Uh oh, Another allegation against Kavanaugh

NotreDame said:

Avenatti, promising to have the Hemlock that will kill the Kavanaugh nomination, may be delaying disclosure to ensure the poisons potency. I would.

Click to expand...

Well now that the Kavanaugh "what I did last summer" calendar is out, I'm sure he has a few more folks ready to come forward.

Ringo84 said:

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

Click to expand...

In a sworn declaration released Wednesday, accuser Julie Swetnick, 55, notes that she holds “active clearances” for her work with the US Department of Treasury, US Mint and Internal Revenue Service.

Swetnick noted she is “one of the first 100 women in the world to achieve a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineering Certification.”

According to her online resume obtained by Heavy.com, Swetnick was employed as a senior production web master from 2002 to 2005 and held the same job with the DOJ from 2006 to 2009. https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/third-kavanaugh-accuser-is-decorated-us-government-employee/

However, The Wall Street Journal reported that a spokesman for New York Life confirmed that Ms. Swetnick worked there as an agent for less than two years, from 2006 to 2008. She did not list her work there on a résumé posted online.

Swetnick also dealt with over $100,000 in unpaid taxes btwn 2015-2017,

Swetnick says she witnessed Kavanaugh and Mark Judge handing girls spiked drinks in order to drug them into lowering their inhibitions, where a ‘train’ of numerous boys” would then line up to rape the drugged girls in a side room. This was a regularity at these parties, and she herself was one of drugged girls, yet never reported it. Nor any police reports, crying daughters bringing forth angry parents or friends who spoke out. Nor does she state that she saw Kavanaugh taking part in any gang rapes.

In the light of the viral "Me too" movement, if this is true we can expect some of the many participants to be quickly coming forward, while a vast majority of female character witnesses Kavanaugh have said that Kavanaugh was a respectful man toward them.

And how can you falsify an allegation of beach parties in which girls were drugged and gang raped if you do not name anyone who was there?

All that matters here is who is lying, not what one did as a teen, unless it is true and denied...

This also came up, though also lacking substantiation: Swetnick’s former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, told Politico they dated for four years before breaking up, at which point Swetnick threatened violence against him and his family. The restraining order, filed in Miami-Dade, Fla. on March 1, 2001, was dismissed thirteen days later....“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said. “I know a lot about her.”

Vinneccy, a registered Democrat, said he had evidence that might disprove Swetnick’s claim about Kavanaugh.

“I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she’s saying is not true at all,” he said. “I would rather speak to my attorney first before saying more.” - Julie Swetnick Was Served with Restraining Order by Former Boyfriend | National Review

Also,

RI man quickly rescinds Kavanaugh accusation: RI man quickly rescinds Kavanaugh accusation

Ah...so we're going the character assassination route next.

RI man quickly rescinds Kavanaugh accusation: RI man quickly rescinds Kavanaugh accusation

Click to expand...

It was never more than an anonymous allegation. I was ignoring it unless/until more information came out.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

Ah...so we're going the character assassination route next.
Ringo

Click to expand...

Next? Character assassination/the character of a person, is what this whole thing is about, which includes the credibility of the person. As said, what matters is who is lying. If Kavanaugh is then he should not be a SCJ, and must recompense the parties violated, but if the accusers are, well, I uphold the principle here:

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. 16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

And speaking of credibility, now we have this: The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations.

One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday.- Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

Meanwhile, Two sources told CNN that Swetnick filed a sexual harassment complaint against a former employer a decade ago and was represented in the matter by a lawyer from Katz's firm. - CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

What is being revealed, or confirmed, is the character of much "higher education" in America, as well as the government and media.

PeaceByJesus said:

One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday.- Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

Meanwhile, Two sources told CNN that Swetnick filed a sexual harassment complaint against a former employer a decade ago and was represented in the matter by a lawyer from Katz's firm. - CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

What is being revealed, or confirmed, is the character of much "higher education" in America, as well as the government and media.

Click to expand...

...which is all the more reason to give the FBI some time to investigate.

Through all of this, the President and the Committee Chair still have not provided a valid reason for not involving the FBI with these allegations. All parties involved deserve this....

wing2000 said:

...which is all the more reason to give the FBI some time to investigate.

Through all of this, the President and the Committee Chair still have not provided a valid reason for not involving the FBI with these allegations. All parties involved deserve this....

Click to expand...

I thought there were already several posts here on how an investigation starts for the said claims. They need to be reported to the Montgomery Co Maryland DA office or local police.

The FBI already investigated Kavanaugh and found no criminal record nor warrant pending. 6 times in fact.

If Ms Ford truly wants this investigated then someone needs to drive her to the proper authorities in Maryland or better yet have her high paid lawyer Katz file the report for her.

