Current Events > New witness says she saw Kavanaugh spike the punch with drugs and more

(+) Yeah! (+)

Damning stuff here.

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1047447758993547265?s=19
---

Why the fuck is he telling the public this shit while the investigation is still ongoing?

A lawyer could crucify their cilent for doing this yet he's doing it himself.

It just gives the other side a chance to rebuff, make excuses, find flaws etc.
---

Ah grain alcohol.

Otherwise known as "the fucking poison" of the family of alcohols.
---

i mean what is there to say? its anonymous, and they are investigating it now/soon

These witnesses that alleged that they saw these acts and didnt call the police allowed brett to continue doing he was doing, they think they are hurting bretts image but they are hurting themselves.
---

I'd like to see a proven lifetime conservative voter come out against Kavanaugh. There is too much motivation on the left to just lie about a bunch of things you can't prove or disprove, and politicians on both sides have done some really scummy stuff in the past.
---

Awesome posted...

These witnesses that alleged that they saw these acts and didnt call the police allowed brett to continue doing he was doing, they think they are hurting bretts image but they are hurting themselves.

It's almost like at the time they were students screwing around with no sexual assault accusations

And now they are adutls with a guy about to become a supreme court judge who has 3 seperate sexual assault accusations and keeps lying.

Crazy
---

Awesome posted...

These witnesses that alleged that they saw these acts and didnt call the police allowed brett to continue doing he was doing, they think they are hurting bretts image but they are hurting themselves.

breaking news: high school and college students are irresponsible.

They could have it (and everything else) on video tape and the right would still want him in.

They don't care. They just want their guy in.
---

It doesn't even matter that it's Kavanaugh. Nobody cares about Kavanaugh, the person, sitting on the bench anymore. Trump may have because he believed that Kavanaugh would always rule in favor of the President but even now Trump's like "I barely know the guy".

They could just as easily pull Kavanaugh and introduce someone else without a spotty history and put this all behind them.

But this isn't about Kavanaugh anymore. It's about the victory over the Democrats/left/libs that would come with a confirmation despite all these allegations.

It's about the GOP cementing that it doesn't matter what anyone says: they're in charge, and what they say goes.
---

CyricZ posted...

Kavanaugh

CyricZ posted...

It doesn't even matter that it's Kavanaugh. Nobody cares about Kavanaugh, the person, sitting on the bench anymore. Trump may have because he believed that Kavanaugh would always rule in favor of the President but even now Trump's like "I barely know the guy".

They could just as easily pull Kavanaugh and introduce someone else without a spotty history and put this all behind them.

But this isn't about Kavanaugh anymore. It's about the victory over the Democrats/left/libs that would come with a confirmation despite all these allegations.

It's about the GOP cementing that it doesn't matter what anyone says: they're in charge, and what they say goes.

I hear what you are saying. But never forget, there is a quid pro quo situation going on here.
Kavanaugh has been a perfect legal soldier for The Right, from Clinton and Monaca to Bush V. Gore.
In the old boy network, Quid Pro Quo is huge. This is part of their system. This situation is challenging that system, and they are freaking out. I am almost shocked the right hasn't turned their backs on him. But at this point they are so far gone, I really am not surprised.
---

CyricZ posted...

It's about the GOP cementing that it doesn't matter what anyone says: they're in charge, and what they say goes.

absolutely, and very likely a big mistake.
---

SiO4 posted...

In the old boy network, Quid Pro Quo is huge.

Well said, orthosilicate.

I guess in a greater sense, this is what they're really trying to do, ensure that the old boy system is well intact and still serves those it is meant to serve.

If more level-headed people were running the show on this, they'd have given him up as poison after his testimony last week, but there's pride on the line, now.
---

CyricZ posted...

SiO4 posted...

In the old boy network, Quid Pro Quo is huge.

Well said, orthosilicate.

On the first point, that is what is going on here. Have no doubt about it.

On the second point, very few people have ever 'gotten' that. :-)
Though I did, at the time, want SiO2. It was taken.
---

So, again, an accusation without evidence, no witnesses actually named, by another lifetime Democrat who apparently had zero problems with Kavanaugh before, but NOW just feels compelled to come forward?
---

Oh, did the tweet just go away? Bummer.

darkjedilink posted...

by another lifetime Democrat who apparently had zero problems with Kavanaugh before, but NOW just feels compelled to come forward?

I feel like this must have been explained to you at least two or three times in the last week about "why now".
---

Vindris_SNH posted...

