• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Meadmaker said:
I stand corrected. I don't remember that, perhaps because, as the Wikipedia article on him put it,

"His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. "


The incident I remembered was this one, from the Wikipedia article on Clarence Thomas' nomination.


"According to Mayer and Abramson, soon after Thomas was sworn in, three reporters for The Washington Post "burst into the newsroom almost simultaneously with information confirming that Thomas' involvement with pornography far exceeded what the public had been led to believe."[63] These reporters had eyewitness testimony and video rental records showing Thomas' interest in and use of pornography.[64] However, according to Jeffrey Toobin, because Thomas was already sworn in by the time the video store evidence emerged, The Washington Post dropped the story."

There had been rumors of his video rental habits during the hearing, but the committee wouldn't entertain those rumors openly. (I won't vote for Biden in the primaries because he's too darned old, but I've voted for him in the past, and I really respected the way he handled the Thomas hearings.)
Click to expand...
I also stand corrected, because I thought the porn videos pertained to Bork.

I don't share your opinion of how Biden handled the proceeding, but it's been too many years and my memory is sketchy.
 
varwoche said:
I also stand corrected, because I thought the porn videos pertained to Bork.

I don't share your opinion of how Biden handled the proceeding, but it's been too many years and my memory is sketchy.
Click to expand...
They played a rerun of the hearing a couple weeks ago. I didn't watch all of it but I saw Biden's questioning. It was ineffective, a bunch of questions that didn't mean much or add any clarity on the issues.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/jessebyrnes/status/1055503247316803584
Click to expand...

Grab your popcorn and soda folks, this could get veeery interesting!

Grassley's move here could backfire on him big time, because by pursuing an investigation, he has opened the door for Swetnick and Avanatti reveal everything EVERYTHING they know about Kavanaugh without fear of being sued for defamation. In a deposition, a witness making a statement is allowed to speak freely and without fear of any repercussions. Such statements are protected by the Absolute Privilege Law, so even if a witness makes a statement that is untrue, that witness will be immune from lawsuit for defamation. These statements tend to become public knowledge, so the truth is likely to get out. Same applies at trial - testimony under oath is protected by Absolute Privilege

Perhaps Chucky hasn't really thought through the possible consequences.
 
Segnosaur said:
Now that we have Rapey McRapeface on the supreme court, any such legislation that is passed in the future is more likely to be found unconstitutional.

You should be happy about it. You got a rapist on the supreme court. You should be proud of the republican accomplishment.
Click to expand...


"We still believe Julie Swetnick. Believe Survivors."

-- Planned Parenthood Action & NARAL (Oct 25, 2018)
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
A woman Avenatti claims supported Swetnick's statements claims that she didn't say the things her sworn declaration attests to
Click to expand...

After NBC News received text messages from the woman refuting some of the claims in the declaration, NBC reached out again to Avenatti, who defended the declaration.

"I have no idea what you are talking about," he said in a text. "I have a signed declaration that states otherwise together with multiple audio recordings where she stated exactly what is in the declaration. There were also multiple witnesses to our discussions."
He sent a follow-up message moments later: "I just confirmed with her yet again that everything in the declaration is true and correct," Avenatti said. "She must have been confused by your question."

Roughly five minutes later, the woman sent a formally-worded text backing Avenatti. "Please understand that everything in the declaration is true and you should not contact me anymore regarding this issue," the text read.
Click to expand...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...t-avenatti-claims-regarding-kavanaugh-n924596

If Avenatti can produce the recordings and witnesses, that should clear up the matter. It sounds to me like Swetnick wants to distance herself now that Kav has been sworn in.
 
Stacyhs said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...t-avenatti-claims-regarding-kavanaugh-n924596

If Avenatti can produce the recordings and witnesses, that should clear up the matter. It sounds to me like Swetnick wants to distance herself now that Kav has been sworn in.
Click to expand...

Literally the next line in the article that you did not quote:

But when reached by phone minutes later, the woman again insisted that she never saw Kavanaugh spike punch or act inappropriately toward women. She said she's "been consistent in what she's told Michael."

In a subsequent text on Oct. 5, she wrote, "I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words."
Click to expand...

That article is more than a week old, and Avenatti has not and will never release anything because he is a total scum bag.
 
The Big Dog said:
Avenatti has not and will never release anything because he is a total scum bag.
Click to expand...


“We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties in the Washington, D.C., area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them. There are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts and each of them must be called to testify publicly.”

-- Michael Avenatti (Sept 23, 2018)
 
Lambchops said:
Lol, so how about that Wohl guy. Right?
How soon we forget. Very convenient.
Click to expand...