The sad part is, hypothetically the allegations could go on forever and allegations could be made against all candidates for the SC seat. An allegation is a claim an assertion, which can be true or false. Someone needs to put their foot down and bring and end to the nonsense. I am not seeing the humor in exploiting loopholes.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

The sad part is, hypothetically the allegations could go on forever and allegations could be made against all candidates for the SC seat. An allegation is a claim as assertion, which can be true or false. Someone needs to put their foot down and bring and end to the nonsense. I am not seeing the humor in exploiting loopholes.

Click to expand...

You are most correct. Assertions are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims. We have three right now, four if you count the anonymous letter sent to a Colorado Senator.

What's going on is this is a hearing and the Senate Dems are hoping for a confirmation hearing the burden of 'proof' is a basic accusation (assertion). That given the late nature of the assertions Kavanaugh would withdraw or Trump would pull.

The problem is all three of the considered claims are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, which means without evidence.

It's like asking an atheist to believe in God because there are three separate Christians who claim to have seen God and spoken to Him. Yet, here and elsewhere we are to 'believe' the subjective nature of these claims. I hope the US Senate sees these claims for what they are....lacking evidence.

redleghunter said:

You are most correct. Assertions are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated claims. We have three right now, four if you count the anonymous letter sent to a Colorado Senator.

What's going on is this is a hearing and the Senate Dems are hoping for a confirmation hearing the burden of 'proof' is a basic accusation (assertion). That given the late nature of the assertions Kavanaugh would withdraw or Trump would pull.

The problem is all three of the considered claims are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, which means without evidence.

It's like asking an atheist to believe in God because there are three separate Christians who claim to have seen God and spoken to Him. Yet, here and elsewhere we are to 'believe' the subjective nature of these claims. I hope the US Senate sees these claims for what they are....lacking evidence.

Click to expand...

I hope so too, it is a matter of burden of proof, and it's not on Brett to prove his innocence. All the agnostics and atheists around here should understand this quite well. Proving lack of guilt when not guilty is similar to asking the agnostic or atheist to prove God does not exist. The BoP is always on the person making the positive claim.

PeaceByJesus said:

Next? Character assassination/the character of a person, is what this whole thing is about, which includes the credibility of the person. As said, what matters is who is lying. If Kavanaugh is then he should not be a SCJ, and must recompense the parties violated, but if the accusers are, well, I uphold the principle here:

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. 16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

Click to expand...

One witness hasn't "rise[n] up". Three have, and only one of them has been given a chance to offer her testimony in a formal-ish hearing on Capitol Hill.

And speaking of credibility, now we have this: The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations.

One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday.- Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

Click to expand...

For a party that has complained about eleventh hour allegations coming to light, now we have two men come out, the night before an important hearing and about a day and a half before the scheduled vote, to say "Oh yeah...it was us; we promise".

Their stories should be investigated, as should all the accusers'. But Ford already has sworn affadavits, proof going back to 2012, and has agreed to appear in this hearing today. Can these men say the same?

Meanwhile, Two sources told CNN that Swetnick filed a sexual harassment complaint against a former employer a decade ago and was represented in the matter by a lawyer from Katz's firm. - CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

What is being revealed, or confirmed, is the character of much "higher education" in America, as well as the government and media.

Click to expand...

Oh yes....character is certainly being revealed here. But not, as you claim, the "character of higher education" but rather the character of some men. When questioned, these men retreat into blaming the victim, playing gotcha games about the timeframe of coming forward, and unconditionally believe the men while the woman is asked to provide twenty-seven pieces of evidence, in triplicate, to even begin to be believed.

We have a serious problem when we decide that sexual assault is just "boys being boys" and should not be taken seriously - even when the nominee to the Supreme Court is accused of it.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

One witness hasn't "rise[n] up". Three have, and only one of them has been given a chance to offer her testimony in a formal-ish hearing on Capitol Hill.

For a party that has complained about eleventh hour allegations coming to light, now we have two men come out, the night before an important hearing and about a day and a half before the scheduled vote, to say "Oh yeah...it was us; we promise".

Their stories should be investigated, as should all the accusers'. But Ford already has sworn affadavits, proof going back to 2012, and has agreed to appear in this hearing today. Can these men say the same?

Oh yes....character is certainly being revealed here. But not, as you claim, the "character of higher education" but rather the character of some men. When questioned, these men retreat into blaming the victim, playing gotcha games about the timeframe of coming forward, and unconditionally believe the men while the woman is asked to provide twenty-seven pieces of evidence, in triplicate, to even begin to be believed.

Click to expand...

Ford's story is that she is a teenager who goes to a party with a gathering of six teenagers at a private home with a one-piece bathing suit under clothes, and Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to disrobe her, but Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, sending all three tumbling, and enabling her to escape.

