Congress, Criminal law, Media, Politics, Society

Arizona Sex Crimes Prosecutor Hired To Question Ford and Kavanaugh

senate_large_sealThe Senate Judiciary Committee has announced the identity of the lawyer who will conduct the primary questions of both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes bureau chief for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in Phoenix, is someone with considerable experience in not such sex crimes but delayed sex crime prosecutions.  It is an unusual step for the Committee but not unprecedented.  Congress will hire outside counsel or allow counsel to question witnesses on some occasions, particularly at fact-finding stages.  I was hired a lead counsel to represent the United States House of Representatives in the successful challenge of the unilateral funding decisions of the Affordable Care Act by President Barack Obama.

Mitchell is without question highly credentialed in the field.  She has done this work for 26 years.

It is also obvious that this move has a political purpose. As I have previously discussed, the Republicans were looking at the worst possible optics in having an all-male majority bench question a woman claiming to be the victim of an attempted rape.  This gives the senators a political cushion in having a woman with a long history of supporting victims conduct the questioning.

For Kavanaugh, the timing is particularly bad with the sentencing of Bill Cosby based on long dormant allegations.  The difference is that Cosby implicated himself in the drugging allegations and the number of women coming forward were both numerous and consistent in their accounts.  Kavanaugh is facing accounts with little direct corroboration and Democratic senators who have announced in advance that they believe the accuser or even equivocating on whether he has a presumption of innocence.  There are similar views of bias of some Republican senators who seemed to dismiss the allegations before any testimony is heard.  One Republican Senate candidate even said that Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if the alleged attempted rape is true.

Most people I have spoken to simply want a fair and impartial hearing.  They are less interested in who asks the questions as much as how those questions are answered.  In the meantime, the second accuser, Deborah Rameriz, says that she would be willing to testify but there is no indication that she has been asked.  The Committee has scheduled the final committee vote for the very next day, Friday, which would allow the matter to then go to the floor of the Senate.

266 thoughts on “Arizona Sex Crimes Prosecutor Hired To Question Ford and Kavanaugh”

    1. Something good could come from this. It won’t, but it could. Character either counts or it doesn’t. No one is perfect but integrity makes all the difference. We wouldn’t be concerned about such allegations if Harry S. was on the hot seat. He had integrity. Few do, but our elected representatives should be ensconced in integrity.

      It starts with our judiciary and ours is the most corrupt institution in America. We have criminals trained in the law stealing money and making deals like nothing else in our history including all the organized crime cats combined.

  2. https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/julie-swetnick/

    “Michael Avenatti
    ✔
    @MichaelAvenatti

    Brett Kavanaugh is a liar. His “I was just an innocent boy” claims on Fox are laughable and an insult to any American with common sense. They are irreconcilable with the yearbook, many witnesses, & my clients.
    His claims about the drinking age at the time also appear to be false.

    7:34 AM – Sep 25, 2018”

    1. At a bare minimum The Senate must subpoena Mark Judge and question him under oath before they vote Kavanaugh out of committee. Mark Judge knows the truth about Kavanaugh. The Senate must also learn the truth about Kavanaugh.

      2. Since you know the truth about what Mark Judge knows (presumed he has talked to you directly), why don’t you share with us?

        1. The statement that Mark Judge knows the truth about Kavanaugh neither implies, nor entails, nor even presupposes that anyone else knows the truth about Kavanaugh, let alone that anyone else has spoken directly to Mark Judge.

          Bob is illiterate.

      2. Mark Judge is the one refusing to stand up and answer questions. And Grassely et al are the one’s refusing to stand up and subpoena Mark Judge so that he can be questioned under oath.

        Maybe Bob should sit down . . . with a good book. How’s about “God and Man at Georgetown Prep” by Mark Judge.

        1. Mark Judge will plead the fifth which is his right and any sane person would do
          He has the presumption of innocence same as Kav. but Judge is no whale article III judge so he better just adopt a hedgehog defense, as it seems he has from what you say. wise

          1. That’s fine. No problema. Have you forgotten what Trump says about people who plead the Fifth Amendment. It’s not very charitable.

            1. he’s no lawyer. thank God we need a real knuckle dragger at the top who hasnt been afflicted by our conventions nor the hobgoblin of little minds

    3. I have seen many analysts saying that Christine Blasey Ford was lying and that could be true . What I see is a missed point. Kavanaugh did not act in a manner consistent with the demeanor I want to see in a Supreme Court Judge. He could be innocent of the incident however he did not handle it in the way I expect an adult to respond let alone a judge . We will be a 3rd world country in no time at this rate

      1. What I see is a missed point. Kavanaugh did not act in a manner consistent with the demeanor I want to see in a Supreme Court Judge. He could be innocent of the incident however he did not handle it in the way I expect an adult to respond let alone a judge.

        How did you perceive Judge Kavanaugh’s demeanor during his 3 days of confirmation questioning? Was it consistent with someone looking to be confirmed for SCOTUS?

        Regarding the allegation from Ford and Brett Kavanaugh’s Thursday appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee for questioning; what is the appropriate demeanor for a man facing an interrogation over an allegation he committed violent sex crimes? Consider this man was put in a position of assumed guilt, he, his family and his entire life’s work had been savaged by the media, was facing the loss of his entire career, and he had to come up with a defense against allegations that hadn’t any corroborating evidence.

        In my opinion, had Brett Kavanaugh the son, husband and father not defended himself that Thursday in the manner in which he did, he would have had many questioning his innocence. Were some of his statements unnecessary? Sure. But then again, how would you respond in such a situation?

  4. If i were young man again and thank God I am not, I would NEVER go to a beer party and NEVER have sex at one if I did. we can see that for old guys the fact that they MAY HAVE done such a thing a long time ago will now put them in jeopardy of a tardy false accusation by some woman who took 30 some years to realize she was a “victim”

    women should remember that FALSE REPORTING a crime that did not happen, is itself a CRIME which may also entail PERJURY and prosecutors need to dust these off and put into action fast

    American men need to now do what they have long need to do but failed to do:
    form an absolute phalanx of resistance against feminism and all such mischief as this.

    1. Mr. Kurtz, your call to arms sounds suspiciously similar to the written works of Mark Judge. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. But a curious one, nonetheless.

      1. im not mark judge. he’s an important person and I am just a peasant
        and i havent read it. do you have a link?

        MGTOW —look that up. it’s not a new thing.

        1. OFCOLA. I know you’re not Mark Judge. I’m just trying to get your goat. Because the lyrics to the tune “an absolute phalanx of resistance against feminism” really light a fire under the seat of ruby red Harley Davidson. I’m putting my vagina helmet on even as I click the post comment button.

            1. Oh For Crying Out Loud Already. OFCOLA. Unfurl your free speech, Heart of Darkness. Let it fly. I won’t tell anybody. I promise.

              1. i dont keep up with acronyms such as that sorry

                free speech only applies for leftists.

                rightward points of view get banned by Silicon valley…
                … and people with licenses can get in trouble from false accusations

                I’m just a poor country lawyer so i can’t afford to break the RPC or even come close like avenatti who is the darling of mass media

                so far the only thing i have in common with him besides a decent suits or two, is having represented an alleged sex worker; but mine weren’t trying to blackmail anybody or get into the papers, they were just minding their own business and trying to stay out of the paper.

                maybe there’s a lesson here. nobody is accusing DJT of sex crimes. just being a cad. he always paid i hear, sometimes dearly, but you gotta pay women for working so to speak, or, they feel cheated i guess

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=597OdMXg5LQ

                keep that in mind young fellers: you’re gonna pay for it one way or another

                1. Okay, Matlock. Being a natural born city slicker, myself, I know better than to wrangle with a poor country lawyer. Although, I never found out the hard way. I just figured it out from watching TV.

    2. Thanks, anonymous. I don’t see how they can sweep Julie Swetnick’s declaration under the rug. And even with the nuclear option McConnell will need three of the following five Senators to invoke cloture and proceed to a vote; Collins, Corker, Flake, Murkoski or Sasse. The Senate schedule has twenty days in session in October. McConnell might not get an up or down vote on Kavanaugh. It looks like Republicans now need to gain at least three Senate seats in the midterm election. If they don’t, then they’ll have a hard time ignoring the consequences of what they did with the nomination of Merrick Garland.

