Uh oh, Another allegation against Kavanaugh

[redleghunter]

A good way to figure out what eyewitnesses there might be is to open an investigation. But we all know how committed Republicans are to finding out the truth here.
Ringo

Ringo there only needs to be one other witness in any of the three accusations to have this moved to the proper authorities not just for an investigation but a DA could press charges without the accuser.

One solitary frat house, party house or rape ring witness willing to come forward and ask a DA for immunity (if necessary) for the whole house of cards to come down on Kavanaugh and then we would not only see him not go to full Senate vote, but he would be fingerprinted, mug shot and booked. But for some reason everyone of the allegations falls just short of providing the necessary evidence to bring these women justice. It is almost like the lawyers representing these women know just how far to go to elicit the measured consequences.

 

[Ringo84]

What's interesting is how these various lawyers cannot produce eyewitnesses. As if what they are providing, an accusation, is enough. They should know better. Which leads me to believe they don't have their client's best interests at heart.

Yes Ringo the third accuser blew the lid off with her accusations. In such huge parties I'm sure if she gives testimony she can help lead investigators in the Senate to other witnesses to the crimes and even in committee evidence can be referred to the proper authorities.

Didn't she say that there were other witnesses that could corroborate?

Yep....she did:

“During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me. I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking,” Swetnick writes.

“I am aware of other witnesses that can attest to the truthfulness of each of the statements above.”

https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-accused-of-drugging-women-who-were-then-gang-raped/

In a sworn affadavit she said this, mind. Not just a statement to reporters. But I'm sure that's still not proof that an investigation should be done.
Ringo

 

[Veritas]

In many cases that is exactly what's going on in the US Senate:

Sen. Chris Coons, Delaware Democrat, drew double-takes on the right Monday after insisting that the burden of proof lies with Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to prove his innocence.

Ms. Coons said that Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez “have nothing to gain” and have put themselves “at legal risk” by accusing Mr. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in his teen years.

“It is Judge Kavanaugh who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and who I think now bears the burden of disproving these allegations,” said Mr. Coons in a Monday interview on MSNBC, “rather than Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez who should be dismissed with slanderous accusations.”
Chris Coons: Burden of proof lies with Brett Kavanaugh to prove his innocence​

And let's not forget Chucky Schumer who said that Kavanaugh does not have the "presumption of innocence". So I guess our entire justice system has a double standard according to him. Now whenever one is accused of anything, the first question should be, "with which political party are you affiliated"? From there we can automatically assume either guilt or innocence. Why bother with gathering the facts?

 

[NotreDame]

More allegations have come out. Redlegeagle mentioned four people corroborating Ford's story (which, of course, was immediately dismissed as "hearsay"). There's also this:

Michael Avenatti on Twitter

The sworn affadavit - you know: one of those things that carry a perjury charge if falsified - describes beach parties (conveniently, Kavanaugh released his 1980s calendars, which mention a "beach party") in which girls were drugged and gang raped.

Julie Swetnick also has a security clearance, putting herself at risk to come forward: Renato Mariotti on Twitter

I'm sure we'll be hearing that this is totally ""hearsay"" and that no investigation is needed for reasons in 4...3...2...1...
Ringo

She references witnesses. Those witnesses should be disclosed and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Kavanaugh should be allowed to also testify and call witnesses who may be able rebut the account of the accuser.

Given her account, it is possible there are other witnesses who can attest to or refute her account.

 

[FreeinChrist]

And let's not forget Chucky Schumer who said that Kavanaugh does not have the "presumption of innocence". So I guess our entire justice system has a double standard according to him. Now whenever one is accused of anything, the first question should be, "with which political party are you affiliated"? From there we can automatically assume either guilt or innocence. Why bother with gathering the facts?

Keep in mind that Kavanaugh is not in a court of law. He is in a job interview.
Presumption of innocence applies to a court of law.

Facts should be gathered. Dr. Blasey Ford should be allowed to have witnesses, and the FBI should be allowed to reopen the background check and include the new accusations.

This job is a life time appointment and is worth taking the time to check it out.

 

[redleghunter]

Didn't she say that there were other witnesses that could corroborate?

Yep....she did:


https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-accused-of-drugging-women-who-were-then-gang-raped/

In a sworn affadavit she said this, mind. Not just a statement to reporters. But I'm sure that's still not proof that an investigation should be done.
Ringo

Yes indeed she did state there were other witnesses which could corroborate her story. Therefore the questions are (1) who are they and where are their statements and (2) which parts of her story can be corroborated.

Maybe we will find out very soon. Maybe not.