There is too much motivation on the left to just lie about a bunch of things you can't prove or disprove

The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle: the amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
---

xsquader is spiking people's drinks now?

CyricZ posted...

It doesn't even matter that it's Kavanaugh. Nobody cares about Kavanaugh, the person, sitting on the bench anymore. Trump may have because he believed that Kavanaugh would always rule in favor of the President but even now Trump's like "I barely know the guy".

They could just as easily pull Kavanaugh and introduce someone else without a spotty history and put this all behind them.

But this isn't about Kavanaugh anymore. It's about the victory over the Democrats/left/libs that would come with a confirmation despite all these allegations.

It's about the GOP cementing that it doesn't matter what anyone says: they're in charge, and what they say goes.

That's a bit of a Catch-22, isn't it? He only has a spotty history because Dems have spent the last month throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks. I challenge you to think of a single person Trump could nominate (that hasn't previously been nominated) that wouldn't have a "spotty history" after weeks of Democratic criticism. In July he was "an upright family man with a dozen years of clean service on the bench and a sterling reputation among his peers", after all.
---

s0nicfan posted...

He only has a spotty history

No, he always had the spotty history. It just wasn't made public until there was a consideration for putting him in a lifetime position for the highest court in the land.

If you're going to suggest to me that no one Trump could suggest would not have a spotty history, that speaks more against the candidates than to anyone's standards.

Or to put it another way, Gorsuch made it in.
---

s0nicfan posted...

CyricZ posted...

It doesn't even matter that it's Kavanaugh. Nobody cares about Kavanaugh, the person, sitting on the bench anymore. Trump may have because he believed that Kavanaugh would always rule in favor of the President but even now Trump's like "I barely know the guy".

They could just as easily pull Kavanaugh and introduce someone else without a spotty history and put this all behind them.

But this isn't about Kavanaugh anymore. It's about the victory over the Democrats/left/libs that would come with a confirmation despite all these allegations.

It's about the GOP cementing that it doesn't matter what anyone says: they're in charge, and what they say goes.

That's a bit of a Catch-22, isn't it? He only has a spotty history because Dems have spent the last month throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks. I challenge you to think of a single person Trump could nominate (that hasn't previously been nominated) that wouldn't have a "spotty history" after weeks of Democratic criticism. In July he was "an upright family man with a dozen years of clean service on the bench and a sterling reputation among his peers", after all.

What spotty history did Gorsuch have?
---

CyricZ posted...

s0nicfan posted...

He only has a spotty history

No, he always had the spotty history. It just wasn't made public until there was a consideration for putting him in a lifetime position for the highest court in the land.

If you're going to suggest to me that no one Trump could suggest would not have a spotty history, that speaks more against the candidates than to anyone's standards.

Or to put it another way, Gorsuch made it in.

Trump could propose Ghandi and within a week people would be going on about how he was abusive to women. If he proposed Gorsuch without the Dems having done it first, they'd have found something on him, too.

EDIT: Sorry, confused Gorsuch and Garland. See below for Gorsuch criticism
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

What spotty history did Gorsuch have?

Took me 10 seconds:
https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20170131_no-to-neil-gorsuch

EDIT:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/neil-gorsuch-doesnt-seem-to-care-much-about-impartiality-after-all/2017/08/21/
e8fc6842-844d-11e7-902a-2a9f2d808496_story.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/how-gorsuch-became-the-second-most-polarizing-man-in-d-c.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/gorsuchs-speeches-raise-questions-of-independence-critics-say
/2017/09/27/5accdb3c-a230-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.b0f2e6286d28
---

s0nicfan posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

What spotty history did Gorsuch have?

Took me 10 seconds:
https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20170131_no-to-neil-gorsuch

Oh no they didn't like him based on his judicial rulings aka disagree with his opinions.

Please.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Trump could propose Ghandi and within a week people would be going on about how he was abusive to women. If he proposed Gorsuch without the Dems having done it first, they'd have found something on him, too.

Again, says more about the candidates than the response.

You can say what you're really want to say, that all of these allegations are lies and only exist because of the attempt to get Kav on the SCOTUS, but to be honest, I'm not sure you actually believe that, which is why you haven't outright said it.

Are you suggesting that every nominee at this point is going to be massively put through the wringer before being confirmed? You'd be 100% correct, and at this point, it's kind of a necessary play for the Democrats.