Just who are the eye-witnesses at the party Ford says she was raped at? Whose house, what street? One beer and you cannot recall such? I dare say i can remember most every notable party event from around 45 years ago, such as those of a sexual nature. And could name names and places. All I see her having is witnesses from this decade that says she told them of the event.

The psychology professor passes a 2 question polygraph test, which is of dubious support.

Judge, the only other person named, denied that any such incident occurred. “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.”

She needs at least one verifiable eye-witness to her being there and experiencing this.

And just how is Kavanaugh supposed to defend himself against this? He needs at least one verifiable eye-witness to her being there and experiencing this, but the burden of proof must be upon the accuser.

As for Ramirez, she has no publicly identified corroborators, though James Roche, who was close friends with Ramirez, said he did remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk. Other students who Ramirez said were involved in a drinking game disputed her version of events.

Julie Swetnick has a more extreme story, "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.” She added that in 1982, she was a victim of a “gang rape” at which Kavanaugh was present. But she did not say he participated in it and provided no details about where the alleged rape took place."

However, as yet, she has no publicly identified corroborators. Analysis | Brett Kavanaugh and allegations of sexual misconduct: The complete list

I have no doubt drunkenness was a norm and fornication, which is part of the character of "higher education," which is only one part of what is being revealed, but far more must come out to say Kavanaugh did what he is charged as doing.

In which case it would be his denial of an established immoral event(s) and attacks on the party goers that would disqualify him, as we cannot lower the standards for the judiciary. However, the media is more like a lynch mob, as it was with the Duke Lacrosse team.

I am going to wait and see what is established.

PeaceByJesus said:

Just who are the eye-witnesses at the party Ford says she was raped at?

Click to expand...

Ford's lawyers submit 4 affidavits backing up assault story

Whose house, what street? One beer and you cannot recall such? I dare say i can remember most every notable party event from around 45 years ago, such as those of a sexual nature. And could name names and places. All I see her having is witnesses from this decade that says she told them of the event.

Click to expand...

Who cares whose house it was, or which street?

The psychology professor passes a 2 question polygraph test, which is of dubious support.

Click to expand...

Where's Kavanaugh's polygraph?

Judge, the only other person named, denied that any such incident occurred. “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.”

Click to expand...

Judge isn't exactly a reliable witness:
Opinion | Mark Judge’s former girlfriend is ready to talk to FBI and Judiciary Committee, her lawyer says

And just how is Kavanaugh supposed to defend himself against this? He needs at least one verifiable eye-witness to her being there and experiencing this, but the burden of proof must be upon the accuser.

Click to expand...

He's up next, after Ford finishes killing it.

As for Ramirez, she has no publicly identified corroborators

Click to expand...

John Clune on Twitter
John Clune on Twitter

However, as yet, she has no publicly identified corroborators. Analysis | Brett Kavanaugh and allegations of sexual misconduct: The complete list

Click to expand...

Sworn affadavit: Avenatti Client Emerges With New Allegations Against Kavanaugh

So I'm waiting to see what - if anything - would convince you. Because as we've repeatedly seen, Kavanaugh is subject to "innocent before proven guilty". Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick are not.
Ringo

We have to find out the exact house where this happened. This is of prime importance; all of Ford's credibility hinges on this one point. If she can't figure out whether it's 2171 Magenta Drive or 2176 Magenta then it's all a lie.

- People who are definitely confident of their Supreme Court nominee after two hours of the victim testifying.
Ringo

redleghunter said:

I thought there were already several posts here on how an investigation starts for the said claims. They need to be reported to the Montgomery Co Maryland DA office or local police.

The FBI already investigated Kavanaugh and found no criminal record nor warrant pending. 6 times in fact.

If Ms Ford truly wants this investigated then someone needs to drive her to the proper authorities in Maryland or better yet have her high paid lawyer Katz file the report for her.

Click to expand...

Sure, you gave your opinion on what you think Ms Ford should have done. If you were in her shoes would you have taken that route?

In any case, the President could have ordered the FBI to review several days ago....he has not.

WHy?

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

Just who are the eye-witnesses at the party Ford says she was raped at?

Ringo84 said:

Ford's lawyers submit 4 affidavits backing up assault story
from four people who say she told them well before Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination that she had been sexually assaulted when she was much younger.

And according to all four, she either named Kavanaugh as the assailant or described the attacker as a “federal judge.”
So i ask again, where are the eye-witnesses to the alleged assault? What will it take to convince you that testifying to what someone said happened is simply not the same thing as being there?

Who cares whose house it was, or which street?

Click to expand...

