3rd Accuser Says Kavanaugh was present at "gang rapes" in 1982

[Grokmaster]

Ridiculous argument.

Ridiculous premise.

Every person making allegations is asking to be investigated......UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY....by the FBI.

Kavanaugh has been the ONLY one to NOT request the FBI to clear his name.

No one is asking you, nor anyone else, to "believe" anything. And you know it.

The challenge is to investigate and put EVERYONE (Kavanaugh included) under oath in process.

The hearing is not over. But the fact that you'd like for them to vote without knowing anything about such serious allegations, says a lot.

UNSUPPORTED "ALLEGATIONS" are not grounds for ANYTHING.

 

[Grokmaster]

Ramrod ?? You jest right ??

Average time nomination to confirmation is 25 days, this one is pushing 80.

The allegations aren't credible, it really is that simple. This is all a stall.

 

[ry_venti]

Third accuser Julie Swetnick alleges Kavanaugh was present at 1982 party where she was gang raped - Los Angeles Times






.

Still no collaboration from other's

 

[Skeptic Bob]

It is not unusual for background checks to be incomplete but it is VERY unusual for an innocent man to refuse to ask for one to be reopened when new allegations occur. It makes Brett look very guilty of wanting to hide something.

I’m split on that. Under most normal circumstances I would certainly agree with you. But I can imagine an innocent person going through a highly political process like this not wanting the FBI asking a bunch of questions of people you knew in your youth. You can never rule out the possibility of some of them lying or exaggerating for political purposes. Because let’s face it, after all these years the ONLY evidence the FBI is going to be able to collect is dated eye witness testimony. I’m at the point now that I think the FBI should do that, but I can still imagine why an innocent Kavanaugh wouldn’t pursue it.

 

[ultmd]

Ramrod ?? You jest right ??

Average time nomination to confirmation is 25 days, this one is pushing 80.

The allegations aren't credible, it really is that simple. This is all a stall.

Wrong. In a few ways.

1. The average length of confirmation since the Bork fiasco has actually been about 65 days. From start to finish, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Roberts, Alito and Kagan ALL took roughly as long, or longer than Kavanaugh, at this point. right now, the Kavanaugh hearings are still within the norm for the last 25 years, or so. And of course, Merick Garland was allowed to wallow for about 300 days by the Gop. So your point about the timeline is just flat wrong.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-long-before-the-senate-acts-on-supreme-court-nominees-1530294728


2. Your personal opinion about the credibility of the allegations is meaningless. More importantly, it's irrelevant. The FACT of the matter is that ANY kind of serious allegation should ABSOLUTELY be investigated before promoting someone to a lifetime position on the highest court in the land.

3. The fact that the allegations result in a "stall" of the nomination is unfortunate for your side, because we all know (though you won't admit) that you are all absolutely DESPERATE to wrap this up BEFORE the November elections. And we both know why, don't we? So it's laughable to see you and your side complaining about the process when everyone knows you haven't a (rhetorical) leg upon which to stand.

 

[Fletch]

Well, your concerns are clear. You want to ramrod Kavanaugh onto the USSC before the election. And you don't care if the allegations are credible. Your ehtics and morals....such as they exist at all....mean nothing to you as long as another extreme right winger is placed on the Court. Got it. Trust me, that much is clear.

You, like most Trumpians, prefer to ignore the facts in favor of the agenda.

What a stupid thing to say. Let me clue you in: you know what is missing from each and every one of these accusations? Facts. Maybe if these accusers had a single fact to bring to the table, there would be something to investigate. What you have is 3 people lodging unsupported allegations. You believe them despite knowing exactly zero about those making them, why? Because it is you who lacks 'ethics and morals'

Because of the seriousness of the allegations....and because of the crediblity of the accusers

The accusers have ZERO credibility. You are just repeating what you heard your moronic democrat senators say. But go ahead, speak to me of the credibility of these three women and how you know. Thanks.

....the Kavanaugh hearings ABSOLUTELY SHOULD be postponed until investigations can be conducted. That reality, while unfortunate for your side, has nothing to do with partisanship.

