If there needs to be a corroborating witness to believe an accusation of rape or sexual assault, then most will never be believed. It's not like those committing sexual assault do so out in public. Most assaults happen with only 2 witnesses. Those claiming Dr. Ford needs a witness to corroborate are moving the goalposts. Digging all dirt on a woman and dragging their names through the mud after an accusation has to stop. It's sleazy and a big reason why the majority of assaults go unreported. How many here have 100% clean histories? How many here would love their entire sexual, economic, and personal histories up for judgement after you have been assaulted? Let's see what happens tomorrow. If Dr. Ford seems at all credible, let the other accusers testify. A seat on the SCOTUS is too important to have serious doubts about whether or not a judge has assaulted women. I'll ask again. If the allegations are credible, do you really want Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS?
Side note from reading that committee investigator interview transcript: If a Dem asks Kavanaugh about the “Fffffffourth of July” yearbook entry tomorrow, you may get to hear a Supreme Court nominee use the f word live on C-SPAN. He said in the investigative interview that it was a football team inside joke about a teammate who would yell “fffff**k you!” with repeated f’s when he got mad and, being 17, they thought that that was hilarious. (Sorry mods, I’m not entirely sure how to relay this story, which centers around the f word, without using a censored version of the f word.)
I don't know, man. Read the New Yorker article again. Mark Judge's ex-GF talks about something he told her that sounds awfully similar to what the third accuser describes. And another woman says the same thing in that paragraph (or the next one). @GatorBen makes valid points that the affidavit was written in a way to sensationalize it to a degree, but there's also a lot in there that is incredibly disconcerting even when the sensationalism is stripped away.
His explanation there actually makes sense, especially in light of his calendar (because there was a party noted on the 4th).
I asked about her appearing because as of last night Difi could not confirm that Dr. Ford would appear. Submitting everything thing she has appears to be a good faith effort that she wil. However, Senate JC Democrats calling for an FBI investigation or a withdraw of Kavanaugh appears to be another attempt to delay the hearing. Have you heard any confirmation that Dr. Ford has committed to testifying tomorrow? I am seriously asking not trying to say one way or the other. It still seemed up in the air today. As far as the third accuser, I don’t like reporters to start digging into someone’s personal life from a cold start. I don’t think anyone would want the national press corps digging into their personal life and any legal issues they have had during the course of it. However, if someone allows their lawyer to handle their accusations like Avenatti has and try and drop a bombshell at this critical time, you cannot be surprised if the press starts digging into publicly available information to understand more about a person with no time to ask questions on background. Making this woman available a few days in advance would have changed the way the media handled her story.
She wasn’t raped, what she claimed happened was supposedly witnessed by someone. But that person denies seeing it. I’m not dragging her through the mud, just asking for a little evidence.
I forgot about Feinstein saying that. My bad. Her actions today are strong indicators that she's planning to testify tomorrow. I haven't heard anything from her camp saying she won't. I guess we'll see. My issue is that her past tax issues (which were satisfied according to the WaPo) has nothing to do with her allegations. It's simply a means to attack her. Likewise, putting an ex on the record, when it's clear there was a nasty split, also feels underhanded.(especially with what they reported) Obviously, it would be relevant to point out if she was posting a bunch of over the top NeverTrump or anti-Republican stuff on social media. It would be relevant if there were issues in her background that speak to a lack of truthfulness (like a conviction for perjury or embezzlement or fraud). But none of what they reported really went to that at all. It was dredging up a bitter ex who used the platform to launch a bunch of attacks on her and tax records that make it seem like she has money issues, until it's pointed out that they were satisfied long before Kennedy retired.
AZ - we now have two stories where the other people identified by the accusers have stated they have no recollections of the events of the accusers based on the witnesses the accusers provided. That is significantly different than witnesses saying, “I was there and and remember that party but I didn’t see anything.” No eye witnesses can place Kavanaugh at the time and location of the accusers accounts. Providing enough detail is important as it gives the accused the ability to provide an alibi. Someone accused of something like this has to be given disprovable information to provide an alibi.
Ford wasn't raped, but in her sworn testimony she said she felt she would have had Judge not hopped on the bed and knocked Kavanaugh off the bed. If Ford's accusation is true, the fact that Ford escaped before Kavanaugh could "finish" is not a plus for him. Judge is the third person in the room with Ford, and all he had said is he doesn't remember. But then Judge wrote a book about being a drunk during high school, often passing out and partying hard. Not a great character witness for Kavanaugh. And certainly someone the FBI would have spoken to if there was an investigation. And who knows what the highly trained investigators at the FBI would have found. They might have even discovered some corroborating evidence that @CaptUSMCNole might have accepted? Maybe not. But at the very least, an FBI investigation would have helped shine a light on both parties in this he said/she said scenario to help decide who is more credible. Which is what these cases often boil down to. The fact that two other women have come forward, and third has possibly gone forward anonymously, this lends credibility to Dr. Ford.
Fox News reporting that the investigation timeline prepared by the Committee and circulated tonight notes that on Monday and Tuesday of this week they interviewed a man who approached them and provided a written statement to the Committee who believes that he had the encounter with Dr. Ford that she is describing, and described their encounter “in some detail.”
I think a lot of that could have been avoided if Avenatti had handled this in a better manner. He could have provided background information on her and allowed the press to some basic vetting and then answered those questions. By dropping the accusations and her name on a short timeline before a very sensitive hearing, Avenatti did his client a disservice as the press were forced to go on publicly available information to verify her claims. They are in a time crunch and the accuser was not available for comment.
They actually interviewed two different men who each believed they were the man who sexually assaulted her. Sounds like the anonymous allegations against Kavanaugh. Crazy people who want attention.
Not sure on link, I have Shannon Bream’s Fox News @Night on and their Capitol correspondent just said it on the air.
It sounds to me like his client is the one who made the call. I don't like Avenatti, but she's the one who makes the call on when to go public.
Understood but I think it is her lawyer’s responsibility to let her know the major implications of what that decision entails vs just saying, yeah let’s go with that. Disagree?
I would push back on that idea. I don’t think anyone entering this political dogfight with clear eyes would expect their personal life not to be dragged out into the street unless someone promised it wouldn’t be. Avenatti not knowing about the ex-boyfriend seems to be a tip-off that he didn’t do his homework.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...d-senate-staffers-they-had-the-encounter-with Looks like they interviewed one of the two men twice, on the 24th and 25th with him describing “his recollection of the interaction in some detail.” That man then submitted a written statement on the 26th. They interviewed another man who had contacted the Committee on the 26th.
