DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Kavanaugh Hearings Cont....

I don’t think a lot of guys realize how screwed theyre gonna be when women really start turning out to vote.

They are the majority of the population, and are the majority of the voting block.

I can’t wait to see what GM and ted post when women start leglislating what they can or can’t do with their own penis.

This fear, along with xenophobia, drove people to vote for the harasser-in-chief.

Losing power makes people fearful.

it's not about economics. It's about selfish ideals of "minorities are advancing too much! What about the dominant culture?!"

Guys who live on the Left have cried the same woes. I have not. All of them have questioned the motives of admin...

I've been dumped.
I've been banished.
I've been sent to 'Banned Camp.'
In all the times that I've been censured, I've never ONCE called into question the acumen and ethics of the governing body.

Quit crying like a little swishtail... and learn to post in a way that won't get your submissions deleted.

Dawg... this place leans Right to the max... and even so, they let me talk much Left-leaning smack on the daily... so PLEEEEZE: don't accuse the board of a liberal bias.

If your posts are being deleted, YOU are the problem.

I'm one of the most liberal posters at this address... and I only get bounced when I break rules that we all know are hard & fast rules.

These refs are fine.
YOU are the snowflake.

GM no longer uses that, why would he care?

There is no point in waiting to vote on K. The libs had already decided they would do anything and everything to try and stall the vote till after the midterm elections.

They have no actionable proof of any crime whatsoever. Here say doesn't count for anything in a court of law. She can't PROVE that anything she is saying is true. Meanwhile the list of character witnesses that say K would never behave that way is extraordinary.

If it were a court of law the case would just get thrown out because it's UNPROVABLE. It's certainly never going to fulfill the qualifications of a reasonable doubt.

I'm just tired of the circus. GEt it over with already. K is not going to overturn Roe vs Wade anyways so libs can just stop with all the panic. The only way Roe vs Wade gets overturned is if Congress makes a change to the constitution and/or law. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Sadly many more millions of innocent children will have to die first.

They may vote but he won't be confirmed. That would be political suicide without proper investigations and hearings. The GOP brass can talk all the "we'll hold a vote" that they want but they know the country and women are watching.

Could Ford be sued for slander if the allegations cannot be proven?

Then this should be precisely why the Dems should let the vote go through.

Supposing this Ford woman is as credible as the Dems hold her up to be, then removing him from the bench should be no problem. That would be such a massive political coup for the Dems to be able to say that they successfully removed a Supreme Court Justice.

And this would be on top of what you predict would be political suicide by the GOP.

After all, it's already been established this isn't actually about justice for a victim. Even the anti-K Dawgs haven't expressed that sentiment. It's 100% pure politics.

The Dems are overplaying their hand on this. Their timing with this is a massive hit on their credibility and even if K doesn't go through this week, it just means Trump's going to fast track an other candidate the next. It'll be political suicide for the Dems when they try to play the "something happened, somewhere, sometime" card again.

But that may not matter to them. There seems to be a substantial lack of self awareness from many Dmes and those on the left.

As to your reply earlier asking if there still shouldn't be a process regardless of the timing.. absolutely. But that process should take place in the proper venue. The incident should be reported to the proper authorities for investigation which please correct me if I'm wrong, but that still hasn't happened.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is not the proper venue.
Neither is the media.

Not if you are genuinely concerned about Ms. Ford the victim.

Assuming K did all sorts of nasty things to Ms. Ford, it's pretty terrible that she had zero value or worth as a human being in the eyes of the likes of DiFi. ONLY when she had political value did they see her as something of worth. For those already convinced of K's guilt, it would be nice to see the same outrage over the political exploitation of a victim.

Rachel Mitchell, prosecutor experienced in sex-crimes cases, to question Kavanaugh and Ford, Grassley announces

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/...-announces.html

Senate Republicans announced late Tuesday that Rachel Mitchell, a decorated career sex crimes prosecutor with decades of experience, will handle some of the questioning of Christine Blasey Ford at a scheduled hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

Ford, the California professor accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago, had requested through her attorneys that only senators be able to ask questions at the hearing, in order to avoid a "trial-like" atmosphere.

Senate Democrats are still able to ask their own questions of Ford and Kavanaugh, who is also set to testify Thursday, and some have explicitly said they intend to do so.

Saying he wants the hearing to be a "safe, comfortable, and dignified" environment, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley wrote in a statement that Mitchell's presence would help take politics out of the proceedings.