Lol. It has everything to do with partisanship. In fact, it is ALL about politics. There is no way in hell you dont know that. I will stop here because the rest of your post is just more nonsense. Ive made my point.

 

[bubbabgone]

How? why ask me.

Cuz you said she's on her way to DC, with a question mark, so I figured you might be eager to make another guess.

 

[Floridafan]

Cuz you said she's on her way to DC, with a question mark, so I figured you might be eager to make another guess.

you seem to have the answers, so where is she?

 

[Mithros]

So now we got Kavanaugh and Judge getting girls inebriated, and disoriented and lining up boys to "pull a train" and they didn't participate, but wait, they did. And Kavanaugh and Judge "tried" to spike the punch with drugs and alcohol. And she knows this because she went to at least 10 of these parties? And she didn't bother reporting this until 35 years later?

Is there anyone, left or right alike, that still believes any of these allegations or the the lawyers bringing them on?

The hearing is over, has been for over a week. Have the vote and confirm.

Hmm..here's a theory..... maybe she went to parties and saw boys waiting outside of a bedroom door. That's weird.. oh well, fun party. Then they drugged her, and stuck her in a room, and then boys took turns coming in the room to rape her. Then she figured out what the lines were for.

 

[bubbabgone]

you seem to have the answers, so where is she?

Dunno.
But wouldn't you think there would be a whole ****load [sic] of journalists assigned to get eyes-on?

 

[Floridafan]

Dunno.
But wouldn't you think there would be a whole ****load [sic] of journalists assigned to get eyes-on?

Could she be staying far enough out of town to have some peace and quiet, or maybe she wont show up

 

[gdgyva]

Well, your concerns are clear. You want to ramrod Kavanaugh onto the USSC before the election. And you don't care if the allegations are credible. Your ehtics and morals....such as they exist at all....mean nothing to you as long as another extreme right winger is placed on the Court. Got it. Trust me, that much is clear.

You, like most Trumpians, prefer to ignore the facts in favor of the agenda.

Because of the seriousness of the allegations....and because of the crediblity of the accusers....the Kavanaugh hearings ABSOLUTELY SHOULD be postponed until investigations can be conducted. That reality, while unfortunate for your side, has nothing to do with partisanship.

And you should want that, too, Because if you don't, there are going to be state and local D.A.'s initiating investigations into Kavanaugh (there is no statute of limitations in Maryland, for example) which will result in him being subpeoned (if not indicted) while serving as as USSC Justice. And if/when Democrats retake the senate, they are going to charge him with perjury for the DOCUMENTED lies he told during his 2006 confirmation hearing. If the Dems don't retake the Senate in '18, they will definitely retake it in '20 as the Senate map shapes up as a bloodbath for the GOP in '20.

Eventually, he's going to be removed for his past transgressions.

Yeah...you keep believing that

Wish in one hand and **** in the other...see which one fills faster

 

[bubbabgone]

Could she be staying far enough out of town to have some peace and quiet, or maybe she wont show up

Then they would know she was out of town and they're not usually shy about reporting it... except for a friendly.

 

[iguanaman]

I’m split on that. Under most normal circumstances I would certainly agree with you. But I can imagine an innocent person going through a highly political process like this not wanting the FBI asking a bunch of questions of people you knew in your youth. You can never rule out the possibility of some of them lying or exaggerating for political purposes. Because let’s face it, after all these years the ONLY evidence the FBI is going to be able to collect is dated eye witness testimony. I’m at the point now that I think the FBI should do that, but I can still imagine why an innocent Kavanaugh wouldn’t pursue it.

It's strange to me that so many people now seem to think that the law consists of gut feelings of who you believe making any investigation moot. If Brett is not lying about anything nothing an investigation might find can hurt him. When all his accusers are demanding one, the optics of him not asking is far more damning. It's not like former classmates are not coming forward anyway and their testimony is not even under the threat of perjury like they would be with the FBI.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

It's strange to me that so many people now seem to think that the law consists of gut feelings of who you believe making any investigation moot. If Brett is not lying about anything nothing an investigation might find can hurt him. When all his accusers are demanding one, the optics of him not asking is far more damning. It's not like former classmates are not coming forward anyway and their testimony is not even under the threat of perjury like they would be with the FBI.

