt that way makes him look like a political operative.

I’ve also noticed that on a number of his notable writings are dissenting opinions. That’s not always a bad thing, there are actually dissenting opinions at the Supreme Court level that are taught in law schools as the definitive common law of certain legal concepts. What does concern me a very small amount that some of those dissenting opinions are contrary to settled law. It would bother me more if the DC circuit were already conservative, signaling that he is radical or a republican first and conservative justice second. I don’t know that the DC Circuit is conservative and have not heard him criticized for being that way. His behavior last Friday did nothing to dispel that concern.

Consistency is important in the law and the Supreme Court is supposed to be about broad legal concepts, not making decisions on a case by case basis. I’m concerned that he will put politics ahead of that.

It is especially troubling that he lied under oath to the committee. I’m sure some here can’t admit that and will argue the point but it’s really not even debatable. If people are going to call out Ford over discrepancies in the doors, as they should, it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend Kavanaugh didn’t fib about a number of details and about the theft of democrat communications. (I didn’t even mention that but his participation in that stunt is also a problem for me.)

As a relatively young attorney, I have a much greater idealistic reverence for the Court, much than for politics and he looks to me to be a Supreme Court nominee borne of the current unsavory political climate.

Personally, I would vote against him. There are better, conservative options out there. I think Amy Barrett would have actually been better and I think Trump chose a guy with baggage because he’s worried about ending up in jail whenever the democrats take back the legislative branch. The marginal difference between the two was not worth the politics cost that is being inflicted leading up to the midterms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BartW
#12,410
#12,410
Weezer said:
To be called a rape victim an actual rape would have to occur. By Ford's own words, she was not raped.
Click to expand...
My point was that you can call someone without there first being an adjudication that a particular crime did in fact take place.
 
#12,411
#12,411
evillawyer said:
What does Blumenthal’s statements re: K have to do with the permissibility of trump mocking ford?
Click to expand...
DojC1qPU0AACClp
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, SpaceCoastVol, joevol33 and 4 others
#12,414
#12,414
RockyTop85 said:
Kudos. I’m pretty sure you’re the first person in like 12000 posts to bring up his actual qualifications.

There are, I think, 180 United States Circuit Court judges, so he is technically as qualified as those other 179 or so individuals.

His biggest academic criticism is his stated belief that the president is immune from criminal prosecution. From an purely objective, legal standpoint that is a disturbing position.

For me, personally, the fact that he apparently hasn’t always felt that way makes him look like a political operative.

I’ve also noticed that on a number of his notable writings are dissenting opinions. That’s not always a bad thing, there are actually dissenting opinions at the Supreme Court level that are taught in law schools as the definitive common law of certain legal concepts. What does concern me a very small amount that some of those dissenting opinions are contrary to settled law. It would bother me more if the DC circuit were already conservative, signaling that he is radical or a republican first and conservative justice second. I don’t know that the DC Circuit is conservative and have not heard him criticized for being that way. His behavior last Friday did nothing to dispel that concern.

Consistency is important in the law and the Supreme Court is supposed to be about broad legal concepts, not making decisions on a case by case basis. I’m concerned that he will put politics ahead of that.

It is especially troubling that he lied under oath to the committee. I’m sure some here can’t admit that and will argue the point but it’s really not even debatable. If people are going to call out Ford over discrepancies in the doors, as they should, it’s intellectually dishonest to pretend Kavanaugh didn’t fib about a number of details and about the theft of democrat communications. (I didn’t even mention that but his participation in that stunt is also a problem for me.)

As a relatively young attorney, I have a much greater idealistic reverence for the Court, much than for politics and he looks to me to be a Supreme Court nominee borne of the current unsavory political climate.

Personally, I would vote against him. There are better, conservative options out there. I think Amy Barrett would have actually been better and I think Trump chose a guy with baggage because he’s worried about ending up in jail whenever the democrats take back the legislative branch. The marginal difference between the two was not worth the politics cost that is being inflicted leading up to the midterms.
Click to expand...
oh please Dems dont give a rat's ass who Trump appoints, their political strategy would be the same, ultimate personal destruction of said candidate
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and 0nelilreb
#12,415
#12,415
evillawyer said:
My point was that you can call someone without there first being an adjudication that a particular crime did in fact take place.
Click to expand...
My point is to call her a victim is to call him guilty. You know as well as anyone here that no DA would even take her case, much less press for a conviction. You should know better. You should know you'd get called on it here. And you should get thicker skin about hearing someone point out why an accuser's story has more holes than substance...



Counselor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, NorthDallas40 and volinbham
#12,420
#12,420
evillawyer said:
My point was that you can call someone without there first being an adjudication that a particular crime did in fact take place.
Click to expand...

I could call you all kinds of things but it doesn't make it true. I don't even know you.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top