"The goal is to de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding and giving senators an opportunity to launch their presidential campaigns," Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote. "I’m very appreciative that Rachel Mitchell has stepped forward to serve in this important and serious role."

Grassley then took a more explicit shot at the conduct of Senate Democrats at Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings earlier this month. During those proceedings, Cory Booker, D-N.J., suggested that he would be expelled from the Senate for releasing confidential committee documents, and compared himself to the gladiator Spartacus.

"I promised Dr. Ford that I would do everything in my power to avoid a repeat of the ‘circus’ atmosphere in the hearing room that we saw the week of September 4," Grassley wrote. "I’ve taken this additional step to have questions asked by expert staff counsel to establish the most fair and respectful treatment of the witnesses possible."

Mitchell, who has been a prosecutor since 1993 and won several awards for her legal service, is currently on leave as the deputy county attorney in the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix and the division chief of the Special Victims Division, according to Grassley's office. She has overseen prosecutions of a variety of sex-related offenses, including child molestation, sexual assault, and domestic violence.

The county prosecutor's office is entirely distinct from the sheriff's office in Maricopa County, which was led by Joe Arpaio until last year.

Fox News has been told Grassley and Feinstein are expected to give opening statements to kick off Thursday's hearing, followed by Christine Blasey Ford, who would speak with no time limit.

That would be followed by a round of five-minute questioning periods for each senator, who could turn over questioning to other counsel. The process would repeat for Kavanaugh.


As recently as Monday night, Ford's attorneys have suggested that it would be inappropriate for outside counsel to ask questions.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, considered a key potential swing vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation, had suggested the use of outside counsel to question Ford last week, saying the optics of having the all-male Republican contingent from the Judiciary Committee would be undesirable.

Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied all allegations against him.

The questioning will center on Ford's claim that Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to remove her clothes at a Maryland house party when they were teenagers. Ford has said she is unable to recall who owned the house or why there was a gathering there. According to Ford, who says she eventually escaped to a bathroom, Kavanaugh covered her mouth briefly as music blared.

Ford told The Washington Post last week that there were a total of "four boys at the party" where the alleged episode occurred, and that two -- Kavanaugh and friend Mark Judge -- were in the room during her attack. She said that her therapist made an error by indicating she told him in 2012 that all four boys were involved.

Those boys purportedly included Kavanaugh, Judge and another classmate, Patrick Smyth -- all of whom have since denied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, under penalty of felony, any knowledge of the particular party in question or any misconduct by Kavanaugh.

However, a woman, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford's at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, has since been identified by Ford as the fourth witness at the party. In a dramatic twist, Keyser, who has never been describable as a "boy," emerged Saturday night to say she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.

Washington Post spokeswoman Kristine Coratti Kelly told Fox News that Keyser went unmentioned in the original story on Ford's accusations because she was unreachable, and that the article was not intended to provide a comprehensive tally of everyone at the party.

"We didn’t name Keyser in the original story because we had not reached her for comment by that time, as the story indicates," Kelly said in an email. "The story never addressed how many girls were at the party. The story addressed the question of how many boys were in the room with her – in the context of Ford’s explanation for what she was said was an error in her therapist’s notes."

However, the letter sent by Ford to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in July that outlined her allegations said: "The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others."

Feinstein did not report that letter to her colleagues or federal authorities until earlier this month, after a leak describing the letter appeared in The Intercept. Republicans have accused Democrats of orchestrating that leak for political gain only days before a key vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation.

"We’re in the Twilight Zone when it comes to Kavanaugh," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News on Capitol Hill Monday. Later that evening, in an interview with Fox News' "Hannity," Graham said the allegations against Kavanaugh are "collapsing."

Joe Biden - FBI reports and investigations are useless. - Kavanaugh Clarence Thomas

Oh snap.

Fourth Witness Who Christine Ford Says Saw Brett Kavanaugh Sexually Assault Her Says It Never Happened


National Steven Ertelt Sep 24, 2018 | 11:34AM Washington, DC

https://www.lifenews.com/2018/09/24/four...never-happened/





The allegations Christine Ford made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have totally unraveled. After three witnesses Ford claims witnessed attempted sexual assault against her, a fourth witness has now come out saying it never happened.