For a lifetime position, I frankly feel that we should have been no less thorough.
---

CyricZ posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Trump could propose Ghandi and within a week people would be going on about how he was abusive to women. If he proposed Gorsuch without the Dems having done it first, they'd have found something on him, too.

Again, says more about the candidates than the response.

You can say what you're really want to say, that all of these allegations are lies and only exist because of the attempt to get Kav on the SCOTUS, but to be honest, I'm not sure you actually believe that, which is why you haven't outright said it.

Are you suggesting that every nominee at this point is going to be massively put through the wringer before being confirmed? You'd be 100% correct, and at this point, it's kind of a necessary play for the Democrats.

For a lifetime position, I frankly feel that we should have been no less thorough.

I'm not saying ALL these allegations are lies. I'm saying if you took anyone and piled on every little irrelevant thing that ever happened into one place, you could make anyone look like they have a spotty history. We're at the point where "he once dumped a drink on a guy" is making national headlines. That's NOT a "spotty history" moment. That's actively attempting to character assassinate him by taking a series of uneventful, meaningless moments and trying to say they paint a bigger picture that isn't really there.

The reality is he's been on the bench for over a dozen years, has a completely sterling professional reputation, and has exhibited NONE of the character traits that they are trying to claim he has from college as an adult. If his history was "spotty" we would have known immediately in July, or back when he was still on the shortlist back when Trump's picks were being criticized, not days before an already repeatedly delayed final vote.
---

Whatever happened to Avenatti's other infallible witness
---

Oh yeah here we go, FBI wraps up their investigation then suddenly a new witness decides to appear. Oops we better delay it another week and investigate this right? Such a joke.

Ah here's what happened with Avenatti's last "infallible" witness:

https://goo.gl/EkoEa2



NBC faces scrutiny for interview with Kavanaugh accuser

This undated photo of Julie Swetnick was released by her attorney Michael Avenatti via Twitter on Sept. 26. 2018. NBC News decided to air an interview with Brett Kavanaugh accuser Swetnick, despite credibility question and NBC says it is continuing to report the story, seeking corroborating evidence. (Michael Avenatti via AP) (Associated Press)

By David Bauder | AP

October 2 at 9:35 PM

NEW YORK When a third woman came forward to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct during 1980s house parties in Maryland, some in the mainstream media kept their distance. NBC News made a different decision.

MSNBC aired a 10-minute story Monday about reporter Kate Snows interview with Julie Swetnick, with an excerpt on NBCs Nightly News. The interview was a continued topic of conversation and further reporting on Tuesday.

Kavanaugh has not just denied her allegations, he suggested theyre from the Twilight Zone. During the interview conducted Sunday, Snow said there were inconsistencies between what Swetnick wrote in a sworn affidavit and what she told her. Attempts to reach people who could corroborate her story were unsuccessful. Dispatches from other news organizations have questioned Swetnicks credibility, including an Associated Press story that detailed her extensive history of legal disputes.

Those are normal signals for news organizations to apply the brakes.

But in this case, its a competitive news story with an imminent deadline, given the Senate Republican leaderships determination to vote on Kavanaughs nomination within days. Testing and reporting on the credibility of Swetnicks claims are part of what the nation needs to weigh in deciding on his suitability for the court.

Its an unusually tough call, said Jane Hall, a professor at the School of Communication at American University. Given how Swetnick has stepped forward to become part of the process, Hall said NBC made the right one.

You cant argue that its not compelling and in the public interest, she said.

In her story, Snow pointed out differences between what Swetnick told her and the affidavit released earlier by her lawyer, Michael Avenatti. For instance, Swetnick in her previous statement had accused Kavanaugh and his friends of spiking the punch at parties with drugs or grain alcohol so girls would lose their inhibitions. In the interview, Swetnick said she saw Kavanaugh standing near the punch but didnt see him or friend Mark Judge spike it.

Swetnick also walked back allegations that Kavanaugh and other boys at the party waited their turn to gang rape girls who had been drugged. She told Snow she had no specific knowledge that this was happening. She did say that she was violated by boys at one party, but couldnt say whether Kavanaugh was involved. She said she contacted the Montgomery County, Maryland, police about it; when NBC contacted the police to ask if there were any records, they said it could take up to a month to find them.

The morning after the interview, Snow said Swetnick provided the names of four people she said she went to some of these parties with. One of these friends is dead, and one said he does not recall a Julie Swetnick. Two others hadnt returned NBCs inquiries before the story aired and still had not on Tuesday, the network said.



