One Vegas metric gives Kav 63% chance of making it.
https://www.casino.org/news/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-odds-shift-after-testimony-committee-vote
FWIW
I saw her on TV. Sheâs a little too pat in her testimony.
A poor witness like this has an effect of coloring all testimony, even the credible variety
One thing she said yesterday really concerned me.
The reporter asked herâŚif she remembered Kavanaugh or recognized him and she said affirmatively yes, he had a very distinctive face and that Judge also had a distinctive face.
Hereâs why this concerns me: 1. the pictures Iâve seen of them from that time are not remarkable, 2. she was from outside their social circles, 3. she has now said that she doesnât remember if they were the ones that raped her.
That all adds up to me doubting that she could remember them after 35+ years.
So she and Avenatti came up with four witnesses who were supposed to be able to corroborate all of this â one is dead, two couldnât be reached, and one claims not to know Swetnick. Thatâs not real reassuring. I think Avenatti is starting to believe his own hype just a little too much.
3 Likes
I read I believe in the Washington Post that Ford canât file a complaint, as the statute of limitations of 1982 would be operative, and that was one year, misdemeanor for attempted rape. Pathetic, I know, but that is what it was at that time.
1 Like
Attempted rape? At the very least it was an ASSAULT. I know there is no statute of limitations of rape in the state of Maryland. I donât understand how she can not file now, if she wants to do so.
IF she did so I donât think he would be seated while under actual ASSAULT investigation.
1 Like
I do think that at this point, there have to be a lot of puckered assholes from the DC prep school/Ivy League party circuit --people confronted with memories of things they did that are illegal, dishonorable, untolerated in their middle-aged polite, upper class lives. The unfolding of drama reminds me of a movie script â Mystic River perhaps? â where the past catches up to the present, and the trauma of sexual assault re-surfaces. It is a powerful lesson in the long-term damage people do when they prey on another.
2 Likes
âline upâ vs. âgather nearâ is the sort of differences that will come up here ⌠if shades like that is going to throw people off, I bet different statements of Dr. Ford can be sliced too
The statement had various legalistic touches. I noticed, for example, an implication Kavanaugh took part in the alleged rape, but the actual wording literally was that he was clearly a bystander [plus appeared to take part in the proceedings in some non-physical way]. That is, she was clear on that point, and swore to it. She could not swear that he physically raped her. Thus, her remark in the interview saying she had no knowledge of him actually raping her was on point.
The âawareâ language is of that character. Itâs a carefully chosen word. Iâm âawareâ of things I personally didnât see. So, I donât know what she really âadmittedâ there exactly. Again, this sort of thing happens repeatedly in these incidents and are often taken advantage of by the defense.
I hold to my concern about worrying about people who give interviews not being raw. I realize you said you would let that go. But, it is going to happen repeatedly â people who give interviews are going to be prepared and not come off âraw.â Likewise, an edited one on one interview is different than a woman being interviewed in front of a Senate committee, live to the country.
1 Like
Contrary to the story and to some commenters here, This:
She said that he never saw him or his accused accomplice in a separate alleged sexual assault, Mark Judge, actively spiking drinks or participating in gang rapes â two actions she said occurred at the parties and she believes they took part in â but says she saw Kavanaugh give women many cups of the punch and saw Kavanaugh and Judge congregated outside rooms, where she believes they took turns violating incapacitated women.
Is 100% consistent with this:
In her original statement, she said both that she âbecame awareâ that Judge and Kavanaugh were spiking the drinks and also that she âwitnessed effortsâ by the two to render women at the parties inebriated.
âBecome awareâ = âwas told.â Not âI saw.â
âWitnessed effortsâ to render women at the parties inebriated is the same thing as giving women many cups of spiked punch.
And it just seems like thereâs an awful lot of men here telling us how a woman is supposed to act about a sexual assault decades after it happened and zero women opining at all and thatâs kind of a red flag to me that a certain amount of shut it and listen rather than opining might in order.
10 Likes
I was just going by gut; you parsed it by detail and her responses.
If I may play dime-store Freud, thereâs a neurotic type who loves to be part of something like this, whether they see some sort of secondary gain or just enjoy â and thatât the word --the attention.
A bad witness can poison the well in cases like this.
That is a very frightening account.
Maybe Swetnick meant something else by âdistinctive.â To me, Kavanaugh looks very much like he did in high school/college from the pictures I saw. Not remarkable, but remarkably the same.
Kavanaugh asserted that Ramirez was outside his social circle too. That was at college, not high school, but still. Equal opportunity assaulter.
She never claimed they were the ones who raped her. Her story, as I understand it, is that there were parties that Kavanaugh attended, where a woman was targeted, punch was spiked, and men gathered or lined up â either way, they waited their turn â to rape that woman. She claims that she was that woman on one occasion, but she was drugged sufficiently to affect her memory.
Kavanaugh may never have taken advantage of the incapacitated women. But he sure as hell would have known it was happening.
1 Like
It would not.
2 Likes
A longer investigation might uncover that.
Nah. Wonât happen.
Also, great commentary throughoutâWell done!
2 Likes
I guess what Iâm saying isâŚwhile I remember parties from back 40 years ago, I donât remember people that I might have casually observed well enough to ID them today.
I just donât want the right to be able to hold this up and cast a big doubt on Dr. Ford.
I am not casting a doubt that Ms. Swetnick was raped or abused, I am just concerned that this muddies the waters without helping our case.
I agree. I donât find her a âbad witnessâ - sheâs clearly a confident woman, and is freer in her language than Christine Ford was. But if weâre parsing the difference between âgathered roundâ and âlined upâ, then we really are missing the point.
Occamâs razor: what could she have to gain by lying? Sheâs not trying to sell her story. And what could she have to lose? A whole lot, including her job and security clearances, and her personal safety!
Believe these women. All of them. Unless there is a damn good reason not to.
4 Likes
Itâs a cartoon, but, damn, I had a visceral reaction.
3 Likes
What can you say? Just another band wagon skank. Just vote.
1 Like
Is it simply uncouth by now to point out the inconsistencies and outright lies in Kavanaughâs testimony, presently and in his previous oath bound statements, as a basis for disqualifying him to serve on SCOTUS? I can only think of three reasons why so much is made of these dramas: the media prefer to run with a story that so many can weigh in on with personal anecdotes; the Dems believe that they can only flip GOP senators with sex and drug scandals; all this investigation of drunken preppies distracts from the bigger story that Kavanaugh served as a loyal conservative flunky during the Starr investigation in the same way that Bork was rewarded with his nomination for being the only one to do Nixonâs bidding before his deluge. Harvard or Yale alumni. Is all that matters which one gets more bragging rights on the highest court?
1 Like