      1. I submitted a comment in reply, L4D, but I’m not seeing it, yet. Anyway — again — the next few days should be especially interesting. And thanks for the additional information.

        1. Turley’s system is probably on the fritz because L4D is posting on the day shift. To paraphrase Dr. Strangelove, “Mein Fuhrer, I can type!”

          1. Gen. Jack D. Ripper: I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

            1. Dr. Strangelove was a fictional character in a satirical movie (a.k.a. a spoof, or a lampoon, possibly even a farce). You could tell because his injured hand was constantly trying to strangle him.

      2. so its about retribution for garland. of course. thanks for confirming that

        there will be retribution for this, too

        1. Nope. That’s not it. You can have your stinking retribution to your dark heart’s content. Just so soon as you accept responsibility for your own actions. You see, that’s what it’s really about. Not the retribution thing. The cheaters are the ones who make the rules. The cheaters make the rules so that the cheaters win. If the cheaters lose, then it’s axiomatic that the cheaters’ rules have been “violated.” That’s the none-to-secret meaning behind the phrase “cheater’s proof.”

          2. if you’re trying to say that all legislators are probably bad guys in the first place, then, i would be tempted to agree with you. i think judges are generally a little bit better people on the average but i am not God so I really don’t know.

      3. Thanks, anonymous. I don’t see how they can sweep Julie Swetnick’s declaration under the rug.

        Julia Swetnick is two years older than Kavanaugh and Judge and her family home was 20 miles distant from the Kavanaugh home. She’d have completed high school in 1980 or 1981. The notion that she was during the years running from 1980 to 1983 immersed in the social circle of Kavanaugh and Judge is decidedly implausible, much less the notion that they were running rape gangs (which previous FBI background checks never discovered) unbeknownst to others who indubitably knew Kavanaugh and Judge well, is rather rich.

        1. In that case, Ms. Mitchell should have no trouble impeaching Ms. Swetnick’s testimony . . . other than the current fact that Ms. Swetnick has not yet been invited to give testimony. I bet you’re really looking forward to seeing Ms. Mitchell rip Ms. Swetnick a new one. Aren’t you? Get on the phone to Grassely–STAT–and demand that he extend an invitation to Ms. Swetnick for her testimony before SJC. It could work. Or not. What do you think?

      4. Late4Dinner:

        “I don’t see how they can sweep Julie Swetnick’s declaration under the rug.” Asking her to come forward and testify is not sweeping anything under the rug, nor is asking for evidence.

        Although Avenatti has released a statement, she has not yet officially come forward to the committee. Her attorney stated that she is deciding when to do that. So she accused Kavanaugh of running a gang rape ring, but is hesitating to come forward to the committee? What is she waiting for?

        Come forward, testify, and prove it.

        Sweeping accusations under the rug does not mean what you think it means. Republicans have been confident in begging and pleading with Dr Ford to testify. Ramirez has declined. This new person, who claims to have stood by while girls were raped, continued to attend the parties, and then drank drinks she knew to be spiked to get gang raped herself, had better come forward to the committee and prove it.

        Her story stinks. If you make an allegation of such egregious criminal behavior, you’d better be able to prove it. Face the music and testify.

    3. Julia Swetnick would be the daughter of Martin Jay Swetnick. The Swetnick home was in Gaithersburg, Md. The Kavanaugh home was in Bethesda, Md. She identifies herself as a graduate of Gaithersburg High School. The Swetnick home is 20 miles from the Kavanaugh home in a glob of suburban tract development that at that time encompassed 500,000 people. A public records search assigns her a date of birth of 30 December 1962.

      So, let me get this straight. A woman who was and is two years older than Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, who lived 20 miles away from them, and who completed high school in 1980 or 1981 (when Kavanaugh and Judge were 15 or 16 years of age) socialized with them regularly during the period running from 1980 to 1983 and was raped by those in their circle of friends.

      While we’re at it, the photograph Avenatti tweeted must be 20 years old, if not older.

      1. actually who knows maybe she had sex with him when he was a minor and she is the one guilty of statuory rape. interesting possibility.

        gee, come to think of it. when I was a minor maybe I had a few 18 year olds, and I was a VICTIM too! boohoo! Call the doctor this explains my ptsd after all. maybe I should file charges– first i will check and see if any of them are rich and famous now…. then i will call mikey avenatti

      2. TatodaPy said, “A woman who . . . lived 20 miles away . . . (when Kavanaugh and Judge were 15 or 16 years of age) . . . ”

        Rumor has it that Judge and Kavanaugh were not limited to horse-and-buggy transportation. But it’s just a rumor and, of course, there’s no proof that either of them ever travelled by automobile “during the period running from 1980 to 1983.” But then there’s no proof that Kavanaugh or Judge ever used a telephone “during the period running from 1980 to 1983”, either. There is, however, some scientific evidence that Kavanaugh, Judge, Swetnick and pretty much everyone and everything else are remote effects of the big bang from which the known universe is said to have resulted–including the Washington D. C. area in which the alleged parties are said to have been held. There’s no indication that the big bang is even admissible as evidence to warrant the allegations against Kavanaugh and Judge. There is only the insinuation that TatodaPy is prepared to “question everything”, if needs be.

        1. L4D – I did not do any partying in high school more than 10 miles from my house and that was literally outside the city limits. We never partied with any of the community college people. Once you graduated from high school, you were in a different social sphere.

      1. By her testimony, she stayed at the party watching girls get drugged and gang raped, with a line of rapists awaiting their turn. Did nothing about it. Never reported it. And she continued to attend these rape parties, as did all the other girls. She drank drinks that she knew were spiked with date rape drugs, and then complained that she got gang raped herself by a line of guys.

          1. That could explain her inaction, and repeated attendance at alleged gang rape parties.

            She should be accused of running a sex trafficking ring, but no one can remember exactly where or when, and there are no witnesses. She will have to prove her innocence.

    5. Would that be the one where she claimed that she saw girls drugged and gang raped by rape trains, did nothing about it, continued to go to these rape parties, drank the drinks there knowing they were spiked with date rape drugs, got drugged herself, and got gang raped, all led by Kavanaugh? That makes her just as culpable in the gang rape she alleges happened to other girls, as any guy who stood there and did nothing about it, and told no one.

      The one where 6 FBI investigations, journalists, and a variety of investigators were unable to corroborate that Kavanaugh pawed a woman against her will in a private room, and yet no one heard about him trafficking women, openly, at parties, drugging and gang raping them?

      No one mentioned this for 36 years? No one thought of this until the other day? Desperate attempts to corroborate Dr Ford’s accusation didn’t turn this up? That is not possible.

      Do you have any idea how hundreds of people, rapists, drug dealers, victims, and bystanders, were all able to stay quiet about this and not tell a soul? Not a single mass raped victim came forward? The medical community didn’t mention that there was an epidemic of girls experiencing injuries from gang rapes?

      This strains credulity.

      With Bill Cosby, there were complaints going back for decades. There was corroboration at the time. There was a time line of accusations of sexual assault. Self incrimination in his statements about drugging and having sex with women. Keith Ellison’s accuser has a contemporary eye witness, reports made at the time, complaints to family, friends, and coworkers made at the time, therapy appointments naming him at the time, emails and texts discussing the abuse with Ellison, 911 calls…

      You do not have this here.

      I think this is political terrorism.

      Let her testify tomorrow in front of a sex crimes prosecutor. Bring forth her evidence. It is literally impossible for a gang rape ring to leave no trace and have no witnesses making statements back in 1982.

      As for Dr Ford, I discovered another inconsistency. She told her therapist in 2012 that there were 4 boys in the room, she was in her late teens, and she did not name Kavanaugh. If she was in her late teens, Kavanaugh would have been off at college and off the hook. She recently changed her story to 15 years old, 2 guys, and then named Kavanaugh and Judge. Therapists are trained to take detailed notes, which can be used in court. Her excuse is that her therapist got it wrong. Everyone she named, including her own close friend, denied this happened.

      The second accuser called classmates after she made the accusation and admitted she was really unsure if it was Kavanaugh. She was hoping they could jog her memory, but none of them could. Again, not credible.

