She saw him outside a room. Inside which she claimed that a girl was being raped? She knows that fact how? Did the girl tell her? Did any of the guys (whom) boast about it. Did she witness it?
Avenatti needs to up his game BTW. If one of my associates drafted such an unclear witness statement, they would be writing memos on Aussie trademark law for a month.
Good question.
Avenetti’s not a prosecutor trying to get a conviction. He’s not really acting as a lawyer in this matter, he’s acting as a public relations agent who happens to also be a lawyer.
Someone’s going to regret taking the black out drunk defense off the table.
“No soup for you! Come back… two weeks!”
Jesus. Henry. Christ.
How many more times do you need to engage with him before YOU throw in the towel? :smack: 1,000? 10,000? 50,000?
No. I will repeat myself. She saw him waiting in a line of boys who were taking turns raping an incapacitated girl.
He was not standing innocently outside some random room. HE WAS WAITING IN LINE.*
Remember the good old days when the Republicans were trying to force red state Dems to cast a difficult vote before the mid-terms?
Your post just makes me think even more that he would want an investigation to clear his name. I know I would. Whether my innocence could be proven to the standards required for a criminal proceeding I seriously doubt I would just issue a denial and then throw up my hands and walk away saying, “Well, I guess there is nothing that can be done prove this is bullshit.”
I’m really happy that the Republicans are taking this opportunity to position themselves going into the midterms as the party of “She didn’t actually say she saw him rape anybody!”.
Any normal President at this point just withdraws the nomination and calls whoever the Federalist Society’ second choice was. But they have a President who believes a real man should never have to withdraw just because some woman tells him to. Protecting a sexual abuser from consequences is a matter of the highest principle to him. So he won’t back down, even if it means both the nomination and his party’s Senate majority go up in flames over it. Good times. 
Back in the 80’s this was called trying to…
You know what? Maybe it’s a little too soon for this joke.
Yes. Like Donald Trumps Presidential Campaign crashed when the Access Hollywood tape came out… wait!
Don’t count your election victories before they are won.
maybe their new slogan is "he just likes to watch rapes , not take part "
Senator filing an injunction to prevent the vote from occurring Friday. Is that possible?
You are making the common laypersons mistake of ascribing to statements what they do not say and mixing up fact with inferences. What you say is an inference. Its very expressly not stated as a fact.
Read the statement again, particularly para 12.
She says she saw boys outside a room. That they were waiting for a girl inside the room, waiting for their “turn”. It does not state how she knew there was any sexual activity going on and why she knew it was non-consensual, and crucially she does not say she saw Kavanaugh or Judge actually rape (or have any penetrative sexual contact) at all.
Its an inference that can be drawn, but don’tmix that up with fact.
Well, at this point, I think two things need to be considered.
I do not think an FBI investigation is going to take 3 days at this point. Not even close
If 2 would take less time, I say go with that. That would also, hopefully, provide a somewhat of a catharsis for democratic revenge fantasies regarding Merrick Garland.
A lot of us are junior lawyers working on our degree from Internet U, so take this with a grain of salt. From what I’ve learned about evidence in my Saturday night “Dateline 301” class, this bit of evidence would not be sufficient on it’s own. Even if there was video of him waiting outside the room, going in, and coming out 2.5 minutes later, you could not say for certainty what happened in that room. A DA likely would not go forward with a case if that’s all they had.
However, the investigators would continue to gather additional evidence that would help their case. Even if all their evidence was circumstantial, they can eventually gather enough circumstantial evidence to make their case and get a conviction. It will be harder to do, but often that’s all they have.
What we’re seeing in K’s case is that each piece of evidence is flimsy and circumstantial on its own. There is no video or forensic evidence. It depends on the 30 year old foggy memories of teens, some of whom were drinking. Each piece can be torn apart. But combined together it’s making a pretty solid case against him.
No. Classic non-justiciable question.
Can you quote where she said she saw that? The reports I’ve seen aren’t clear if she was a witness or heard it from others.
Also, since you seem to insist that there was a line, can you quote how she knew that the girl was being raped and that the guys outside were “waiting in line”? I mean, were they seen going in, one after another, to rape the girl?
It seems like this is sill rather vague to be making such clear-cut claims. I’m just trying to understand what the facts are now, as we know them. I assume this will get clearer as time goes on.
That’s what I figured. Or rather, classic grandstanding.