I definitely disagree with that. Even in a criminal trial where “guilty beyond all reasonable doubt” is our standard, innocent people are still convicted.

 

[hanger4]

Wrong. In a few ways.

1. The average length of confirmation since the Bork fiasco has actually been about 65 days. From start to finish, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Roberts, Alito and Kagan ALL took roughly as long, or longer than Kavanaugh, at this point. right now, the Kavanaugh hearings are still within the norm for the last 25 years, or so. And of course, Merick Garland was allowed to wallow for about 300 days by the Gop. So your point about the timeline is just flat wrong.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-long-before-the-senate-acts-on-supreme-court-nominees-1530294728


2. Your personal opinion about the credibility of the allegations is meaningless. More importantly, it's irrelevant. The FACT of the matter is that ANY kind of serious allegation should ABSOLUTELY be investigated before promoting someone to a lifetime position on the highest court in the land.

3. The fact that the allegations result in a "stall" of the nomination is unfortunate for your side, because we all know (though you won't admit) that you are all absolutely DESPERATE to wrap this up BEFORE the November elections. And we both know why, don't we? So it's laughable to see you and your side complaining about the process when everyone knows you haven't a (rhetorical) leg upon which to stand.

1) Like I said, the nomination is moving along at a normal pace.
Garland didn't wallow his consent waa denied a the get go. 300 days ?? What a crock.

2) Any sort of serious allegation needs substantiation, these have none.

3) The allegations were contrived to stall. It's unlikely the Senate flips and we all why the left is desperate any conservative off the court.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

How do you know that??????????

If this happened so often there should have been at least 1 decent person at the parties that reported the issue to someone. Please.

 

[ultmd]

What a stupid thing to say. Let me clue you in: you know what is missing from each and every one of these accusations? Facts. Maybe if these accusers had a single fact to bring to the table, there would be something to investigate.

LOL, cute (though empty) retort . Lemme help you out, here. What you meant to say was that what is missing from each of the accusation is......a thorough and complete FBI investigation as part of Kavanaugh's existing background check. THAT is where "the facts" are to be established. It is NOT the obligation of an accuser to present legal proof. The obligation of the accuser is to TELL THE TRUTH and cooperate with those charged with investigating the allegations. For each and every allegation, someone is lying. The only thing we know, for a FACT, at this point is that Kavanaugh's accusers are ASKING the FBI to investigate them (under penalty of perjuy)....while Kavanaugh and his Republican puppet masters are CLEARLY afraid to do so.

What you have is 3 people lodging unsupported allegations. You believe them despite knowing exactly zero about those making them, why? Because it is you who lacks 'ethics and morals'

Your logic here is a bit lacking. Almost all allegations remain unsupported until investigated. From the beginning, what has separated Kavanaugh from his accusers has been his reluctance to submit to FBI investigation, while ALL of the accusers are ASKING to be investigated by the FBI. What I "believe" is that ANY allegation of this severity MUST be thoroughly investigated before elevating someone to a lifetime appointment to the USSC.

The accusers have ZERO credibility.

Says whom? You? No one cares what you think. By ANY measurable standard, these are credible accusers. But more importantly, "credibility" is NOT required for allegations as serious as these against a someone seeking a job promotion of this magnitude. That's just a stupid argument.

You are just repeating what you heard your moronic democrat senators say. But go ahead, speak to me of the credibility of these three women and how you know. Thanks.

LOL, unlike you, I don't rely upon pols and pundits to "inform" me of my opinions. I don't need to defend their credibility. The FACT that ALL of them are ASKING to be investigated by the FBI....UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY....lends them "credibilty" that Kavanaugh himself will never possess. YOU need to explain why you are so afraid to have the FBI investigate them. You won't, because you and I both realize (I'm sure) that there are no valid explainations, only partisan rationalizations.