And people literally hyped this lawyer?
---

Turned out it was all entirely relevant as we saw the real Kavanaugh testify last week. He was combative, uncoordinated, unprofessional, and worst of all, partisan.

Would we have seen the same without these allegations? Probably not.
---

CyricZ posted...

Turned out it was all entirely relevant as we saw the real Kavanaugh testify last week. He was combative, uncoordinated, unprofessional, and worst of all, partisan.

Would we have seen the same without these allegations? Probably not.

He certainly stumbled over himself pretty bad.
That performance was enough to disqualify him.
His revealed temperament and partisanship are enough to disqualify him.
---

smo86 posted...

xsquader is spiking people's drinks now?

Implying he didnt already get himself banned from the bar after video recording them
---

CyricZ posted...

Turned out it was all entirely relevant as we saw the real Kavanaugh testify last week. He was combative, uncoordinated, unprofessional, and worst of all, partisan.

Would we have seen the same without these allegations? Probably not.

"The ends justify the means"

CyricZ posted...

Oh, did the tweet just go away? Bummer.

darkjedilink posted...

by another lifetime Democrat who apparently had zero problems with Kavanaugh before, but NOW just feels compelled to come forward?

I feel like this must have been explained to you at least two or three times in the last week about "why now".

Your argument makes no sense - 'hey, I saw this dude spiking punch bowls with drugs so he can rape people, but I won't go to the cops.'

'He's on the news to become a judge five years later, but I'm not going to say anything.'

'He's on the news again for being involved in President Clinton's sexual allegations, but I'mma keep my mouth shut.'

'He's on the news again for involvement in a Presidential election, but I don't need to come forward.'

'He's accused of rape at a party around the time I saw him rape people, but I'll sit it out.'

'He's gonna slide on the rape allegations, so I better come forward, in the interest of justice! HERE I COME TO SAVE THE DAAAAAAAYYY!!!!!

Seriously, why now?
---

TheKentster posted...

CyricZ posted...

Turned out it was all entirely relevant as we saw the real Kavanaugh testify last week. He was combative, uncoordinated, unprofessional, and worst of all, partisan.

Would we have seen the same without these allegations? Probably not.

"The ends justify the means"

The Means referring to the denial of Obama to nominate someone?
Or the Means of a reputable citizen providing testimony regarding the character of a potential Supreme Court Justice?

You're being unclear in your intent.
---

Djl obsession with protecting a scumbag is sad
---

s0nicfan posted...

The reality is he's been on the bench for over a dozen years, has a completely sterling professional reputation, and has exhibited NONE of the character traits that they are trying to claim he has from college as an adult.

He had $200,000 in debt for "baseball tickets." His whole speech on Thursday was a drunken rant.
---

darkjedilink posted...

'He's on the news to become a judge five years later, but I'm not going to say anything.'

'He's on the news again for being involved in President Clinton's sexual allegations, but I'mma keep my mouth shut.'

'He's on the news again for involvement in a Presidential election, but I don't need to come forward.'

I just don't think he was in the news for any of these things. Definitely not circuit court judge, no one pays attention to that except beltway dweebs. I was maybe 8 when the Starr Report was commissioned but you rarely hear about anyone except the lead person (I'm sure you could find who Mueller's team is, but I never hear about them, even though they are reported on)
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

Ah here's what happened with Avenatti's last "infallible" witness:

https://goo.gl/EkoEa2



NBC faces scrutiny for interview with Kavanaugh accuser

This undated photo of Julie Swetnick was released by her attorney Michael Avenatti via Twitter on Sept. 26. 2018. NBC News decided to air an interview with Brett Kavanaugh accuser Swetnick, despite credibility question and NBC says it is continuing to report the story, seeking corroborating evidence. (Michael Avenatti via AP) (Associated Press)

By David Bauder | AP

October 2 at 9:35 PM

NEW YORK When a third woman came forward to accuse Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct during 1980s house parties in Maryland, some in the mainstream media kept their distance. NBC News made a different decision.

MSNBC aired a 10-minute story Monday about reporter Kate Snows interview with Julie Swetnick, with an excerpt on NBCs Nightly News. The interview was a continued topic of conversation and further reporting on Tuesday.

