Kavanaugh Confirmation

[volinbham]

RIP ACLU

The ACLU Sponsors an Ad Comparing Brett Kavanaugh to Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein

 

[Grand Vol]

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.

Sounds like Megyn is bucking to get her job back at Fox.

 

[Grand Vol]

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.

That is not what he intended in that article and to say it this way is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Grand Vol]

Tolerance.

 

[1972 Grad]

How do you prove he lied to anything he testified to? Everything he said is up to interpretation. All of this about his yearbook and what terms mean, meaning can be subjective. It doesn't really matter what a classmate thought it meant. They can't testify what it meant to him. Was he a blackout drunk? How do you prove that? No one can testify to that. They can say he drank a lot, but not to the point of blacking out. Hell, I remember several times when I drank myself stupid but I recalled everything that happened. All of these claims of lies are subjective, not to mention you're asking him to recall events from 30+ years ago. That's a lot of time. Perjury is knowingly telling a lie. Even if some of his statements are inaccurate, you have to prove he willfully lied.

The whole perjury tract is just another delay tactic. Funny how the more holes that get punched in Ford's story, the more the Dems push for perjury. The truth is completely secondary to them. Their only goal is to delay and derail the nomination, no matter the cost.

I have been stumbling, sh!tfaced drunk several times when I was in college, but I always remembered everything the next day.

 

[1972 Grad]

Tolerance.

After I have seen how the Trump haters on this forum come completely unglued, and after I see how the protesters act, I fully believe that there are people just like them in the media, and in the Senate and House of the Democrat party..

 

[Grand Vol]

 

[Boston Vol]

At first I thought this had to be an onion article.

 

[85SugarVol]

Shove the most blatant conservative judge right up the Democrats ass. No committee hearings, just a straight line party vote.

Eff 'em.

Is straight to a floor vote an option?

 

[Weezer]

And yet our liberal posters will continue to deny just how blatantly biased the MSM is. The MSM is trying to force feed opinion. It's no longer about reporting facts, it's about shaping a narrative and putting it out as fact. Honestly, it's like brainwashing and many are falling for it. They don't want people to think for themselves, they want to tell you what you should think.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Tolerance.

I wonder if any of the resident libs can defend this? I mean they always as everyone else to defend everything Trump says.

 

[RockyTop85]

That is not what he intended in that article and to say it this way is being intellectually dishonest.

He advocates the passage of legislation to do exactly that, states that the law as it is now is wrong, and when discussing whether or not Clinton v. Jones settled the matter from a constitutional standpoint, he gives it a big fat “maybe.”

 

[InVOLuntary]

I mean can you blame the MSM for pushing their liberal agenda, being more and more outlandish each day, each week? The liberals just lap it up and take what they say as gospel. They don't even realize that they are simply pawns in the game. They're like little sleeper agents that get activated after watching CNN each evening.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I wonder if any of the resident libs can defend this? I mean they always as everyone else to defend everything Trump says.

Resident libs:

 

[VolunteerHillbilly]

Listening to the morning news on the radio this morning, they seem to think that the FBI will announce this afternoon that they are done with the investigation. Apparently, riots are expected in the customary locales. Be careful.

 

[happy-go_vol]

Exactly. But I am sure EL thinks because she is a woman, a consrevative and was nominated by Trump, she is automatically telling the truth.

lawyer think she is because she is a leftist hack and is obviously a leftist agitator. If this was any other woman lawyer would blow it off

 

[happy-go_vol]

yeah, they did all their best to keep his communist writings Secret.

 

[LouderVol]

So we can only call someone a rape victim/ sexual assault victims after there's been a trial on the merits?

how about only after they bring forward credible evidence. the alleged assaulter doesn't have to be found guilty. but some actual evidence of a crime, or sex, would be a nice place to start.

 

[happy-go_vol]

What does Blumenthal’s statements re: K have to do with the permissibility of trump mocking ford?

Ford Ford is it a credible Witness. You Hypocrites established a standard when you laughed off the five women that accused Clinton of rape

 

[FLVOL_79]

Which one of you dims is this??



this is exactly how I view all male democrats

 

[Roustabout]

So we can only call someone a rape victim/ sexual assault victims after there's been a trial on the merits?

No, After a seasoned, sex crimes prosecutor says she’s been “handled” by dims, and isn’t believable.
She’s a victim alright. Of the liberal ***** that attempted to use her as a pawn.
You are a true POS.

 

[tumscalcium]

Absolute trash.

 

[Roustabout]

Ford Ford is it a credible Witness. You Hypocrites established a standard when you laughed off the five women that accused Clinton of rape

And those women had corroborating evidence.

 

[LouderVol]

What a load of horse crap. "Enough questions raised", Thats a crap standard, especially with the questions they have been raising. People raising questions about him who knew him intimately? are you freaking kidding me. the people who know him have said he didn't do this stuff. its only the people who admitted they didn't know him that have raised these comments.

 

[0nelilreb]

Which one of you dims is this??



this is exactly how I view all male democrats

Frickin crazy eyes man , I’m telling you .. The eyes never lie .