      Political terrorism. Black Shirts. The violent people on videos attacking and harassing conservatives may have taken this a step further. We need to start fighting back. This latests accusation strains credulity. This allegedly happened in public, and would require the accuser to have stood by and not only done nothing while other girls were gang raped, but to have deliberately drank something and been gang raped herself. And then hundreds of people kept it a secret for 36 years.

      That makes absolutely no sense.

      This may be the straw that breaks the camels back with me and the Democratic Party. I fear becoming prejudiced against the Left as threatening and dangerous, but extremism has become mainstreamed. There is no limit to what the Left seems capable of. All their leaders lack is a cigar, aviators, and sunglasses. I have had enough of the push for a Single Party state, and the assault on conservatives.

      It is inconceivable that Kavanaugh could have openly run a gang rape ring, not just once, but over and over again, and that girls would continue to go to those parties, no one called the police, no one told anyone, no one remembered this, and it was kept hidden from 6 FBI investigations. It’s not possible. There would be not only witnesses suddenly remembering this today, but a long chronological history of witnesses talking about it, seeking therapy, fights between boyfriends and fathers and rapists…In short, people would have been discussing this from 1982 to the present. It is not in the least bit credible that a rape ring led by Kavanaugh would be suddenly recalled in 2018, and never before.

      Where is the evidence? Do we need a Political Terrorism Act? Laws to punish those who fabricate stories in order to scuttle political or career aspirations? If they admit it was all a lie, it will be too late for Kavanaugh if he is voted out of the running for SCOTUS. No way to make him whole. No way to ever regain bipartisanship and trust between the parties. If they are willing to fabricate such egregious accusations for political purposes, then they are dangerous and untrustworthy. How could you ever consider reaching across the aisle to someone who would do this to you?

      The repercussions of this vile behavior will be long lasting. Voters just might have to pick Republicans and Libertarians with more backbone. The Democrats are not going to like having those willing to work with them replaced with people more hardened against them. Action. Consequence.

      I didn’t know anything about Kavanaugh until recently. If he was a Bill Cosby rapist, I would have been happy to have him excluded. Based on the evidence, I firmly believe he is being targeted by political operatives. I had no preconceived ideas about him, no attachment. Would have considered it a lucky break to have a rapist disqualified. He’s not. He’s a victim. This debacle is a slap in the face to rape victims everywhere.

      1. oh, don’t insult fascists by comparing these feminists and blackmailers to black shirts

        but black shirts may make a come back for sure. when the state can’t protect the people the people gotta form up and protect themselves

      2. Karen S – I was just thinking. You don’t suppose those boys were standing in line for the bathroom. You rent beer, you don’t own it. 😉

        And she is an accessory after the fact on the gang rape of the girls, assuming that to be true. However, if that was true, why would they be offering themselves up as sacrificial goats?

        1. If she knew the drinks were spiked with date rape drugs, why didn’t she warn the girls? Why would she continue to go to rape parties? She described forceful sex trafficking. And yet, by her own voluntary admission, she went to at least 10 of these “parties.” What is she, a madame?

          None of these girls knew they were going into a brothel? A gang rape den? Word never got out? And this “victim” just skipped back over and over again, and just avoided the punch until one time, when she either drank the punch or some other drink was spiked?

          If this really happened, then it would be poetic justice if a callous and cold hearted woman failed to warn girls the drinks were laced with date rape drugs, watched a line of guys date rape the girls, failed to get them medical attention, failed to report it to the police or anyone else, and then continued to go to the parties until it happened to her.

          It is my understanding that people can be prosecuted if they know about a gang rape set up, and neither warn the victim nor do anything about it. I think that would be aiding and abetting with silence. Or maybe she was a voyeur to sexual assault.

          By her own admission, she regularly attended gang rape parties of helpless girls. Did she bring any of the victims to the party? Invite anyone? That would make her a criminal in sex trafficking and sexual assault.

          1. Karen S – these are the dumbest girls in North America, I swear to God. What kind of standards do those schools have?

          2. technically not since there was no such crime as “sex trafficking” in the 80s, that was a Hillary era initiative of a later decades. oh, there was pimping and various forms of other stuff that they all bundled into “sex trafficking” to make a new crime out of old ones that didn’t have any cachet. suddenly, it was a human rights issue instead of just another excuse to disrupt sex workers plying their trades.

            but your point is legit

    6. “She does not say Kavanaugh participated in the alleged rape or what, if any, role he played, nor does she say where the alleged episode took place.”

      From WaPo article

      1. Attorney: Is this your signed affidavit?
        Witness: Yes
        Attorney: Did Dr. Ford say Brett Kavanaugh was the man who attacked her?
        Witness: No.
        Attorney: I’m done here.

        -Kim Priestap tweet

      2. “Dr. Ford’s polygraph letter contradicts letter she sent to Feinstein. Polygraph letter says “4 boys and a couple of girls” were at party. Letter to Feinstein says “me and four others.” No way to reconcile the two—irrespective of whether she’s counting herself in polygraph letter.”

        -Charles C.W. Cooke tweet

      3. Blasey-Ford said:

        “July 30 (to Dianne Feinstein): It was me and four other people.

        August 7 (to polygraph examiner): There were four boys and a couple of girls.

        September 16 (to Washington Post reporter): There were three boys and one girl.”

        1. Don’t forget her therapist’s notes from 2012 stated there were 4 boys who assaulted her in the room, and Kavanaugh was not named.

          Is this TDS?

  6. I am glad the matter is pressing forward.

    Dr Ford has submitted the statements of 4 people whom she told about the alleged attack. All were after her allegedly repressed memory came up during her therapy session with her husband. At least one person wasn’t told until 2016. There is not a single person that she has produced who corroborated that Kavanaugh did this to her in 1982.

    There was nothing for 30 years, and then all of a sudden, it was Kavanaugh.

    The NYT did not publish the account of the other accuser, Ramirez, because after she released her statement to the press, she called other classmates and admitted she really wasn’t sure it was him.

    Based on the information that I have, I do not believe that Kavanaugh did this. Not a single person whom Ford named at the party, including her own friend, supported her story. Those were contemporary to the alleged event.

    What is especially troubling is that I have assumed that she was indeed assaulted by 2 (or 4, according to her therapist) guys. I thought if her friend did not recall this happening with Kavanaugh, she might have remembered it occurring with someone else. But she said did not know about this at all. Did anything happen? So far, there is no evidence.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/new-york-times-new-yorker-spar-over-kavanaugh-story.html

    “The New York Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate Ms. Ramirez’s story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”

    Please note that the above statement from the NYT was made after Ramirez declared herself a second accuser. That is a significant problem. If I was on a jury, and someone accused a man of exposing himself to her, and then afterword admitted to classmates that she actually was not sure, no one in good conscience could consider that accusation against him.

    I adored Bill Cosby. But when it came out that there were decades of women, all with similar stories, he implicated himself in admitting he drugged and slept with women, he paid women off, there was an established predatory pattern. My enjoyment of Dr Huckstable, and his comedy, had no effect on my ability to see his guilt. It made it all the more sad, but the facts were clear. Similarly, there is significant evidence against Keith Ellison – an eyewitness, reports made at the time, therapy sessions at the time, conversations with coworkers at the time, text messages with Ellison discussing the abuse, emails…There is a preponderance of evidence. I cannot imagine anything more damning, except perhaps for a video of the abuse.

    That is not what we have here. If there was evidence of Kavanaugh preying upon women, I would have no trouble condemning him. Instead, there is evidence he was a studious boy, without experience with women, and not a single eye witness corroborates the allegations. Rather, I suspect this is politically motivated, and an abuse of sexual misconduct allegations. Dr Ford has resisted and delayed giving testimony, even though the committee has offered to let her do so on camera, off camera, in a private room with people coming in one by one, or with only females talking to her, bitterly complained about the possibility of being asked any questions, and now her legal team is objecting to a prosecutor trained in sex crimes asking her questions. What in the world do Senators know about questioning an alleged victim and alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse? I have never seen an alleged victim behave like an entitled diva. Having known real rape survivors, it is highly troubling that Dr Ford has presented herself in this manner.