Kavanaugh has not just denied her allegations, he suggested theyre from the Twilight Zone. During the interview conducted Sunday, Snow said there were inconsistencies between what Swetnick wrote in a sworn affidavit and what she told her. Attempts to reach people who could corroborate her story were unsuccessful. Dispatches from other news organizations have questioned Swetnicks credibility, including an Associated Press story that detailed her extensive history of legal disputes.

Those are normal signals for news organizations to apply the brakes.

But in this case, its a competitive news story with an imminent deadline, given the Senate Republican leaderships determination to vote on Kavanaughs nomination within days. Testing and reporting on the credibility of Swetnicks claims are part of what the nation needs to weigh in deciding on his suitability for the court.

Its an unusually tough call, said Jane Hall, a professor at the School of Communication at American University. Given how Swetnick has stepped forward to become part of the process, Hall said NBC made the right one.

You cant argue that its not compelling and in the public interest, she said.

In her story, Snow pointed out differences between what Swetnick told her and the affidavit released earlier by her lawyer, Michael Avenatti. For instance, Swetnick in her previous statement had accused Kavanaugh and his friends of spiking the punch at parties with drugs or grain alcohol so girls would lose their inhibitions. In the interview, Swetnick said she saw Kavanaugh standing near the punch but didnt see him or friend Mark Judge spike it.

Swetnick also walked back allegations that Kavanaugh and other boys at the party waited their turn to gang rape girls who had been drugged. She told Snow she had no specific knowledge that this was happening. She did say that she was violated by boys at one party, but couldnt say whether Kavanaugh was involved. She said she contacted the Montgomery County, Maryland, police about it; when NBC contacted the police to ask if there were any records, they said it could take up to a month to find them.

The morning after the interview, Snow said Swetnick provided the names of four people she said she went to some of these parties with. One of these friends is dead, and one said he does not recall a Julie Swetnick. Two others hadnt returned NBCs inquiries before the story aired and still had not on Tuesday, the network said.



And people literally hyped this lawyer?

Dems are getting rekt over Kavanaugh, lol.
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

'He's on the news to become a judge five years later, but I'm not going to say anything.'

'He's on the news again for being involved in President Clinton's sexual allegations, but I'mma keep my mouth shut.'

'He's on the news again for involvement in a Presidential election, but I don't need to come forward.'

I just don't think he was in the news for any of these things. Definitely not circuit court judge, no one pays attention to that except beltway dweebs. I was maybe 8 when the Starr Report was commissioned but you rarely hear about anyone except the lead person (I'm sure you could find who Mueller's team is, but I never hear about them, even though they are reported on)

He wasn't in the news about fuckin' Lewinski? Or Bush vs. Gore?

Lmao
---

darkjedilink posted...

He wasn't in the news about fuckin' Lewinski? Or Bush vs. Gore?

...was he? I'd love to see the articles or headlines or whatever
---

I mean do you remember the names of the lawyers involved in other high profile government cases? Who argued the Citizens United ruling? Who is the current equivalent of Kavanaugh to Mueller's Starr?

Seems to me a huge stretch to pretend that 'being involved' in these things leads directly to personal notoriety
---

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

He wasn't in the news about fuckin' Lewinski? Or Bush vs. Gore?

...was he? I'd love to see the articles or headlines or whatever

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Early_legal_career_(1990%E2%80%932006)
---

SiO4 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

He wasn't in the news about fuckin' Lewinski? Or Bush vs. Gore?

...was he? I'd love to see the articles or headlines or whatever

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh#Early_legal_career_(1990%E2%80%932006)

I actually went through this section and he was mentioned in exactly one article back then. At least that's been sourced by wikipedia

edit: nearly the entire section happened after he became SCOTUS nominee. This is his first entry back in 2005:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Kavanaugh&oldid=25772531

Brett Kavanaugh is the current Staff Secretary in the Executive Office of the President of the United States.
---

TIL: everybody was on wikipedia in 1998.
---

ledbowman posted...

TIL: everybody was on wikipedia in 1998.

No, seriously, are you guys really going to act like he was a high profile person prior to this year?
---

Balrog0 posted...

ledbowman posted...

TIL: everybody was on wikipedia in 1998.

No, seriously, are you guys really going to act like he was a high profile person prior to this year?

I am interested in hearing answers to this question
---

In internal circles, yes he was.
Though to many that is just minutia, and not necessarily high profile for the general public.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/12/is-brett-kavanaugh-the-forrest-gump-of-washington/?utm_term=.175cd986d1ae
---

I too want to know why he's publicizing this information.
---