Lol. It has everything to do with partisanship. In fact, it is ALL about politics. There is no way in hell you dont know that. I will stop here because the rest of your post is just more nonsense. Ive made my point.

You're confused again. As I said previously, there is NOTHING partisan about the need to investigate these serious allegations. That is the ONLY reasonable thing to do, regardless of whom the nominee may be. The fact that the RIGHT THING to do happens to favor the partisan agenda of one side........is completely irrelvant. Right is right, and I think you understand that. That we are where we are right now in this nomination process.......is not the fault of Democrats. It's Kavanaugh's fault (for believing that he could get away with such an alleged past history of behavior).....OR......it's the fault of these 4 (and counting?) women for LYING about Kavanaugh (at the risk of committing a felon, in the process).

What you are upset about is that the chips have not fallen the Republicans' way in this case. But that's their fault. They may have nominated a man who appears to be ethically and morally unqualified for sit on ANY federal bench (much less the USSC).

And, beyond all of the above, it's ABSURD to see ANY republican who supported (or remained silent) as republicans allowed Merrick Garland's nomination to fester for a year.....before killing it off.....to now be whining about the "politics" at play in the Kavanaugh nomination (which Kavanaugh himself is probably most responsible for subverting). YOU PEOPLE.......are the ones with "no credibility". LOL

 

[jimbo]

Hmm..here's a theory..... maybe she went to parties and saw boys waiting outside of a bedroom door. That's weird.. oh well, fun party. Then they drugged her, and stuck her in a room, and then boys took turns coming in the room to rape her. Then she figured out what the lines were for.

That's a theory. That's not however what she said.

 

[Big Ed]

Totally MADEUP BULL****!

I didn't realize there was a worse entity than CNN; however, Avanti to a rocketship getting over CNN's credibility. I hope Avanti's license to practice "law" is revoked!!

 

[Bodi]

Third accuser Julie Swetnick alleges Kavanaugh was present at 1982 party where she was gang raped - Los Angeles Times






.

The problem that I have with these accusations 30 years after the fact is that who in the hell can even remember who was at some raging party (unless you know that person personally) from last weekend, much less 30 years ago. I call bull**** on most of these accusations.

 

[Big Ed]

That's a theory. That's not however what she said.

She went to 10 of these parties - did she have to go back so many times to get her turn??

 

[noonereal]

Third accuser Julie Swetnick alleges Kavanaugh was present at 1982 party where she was gang raped - Los Angeles Times






.

this one is a straight up nut cases.

Avenatti is a lowlife like tRump.

 

[Bodi]

How do you know that??????????

I am sure that these guys probably did do some bad ****... I would ask you and other though, who do you remember was at raging parties that you were at 30 years ago? I know for a fact that I partied with my mates but I have no idea if we went to the same exact parties each time, and those are my best friends. Acquaintances? People you don't personally know? Unless they are famous there is no ****ing way that people remember that... even then... I partied with some famous NBA and rock stars from time to time over a couple of years, I can barely remember them.

 

[Middle_Ground]

You forget that he has had a half dozen FBI background checks, and your latest DESPERATE "ACCUSER", was PRESENT FOR MUTLIPLE FELONIES, FOR YEARS, which she never reported to anyone, according to her own claims.


Yeah...her "story" is credible....



View attachment 67241161

And the guy you want on the supreme court was actually part of the multiple felonies.
Either she was a witness to the felonies and didn't report or nothing happened?
Which one do you choose to believe?
Last week it was this man has impeccable past and 1 accuser is a liar or confused and that's not enough....now there are multiple and it's all a lie everyone is a liar.
The rules just keep changing everyday there is a new rule.

And oh yeah Ellison is up for re-election in 40 days or so. Who gives a flying **** about him?
His constituents will determine his fate along with state.
You guys really wanna keep bringing up Ellison as crutch for a lifetime appointed judge on the supreme court.
It's like a baseball bat vs uzi.