    We will have to see how the hearing unfolds.

    1. I suppose I can see how it is true that people can become prejudiced one way or another prior to a hearing, based on the information they have already reviewed.

      From what I have learned, I am inclined towards exonerating Kavanaugh. We will have to see what happens.

      1. “I am inclined towards exonerating Kavanaugh.” So says Karen S.

        She also said:

        “I adored Bill Cosby.”

        1. Based on the evidence, I am inclined towards exonerating Kavanaugh. Based on the evidence, I condemned Bill Cosby. My personal feelings about his comedy and acting were immaterial to the facts. Kavanaugh was unknown to me, so I had no prior opinion about him, whatsoever. I have formed my opinion through researching him recently.

          Critical reasoning compared with emotional arguments. Defending Bill Cosby because you adored his TV character is an emotional argument. Condemning Kavanaugh as a sexual predator because of his beliefs about abortion is an emotional argument.

          Really? You think well known rape trains escaped the notice of 6 FBI investigations, Ronan Farrow, the NYT, various other news magazines, private investigators, and all other failed efforts to corroborate a story about pawing? Mass gang rapes escaped everyone’s notice all this time? You don’t think 65 women who knew Kavanaugh for more than 36 years would have heard about his orchestrating rape trains?

          Because I don’t see “Gang Rape a Girl” on any of his calendar entries, among “grounded”, or “camp.”

          1. https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/julie-swetnick/

            “Michael Avenatti
            ✔
            @MichaelAvenatti

            Brett Kavanaugh is a liar. His “I was just an innocent boy” claims on Fox are laughable and an insult to any American with common sense. They are irreconcilable with the yearbook, many witnesses, & my clients.
            His claims about the drinking age at the time also appear to be false.

            7:34 AM – Sep 25, 2018”

            1. My comment was not intended to be a reply to Karen’s, but it looks like that’s how it was posted. My error, perhaps.

              1. Given that Karen S presumes Kavanaugh to be so fastidious about personal planning that he would have penciled in “gang rape a girl” on his prep school calendar then offered the absence of said entry as exculpatory evidence, it doesn’t really matter that anonymous’s comment about Avenatti calling Kavanaugh a liar posted under Karen S’s comment. It all comes out in the wash, as they say.

                1. Diane, I think you should quit having conversations with your sock-puppets. It’s creepy.

                  2. The idea that anonymous is anybody’s sock-puppet is . . . sexist–defined as a rhetorical thrust in argument.

                    1. How can it be sexist against an anonymous poster? How are any of us to know the sex of the poster, or their sock puppets?

                    2. All you have to do is pay attention to anonymous when she says that she is a woman. Then you can tell that anonymous is a woman. Otherwise, we are left to wonder whether Karen S is a woman. Which we do not doubt for one instant. But it now seems as if Karen S might doubt that Karen S is a woman. Intriguing!

                    3. karen sounds like a woman to me. she said she adored the Cos. i laughed at his jokes but damn sure never adored him or any other male comic

                    4. Late4Dinner:

                      Ever hear about CatPhishing? Anonymous people online can say whatever they want about themselves. They can pretend they are young, old, male, female, or an alien. Or they can identify one way in the morning, and another at night. They can identify as an attorney or a pediatric nurse.

                      No one really knows who they are talking to online, with one exception. Obviously, generally speaking, sock puppets are all the same person. I have no idea if you are one and the same as any number of posters on this site, and I don’t really care.

                      What I do care about is sexism used as a weapon for political purposes…or sexual assault.

                    5. Tabarrok to the Pillory says: September 26, 2018 at 1:58 PM

                      Diane, I think you should quit having conversations with your sock-puppets. It’s creepy.

                      Late4Dinner says: September 26, 2018 at 2:41 PM

                      The idea that anonymous is anybody’s sock-puppet is . . . sexist–defined as a rhetorical thrust in argument.

                      Karen S says: September 26, 2018 at 2:48 PM

                      How can it be sexist against an anonymous poster?

                      Notice the use of the name “Diane” in the comment cited above. Remember the use of the names Annie, Inga and Elaine from numerous prior comments of the same type alleged against anonymous. Now listen closely, Karen S: Stop playing dumb. It’s sexist when a woman plays dumb.

                    6. L4D – it is not sexist for a woman to play dumb, if she, like you, really is dumb. And don’t tell me you haven’t role-played.

              1. IANAL, but does RPC 3.6 apply in the absence of a legal proceeding under way? How should I know. Let’s ask Avenatti. I’m not sure I trust Mr. Kurtz to give us a straight answer.

                1. you anal? what? i dont know what that means

                  I won’t bother, it’s a rule that the ethics capos fail to enforce on a regular basis

                  but old rules get dusted off sometimes like FARA so who knows what’s coming next. poor avenatti, first bankruptcy, now crazy clients, now this. have fun mikey, you lie down with female dogs you will get up with fleas

                  1. Oh you poor country lawyer, you. IANAL stands for I Am Not A Lawyer.

                    Julie Swetnick is not a female dog. And HoD did not give a straight answer to the question about RPC 3.6.

            3. He never said he was an innocent boy. He actually said that he drank, but never blacked out, and he never sexually assaulted anyone, or even had any kind of sex, in high school.

              The yearbook did not say that he slept with Renate. In fact, both he and Renate both said he did not have sex with her.

              You and Avenatti should get your facts straight.

              1. More intrigue. The curious thing about Kavanaugh’s “facts” is that he came awfully close to stating that he never sexually assaulted anyone because he never had sexual intercourse with anyon when he was in prep school nor for many years after that. Of all of the words one might think of to characterize Kavanaugh’s “facts,” getting “your facts straight” does not make the cut. He practically asserted a “no penetration” defense against the allegation of sexual assault. What’s next? A “no ejaculation” defense? He’s already on the record as “floating the notion” that he could not have done it because he did not write it down on his calendars. Did he record each of his ejaculations on his calendars? You know what? I don’t want to know the answer to that question.

                1. L4Yoga enables David Benson, R. Lien and Marky Mark Mark – I had a female friend who put a smiley face on her calendar for every orgasm she got. She just told me about it. I never saw the calendar. 😉

                2. “he came awfully close to stating that he never sexually assaulted anyone because he never had sexual intercourse with anyon when he was in prep school nor for many years after that.”

                  No. Poor reading comprehension. In different sentences he denied sexual assault, over and over and over again, with no qualifications.

                  Sexual assault does not require intercourse.

                  He also said that he had never had sexual intercourse until years after high school. Martha asked if he was a virgin, and he said yes.

                  He has been accused of very serious sexual assault crimes, including running a gang rape ring. I suppose he could also tick off every possible sex act he didn’t engage in while in high school.

                  Denying sexual assault means he denied any action that constitutes sexual assault. He also said, in response to the allegations, that it never happened.

                  He never quibbled about definitions or qualifiers. To claim that he did is dishonest.

                  This is political terrorism.

                  1. it’s a logical extension of decades of virulent man hating feminism which now bears evil, poisonous fruit against the men at the top; that is, men on team Republican. The Dems can do what they like. Thus we see how ideology is a weapon of war, indeed, “infowar,” a counterforce game of disinformation, misinformation, and abject slander.

                    if they can smear the men at the top like Kav then they can smear every one of us on down. take careful note

                    speech of Calcagus per Tacitus, insert “Democrats” for Romans

                    “….there are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but waves and rocks, and the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; they make a solitude and call it peace”

                  2. Karen S said, “Poor reading comprehension . . . Sexual assault does not require intercourse.”

                    Well, little Miss reading comprehender, given that sexual intercourse is not a requirement for sexual assault, please tell us why Kavanaugh stated that he had not had sexual intercourse with anyone in high school immediately after he stated that he had not ever sexually assulated anyone.

                    Oh! But those were separate sentences. And they were uttered back-to-back as though the second sentence completed the thought from the previous sentence. Once again, time to stop playing dumb, Karen S.

                    1. L4D – Judge Kavanaugh was covering all his bases, first, second, third and fourth. Which is the furthest base anyone got with you in high school? Did they score? Enquiring minds want to know.

