Avenatti promises new Kavanaugh accuser to come forward in next 48 hours
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
It now looks like the accuser may back out and not testify......doesn't want to be questioned.
Perhaps she should've welcomed a local police investigation 3 generations ago.
LOL.......She should have had Feinstein request one back in July or at least when they were doing Kavanaugh's background checks
Obviously that wouldn't fit their obstructionist agenda, plus they needed time to coach the accuser.
Why is it so important to get rid of him just because he's pompous? So are Alabama fans but do we shut down their football program simply because they keep winning?
You've never met a more pompous group or fan base. But until someone else beats them I can't really complain about their pompousness
You folks on the Left want to beat Trump? Just offer a better program. He's not Invincible but you do have to have something besides your hatred of him to beat him.
Kavanaugh has been at the White House every day getting coaching on his testimony. Good attorneys make sure that they prepare their witnesses' testimony, get them ready for tough questions they are going to face. That doesn't mean he's guilty or she's lying. That means that they are going through the same process that anyone giving testimony would.
Actually, it's not a good question. If the FBI shows up to investigate and she turns them away, then it's a good question.
She or her lawyer can't pick up the phone and inquire - have they done that? I know she has an affliction of some sort that prevents her from going to the proper authorities, but she could at least try and help her cause a little.
She could file criminal charges in the state of Maryland. The statute of limitations on her claim never expires. She hasn't filed charges. You can take from that whatever you would like. I can think of reasons why that would make her more or less believable. Regardless, I just want to hear both sides.
I'm reserving judgement on the Yale claim. From the story presented, it reads like she had to be convinced it was Kavanaugh. I'm not sure if that's poor wording or an accurate description of her account.
Mule, don't you think if this guy had any type of sexual perversions in his past the FBI would have at least caught wind of it through one of the half dozen background investigations they conducted on him?
I mean those aren't exactly popularity surveys are they? What would be your guess as to why none of this ever turned up in any of their previous investigations?
Last edited:
She's actually the only one who hasn't given a sworn statement to the Senate committee.
Right now I'm only seeing Ford's claim as credible. I don't know anything about Avenatti's mess, but my personal opinion is that he's in this for the attention for himself. Maybe there's a there there, but I question the judgement of those who involved that particular attorney if the allegations that we haven't heard have merit. The original story on the Yale claim reads as if the victim had to be convinced it was Kavanaugh. Maybe that's not accurate, but that's all I know of that claim right now.
Given all of that, we have one alleged victim from high school who didn't share her experience with anyone until a couples therapy session in 2012. How does any FBI background investigation get that information? At best, they figured out that he liked to party in high school, maybe college.
First of all, how could you know THEY weren't lying? And secondly, even if you believed them when they said it didn't occur, how would they know for sure that it didn't occur, depending on the exact details of the claim. A claim that is like 36 years old to boot.
I think they should also question Judge. He's given a statement. He should be available for questioning since the alleged victim puts him in the room. I don't know that doing that would change anything, but let's ask questions of the accuser and the accused. It would be wise to get the account of the potential eye witness as well.
Having said that, I don't think the GOP wants Judge to answer questions. He was Kavanaugh's buddy in high school, and he wrote a book about his drinking problem and antics in high school and college. The Dems (rightly or wrongly) will ask questions about that stuff and Kavanaugh's involvement in it. It likely wouldn't corroborate Ford's claims, but it would damage the Boy Scout image that people credit to Kavanaugh.
Well it certainly appears from the charges that are now surfacing, his detractors think Judge Kavanaugh has a pattern of sexual perversions. I'm curious why if he was that prone to such behavior none of it ever turned up in any of the FBI investigations into his background which ostensibly included interviews with all of those who associated with him or knew him best even from his high school years?
From what I know of those background investigations they are very thorough and if his affinity to sexual perversion was that obvious it would seem to me some others would have noticed it too would they not?
So who else is talking about his sexual kinkiness besides these two people?
Like I said, I'm not claiming he's prone to such perversions. I'm seeing one potentially credible story from high school. I've explained why that would easily slip past a background investigation.
Well, I have to take it on face that they’ve all willingly provided legally binding statements as proof that they’re telling the truth considering the consequences for getting involved from the sideline. Interesting they’d be willing to do this and she hasn’t as of yet.
Moreover, to your other point, the one gentlemen was alleged BY HER to have been there and he also denies it under the legally binding statement provided by his attorney to the committee. Of the 3 people in the world who could have eyewitness accounts, 2 are saying it’s ********. The remaining person has inconsistent recollection and a changing story. She also has a dodgy approach towards testimony.
I’m not basing my opinions of this on political ideology. I’m basing it on the facts as we know them, today. There isn’t anything more the FBI is going to get that the committee doesn’t already have. They have sworn statements on record. What more could the FBI do? Talk to the same fvcking people that have already provided legally binding statements?
If some bombshell proof comes out, then remove him from consideration and move on to Amy Barrett.
Ford was the one that was afraid to fly... but she had been on the east coast for a week recently. I wonder how she got there?
I don't see how it could if it's that prominent a part of his past. Particularly since there are no other witnesses where this would have taken place that the FBI would have to by definition confirm the allegation with. How else would the FBI either confirm or reject the story without interviewing others who saw what the accuser accuses Judge Kavanaugh of doing?
Everyone wants the FBI to come in now 36 years after the fact to establish it but when they looked into his background the story never even came up! No one can explain that, not even you... despite your claim that you did.
The FBI screenings aren’t that invasive. They can only investigate what you provide to them, what they’re able to uncover by talking to people you’re provide them names for, or some anonymous information received. This argument only provides a little cover, it’s not even remotely close to a silver bullet defense.
Just an FYI for you.
I grant that but going back into history 36 years to establish a fact would by definition mean others have to corroborate it would it not?
I don't think the Republicans are reluctant to have the FBI look into this because they don't think the story is true, I just don't think they believe it is necessary especially since there are no eyewitnesses and the FBI has already looked into his background enough to confirm no previous behavior of this type.
Please be true! Did 4chan burn Avenatti?
Cool story...but I'm guessing he's smart enough to interview potential clients in person and do some background/leg work to confirm some validity to the claim.
I agree with this. I’d also argue their concern with the FBI is the time it would take which puts his confirmation into the hands of a potential Senate loss.
The doors to the FBI are wide open if she wanted to walk in and file a statement over the past 35 years. Its a great question.
Agreed. If they were honest the Democrats would admit that's the only reason they're calling for an FBI investigation.