Judge Kavanaugh –and all who were alleged to be present during the supposed incident –deny this claim. Leland Keyser, believed to have been identified as one of five people at the party where Ford claims this incident occurred, has said it never happened. Here’s more:

But perhaps even more significant was a development that broke on Saturday evening. I received word that the mysteriously “missing” party attendee had finally been identified, and that she’d made a formal statement through her lawyer that she never knew Kavanaugh and had no memory of ever being at any party with him.

Sure enough, this update was confirmed in the press shortly thereafter:




This is very significant. One of the discrepancies in Ford’s story — setting aside her inability to name the scene of the alleged assault, or even the month in 1982 in which it supposedly took place — involves the number of people at the party, and the number of people involved in the claimed attack. She says two boys were in the room (including Kavanaugh), but her therapist’s notes from 2012 (the first time she spoke about the incident) say that four boys were in the room. According to the Washington Post, Ford chalks this inconsistency up to a misunderstanding by her therapist, asserting that there were four boys at the party, not in the room. In her original letter to Sen. Feinstein, which the California Democrat sat on for roughly two months, Ford says there five total people at the party, including her. Having heard from Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, PJ Smyth, and the accuser, there was only one named witness who remained publicly unaccounted for. Until now. It turns out that this last witness was not a fourth boy, but a girl named Leland Ingham Keyser. That fact unto itself is another shift in Ford’s official story. But that’s not all:

[Keyser] is now executive producer of Bob Beckel’s podcast. Keyser is the ex-wife of Beckel, a former Democratic operative and commentator. A search on OpenSecrets.org reveals Keyser’s only political donation has been to former Democratic senator Byron Dorgan. Keyser’s denial, as a female lifelong friend and Ford’s last named witness, is the most consequential development that has occurred since Ford publicly stepped forward last Sunday and detailed her allegations to the Washington Post. Ford’s allegation of the 1982 incident was told to no one until a 2012 therapy session, when Kavanaugh was first touted in the media as the most likely GOP Supreme Court nominee. All of Ford’s named witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party.

This final named witness is a female, a Democrat, and a longtime friend of the accuser. She states outright not only that she doesn’t recall attending this particular alleged party, but that she never knew Kavanaugh and was never at any party with him, as far as she can recall. So of the five people Ford places at this party 36 years ago, she is the only one who says it even took place. The other four have contradicted or rejected her memory of it, to varying degrees.

Following that development, the character assassination campaign continues against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a second woman has come forward making thus-far unproven and unsubstantiated claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her. Pro-abortion Democrat senators are already running with her claims — even though the accuser admits she was drunk and doesn’t remember much – as reasons to oppose Kavanaugh’s confirmation.



As the Washington Examiner reports:

Deborah Ramirez, a fellow Yale alum, told the New Yorker in an article published Sunday that Kavanaugh pulled down his pants at a college party during the 1983-84 academic school year. The then-freshman flashed his penis close to Ramirez’s face, leading her to touch it without her consent as she tried to push him away.

Ramirez told the outlet she had been reticent to share her story because she had been drinking at the time of the incident. But now she wants an FBI investigation into the matter.

At least two Democratic senators have begun probing Ramirez’s claims after four senators were informed of them, the New Yorker also reported.

The federal judge defended himself saying these accusations have turned into a “smear” campaign against him, and adding that they are totally false.

“This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen,” Kavanaugh wrote in a statement released to the press. “The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so.”

“This is a smear, plain and simple,” he continued. “I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name — and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building — against these last-minute allegations.”

Kavanaugh has denied any wrongdoing and plans to testify at a specially scheduled Senate committee hearing Thursday to consider the allegations.

A Trump administration official seconded Kavanaugh’s statement and said these latest accusations amount to nothing more than dubious character assassination.

“This 35-year-old, uncorroborated claim is the latest in a coordinated smear campaign by the Democrats designed to tear down a good man,” White House spokeswoman Kerri Kupec wrote. “This claim is denied by all who were said to be present and is wholly inconsistent with what many women and men who knew Judge Kavanaugh at the time in college say.”

But, like Christine Ford, Ramirez wants the FBI to investigate the alleged incident.



Since the first accusations were made public, Kavanaugh and his wife have received multiple death threats, and that the U.S. Marshals are now investigating.

Meanwhile, the sexual assault claim made by California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh continues to unravel.

Ford made the allegations in a letter to pro-abortion Senator Diane Feinstein that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh supposedly sexually assaulted her, she said four people were allegedly at the party where it happened. Kavanaugh and alleged witness Mark Judge both said the sexual assault never took place. And now a third witness also says it never happened.

