Weinstein (and Spacey, Cosby etc.) were public figures. So of course rumors circulated. Kavanaugh has been a public figure for maybe two weeks. And, in case you haven’t noticed, rumors are starting to circulate.
Is the Republicans bringing in a prosecutor to interrogate Ford, the alleged victim, a good look for them?
And Ramirez needed 6 days of discussions before she decided that Kavanaugh did in fact expose himself to her and some reports say she is still not sure.
Until additional evidence comes out, only Ford’s allegations have any meat to them.
But they were talking about “being punished” or getting reported to the authorities. That’s a different matter than having folks joke about it.
It would probably be better for Ford, since a sex crimes prosecutor would be moe experienced in eliciting testimony from victims and impeaching accused, while a Defence attorney would be the opposite.
Which is fair. Kavanaugh is a lawyer and a judge. Ford is a layperson. He should get the bigger grilling.
Both did, in fact, get reported multiple times before #metoo. Weinstein actually had a provision in his contract for paying off accusers.
The time from nomination to confirmation of current Justices ranged from 50 to 99 days. There are now 41 days until the midterms and 99 days until the next Congress is sealed. So, if they want to go that route, they’d have to hurry. This could also be playing a role in their apparent willingness to try to push Kavanaugh through.
In the last weeks of a campaign? Doubtful.
Erick Erickson on twitter:
Garbage people do not accomplish what Kavanaugh has accomplished in the way he has accomplished it. Instead, garbage people tend to wind up writing for left-of-center online news outlets in DC.
I guess he can’t remember Dennis Hastert the pedophile , longest serving GOP house speaker
AK47, it seems as though your point is that the evidence wouldn’t be sufficient to support a criminal conviction, which seems clearly true. But why is this even relevant? Is anyone arguing that the standard of evidence required to send someone to prison should be the same standard used to determine whether someone should be endowed with a position of enormous public trust?
Mark Judge’s ex-college girlfriend says he’s lying about no sexual assaults in high school, based on what he told her.
Turns out she was in college when he was in High School.
Would a college student regularly attend multople parties given by school children? Is that normal in the US?
(Not saying she is lying, just asking).
So Ms. Swetnick attended multiple parties where gang rape was organized? As in, after she learned what was going on, she continued to attend? That’s surprising.
Regards,
Shodan
“Support for Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court among Republican women dropped 18 points since last week, following additional allegations of sexual misconduct against him, according to a new Morning Consult/Politico poll released Wednesday.”
And that was before the latest allegations.
Good job rallying the base, Republicans!
Parties organised by school kids when she was in college herself… and she is 3 years ahead of Kavanaugh and Judge.
Maybe most of the attendees were her age? These weren’t parties thrown by Kavanaugh, they were parties attended by Kavanaugh.
Frankly, I think the second and third allegations won’t even make a civil standard of proof and would be dismissed with summary judgement.
…I thought he is supposed to have led a gang rape train; that sure sounds like organizing to me,
It wouldn’t be unheard of, especially since she went to University of Maryland. I don’t think that is any kind of mark against her accusations. And it could be the other way around-- HS student attending parties thrown by college students.
From your cite:
Having grown up in a college town, I can testify that this is in fact extremely common. I don’t see anything in the cite that indicates the high schoolers were “giving” the parties.