We are all Slave now.

[Adder]

I'm really starting to wonder what they are thinking. Maybe the latest allegations will change things (doubt it), but as is they are going to vote to confirm someone facing credible allegations of sexual misconduct who has, at minimum, lied to the Senate repeatedly. Then they're going to go run for reelection having to defend it.

Why? Reject this nominee and get another. Ram that one through before the election if you want, or ask the president to hold off naming a replacement until the lame duck, or get him to name someone you think you can run on.

Do they think their base being stoked they said f you to the PC police is really more valuable to them than the liability of having voted for this guy?

ETA: Oh, and sticking with this guy with half-assed document productions and essentially no investigation of misconduct just gives the Dems, should they take either house, something to investigate and (long shot) could wind up with him being removed later anyway.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

That 8 football players from Georgetown Prep all claimed to have had sex with her is one thing. That she might have heard it at the time, and been in a situation where her perhaps healthy activities were being used in an attempt to make her feel lesser is another thing.

But 30 years later to be the subject of national news, and the example of how shitty rich boys can be to someone who thought she was their friend, is pretty fucked up. Icing: a few weeks ago she signed a paper saying Kav was a good guy.

i wonder if enrollment will be down at G-Town Prep next year.

I used to sleep with a guy casually. He and I were friends, and sometimes we'd hook up. Sooner or later he started a relationship, and we just reverted back to friendship. At some point she'd asked him if he'd slept with anyone she knew. He lied about having had sex with me, and later she found out about it. His defense was something along the lines of "didn't matter, didn't mean anything. It was like masturbating with someone else in the room."

I felt like total and complete shit when I heard about that description. It was totally consensual, usually fun sex. To have it, to have ME belittled and made to be nothing, was really, really painful. He's the only person I actively avoid. I blocked him from pretty much every aspect of my life, and years later, I have absolutely no interest in any contact at all with him. He had been a really good friend.

I can sort of imagine what she is going through now, but Jesus that must be so painful.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Um, the past looks like it’s going to be front and center: https://www.democraticunderground.org/100211183107

I believe her.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

This is just horrible. And those assholes in the Senate don't give a flying fuck.

This affidavit strikes me a little strange. Perhaps it's because of the source (Avenatti is just so sleazy), but it's worded to paint a lurid picture, but never asserts any claim she's seen Kavanaugh do anything specific.

He's at the parties, bad things happen at the parties, and a horrible crime was committed against her at a party. But there's no line stating, "And I saw Kavanaugh doing _____." It's insinuation -- that he was involved because his friends were involved. And then she's guessing these guys were targeting girls who were alone or shy?

I think this woman's story is true. But I think Avenatti did her a disservice by trying to make it more salacious, and emphasizing the acts of others to get around the fact that she has no recollection of Kavanaugh himself committing a crime.

Avenatti's a creep. He should have referred this client to a credible lawyer. The GOP will dismiss this on the basis he's behind it and assisted with its preparation. But then again... Avenatti tries everything in the media, and probably didn't expect much respect from Rs or Ds. And this affidavit, particularly as written - to elicit maximum disgust not only at Kavanaugh but at his social scene - will be all the media talks about for days.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I believe her.

So do I. But Avenatti? Why kneecap yourself by involving somebody even the Democrats are calling a scumbag.

Don't get me wrong - he's wildly entertaining. But he's the legal world's Harvey Levin. And it's kind of gross for him to be out making a buck off this woman, as his name is the chief thing opponents will use to undercut her story.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

So do I. But Avenatti? Why kneecap yourself by involving somebody even the Democrats are calling a scumbag.

Don't get me wrong - he's wildly entertaining. But he's the legal world's Harvey Levin. And it's kind of gross for him to be out making a buck off this woman, as his name is the chief thing opponents will use to undercut her story.

True.

At least he's not as scummy as Giuliani or Cohen, though.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This affidavit strikes me a little strange. Perhaps it's because of the source (Avenatti is just so sleazy), but it's worded to paint a lurid picture, but never asserts any claim she's seen Kavanaugh do anything specific.

He's at the parties, bad things happen at the parties, and a horrible crime was committed against her at a party. But there's no line stating, "And I saw Kavanaugh doing _____." It's insinuation -- that he was involved because his friends were involved. And then she's guessing these guys were targeting girls who were alone or shy?

I think this woman's story is true. But I think Avenatti did her a disservice by trying to make it more salacious, and emphasizing the acts of others to get around the fact that she has no recollection of Kavanaugh himself committing a crime.

Avenatti's a creep. He should have referred this client to a credible lawyer. The GOP will dismiss this on the basis he's behind it and assisted with its preparation. But then again... Avenatti tries everything in the media, and probably didn't expect much respect from Rs or Ds. And this affidavit, particularly as written - to elicit maximum disgust not only at Kavanaugh but at his social scene - will be all the media talks about for days.

I wonder if the standing in line waiting for his turn or the drugging the punch stuff may get you to some kind of conspiracy, but I'm a corporate lawyer, so I only know enough to know that someone needs to call a plumber here.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I wonder if the standing in line waiting for his turn or the drugging the punch stuff may get you to some kind of conspiracy, but I'm a corporate lawyer, so I only know enough to know that someone needs to call a plumber here.