 

[Ringo84]

She references witnesses. Those witnesses should be disclosed and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Kavanaugh should be allowed to also testify and call witnesses who may be able rebut the account of the accuser.

Given her account, it is possible there are other witnesses who can attest to or refute her account.

I agree, but on the condition that the eyewitnesses should be interviewed by the FBI, because I really don't trust the Senate Judiciary committee to perform its due diligence.
Ringo

 

[NotreDame]

If they can produce the two people in whom she confided at the time, then that oughta kill this thing altogether.

Not necessarily. There may be other witnesses who may have information affirming or contradicting her account.

 

[Ringo84]

Yes indeed she did state there were other witnesses which could corroborate her story. Therefore the questions are (1) who are they and where are their statements and (2) which parts of her story can be corroborated.

Maybe we will find out very soon. Maybe not.

All the more reason for the FBI to get involved and investigate: interview witnesses, look into the claims, release a report.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

Keep in mind that Kavanaugh is not in a court of law. He is in a job interview.

Presumption of innocence applies to a court of law.

Unfortunately, what has been produced against Kavanaugh is no longer fodder for 'image' or 'reputation' of whether he sits on the court or not. What's being launched against him are criminal offenses which require the rules of evidence to proceed, even in Senate committee.

And yes our Constitutional rights extend to all matters where sworn testimony is given, not just court cases. Sworn testimony to Congress can be used as evidence in criminal cases.

 

[redleghunter]

If they can produce the two people in whom she confided at the time, then that oughta kill this thing altogether.

What would that accomplish unless those she confided were present as witnesses as well?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Unfortunately, what has been produced against Kavanaugh is no longer fodder for 'image' or 'reputation' of whether he sits on the court or not. What's being launched against him are criminal offenses which require the rules of evidence to proceed, even in Senate committee.

And yes our Constitutional rights extend to all matters where sworn testimony is given, not just court cases. Sworn testimony to Congress can be used as evidence in criminal cases.

It has been a job interview. Now it needs further investigation.
Technically, presumption of innocence is not in the constitution.
Is the Presumption of Innocence in the Constitution?

Technically speaking, it's not. The Constitution does not mention this right by name. Instead, the general principle was simply taken from English common law. It has since been backed up firmly in numerous cases, by many accounts starting with Coffin vs. the United States in 1895.

That being said, the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment both speak to the "due process" that is intended to be carried out. It is a Constitutional right to be allowed this due process, and it is understood that your right to be presumed innocent is a "fundamental element" of this process. In that sense, it is a Constitutional right, even if it is not directly addressed.​

However, Kavanaugh is not in a court of law or formally charged with a crime. He is in a job interview.

There needs to be an investigation.

 

[redleghunter]

All the more reason for the FBI to get involved and investigate: interview witnesses, look into the claims, release a report.
Ringo

What do you mean release a report? To properly investigate, the offended need to file a police report or file a cause with the DA. We are talking about criminal charges now against Kavanaugh. This is no longer about his 'credibility' for the court. These women are accusing him of misdemeanor sexual assault (Ford) and in the case of the third accuser several felony crimes. An FBI investigation would turn up nothing as all they would do is go ask the various DAs at state level if there are any outstanding warrants on Kavanaugh...which we know there are not.

What needs to happen is for these women to file reports and take their sworn documents and any and all witnesses they think could testify to the local authorities in which the offense happened. Maryland has no statute of limitations for felony sex crimes. Which begs the question why the lawyers these women retained are not doing this for them. And I mean that really begs the question. What would delay a hearing or torpedo Kavanaugh more than having a pending sexual assault charge against him in the State courts system? It would be the end of his nomination and probably his career on the bench. But none of the lawyers involved are going there....why?

I think I know why. Do you? I think it is because the lawyers in question and political operatives in the Senate just don't want a vote any vote in this session of Congress on a Trump appointee. The information these women are bringing forth is damaging enough to either have him withdraw or fail to carry the necessary votes. That is all they are after and these women are a means to bring about a political ends. If they truly were for the best interests of their clients, these lawyers would be filing reports with the Maryland state DA or police departments or hounding Sessions at Justice to do so and not the FBI.

 

[redleghunter]

It has been a job interview. Now it needs further investigation.
Technically, presumption of innocence is not in the constitution.
Is the Presumption of Innocence in the Constitution?

Technically speaking, it's not. The Constitution does not mention this right by name. Instead, the general principle was simply taken from English common law. It has since been backed up firmly in numerous cases, by many accounts starting with Coffin vs. the United States in 1895.

That being said, the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment both speak to the "due process" that is intended to be carried out. It is a Constitutional right to be allowed this due process, and it is understood that your right to be presumed innocent is a "fundamental element" of this process. In that sense, it is a Constitutional right, even if it is not directly addressed.​

However, Kavanaugh is not in a court of law or formally charged with a crime. He is in a job interview.

