Politico conveniently omits the little note in the New Yorker piece that the second accuser had to meet with her lawyer for 6 days to decide if she was even confident enough in her allegation to raise it... And if there is a third accuser represented by Avenatti, the fact that she’s represented by Avenatti would seem to be, in this political climate, in and of itself a pretty good reason to view it with a healthy dose of skepticism. Stringing together a bunch of dubious allegations and then insisting that they must be true because “look at all this smoke!” doesn’t actually make any of them any more credible.
Avenatti is a lawyer representing a client with a duty to that client. On the other hand, you have made your credibility decision based on your political views and without a professional investigation. So, stop the “bias” assertions. This is very easy: let the professionals investigate. Now, it is time to wonder what the people who support this nomination fear that an investigation will reveal.
What in the wide wide world of sports are you talking about? I've already said Feinstein played games with the timing of bringing this sexual assault allegation forward. Which is exactly what she did. She did it without regard for justice for either the victim or the accused. And I've even said she should be sanctioned for it. In this thread. But that doesn't change the fact that both parties have been playing politics with this nomination the whole way, and have no interest in justice here.
But, if they are credible and an investigation is not done, a sexual predator might be elevated to the Supreme Court. Credibility decisions are not made by newspaper stories.
It's not what an investigation will reveal... It's the length of time an investigation would take... If this was brought up, in any sort of timely, fashion, whatsoever... I can assure you, there would be virtually no complaints... But seeing as the statute of limitations has passed for a criminal trial on sexual assault... One can only ask what the purpose of an investigation is... If that purpose is strictly evaluative purposes for eligibility for the Supreme Court, then it is the job of the committee to handle that investigation... Not the FBI... Not even the local police department (EDIT: Though that would be the best bet of anyone not named the committee)... Statute of Limitations matter... The law matters... Due process matters...
I’m not married to Kavanaugh - in fact I’d get a pretty good chuckle if the WH pulled his nomination and rammed someone well to his right through. He was one of the most moderate names on Trump’s list. But the whole “none of these seem particularly credible, but we have belatedly raised a lot of them so now we have to conduct an open ended investigation and not confirm anyone” seems like a rather blatant delay tactic, no matter how much Dems try to play White Knight on the strategy.
I hate to say it but it's stuff like this that makes me lose faith in women. I don't believe any individual woman anymore when it comes to sexual assault allegations, unless there is absolute concrete proof. I have to check myself because it's stuff like that that makes me tempted to run back to MGTOW. I know that's not the way to go but it's oh so appealing when it comes to stuff like what's happening now.
The statute of limitations has not passed in Maryland. As for the time it will take, too bad. This is a nominee to the Supreme Court. The Committee is not equipped to investigate sexual assault allegations. I just wish the Republicans in the Senate and right wingers here would admit that they don’t care how many women Kavanaugh may have assaulted. Because you don’t.
We do care... That's where you're wrong... And if Feinstein really cared, she would have brought this up immediately, and not sat on it for almost two months... If she truly wanted justice and not a delay.... she would have made the decision easy, not exploited the situation by keeping this story as an "ace in the hole."
I think an accuser is going to have to provide an accusation that is backed up by first hand witness of the happenings rather than second and third hand accounts of the events. As of right now, we have zero allegations backed up by first hand accounts other than the women making the accusations. Second and third hand accounts are not the same as first hand accounts.
If they’re so credible, why did none of the Democrats on the Committee who the stories were brought to think they merited mentioning?
Because you don't want it to be... How does this sound... Let's have the investigation... Hell, these allegations are serious enough as it is, let's recuse Kavanaugh given the sexual assault allegations for the sake of timeliness... On condition that we push Barrett through the Supreme Court... I can assure you, she has not sexually assaulted anybody... Women do have the ability to sexually assault men... but not women that attractive...
Obviously, the second one just came forward. You need time to try to do some vetting. The first one was obvious why. Feinstein held it until the last minute for a political advantage.
Actually yes... And Democrats have a right to be upset over that... But if Garland is what this is about, they should just say so.... Not club Republicans with "sexual assault allegations." That's just gross...
No more than the Democrats, who took a sexual assault allegation and used it solely for their own political gain. They give at least as few shits about this woman as the GOP does.