                    2. Are you suggesting that sexual intercourse is a requirement for rape? And that Kavanaugh felt the need to deny rape as well as denying attempted rape or sexual assault? Why not just deny rape in plain language? Why deny having had sexual intercourse with anyone during prep school nor for many years after? I’m telling you, it’s lawyer talk. Kavanaugh is a lawyer practicing lawyer talk in that comment.

        2. Karen S has more integrity in one of her syllables than anonymous does in his collected bleatings.

  7. Turley says: “It is also obvious that this move has a political purpose. As I have previously discussed, the Republicans were looking at the worst possible optics in having an all-male majority bench question a woman claiming to be the victim of an attempted rape. This gives the senators a political cushion in having a women with a long history of supporting victims conduct the questioning.”

    So the “optics” are what troubles Republicans, not the fact that they are trying to rush confirmation of a SCOTUS candidate that was shaky to begin with and whom the majority of Americans don’t want on the SCOTUS. Do they think the American public is too stupid to understand what’s going on? Republicans don’t need a female to do their dirty work for them. Didn’t Hatch claim to be a former prosecutor who could tell whether a witness is lying? They think if a female goes after Dr. Ford, it solves their problem, because “optics” are their only problem. Optics are only visual proof of Republicans’ utter contempt for women who, by coming forward, thwart their attempts to stack the SCOTUS with radical conservative jurists who will vote to gut entitlement programs, assistance for low income people, consumer rights, environmental protections, and to protect the wealthy and powerful.

    How do they spin the fact that Lindsey Graham has said he’d vote in favor of Kavanaugh no matter what the evidence of sexual misconduct, plus the other Republican Senator who’d vote in favor of Kavanaugh even if actual rape was proven? Dr. Ford hasn’t even alleged rape. This shows utter contempt for women, bolstered by the fact that Republicans are trying to force the issue to boil down to a simple “he said–she said” situation, instead of allowing corroborating witnesses to testify and to present the entire story, or to have the FBI investigate, which Dr. Ford’s counsel has requested. The complete picture could certainly lend evidence to bolster or damage credibility of both parties. By denying a full investigation and the opportunity for corroborating and opposing witnesses to testify, Republicans can claim the well-rehearsed Kavanaugh was more believable, and avoid the “optics” that Ford was attacked by all-male, all-white Republicans. Story closed. So they think.

    Republican members of the Judiciary Committee won’t even return calls from Deborah Ramirez’s attorney, who wants to make arrangements for her to testify as well, Michael Avenatti has another witness who has corroborating evidence. Dr. Ford’s attorney wants to compel Mark Judge, Kavanaugh’s boozing buddy, to testify. How about explaining the Renate and 100 keg club references on Kavanaugh’s yearbook page? Why won’t Republicans allow the whole story about Kavanaugh to be told? Because this would take time. Kavanaugh is the only radical conservative who has opined that a sitting President is above the law, cannot be subpoenaed and cannot be brought to justice. Republicans are trying to force confirmation before the full facts are vetted, because they know what’s coming in November.This is all about protecting Trump, to keep him signing those Executive Orders. That is just plain disgusting, and most Americans see through this.

    1. ok let me get this right. is every woman that got drunk and screwed a couple guys or more in one night able to cry rape decades later?

      even though they voluntarily imbibed, apparently consented, and failed to report?

      1. Perhaps you missed the part of Ms. Swetnick’s declaration that mentioned spiking the punch with drugs or grain alcohol. Or else you just didn’t read it. BTW, Ms. Swetnick never drank the punch, so they spiked her drink separately from the punch bowl.

        1. im sure she knows all the details and has it down pat. i remember every drunken party from high school and college quite clearly myself. not.

          i wonder, if i had sex with two girls in one night when i was drunk, lets just say that hypothetically, does that mean I was abused? how about three? i mean i would feel ashamed of myself today if i had done that. if. maybe i was forced, coerced.

          Maybe a few times women touched me in an aggressive sexual way, actually, hundreds of times. maybe unwanted a few times or more. perhaps i should go file charges now. will i get paid if I do or just make a fool out of myself so many decades later? it hasnt happened in at least uh well i mean just hypothetically speaking of course.

          a lot of women out there should wonder if they are gonna get in trouble somehow too.
          the pendulum will swing back eventually

          sexually aggressive women exist? you bet they do. you bet. and some of them are famous. the thing about legal forms is, you just put new names in the blanks.

          maybe one day there will also be a market for lawsuits and claims against sexually aggressive lesbians. oh, i think they exist too from what i hear.

          famous sexually aggressive women: let’s think about how to hit back, legally speaking that is. it’s not a culture war until our side starts firing back one way or another. metaphorically i mean. so far all i see is a left on the attack and the right looks like a bunch of soy boys ready to cry like Kav in his interview. ok, let Kav.

          lose the choir boys and bring on a real neanderthal who won’t flinch; maybe like the great DJT. nor more mr nice guy.

          if women think this will get them sympathy, oh no. these exploitative, manipulative, extortionist accusations only earn contempt. what sympathy i had before,. which was a lot, years ago at least when I was a callow naive youth, has evaporated fast

        2. Late4Dinner – perhaps you missed the part where she said these parties were a gang rape ring, and yet she continued to attend them. She drank knowing the drinks were spiked with date rape drugs. She witnessed girls get raped by lines of boys in a rape train, did not attempt to help them, did not call the police, did not take the girls to a hospital, did not report it, did not talk about it, and continued to attend gang rape parties herself.

          Seems remarkably against her own self interest. Perhaps a runner up for the Darwin Award. Inconceivably stupid.

    2. Let me get this straight. Not a single person has corroborated any of these accusations at the time, and all of a sudden there were well known rape trains? Not a pawing in a private room where no one else saw, but open gang rapes like for trafficked women being forced into prostitution? And…not a single person heard of this or knew of this? All of a sudden, the night before the testimony, there were gang rape trains?

      Unless this is proven this is political terrorism. Put her before the prosecutor for her to testify. If she made this up, she is a terrorist targeting conservatives, and trying to frighten others from ever putting their name in the hat for SCOTUS.

      This is so egregious that it would be all over school, and people would have come out of the woodwork months ago to talk about this. They probably would have brought up gang rape decades ago, throughout Kavanaugh’s career. Those kinds of things tend to come out.

      Are we to seriously believe that hundreds of people kept silent – perpetrators, victims, and bystanders, for 36 years? And then no one remembered this during 6 FBI investigations of Kavanaugh? Multiple recent interviews by major news magazines? With all Ronan Farrow’s digging, he couldn’t come up with well known gang rapes orchestrated by Kavanaugh?

      Gang rapes can put girls into the hospital. I have visited a brutalized young woman in the hospital who was gang raped. There is no mistaking what happened. No passing it off. She was seriously injured. Traumatized. Not even remotely OK. If this was fabricated for political purposes, how dare they!

      Most of us have seen videos of Leftist extremists screaming and shouting at conservatives in restaurants, and following them outside. “You’ll never be safe,” they told Cruz. Maxine Watters said to tell them they are not welcome anywhere, anymore. Comedians hold severed bloody heads in effigy. People harass and shout down conservative speakers on campuses, or threaten them with violence. They will not allow them to speak. They view other people’s words as violence that justifies their own real violence. Leftists disown friends and family if they support Trump. The media brings on grieving conservatives and try to get them to bash Trump over McCain, the man they reviled when he aspired to high office but now revere because he quarreled with Trump.

      It is harassment, violence, and concerted efforts to overthrow a democratic election.

      How far will they go? I think we are going to see just how far. Any effort is justified when you think you are fighting evil. After all, how could you wrong Hitler?

      1. Karen S asked, “Are we to seriously believe that hundreds of people kept silent – perpetrators, victims, and bystanders, for 36 years?”

        Are we supposed to believe that no Catholic priest ever molested any boy? Kavanaugh’s buddy Mark Judge says otherwise.

        1. And, by the way, has anyone criticized the children who were victims of priest sexual predators for not reporting their attacks sooner? Have they uncategorically been called liars for not speaking until they felt it was safe to do so? See what’s happened to the accusers already. I want to hear Kavanaugh explain the reference to “100 kegs” and the “Renate” reference on his own personal page in his yearbook. And, no, I don’t buy that he was Renate’s secret admirer, becoming enamored after just one kiss. The Kav hung out with Mark Judge, an admitted heavy drinker and alcoholic who’s now in hiding to avoid testifying. Is it reasonable to believe that some pious virgin non-drinker is besties with a hard-partying, hard-drinker in high school? And, from your posts, Karen, you wouldn’t believe these women if they had videos. How do you know what people in the school community knew then? How do you know these women never had any physical injury? Just because it wasn’t reported, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Having worked in a prenatal clinic as a nurse, I can attest to the fact that we observed several patients who had what are called “broomstick punctures” to their upper vaginas. We had no history that they went for any treatment for what was obviously not consensual sex occurring as an adult. This was a prestigious Jesuit school, catering to the boys of wealthy, prominent people. These kinds of incidents get swept under the rug.

          1. 1- yes many people did question their tardy accusations. so yes very much so. your point?

            2– big difference in relative power. with george town prep you are talking about peers of the same age and status. with altar boys versus priests there is a big power differential. i keep hearing how that matters. I guess you just forgot

            keep on clouding the waters for other victims. what an insult

          2. Natacha, you’ve claimed to be a lawyer and you’ve claimed to be a nurse. Neither claim is credible.

          3. Anonymous:

            I have extensively researched the pedophile priest scandal.

            There is a long record of reported priest sex abuse. A young child may not have told anyone at the time, being a child and not a teenager or an adult, but such late accusations typically were against priests who had a record of similar accusations spanning decades.

            And, yes, the late accusations were questioned.

            “And, from your posts, Karen, you wouldn’t believe these women if they had videos.” Based on what? My posts discussing there was no corroborating evidence? False logic based on nothing I’ve actually written.

            “How do you know what people in the school community knew then?” Extensive journalist investigation has uncovered zero contemporary corroboration.

            “How do you know these women never had any physical injury?” No evidence provided. No injury was mentioned in any statement.

            “Just because it wasn’t reported, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.” True. Doesn’t mean it did, either. An open gang rape ring would leave a trace – people would have talked about it at the time, there would be therapy notes, it would have been uncovered in 6 FBI intense investigations…Again, no evidence.

            “Having worked in a prenatal clinic as a nurse, I can attest to the fact that we observed several patients who had what are called “broomstick punctures” to their upper vaginas. We had no history that they went for any treatment for what was obviously not consensual sex occurring as an adult.” Oh, look, you describe physical evidence. See the difference? I’ll bet it was remarked upon on their medical records.

            “This was a prestigious Jesuit school, catering to the boys of wealthy, prominent people. These kinds of incidents get swept under the rug.” So there was a gang rape ring because the boys went to a Catholic School? Or was it because they were white? Middle Class? Guilty by virtue of belonging to the bourgeoisie? What does their religion, school, or class has to do with crime? For an indictment to be swept under the rug, there would have to be an indictment to begin with. That would meant here were statements made at the time. People talking at the time. Letters written. Diaries. Something. You cannot sweep something under the rug that is not ever complained about, discussed, or even obliquely mentioned. What are you sweeping under the rug? Air? Your comment shows religious bigotry, misandry, and racism.

            An accusation is judged based on evidence or some other corroboration. Otherwise, I could claim that you sexually assaulted me over 30 years ago. I should be believed because I am a woman. And how dare you suggest that I should submit to a single question by you, your legal team, or anyone else. The very idea that I should have to present any supporting evidence is clearly part of the patriarchal rape culture. The very idea! Now go lose your job and go away.

        2. these ladies were not minors. none of the accusations imply nor state they were not of the age of consent. that’s a qualitative difference. priests molesting under age boys, not an apt comparison at all. these people were the same age.

          also, it’s considerably more scandalous when a priest with vows of celibacy engages in sexual conduct and no wonder victims feel more shame being religious to begin with

          see this is how these kinds of bogus accusations cloud the waters for real victims. seriously. i bet there are a lot of women out there who had the tar beaten out of them who are not all that impressed with these long unreported rape allegations. to say nothing of the boys who were taken advantage of by disgusting scum priests who used all kinds of psychological tricks on them. hardly comparable to teenage shenanigans among peers. not even close

          1. There are thinly sourced accounts which suggest Julia Swetnick was taking community college courses at the time. She lived in a plush suburb and her father merited an entry in American Men & Women of Science, so there’s a story there. The community college in question had two campuses, one 15 miles from the Kavanaugh home and one 22 miles from the Kavanaugh home. Public record searches suggest that Julia Swetnick was voting and filing tax returns from her father’s home into her 30s (wherever she may have been living). She appears to have had a brief tour on the west coast but to have otherwise lived in greater Washington. Searches on variohus databases are consistent with what you’d expect were your subject a spinster.

            It appears Martin Jay Swetnick is still alive at age 95, living in Silver Spring, Md. His wife died in 2007. Elaine Swetnick’s obituary lists three children, but no spouses thereto and no grandchildren. Two of her children lived in Columbia, SC at that time. Brother and sister have now decamped to Orlando. Rather peculiar family in certain respects.

          2. Uh, Kurtz, Dr. Ford was 15, so she was a minor. I believe Kavanaugh was older than she. I don’t know the ages of the others. It makes no significant difference to the victim of a sexual assault whether their attacker was their husband, a priest, a teacher or a fellow student who was the same age. Yes, Donald, by law, a husband can rape his wife. Ask Ivana. Abuse is abuse. Violation is violation. Dr. Ford didn’t allege rape, but even if she had, and even if it were conclusively proven, Republicans are on record saying they’d vote in favor of Kavanaugh no matter what. The message is that it’s OK for a sexual predator to sit on the SCOTUS, so long as he’s willing to vote for the Republican agenda, especially in regard to trying to stop the Mueller investigation into Trump and his campaign. Women don’t matter. The character of someone who sexually violates a woman doesn’t matter. Getting a radical conservative on the SCOTUS is all that matters.

            Think about motivation to lie here. What would be Kavanaugh’s motive? He might lose the biggest prize of a legal career: a seat on the SCOTUS. What would be the accusers’ motivation to lie? Do they have a vendetta against Kavanaugh after all of these years? Do they hate him for some reason or another, such that they’d risk the penalties for perjury? Are they secret Democrat operatives? Where’s the proof? Why isn’t the FBI looking into all of these things? Coming forward has a big price for them, so why would they lie?

            1. ha they’re not secret Democrat operatives now. they are out in the open confirmed PAWNS, suckered into this like so many other false accusers throughout history

              i notice that nobody remembers “To Kill a Mockingbird” all of a sudden.
              it wasnt just about racism, it was about false allegation of rape, too

              1. also hello. the FBI has investigated Kav 3 times at least for all we know maybe more. they found nothing because the accusations were severely tardy and clearly strategic falsehoods. what is there to investigate. but yeah send them in and let these women make their accusations on the record.

                but it seems to me that the accusations are so lacking in precision it will be impossible to nail a perjury rap on them,. trust me the lawyers thought that angle out in advance. it oozes from between the lines Ramirez’ statement, if you know how to read a socalled deposition.

                A deposition by the way usually includes an adverse inquisitor. obviously that one did not.

              2. I was thinking about that book, too.

                To use the parlance of the Left, a privileged white woman set a mob upon a man based on nothing but her fraudulent testimony. Atticus Finch was reviled for demanding evidence, and poking holes in her story. The crux of the story was an allegation taken as fact without evidence to crucify someone belonging to a class of persons about whom the worst was always assumed.

                Back then, it was the racist Democrats in the lynch mob. Now, it is still the Democrats in the mob, fighting as hard as they can against the requirement of evidence or some sort of proof for their story. They want to hang him, ruin him, maim him.

                Some things never change.

            2. Natacha, you have yet to find a single individual who can, with documents or oral testimony, put Christine Blasey at the same event with either Mark Judge or Brett Kavanaugh. The default conclusion is and should be that they were not acquainted in 1982. Please note that her counselor’s notes and her letter to Eshoo differ on a consequential detail: the time frame. If what she told the counselor is correct, the event would have occurred at a time when Kavanaugh was a resident of Connecticut most of the year (and perhaps year-round).

