She had her corroborating witnesses submit sworn affidavits. I don't see why anyone does that if they're not going to testify.
So, Kavanaugh was at numerous parties where his buddies were drugging and gang raping women on the regular and he just stood over in the corner and played on his iPhone the entire time?
Don't worry. Y'all have quickly surpassed them with the comments from your Senators and Congressional candidates.
If he had an iPhone in 1982, we need to investigate why he was time traveling back to rape women too.
Because she has delayed every step of the way thus far and the affidavits could easily be a ploy to exert extra pressure for an investigation, which would obviously halt the hearing.
Are you really asking whether serial rapists have kept major jobs? Do we really have to run through the list of rapists that have been discovered in me too moments, often decades after they raped women?
This is the part I have a hard time understanding. Even if he isn't a rapist, lots of stuff has been coming out that throws his credibility into further question on these issues. Taken in light of his other credibility issues on some of the substantive matters, any lies about the nature of the parties and conduct he engaged in should be disqualifying in its own right. If this was any other nomination and any other time besides the middle of the long desired Republican wet dream of achieving a pro-people-currently-in-power Supreme Court, this nomination would already have been withdrawn. And if it was anybody other than Trump, a President who is in the middle of a major investigation, and Kavanaugh, whose prior opinions of Presidential power dangle a potential rubber stamp for Trump, this nomination would never have been made for the same reasons originally pointed out by McConnell. The fact that it is still being defended with statements something like "If an accusation like this can be used against Kavanaugh, then none of us are safe" (as if every man has such accusations likely to come up against him) is a joke. These guys just don't want to waste the Garland coup and are willing to defend almost anything to achieve their ends because they might lose the Senate. I dislike Gorsuch just as much as I do Kavanaugh from a legal perspective. However, he was clean and got the up or down vote he deserved in spite of the Garland thing, and I thought he should have gotten more yes votes because the independence of the judiciary is hugely important and the process shouldn't be as political as it is today. This is just different though. Nobody was alleging that Gorsuch was a sexual harasser or that he was lying about things he had done socially in his past.
An investigation is the first thing McConnell should have called for rather than spending a week negotiating terms. But he’s more concerned with his legacy than process, so now he can reap what he sowed. If there had been an investigation, these other women could have quietly gone to the FBI and we’d hopefully have avoided this crazy public spectacle. Then either the evidence would have tilted in his favor, and we’d move to a hearing, or in hers and he could have walked away quietly. But instead Kav chose to go on Fox and say he’d never even heard of these kinds of things, which is looking like a poor choice at this point. And McConnell told his base we’re “gonna plow through this”. Oops.
Yeah, I mean no one could ever become say a successful comedian, tv host or the head of a movie studio and thrive for decades while being a serial rapist/harasser/assaulter. They definitely couldn't be elected president, especially if there was audio/video evidence. Impossible I say.
Avenatti sure knows how to make the cons melt. You want to drain the swamp? You want to upset the apple cart? You want Washington turned upside down? Well, this guy’s doing it. Cons should be proud!
I find it amazing how all of a sudden Avenatti in the center of yet another story. Never even heard of him until Stormy Daniels. Yet I have to admit he seems kind of a slime ball, though perhaps effective.
Guy certainly comes off as a bit of a slimeball, but maybe it takes a NY slimeball to take on a NY slimeball. Still, he was proven to be spot on re: the Michael Cohen case. So cant really say he lacks credibility. He basically destroyed their lies with some good old fashioned aggressive lawyering. That doesn't mean this claim can't be looked at with skepticism, but how he exposed Cohen certainly earns him some credibility in my view. They were the liars, and he dominated them. I don't think this guy would take this story if he believed it false.