Who care!? Well justice should care, seeing as in the absence of any eye-witnesses to the alleged assault knowing whose house it was and were could lead to your needed evidence.
Where's Kavanaugh's polygraph?
Maybe he should take a similar 2 question test, but i do not think taking a dubious test or not is indicative of a persons guilt or innocence. And most likely Ford really does think Kavanaugh did it.
Judge isn't exactly a reliable witness:
Opinion | Mark Judge’s former girlfriend is ready to talk to FBI and Judiciary Committee, her lawyer says
Some call it character assassination, like Julie Swetnick, having a restraining order filed against her years in Miami by her former boyfriend. “Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.”
"She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”

He's up next, after Ford finishes killing it.
John Clune on Twitter
John Clune on Twitter

Click to expand...

The lady with a story that lacks any corroborators, but others dispute her story?

Sworn affadavit: Avenatti Client Emerges With New Allegations Against Kavanaugh

Click to expand...

The lady to observed multiple rapes and did nothing, and has no names except the two at targets, and has no corroborators?

Yoiu place a lot of weight on sworn affidavits, but from what i see these are safe since they cannot be proven of disproven unless some verifiable eye-witnesses come forward who without contradiction corroborate the stories?

So I'm waiting to see what - if anything - would convince you. Because as we've repeatedly seen, Kavanaugh is subject to "innocent before proven guilty". Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick are not.
Ringo

Click to expand...

More like see what - if anything - would convince you that accusations against a person of crimes 35+ years ago take more than accusations to prove the accused is guilty. If
If i was part of the college scene back in the 80's some one could make the same allegations against me. How would i prove innocence, unless dates, time and place were provided, wherewith i could counter with witnesses or other proof that i was not there?

Again, say what you want but i am going to see what actual evidence is brought forth, beyond from the character of the accusers. And when you make the accusation, then the burden of proof is on you.

Click to expand...

PeaceByJesus said: ↑
Just who are the eye-witnesses at the party Ford says she was [attempted] raped at?

Ringo84 said:

Ford's lawyers submit 4 affidavits backing up assault story
from four people who say she told them well before Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination that she had been sexually assaulted when she was much younger.

And according to all four, she either named Kavanaugh as the assailant or described the attacker as a “federal judge.”
So i ask again, where are the eye-witnesses to the alleged assault? What will it take to convince you that testifying to what someone said happened is simply not the same thing as being there?

Who cares whose house it was, or which street?

Click to expand...

Who care!? Well justice should care, seeing as in the absence of any eye-witnesses to the alleged assault knowing whose house it was and were could lead to your needed evidence.
Where's Kavanaugh's polygraph?
Maybe he should take a similar 2 question test, but i do not think taking a dubious test or not is indicative of a persons guilt or innocence. And most likely Ford really does think Kavanaugh did it.
Judge isn't exactly a reliable witness:
Opinion | Mark Judge’s former girlfriend is ready to talk to FBI and Judiciary Committee, her lawyer says
Some call it character assassination, like Julie Swetnick, having a restraining order filed against her years in Miami by her former boyfriend. “Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.”
"She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”

He's up next, after Ford finishes killing it.
John Clune on Twitter
John Clune on Twitter

Click to expand...

The lady with a story that lacks any corroborators, but others dispute her story?

Sworn affadavit: Avenatti Client Emerges With New Allegations Against Kavanaugh

Click to expand...

The lady to observed multiple rapes and did nothing, and has no names except the two at targets, and has no corroborators?

Yoiu place a lot of weight on sworn affidavits, but from what i see these are safe since they cannot be proven of disproven unless some verifiable eye-witnesses come forward who without contradiction corroborate the stories?

So I'm waiting to see what - if anything - would convince you. Because as we've repeatedly seen, Kavanaugh is subject to "innocent before proven guilty". Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick are not.
Ringo

Click to expand...

More like see what - if anything - would convince you that accusations against a person of crimes 35+ years ago take more than accusations to prove the accused is guilty. If
If i was part of the college scene back in the 80's some one could make the same allegations against me. How would i prove innocence, unless dates, time and place were provided, wherewith i could counter with witnesses or other proof that i was not there?

Again, say what you want but i am going to see what actual evidence is brought forth, beyond from the character of the accusers. And when you make the accusation, then the burden of proof is on you. [Now how do you get rid of that closed quote tag!]

Click to expand...

Go Braves said:

give Ford's allegations merits.

Click to expand...

Ok, lets say Ford is telling the truth to the best of her ability. Still her story has more holes in it then Swiss cheese. It could be that they will appoint him to the court even if they believe her.

joshua 1 9 said:

Ok, lets say Ford is telling the truth to the best of her ability. Still her story has more holes in it then Swiss cheese. It could be that they will appoint him to the court even if they believe her.

Click to expand...

If her memory of events that many years ago did not have holes, I would be skeptical. As it is, she readily admitted what she could not recall.