Also, a former classmate of Ford’s who initially supported the claim is recanting, and has admitted that she has “no idea” if the claim is true.

But more recent information has confirmed both the woman leveling the allegation that Ford and her attorney are Democratic Party activists. For and her attorney Debra Katz have not only donated to Democrats, but also recently signed on to a Physicians for Human Rights letter protesting the Trump administration’s immigration policy.

Few media outlets have confronted Katz on her own Democratic activism. In 2017, Katz labeled all senior Trump administration officials to be “miscreants.” Hypocritically, she also staunchly and repeatedly defended Bill Clinton against claims of sexual harassment made by Paula Jones in the 1990s.

After the allegations became public, news surfaced that calls into question the credibility of Ford’s story, which has apparently changed dramatically over the years. News reports indicate she can’t even remember the location or year of the alleged attack.

Additionally, Ford’s brother, Ralph Blasey III, once worked for the law firm of Baker & Hostetler LLP, but left that firm in 2004. The Daily Caller reported that Baker & Hostetler paid a company called Fusion GPS seven payments totaling more than a half million dollars in 2016. Fusion GPS was also the shadowy Democrat “dirty tricks” group hired by Planned Parenthood to produce the fake forensic analysis that supposedly “debunked” the Center for Medical Progress’ undercover videos.

And a peer and friend who knew Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a high school student is vouching for his character amid accusations from a woman that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teens.

According to documents on file with the Maryland Court System, Ford’s parents, Ralph G. and Paula K. Blasey owned property that was in foreclosure. The judge who presided over that case was Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Martha G. Kavanaugh.

In a statement after the allegations surfaced, Kavanaugh refuted the 11th-hour smear campaign made by Senate Democrats and abortion advocates who are desperately hoping to tarnish his image in advance of a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on his nomination. Kavanaugh said the claims are totally false and he offered to speak with the Senate Judiciary Committee about the claim made by Christine Blasey Ford.

“This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes — to her or to anyone,” Kavanaugh said in a statement. “Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday.”

“I am willing to talk to the Senate Judiciary Committee in any way the committee deems appropriate to refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity,” he said in his statement.

Ford told the Washington Post in an interview published Sunday that Kavanaugh held her on a bed on her back during a party at a house in Maryland. Ford accused Kavanaugh of groping her over her clothes and said he tried to undress her. She was able to escape the bedroom when Kavanaugh’s classmate jumped on them, Ford said.

Kavanaugh unequivocally denied the allegation in a statement last week, though at that time, his accuser remained anonymous.

The New Yorker reported that the incident allegedly occurred in the early 1980s, when Kavanaugh was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School, an all-boys school in Bethesda, Md. The woman, meanwhile, went to a local high school.

The woman said in a letter sent to Democratic lawmakers this summer that during a party, Kavanaugh held her down and tried to force himself on her, according to The New Yorker.

Kavanaugh and his classmate, who were drinking, increased the volume of the music that was playing to hide her protests, the letter reportedly says. Kavanaugh allegedly used his hand to cover the woman’s mouth, before she was able to escape.

“I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation,” Kavanaugh said in a statement. “I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

The classmate of Kavanaugh’s who was allegedly involved in the encounter said, “I have no recollection of that,” according to The New Yorker.

But other women who knew Judge Kavanaugh during that time period vouch for his character and high moral standard.

Shortly after the details of the letter were made public by The New Yorker, the Senate Judiciary Committee shared a letter it received Friday from 65 women who knew Kavanaugh during their high school years.

“Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity,” the women wrote. “In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day.”

This dustup followed on the heels of Senate Democrats getting caught lying about Kavanaugh. Since Kavanaugh’s hearings last week, numerous fact checks and advice to “drop the whopper of a talking point” from one of the largest newspapers in America have not stopped pro-abortion politicians from repeating false claims about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The lies about Kavanaugh’s birth control beliefs began with U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California and continued with two-time failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Washington Post, Politifact and others refuted their claims that Kavanaugh called birth control “abortion-inducing drugs,” but the pro-abortion politicians continue to push the lie.

This week, Kavanaugh also responded to the claims by clarifying what he meant when he used the term “abortion-inducing drugs” last week during the U.S. Senate hearings.

Abortion activists fear Kavanaugh, who has served on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. for more than a decade. He has an extensive record of protecting religious liberty, including in the Priests for Life case, and enforcing restrictions on abortion. Pro-life leaders believe he would do the same on the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Sen. Susan Collins’ office says it has received threats of rape and other violence from abortion activists who want her to vote against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

The Maine Republican is a key swing vote in Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Collins is pro-abortion, and she has not yet announced her decision about him.