False equivalency! The two stooges who pulled that absurd prank were never under oath. Maybe Mueller can charge them with libel. However, Avenatti, Swetnick, and several others submitted sworn statements to the Judiciary Committee during a confirmation hearing:
"On September 26, 2018, Mr. Avenatti submitted a sworn statement to the Committee purportedly written and signed by Ms. Swetnick, in which she accused Judge Kavanaugh of repeatedly drugging women and/or spiking their punch with alcohol in order to render them inebriated and disoriented so that groups of boys, including Judge Kavanaugh, could gang rape them.

"Specifically, she alleged in her sworn statement that she witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated so they could then be ‘gang raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys.”

-- Criminal referral submitted by Senator Grassley (Oct 25, 2018)​
 
Senate panel's report on FBI probe finds 'no evidence to back Kavanaugh accusers claims'

An investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh by multiple women found that no witnesses could provide evidence to substantiate their claims, a letter to Senate Republicans from the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman said Friday.

According to the 414-page report released by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, investigators interviewed more than 40 people, monitored social media and news reports and reviewed evidence provided by the judge and his accusers.

“Following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh,” the report states.

-- Fox News (Nov 4, 2018)
Click to expand...


"The evidence appears to support the position that Julie Swetnick and Mr. Avenatti criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee’s investigation."

-- Report released by Senator Chuck Grassley (Nov 2, 2018)
 
smartcooky said:
Grab your popcorn and soda folks, this could get veeery interesting!

Grassley's move here could backfire on him big time, because by pursuing an investigation, he has opened the door for Swetnick and Avanatti reveal everything EVERYTHING they know about Kavanaugh without fear of being sued for defamation. In a deposition, a witness making a statement is allowed to speak freely and without fear of any repercussions. Such statements are protected by the Absolute Privilege Law, so even if a witness makes a statement that is untrue, that witness will be immune from lawsuit for defamation. These statements tend to become public knowledge, so the truth is likely to get out. Same applies at trial - testimony under oath is protected by Absolute Privilege

Perhaps Chucky hasn't really thought through the possible consequences.
Click to expand...
"Pursuing" an "investigation." So far everything I've heard about it has been from his office, which isn't exactly dripping with integrity these days.

I don't see how it could backfire. It's not like any new evidence will convince anyone. You'd need to impeach Kavanaugh, the Senate will never do that, and even if they found physical footage of him raping a woman the peanut gallery would just go "it was years ago, and if you listen through the muffled screams it sounds like she's enjoying it."
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
"Pursuing" an "investigation." So far everything I've heard about it has been from his office, which isn't exactly dripping with integrity these days.

I don't see how it could backfire. It's not like any new evidence will convince anyone. You'd need to impeach Kavanaugh, the Senate will never do that, and even if they found physical footage of him raping a woman the peanut gallery would just go "it was years ago, and if you listen through the muffled screams it sounds like she's enjoying it."
Click to expand...

Avenatti's statement is absolutely absurd, in fact, he should have already told Swetnick that he can't represent her in the criminal investigation, but he is an incompetent sleazebag with literally no experience in defending criminal actions. As Popehat has explained, Avenatti has already breached the cardinal rule of criminal investigations: shut the **** up.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
"Pursuing" an "investigation." So far everything I've heard about it has been from his office, which isn't exactly dripping with integrity these days.
Click to expand...


Geez, it's only been a little over a week.

Senator Grassley submitted the criminal referral to AG Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray on Oct 25th: [Here]
 
Praise where praise is due:
Kavanaugh (so far) has consistently avoided going out of his way to support pro-Trump causes on the Supreme Court, through recusal or by voting along precedent lines.
I didn't expect that, and I hope he stays more committed to his job than to his party and backers.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Praise where praise is due:
Kavanaugh (so far) has consistently avoided going out of his way to support pro-Trump causes on the Supreme Court, through recusal or by voting along precedent lines.
I didn't expect that, and I hope he stays more committed to his job than to his party and backers.
Click to expand...

Big on you for recognizing as much, and saying so here in the forum. I too hope he stays more committed to his job than to his party and backers.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Praise where praise is due:
Kavanaugh (so far) has consistently avoided going out of his way to support pro-Trump causes on the Supreme Court, through recusal or by voting along precedent lines.
I didn't expect that, and I hope he stays more committed to his job than to his party and backers.
Click to expand...


Flashback:
"Professionally, Kavanaugh is a right-wing Evangelical toady who never dissented from a straight Republican agenda. He is a quintessential yes-men."

-- The Great Zaganza (Sept 25, 2018)​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom