All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

If the Dems take the Senate, could they start confirmation hearings for Merrick Garland? Was his nomination ever officially withdrawn?

Trump needs to nominate him.

[InformationGeek]

So I'm driving down to see my grandparents and all the way, I see people holding up signs. Slow down and a lot of them read "Accusations don't equal evidence." "Clarence Thomas Again." "Kavanaugh innocent until proven guilty."

Siiiiiigh

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

And you have to ask....what do these women gain from it? Professor Ford had already had to move to an undisclosed location, received death threats and that's probably not going to be the end of it. This is no day at the beach for them.

There's been too many corroborating reports from Yale alumni that say that Brett Kavanaugh drank a lot and was a mean drunk on top of that . His buddy Mark Judge admits to being black out drunk. Avenatti's client seems to remember both of them pretty well.

Devil's advocate response: there's a lot of political motivation to at this point in time when it looks like the Dems have a shot at the Senate to torpedo Kavanaugh's nomination and run the clock out until Democrats can return the favor to Mitch McConnell for Garland and there's plenty of very powerful people that would like to see that happen. Also if you're a Republican you definitley have the skepticism of one allegation being something that wasn't brought up for years and even then was only brought up in the context of him possibly being on the SC, that the second allegation has a victim who said she isn't sure Kavanaugh was the person who did anything, and the third said Kavanaugh didn't do anything to her but might have been present based on her interpretation on what she believed went on at certain college parties. And so far the only real consistent testimony that is being corroborated and held up as evidence is that he was a rude drunk when he was in high school and college. Which you can go to any high school and college and find people who fit that description that aren't rapists.

Devil advocate over: The Republicans do have their questions and plausible deniability and motive if they really want it. And if they view it as a political maneuver to run the clock out on the nomination, they probably don't want to play ball even if most reasonable people believe these are serious enough to be investigated.

All that said, the smartest play for Republicans right now would be to immediately turn on Kavanaugh. Call for an investigation. Withdraw the nomination. Nominate someone without issues that they can ram through before the midterms. Then if nothing comes from the investigation they can play martyr and make the case to nominate him again if someone steps down. And if something comes up that incriminates him, the Republicans can say they abandoned him and be the people who rip him apart to save face. They won't do it because they have an idiot for a leader who will punish them and turn his cult on them if they don't do his bidding.

[Raiders]

A fourth accuser on Kavanaugh just came out.
Kavanaugh was in his early 30's, he slammed a woman against a wall in a violent sexual way.
But the source is anonymous and the mother of the witness.
It was in 1998

[worstblogever]

A fourth accuser on Kavanaugh just came out.
Kavanaugh was in his early 30's, he slammed a woman against a wall in a violent sexual way.
But the source is anonymous and the mother of the witness.
It was in 1998

NBC News has this story. The report from the eyewitness was submitted to Republican Congressman Cory Gardner. No word on if his office contacted NBC News, or his anonymous source got tired of him sitting on that news, and called NBC News themselves.

Again, to those thinking full speed ahead on Kavanaugh... how many women need to accuse him with eyewitnesses and evidence to back up their claims before you think, "Hey, maybe this guy is a sexual deviant and attempted rapist"?

[Kirby101]

NBC News has this story. The report from the eyewitness was submitted to Republican Congressman Cory Gardner. No word on if his office contacted NBC News, or his anonymous source got tired of him sitting on that news, and called NBC News themselves.

Again, to those thinking full speed ahead on Kavanaugh... how many women need to accuse him with eyewitnesses and evidence to back up their claims before you think, "Hey, maybe this guy is a sexual deviant and attempted rapist"?

It's like the pole vault, and they keep raising the bar higher.

[Raiders]

CNN is now reporting there is two new anonymous allegations.

[JCAll]

If 51 Republicans are willing to vote to confirm him because there's a bunch of evidence he is a perjurer and a rapist already... you know damned well that even if Democrats take back the Senate 51-49 that there aren't 16 honest members of your party left to do that. I mean "suspected of rape" inspired them to go with the brave decision to "CONFIRM FASTER".

Preventative medicine is always less painful than curing an illness.

[Kirby101]

Yes, now there are 5.

https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1045091112287965185

[Tazirai]

No one hates women more than other women it seems. This lady legit thinks it's okay for women to be groped by men. Her daughters are literally nodding in agreement? Da Fuq?

Trump Supporter Tells Daughters Groping ‘Is No Big Deal’ Live On MSNBC

[Raiders]

No one hates women more than other women it seems. This lady legit thinks it's okay for women to be groped by men. Her daughters are literally nodding in agreement? Da Fuq?

Trump Supporter Tells Daughters Groping ‘Is No Big Deal’ Live On MSNBC

They should come forth.

[BeastieRunner]

Judge's ex-girlfriend has reported herself to the FBI for questioning.

So 6 people now?

2 talking to the FBI or willing to?

Come GOP ... do the right thing.

[Mister Mets]

The woman who claimed a gang rape had an exboyfriend who filed a restraining order against her.

Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and a friend of attending house parties where women — including herself — were sexually assaulted, had a restraining order filed against her years later in Miami by her former boyfriend.

A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up.

Thirteen days later, the case was dismissed, not long after an affidavit of non-ability to advance fees was filed.

According to Vinneccy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.

“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. "I know a lot about her.”

"She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”

The allegation is likely to raise questions among Republican defenders of Kavanaugh about Swetnick’s credibility after her attorney Michael Avenatti revealed her for the first time on Wednesday.

Reached late Wednesday, Avenatti said he knew nothing of a restraining order and called the line of inquiry irrelevant.

"Complete nonsense. No truth to this at all. Her ex-boyfriend fraudulently used her resume to apply for and obtain jobs and was caught by her," said Avenatti. “Why are you all attacking a sexual assault victim? Would that be appropriate in a court of law?”

Citing the sensitive nature of the case and the explosive politics surrounding it, Vinneccy said he wanted to talk to an attorney first before further discussing the case, which has kept him occupied all day.

“My phone has not stopped since this morning. Everyone is calling,” Vinneccy said.

Vinneccy, 63, is a registered Democrat, according to Miami-Dade County voting records.

Charles Cooke of the National Review has some questions about that allegation.

Some questions raised by the charges brought by Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick:

Given the seriousness of these allegations, why did Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick decline to go directly to the police?
Likewise, why did Avenatti and Swetnick bypass the press? Did anyone in the press look into this story? What did they find? The New York Times confirms that “none of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.” Why?
Where are the witnesses? The charge is of gang rape. Leave aside the question of whether Brett Kavanaugh was involved — and forget for a moment that we’re debating whether he should be on the Supreme Court — surely there are a whole host of victims, perpetrators, and witnesses to this monstrous crime. Where are they?
Is it not a little strange that there are only two details provided, and that they are happen to be public knowledge already? The two names given are Mark Judge’s and Brett Kavanaugh’s. The time given is “BEACH WEEK,” which is listed on the calendar that Brett Kavanaugh released this morning. Why is there nothing new?
According to the New York Times, Swetnick left school in 1980, and then went on to college. Swetnick claims that she “attended at least 10 house parties in the Washington area from 1981 to 1983 where the two were present.” That means that, at the time of the alleged incident(s), she was between 18 and 20-years-old at the least, and that Kavanaugh and Judge were between 16 and 18 at the most. Why was she, an adult, attending high-school parties with minors?
Kavanaugh says that he’s never heard of the accuser. Is there anyone who can testify to the contrary? If so, how did they meet? What relationship did Kavanaugh have with her school, Gaithersburg High? Swetnick claims that she “met Judge Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge in 1980 or 1981.” Why did she, an 18- or 19-year-old, start hanging out with Kavanaugh and Judge, who were 15 or 16, depending on the year?
Why would an adult go repeatedly to parties at which minors were being gang raped, and, having figured out what was going on, resolve only to “avoid the punch”? Did Ms. Swetnick tell anybody what she had seen? Why did she keep going back?

NBC News has this story. The report from the eyewitness was submitted to Republican Congressman Cory Gardner. No word on if his office contacted NBC News, or his anonymous source got tired of him sitting on that news, and called NBC News themselves.

Again, to those thinking full speed ahead on Kavanaugh... how many women need to accuse him with eyewitnesses and evidence to back up their claims before you think, "Hey, maybe this guy is a sexual deviant and attempted rapist"?

There's also speculation Republicans are leaking anonymous allegations in order to make the Democrats less credible.

Elena Schor, who covers for the Senate for Politico, says this worried congressional Democrats.

Senior Senate Dem aide tells me there's a concern the GOP is "now releasing anonymous allegations in an effort to make all allegations look frivolous. We’re focusing on the ones that have names attached."

[Carabas]

Her daughters are literally nodding in agreement? Da Fuq?

It came across to me more like "Sigh... mom is off her meds again. Better smile and nod or we'll never hear the end of it."

[aja_christopher]

The woman who claimed a gang rape had an exboyfriend who filed a restraining order against her.

And so the character assassination begins -- anything to avoid a real investigation into Kavanaugh's past.

You're more like your Republican president than you care to admit.

The irony is that you are simultaneously revealing exactly why many women don't immediately come forward to report harassment and assault, which is something else that you and your Republican representatives seem to have in common.

All that said, the smartest play for Republicans right now would be to immediately turn on Kavanaugh. Call for an investigation. Withdraw the nomination. Nominate someone without issues that they can ram through before the midterms. Then if nothing comes from the investigation they can play martyr and make the case to nominate him again if someone steps down. And if something comes up that incriminates him, the Republicans can say they abandoned him and be the people who rip him apart to save face. They won't do it because they have an idiot for a leader who will punish them and turn his cult on them if they don't do his bidding.

An idiot who is simultaneously alienating our allies and getting laughed at on the world stage while they pretend that this is just "politics" as usual.

But given the international travesty that was the last Republican administration (Bush) this is just politics as usual for them.