Over the past few months, NARAL, Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have been targeting her with phone calls, political ads, fundraising for a pro-abortion Democrat opponent and a coat hanger campaign; but these attempts to influence may have the opposite effect.

Collins told reporters this week that her office has received a number of threatening phone calls and other messages, including one caller who threatened to rape one of her female staffers.

Under questioning from pro-life Senator Lindsey Graham, Kavanaugh confirmed there is no “specific” right to abortion in the Constitution.

“Is there any phrase in the Constitution about abortion?” Graham asked Kavanaugh.

“The Supreme Court has found that under the liberty clause, but you’re right that specific words,” Kavanaugh said before stopping as Graham continued. Kavanaugh clearly was beginning to admit Graham’s point that abortion or a right to abortion is never specifically addressed in the Constitution — but was made up by the Supreme Court in 1973.

During his nomination hearings, Judge Kavanaugh was been careful to discuss abortion within the context of what the Supreme Court has decided in the precedent-setting cases of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood without biasing the hearings with his own views in a way that would force him to recuse himself in future abortion cases before the court.

During the first day of questioning, Judge Brett Kavanaugh refused to say that there is a so-called right to abortion. He declined to take the bait from pro-abortion Senator Dianne Feinstein who wants to get him to commit to upholding Roe v Wade once he is confirmed to the Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh also refused a pro-abortion senator’s request to promise to never overturn Roe v Wade, the high court case allowing abortions up to birth.

Also during the hearings, a new document was released showing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is possibly open to overturning the infamous Roe v Wade decision that allows virtually unlimited abortions up to birth.

Once again, looks like it's Vamob and his crew that fall for the Fake News! lmao Fake Tweet, Fake Story, fake facts... got you hook line and sinker.

Avenatti: I wasn’t scammed

By NATASHA KORECKI 09/25/2018 06:13 PM EDT Updated 09/25/2018 06:30 PM EDT

Michael Avenatti on Tuesday lashed out at reports that a client who was preparing to level allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was a fake and part of a ruse by an outside group targeting Avenatti.

“I made the determination she was 100 percent credible well before Sunday night,” Avenatti, the attorney who also represents the adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in her lawsuit against President Donald Trump, told POLITICO, referring to the first time he disclosed the allegations involving Kavanaugh. “We’ve received over 3,000 inquiries in the last six months from people with all kinds of crazy stories and fabrications. I’ve heard it all. I’ve seen it all. Like we don’t vet clients. Give me a break.”

Kavanaugh is in a pitched battle to salvage his nomination, after two women have come forward to allege sexual misconduct decades ago. One of his accusers, Christine Blasey Ford, is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday about her allegation that a drunken Kavanaugh assaulted her at a house party when they were both in high school.

An online post on Tuesday claimed that Avenatti had been scammed by the online forum 4Chan, a place where online users delight in trolling public figures, setting off a firestorm on social media and purportedly jamming up Avenatti’s Twitter account. The attorney said he temporarily shut down the account because of online threats.

“This is just crazy that somebody can just tweet something out like this, or post it, and people just take it as truth,” he said. “It’s crazy.

Avenatti, a possible presidential contender in 2020, said his client is “100 percent” real and still planned to come forward. When pressed on why the public should believe the accusations involving Kavanaugh when he hadn’t yet fronted a witness and had himself made claims over Twitter, Avenatti said he had remained consistent.

“I’ve been really clear. The timetable has not changed,” he said. “We haven’t moved the timetable back. Nothing’s changed. We don’t just do this at the drop of the hat. Had we waited until everything was in place to surface these allegations, then everyone would be complaining that we just dropped this on the committee at the last moment. There’s no winning in this situation. We wanted to surface the allegations for the committee, reasonably, once they were vetted, which is what we did.”

But he said members of the Judiciary Committee had not followed up on his offer to have them interview his client. Avenatti said the client had agreed to an FBI investigation and a polygraph test.

When asked whether she would take her story public regardless of whether the committee called her to testify, Avenatti responded: “Correct.”

“We have not arrived at a firm plan relating to the initial disclosure of these allegations,” he said. “We are still working through it. This is a very dynamic situation with a lot of emotions at stake.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/25/michael-avenatii-kavanaugh-accusations-4chan-841348

Way to go PDF, and while I may be a lot like Bubba J, your no Jeff Dunham, so everybody can clearly see your lips moving as you try to put words in my mouth. That was a pathetic attempt my friend.