            3. Anonymous – all of that is according to her latest created memories. However, her earliest “repressed memory” she is late teens, there are 4 boys, all drunk in the same room.

              Now there may be a timing problem since it appears that Kavanaugh was in Germany for most or at least part of the summer she says she was 15. God, don’t you just hate a guy who keeps diaries.

          3. Even the children, or adults who were abused as children, were asked to offer supporting evidence and testimony. They did not make an accusation through their lawyers on TV, and then refuse to cooperate in any way. Refuse to testify. Refuse to take questions.

            There are decades of evidence against priests in these scandals.

            False comparison.

        3. “Are we supposed to believe that no Catholic priest ever molested any boy?”

          False equivalence. There are decades of documents and evidence proving the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. There are thousands of documents already entered into evidence, should you care to look up any of the dozens of case files.

          You seem confused. Mark Judge is not being considered as a Supreme Court Justice. His complaint about the Church being overrun with gay priests has no bearing on Kavanaugh’s hearing. The Church IS proportionally higher in gay men than the general population, all while preaching that homosexuality is a sin. Clearly, that’s ironic. And immaterial to Kavanaugh. The pedophile Catholic priest scandal has myriad pages of evidence supporting claims.

          Why is this confusing to you?

      2. Soon Yi Previn, was Farrow’s adopted daughter. Her husband Woody Allen was for a time in the role of step parent, but neither her blood father nor adoptive father, or their marriage would not have been allowed. She denies the allegations against him made by her adoptive brother. Very confusing, a troubled family, and I don’t defend Woody Allen. But has he been the victim of a false accusation too?

        At least it sounds like Ronan Farrow has a troubling psychological background from this family situation. it might give anybody a complex

        http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/09/16/soon-yi-previn-woody-allens-wife-says-adoptive-mother-mia-farrow-took-advantage-metoo-movement.html

        woody allen has always seemed creepy to me here, i do not try and defend him, just pointing out that he too may have been the victim of a false accusation too. and some people are projecting this mess into society with “metoo”

        it’s MASS HYSTERIA

        1. In re Allen, I think the claims against him were examined by the courts and the child protective apparat and found wanting. The smart money says they were the issue of Mia Farrow’s imagination.

          (It was exceedingly strange and imprudent for him to be cavorting with Andre Previn’s adoptive daughter, 37 years his junior. The one thing you could say in his defense is that his association with her has proved more durable than all of his other associations combined).

          1. DSS – it didn’t help that Woody was taking nudes of her and leaving them around. 😉

  9. In the right directioni. Previously Congress would set up a new agency to do their job and then put it under the Exectuive Branch oftenwith powers of law making, law enforcing, judicial and more. Thus the Fourth and most often unaccountable Branch another facet of the Deep State was built.as part of the FDR scientific administration.

    Now if they could split up the fourth branch putting the judicial under the Supreme Court and the law making through congress down to the rules and regulations but with oversight AND legal attachment to the parent Act or pending bill and let Executive do it’s enforcement, policing and penitentiary plus military and DHS and intelligence . Wow That is enough to keep them busy and let the Judiciary and legislative do their job!!!!

    No rogue operations such as a single circuit judge dictating anything to an entire nation but passing their finding and recommendation up the judicial change. Another important step to take a we rebuild OUR Representative Constitutional Republic.

    It’s obvious the experiment with the Marxist Leninist idea and ideology under which ever name has failed and failed miserably… world wide.

    Common Sense and Objective thinking, How could any leader of Congress The President Pro Tempore of the Senate or the Speaker of The House swear in and seat anyone having them take an oath which clearly states support protect defend
    The Constitution of the USA. Can’t be done and even subterfuge such as claiming to be an Independent is more than highly suspect when the speeches and programs come straight from V.I. Lenin

    Can’t be done and any Congressional Leader who accepts such people should be themselves impeached, tried, convicted, sacked in disgrace and given the boot

  10. RACHEL MITCHELL IS A FINE CHOICE FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL

    Last night I read a profile of Ms Mitchell in The Washington Post. She has had a distinguished career with the Maricopa County (Phoenix) D.A.’s office Sex Crimes Division and is considered a leading expert in determining the credibility of alleged rape victims.

    If Christine Blasey Ford is really a scheming liar, Ms. Mitchell is likely to reveal her for just that. However, if Ford is sincere, Mitchell may actually bolster Ford’s case. Therefore the choice of Mitchell is something of a gamble for Republicans. They may, in fact, wind up very sorry they engaged Mitchell’s services. But if Ford withers under Mitchell’s questioning, then Republicans can confirm Kavanaugh with a clean conscious having made an earnest effort to hear Ford’s testimony.

    1. Blasey’s a fraud and the only thing that’s going to improve her image would be the sort of practiced self-presentation and calculation that a clinical psychologist can bring to the table. She may find a prosecutor rather more of a challenge than her clientele typically is.

    2. Peter, I think the use of a seasoned prosecutor is a good effort towards uncovering the truth, unvarnished by politics.

      What I wonder is if the committee will instruct Mitchell not to ask pressing questions, or otherwise to refrain from a prosecutor’s press.

      I would like this to be handled as a real investigation of testimony, rather than a gossip fest.

        1. By ‘real investigation’ you mean something like the Mueller witch hunt.

          There is almost nothing to investigate. She’s making claims about an event which occurred either in 1985 (per the counselor’s notes) or 1982 (per her letter to Eshoo). What she’s alleging could be readily misrepresented if one had a mind, and there has yet to emerge any documentary or testimonial evidence that she’d have been at all acquainted with Kavanaugh, Judge, Smythe, or Garrett in 1985, 1982, or any other time. The only reason to think she might have been is that they lived in the same set of postal districts at the time and are just slightly older than she is.

          (Per the American Community Survey, the Bethesda and Chevy Chase CDPs (along with the mini-munis they envelop) have a total population of 78,000. These are inner ring suburbs of Washington, fully built up more than 50 years ago so likely to have slower population growth than the rest of the area. About 10% of the population at the time would have been drawn from the 1963-1968 birth cohorts).

          1. You make an excellent case for subpoenaing Mark Judge. Let’s see how well Mark Judge handles Ms. Mitchell’s questions. Shall we?

            1. He’s going to answer ‘no’. And ‘no’ is not a big target for a prosecutor to shoot at.

              Here’s your problem. He didn’t know Christine Blasey from a cord of wood in 1982 and cannot answer any questions about what did or did not happen to her then or at any other time.

            2. Mark Judge should be ready and willing to speak on behalf of his good friend, Brett Kavanaugh. Under oath.

              1. only a sucker would under the current mass hysteria conditions. keep on fishing for suckers, it is good for the youngsters reading this to understand

        2. I believe that using a sexual crimes prosecutor actually would be more beneficial to alleged victims than alleged perpetrators.

          One of the problems is the lack of evidence and corroborating witnesses. I have become increasingly disturbed by how this has played out, especially with the last unbelievable accusation. It’s not even a credible claim, and if true, makes the accuser an accessory to gang rape trafficking rings.

          This is bloody awful.

    1. maybe it will bring another thousand women out of the woodwork who got drunk and screwed a bunch of guys in one night decades ago and failed to report who are now going to cry rape at their high school paramours.

      well, prosecutors are going to be very busy, very busy telling them NO this is not a prosecutable case.

      BOYS: NO MORE BEER PARTIES, STOP NOW. GO ON STRIKE IMMEDIATELY AGAINST WOMEN. A NEW AGE OF PURITANISM HAS BEGUN.

      Maybe It’s high time to legalize sex work so that men can have a clearly consensual relationship where the woman will not feel entitled for the rest of her life to cry rape…. not that rape of sex workers doesn’t happen, but I would guess when they make an allegation it’s a hell of a lot more credible than some girl who regrets her youthful drunken folly from decades past

      VOTE REPUBLICAN AND END THE WITCH HUNT, ELSEWISE IT’S COMING FOR YOU TOO

      1. The 1960s through the present day has seen a cultural pressure on women to sleep with guys for fun. Anything less is considered prude. A religious girl who wants to wait until marriage is labeled repressed, and in need of a good fling.

