Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan
I agree. On the other hand, I have no idea what happened at any one given party unless it was particularly memorable (example: throwing up all over Miles Dennison at whatever party was at Harwood dorm the day before Easter 1992). They all sort of blur together. I can generally tell you what the parties were like, but pointing at specific instances of behavior is going to be tricky unless I have a picture of a kegstand or something.
|
The affidavit contains an overabundance of generally describing parties with an absence of focus on Kavanaugh specifically.
It has a flow to it. "These awful things happened," followed by, "and Kavanaugh was there." The only time it makes a straightforward incrimination is when she says Kavanaugh was in a line of men waiting to gang rape somebody. But this line is buried. Why would that be buried? I'd lead with that. If I were writing this affidavit, I'd go with:
"I was at X party, in 1981."
"I saw a line of men waiting to gang rape an inebriated woman."
"Brett Kavanaugh was in that line."
"It was not a line for the bathroom."
"He was not stopping to talk to someone in the line."
"I observed him waiting in the line as men went into the room and came out, joking about having sex with someone in the room."
That's all you need to cook the guy. Instead, we have this affidavit filled with generalizations, and the witness guessing about the personality of the victims. It's just a little "gilded." Avenatti's trying too hard, which indicates he's hiding weaknesses.
I buy the story, but there's something fishy in the way the thing is written. I blame Avenatti for it.