1st off I have been married for over 37 years. I already have a woman who tells me what I can and can't do with my penis.

2nd I have never said, and I won't ever say what a woman can do with her Vajayjay. It's when she kills the baby inside of her that I get peed off.

HEY HEY HEY I use it every single day.


I pee a lot

Serious question...so dont try to be smart alek politcal hacks...

An intoxicated person (woman or man)cannot legally give consent to have sexual activity. This is based on the concept that intoxication impairs the mental and cognitive abilities of the person in question and put them in a state of not really knowing what is happening. So if the argument is that a person cannot consent to have sex why drunk or stoned because of their mental and cognitive abilities, how is it that their mental and cognitive abilities are not called into question as a liability when they make accusations with out hard evidence outside of mental recollection. If intoxication renders your unable to consent because you can't think straight, it only makes sense that intoxication would also alter you ability to accurately remember what happened and or who you were with when the assault while intoxicated happened....kind of a double edged sword in terms of you can't have it both ways.

Aren’t you assuming Kavanaugh was clear and sober during these parties he so often attended in HS and college and remembers all the details better then his accusing attempted rape victims?

no never claimed he was..lady said "he" was drunk..just like she admitted too being..my question was not about these proceedings but the general process that I described.

The burden of proof is on the accuser

A lot of acquaintance rapists know this, which of why they sexual assault the most drunk and vulnerable girls.

It's a touchy and incredibly unfair process. I mean a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex but only the man is guilty of rape.

Drunk women do just as nasty and despicable things when they are drunk too. Some of them love to get a man drunk so they can get pregnant by his child and reap the child support wagon or blackmail before agreeing to an abortion.

That is not to say men are innocent. We all know they are not for the MOST part. It's just how can you say one is responsible and the other is not when they are BOTH drunk. Shall we ban women from bars and parties so that when they get drunk and have sex the men won't go to jail? I mean asking a drunk man to say no to sex is flat out asking for something that is extremely hard for them to do because they are also not in their right mind.

It's my opinion that if your stupid enough to go to a party where everyone is getting drunk and out of their minds then you have no right to complain about what happens to you. Hopefully you learn the lesson not to be in that situation ever again.

Going into a room full of drunk people and expecting them to act like responsible adults is about the stupidest expectation there is. Holding ONLY the men accountable for it is just wrong.

Sometimes in life the only one we should blame is ourselves.

Avenatti's client said that Kavanaugh and Judge raped multiple women.

Merrick Garland.
1.5 years.
not even invited to Capitol Hill


shut up.

Julie Swetnick submitted a sworn affidavit, which carries the penalty of perjury if she's lying. She's also holds a security clearance which will be lost if she's lying. If she's lying her life is ruined.

whats crazy is that people roast Avenatti, but won't acknowledge how spot on damn near all of his statements have been.

He's a thorn in Trump's side that he can't shake.

Avenatti is the smug pos that you never want to give any attention or positive recognition to.

If she knew this was happening back then why wait til now to say something? If she knew they were doing it to others and didn't turn them in isn't that a crime? Why would she continue going to these parties?




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/...-new-delay.html

More victim blaming. Not surprised.

"why did she wait so long" is the new "what was she wearing".

It's that steady diet of FOX news.
Rots the brain.
And the soul.

and by the way, what does it say about Trump that he isn't concerned about sexual assault, but upset that the GOP didn't push this confirmation through as fast as possible?

thats not a big ass red flag to any of you conservatives? at all?

How soon do we approve Kav and make him the new SC Justice?
Friday?

Unless an illegal or a minority do the crime. Then they'll White Knight for any victim.

Funny how all these women turn out to defend Kav yet you ignore them because only women who push the Liberal Cause should be heard.

yea, there were a bunch of women who came out and defended Cosby too.

and look how that turned out...

I'll never give much credence to character witnesses. But I did see that, and I did see one remove herself from the list after Brett Kavanaugh lied that he got with her in his yearbook. That was very interesting.

J/C

There is literally so much back and forth on this topic its hard to keep track.

I read today that there were now sword affidavits submitted. But I was under the impression they were from Ford, and her 3 friends whom only swore that Ford told them about it. They did not witness anything, they were just submitting they were told about it by Ford. Is that not hearsay?

Vambo will start a thread about it. It's his favorite type of porn.

Disgusting.