        But now, decades later, unless there was a videotaped consent, with consent asked all along the way, it may be considered rape. In a he said, she said case, the female gender, (or transgender) has inherent moral superiority. An accusation alone can get a guy kicked out of college. Gender trumps facts or evidence. Clearly someone must be telling the truth if she’s female! Well, if she’s accusing a conservative. If she’s a Democrat with a mountain of evidence against Keith Ellison, she should just hush.

        Guys, even if you do abstain from sex, you had better write down your whereabouts, and who you were with, every day from the time you turn 13 to present day. You never know. You could become a conservative seeking high office and have to defend yourself against a 36 year old accusation.

        I know for a fact that I have never murdered anyone. But if anyone asked me where I was on August 1, 1982, or really any day 36 years ago, I would have absolutely no idea. I wouldn’t even know what city or state, as my family traveled. How could I prove I never murdered anyone ever in my life? I don’t know where I was or who I was with every single day of my existence. What if someone said I killed someone decades ago, but they cannot remember where or when. What the heck do you do then, besides say, “No I didn’t!”

        It would be so easy to ruin someone if you didn’t have to provide enough proof for a criminal court of law. All you have to do is make an accusation.

        Is this how it’s going to be now?

        1. here is a hidden reason why young guys flirting with young women always want nudes now. the proof of seduction in advance of the consummation. yes many times the false accusers forget what they did leading up to their attempted entrapment.

          keep those nudes lads they may be valuable proof of consent

        2. yes a lot of boys are being accused falsely these days not just famous men

          a lot of women make crud up in divorces too, so they can leverage settlements, get protective orders, play victim to judge, etc. even as they suck the money blood like so many vampires.

          yep, men need to step up and get active telling their stories. that’s what i say. shoulder to shoulder, forward march. at this point women have been weaponized against Western men by feminism. one may theorize about how that all came about and who is responsible.

          I observe however that to say it was communists would be one very foolish idea. Observe that in the two communist or post communist societies Russia and China, feminism is in name only and the socalled “patriarchy” is firmly ensconced.

          Perhaps it is a latent spirit. Feminism is amazonism in modern forms. It has been known throughout the ages. But who has called forth Hippolyta in our day? Who tempted Eve, who goaded Pandora into opening the box? I only ask. Carl Jung could answer for us perhaps but he is gone. Or is he? This is part of the anima.
          A dark part. This thing is inside all of us, even men in some ways. This thing is deep inside us. This is kali. And she is the Destroyer. This is a qabbalistic demon unleashed to mop up the remnants of a vanquished culture, to crush even the ruins into dust. What does the man walking in the ruins see and do?

          Survive is what. Dont worry about who and why now. Don’t waste energy now to worry about who is holding the spear, at first, worry about it not poking a hole in your chest! dash it aside and strike back while you still can. At least go out like a man

          1. Mr Kurtz – I know I am picking a nit here but Pandora had a jar, not a box. 😉 It is like misquoting Shakespeare.

  12. Republican Senators damned if they question accuser and damned when they delegate that task to a qualified female. Everybody needs to take a chill pill (both sides of aisle). Early 1980’s were wild times at prep schools / colleges. Accuser likely “mis-remembers” the extent of “assault” and with me too era hindsight exaggerating. Kavanough likely “mis-remembers” all the time he spent at wild parties and selectively focused on church attendance, etc. Aside from typical early 1980s style wild partying 35 & 36 years ago, Dems got nothing on Kavanough indicating he has lived a pretty clean adult life.

  13. For Kavanaugh, the timing is particularly bad with the sentencing of Bill Cosby based on long dormant allegations. The difference is that Cosby implicated himself in the drugging allegations and the number of women coming forward were both numerous and consistent in their accounts.

    Were you lacking in word count on your post so you tossed this in for filler? Or was it to appease a certain crowd still clinging to some hope this nomination won’t proceed? The only similarity between Cosby and Kavanugh is they are public figure men accused by women of some form of sex crime. The timing as you say is only particularly bad for those lacking critical-thinking skills.

  14. Turley wrote, “The Committee has scheduled the final committee vote for the very next day, Friday, which would allow the matter to then go to the floor of the Senate.”

    I doubt it. Even if the nomination goes to The Senate floor, Trump will have to cancel the pre-election recess and call an extraordinary session to get Kavanaugh confirmed. That would put the kibosh on Trump’s recess appointment stratagem for replacing Rosenstein and Sessions. And The Senate is not going to rubber-stamp Trump’s nominee for Attorney General anyhow. McConnell now has leverage on Trump. If Trump wants Kavanaugh on The Court, then Trump has to keep Sessions and possibly even Rosenstein. Otherwise, the possibility of Republicans gaining Senate seats in the midterm election will become the necessity for Republicans to gain Senate seats in the midterm election.

    So who gets hurt the worst by an extraordinary session of Congress–House Republicans or Senate Democrats? Or mostly just Ted Cruz.

    1. Extend the term ? So what? No big deal Obama did it during the winter recess end of 2015 to get his budget and not incidentally his additions, changes, and extensions to the Patriot Act and it’s Terrorist Apprehension Policies. 85 to 15 and only the Freedom Caucus voted against since it DIDN’T exclude US Citizens but DID up hold terrorists or supporters of terrorists excluded from civil rights. Come to think of it absent a classified portion even Congress wasn’t excluded.

  15. Kennedy, Clinton, Thomas, and now Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh will be confirmed the same way Thomas was confirmed, which many people attesting to his behavior but with no ‘legal proof’. Kavanaugh has already established that he misrepresents or perhaps even outright lies. Enough people have attested to him being a heavy drinker and partier in high school and college; yet he takes the ‘choir boy’ defense. What a difference an, ‘I was drunk. I don’t remember. If I did anything inappropriate I am truly sorry. This is not who I have been for over three decades, nor who I am now.’ Now that would be an argument to appoint him.

    1. Anything said or done to advance the party IS The Truth;. Right Comrade Bacon Boy? RIOHT?

      1. Remember Ad Hominem requires a Human Presence. There is no proof of that requirement in this case and the machine like language as approved by the ruling class of the classless society does not qualify. Ad Machina.

    2. “‘I was drunk. I don’t remember. If I did anything inappropriate I am truly sorry. This is not who I have been for over three decades, nor who I am now.’”

      Do you really expect us to believe that you would be in his corner had he said this?

    1. Unacceptable language and such for the most part. Another is going beyond the pale witih Ad Hominems. You notice I occasionally add a disclaimer to that purpose.

  17. I will be surprised if she is in attendance. According to reports she is not flying so maybe whatever means of transportation she uses will breakdown. It will be interesting if she does attend how the Dems conduct themselves and who they’ve hired to disrupt. Will Booker wear a galea, gladius and scutum.

    1. Has Christine Blasey been making Fakebook posts of her progress on her looong cross-country drive? (Presumably, she’s in a convertible).

  19. “Little direct corroboration”? Who exactly corroborates ANYTHING about these so-called assaults? And Kimberly Strassrl has documented SIX TIMES the SJC had tried to get a written statement from this Ramirez women and they have heard NOTHING FROM HER or her lawyer.
    Time to stop pretending there is anything here! And to bring up Cosby as a somewhat analogous story is really beyond the pale! Lordy! Your Democrat tale telling is obvious here as compared to non-partisan legal analysis. You sound a bit like Jeffrey Toobin today!

  20. There are similar views of bias of some Republican senators who seemed to dismiss the allegations before any testimony is heard.

    It’s only 36 years after the fact. No one has yet emerged who can attest the two were ever at the same social function at the same time. The thin filament connecting the two is that they’re about the same age and lived in the same slice of Montgomery County, Md. at the time. So did several thousand other youngsters in their age group. And, of course, Feinstein didn’t drop this stinkbomb until after the hearings were complete, even though she had the letter. Of course those Senators thought her ‘testimony’ of no account

    One Republican Senate candidate even said that Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if the alleged attempted rape is true.

    She doesn’t allege much but a common assault, 36 years after the fact. If Brett Kavanaugh was a tax accountant in Takoma Park, no one would give a damn about it. A large mass of dishonest political partisans are frantic to prevent his elevation to the court and this is just a tool toward that end.

    And you know that. Do you ever get tired of striking attitudes.

Comments are closed.