There needs to be an investigation.

Sure, can you tell me why none of these accusations have been reported to the jurisdictions in question to begin an investigation?

 

[NotreDame]

I agree, but on the condition that the eyewitnesses should be interviewed by the FBI, because I really don't trust the Senate Judiciary committee to perform its due diligence.
Ringo

They should appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee first, and if the committee does not perform a proper, investigative inquiry, then perhaps the FBI or local authorities should commence an investigation.

 

[Ringo84]

What do you mean release a report? To properly investigate, the offended need to file a police report or file a cause with the DA. We are talking about criminal charges now against Kavanaugh. This is no longer about his 'credibility' for the court. These women are accusing him of misdemeanor sexual assault (Ford) and in the case of the third accuser several felony crimes. An FBI investigation would turn up nothing as all they would do is go ask the various DAs at state level if there are any outstanding warrants on Kavanaugh...which we know there are not.

What needs to happen is for these women to file reports and take their sworn documents and any and all witnesses they think could testify to the local authorities in which the offense happened. Maryland has no statute of limitations for felony sex crimes. Which begs the question why the lawyers these women retained are not doing this for them. And I mean that really begs the question. What would delay a hearing or torpedo Kavanaugh more than having a pending sexual assault charge against him in the State courts system? It would be the end of his nomination and probably his career on the bench. But none of the lawyers involved are going there....why?

I think I know why. Do you? I think it is because the lawyers in question and political operatives in the Senate just don't want a vote any vote in this session of Congress on a Trump appointee. The information these women are bringing forth is damaging enough to either have him withdraw or fail to carry the necessary votes. That is all they are after and these women are a means to bring about a political ends. If they truly were for the best interests of their clients, these lawyers would be filing reports with the Maryland state DA or police departments or hounding Sessions at Justice to do so and not the FBI.

There needs to be an investigation first. If Kavanaugh is innocent, he should welcome it.

But because of the ridiculously short, arbitrary timeline given by the Senate Judiciary Committee, there hasn't been much time to do more than negotiate over this hearing and prepare for it.

It's definitely proof of innocence/confidence when a credibly accused Supreme Court nominee will get a vote less than 24 hours after a hearing on sexual assault claims.
Ringo

 

[FreeinChrist]

They should appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee first, and if the committee does not perform a proper, investigative inquiry, then perhaps the FBI or local authorities should commence an investigation.

That would work. The committee needs to allow it.

 

[Ringo84]

They should appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee first, and if the committee does not perform a proper, investigative inquiry, then perhaps the FBI or local authorities should commence an investigation.

OK, that seems fairly reasonable to me. I still don't particularly trust the committee, but threatening investigation from state or federal authorities in the wake of a lack of due diligence seems OK to me.
Ringo

 

[redleghunter]

OK, that seems fairly reasonable to me. I still don't particularly trust the committee, but threatening investigation from state or federal authorities in the wake of a lack of due diligence seems OK to me.
Ringo

If I were representing these women, I would be at the Maryland Attorney General's office asking where to drop off my criminal complaint. These lawyers should be doing that paperwork and it already should have been submitted.

 

[Ringo84]

If I were representing these women, I would be at the Maryland Attorney General's office asking where to drop off my criminal complaint. These lawyers should be doing that paperwork and it already should have been submitted.

Let them talk to the Committee first, as Notre said. If that doesn't pan out, they should definitely start talking to the Maryland AG, but these allegations need to be investigated and Kavanaugh's confirmation put on hold. This is too serious a charge to ignore.
Ringo

 

[Veritas]

It has been a job interview. Now it needs further investigation.
Technically, presumption of innocence is not in the constitution.
Is the Presumption of Innocence in the Constitution?

Technically speaking, it's not. The Constitution does not mention this right by name. Instead, the general principle was simply taken from English common law. It has since been backed up firmly in numerous cases, by many accounts starting with Coffin vs. the United States in 1895.

That being said, the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment both speak to the "due process" that is intended to be carried out. It is a Constitutional right to be allowed this due process, and it is understood that your right to be presumed innocent is a "fundamental element" of this process. In that sense, it is a Constitutional right, even if it is not directly addressed.​

However, Kavanaugh is not in a court of law or formally charged with a crime. He is in a job interview.

There needs to be an investigation.

How do you investigate something when even the accuser cannot say what day, time or place an alleged incident happened? Further, Kavanaugh has released his 1982 high school calendar...can't believe he has hung onto it all these years.

Terms of Service Violation