Am I missing something that you and Sebby see? Doesn’t paragraph 13 of her declaration state that she was a victim of a train and that Kavanaugh and Judge were present? Are we parsing that to say something else?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This affidavit strikes me a little strange. Perhaps it's because of the source (Avenatti is just so sleazy), but it's worded to paint a lurid picture, but never asserts any claim she's seen Kavanaugh do anything specific.

Huh? It alleges she saw him in line for his turn at one party and that he was present during her gang rape.

Yeah, neither's probably enough to get him charged with anything on it's own, but he's not on trial, he's interviewing for a job.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Am I missing something that you and Sebby see? Doesn’t paragraph 13 of her declaration state that she was a victim of a train and that Kavanaugh and Judge were present? Are we parsing that to say something else?

yes, you are correct.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Am I missing something that you and Sebby see? Doesn’t paragraph 13 of her declaration state that she was a victim of a train and that Kavanaugh and Judge were present? Are we parsing that to say something else?

There’s no direct link. Ford says Kavanaugh got on top of her and held her mouth. Swetick says Kavanaugh was at a party where she was raped, but does not say he raped her.

The affidavit is heavy on describing crime at the parties, but it’s all general. Very different from Ford’s accusations.

Avenatti went for guilt by association here. Thats not irrelevant, but it’s also not very strong.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There’s no direct link. Ford says Kavanaugh got on top of her and held her mouth. Swetick says Kavanaugh was at a party where she was raped, but does not say he raped her.

The affidavit is heavy on describing crime at the parties, but it’s all general. Very different from Ford’s accusations.

Avenatti went for guilt by association here. Thats not irrelevant, but it’s also not very strong.

The affidavit says Kavanaugh groped, fondled, and attempted to remove the clothing of girls against their will, that he engaged in efforts to drug and/or spike punch with grain alcohol in order to target women, and that he was present when she was gang raped. But I am guessing that the Republican talking point will be exactly what you are saying (weird!) -- that she didn't specifically state that Kavanaugh penetrated her. Which I assume means either that he didn't or that she became too drugged to remember who all gang raped her. But if you think the affidavit contains only weak allegations against him and only contains guilt by association, then it seems your moral standard for SCOTUS is "not a rapist." Which again appears to line up exactly with the Republicans' position on Kavanaugh (weird!).

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This affidavit strikes me a little strange. Perhaps it's because of the source (Avenatti is just so sleazy), but it's worded to paint a lurid picture, but never asserts any claim she's seen Kavanaugh do anything specific.

He's at the parties, bad things happen at the parties, and a horrible crime was committed against her at a party. But there's no line stating, "And I saw Kavanaugh doing _____." It's insinuation -- that he was involved because his friends were involved. And then she's guessing these guys were targeting girls who were alone or shy?

I think this woman's story is true. But I think Avenatti did her a disservice by trying to make it more salacious, and emphasizing the acts of others to get around the fact that she has no recollection of Kavanaugh himself committing a crime.

Avenatti's a creep. He should have referred this client to a credible lawyer. The GOP will dismiss this on the basis he's behind it and assisted with its preparation. But then again... Avenatti tries everything in the media, and probably didn't expect much respect from Rs or Ds. And this affidavit, particularly as written - to elicit maximum disgust not only at Kavanaugh but at his social scene - will be all the media talks about for days.

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

The affidavit says Kavanaugh groped, fondled, and attempted to remove the clothing of girls against their will, that he engaged in efforts to drug and/or spike punch with grain alcohol in order to target women, and that he was present when she was gang raped. But I am guessing that the Republican talking point will be exactly what you are saying (weird!) -- that she didn't specifically state that Kavanaugh penetrated her. Which I assume means either that he didn't or that she became too drugged to remember who all gang raped her. But if you think the affidavit contains only weak allegations against him and only contains guilt by association, then it seems your moral standard for SCOTUS is "not a rapist." Which again appears to line up exactly with the Republicans' position on Kavanaugh (weird!).

Slow down, Francis...

I'm saying there's an attempt here to use general descriptions of behaviors to assert that a person committed a crime. Avenatti paints a gross picture of rapes, and Kavanaugh being sexually aggressive, and then goes into Swetick's own rape. It's a disturbing picture, from which a layman, an unsophisticated typical American, would conclude, "every man at this party is guilty of something." But if you read closely, other than the allegation Kavanaugh was waiting in a line, which itself doesn't prove he actually did anything, you see no direct linkage of the man to any specific crime.

We've all been at debauched parties. Supposed I drew a picture of a party where everyone was smoking weed, many people were doing coke, and in the corner, a couple of people were shooting smack. I then recall how you were around the weed, and the weed was around the coke. Then I talk generally about how high and drunk everyone at the party was. Then I say I also saw you near the people shooting smack. Now, you've done nothing but smoke some weed at the this party. But if I write that up cleverly, I can easily convince most people, under a guilt by association standard, that you definitely did coke, and probably did smack.

Again, I buy the story she tells. I think this guy was sexually aggressive. But I can spot when a second-stringer like Avenatti is trying to manipulate me into believing this affidavit is proof of something much worse. And I have to wonder why he is doing that. My suspicion is because he is a massive asshole and publicity whore. But it could also be inherent weakness of a witness who does not want to wind up facing perjury allegations.