Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
Including payment for a retainer or whatever? Yes, I read that, and he denies it completely. I don't know about lawyers but I know how I'd define a client.
Yes, I saw the link 20 was talking about. That someone called inas a client.id be really surprised if he fell for that. If nothing else, he is correct about all the yearbook lingo that he pointed out to Davis. Wonder if they will question Kavanaugh about that. So am I correct that a female attorney is questioning Dr. Ford, and the Dems are questioning Kavanaugh?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/25/michael-avenatii-kavanaugh-accusations-4chan-841348
Avenatti completely denies the 4chan fake story, says he knew about the accuser well before Sunday
It's hilarious that people will believe internet trolls. Some of them claimed they made the Steele dossier and forwarded it to John McCain back in the day.
Avenatti completely denies the 4chan fake story, says he knew about the accuser well before Sunday
Politico said:
It's hilarious that people will believe internet trolls. Some of them claimed they made the Steele dossier and forwarded it to John McCain back in the day.
There is a reason that none of the Dems are giving his claims any weight whatsoever, at this point.
Did everybody see this ?
About 2:39 today in the OpEd by Patti Davis thread I asked "VanPastorMan" as follows: "What in the world does an honest pastor think evidence is, anyway? Oral statements by two women and an angel? (You do know the story without looking it up, don't you?)"
He's still posting garbage on other threads without answering these two questions. He may not know how to answer.
Oh, well he completely denies it....that clears it up.
Well, it does seem a tad far fetched, does it not?
That said, if this mystery accuser never materializes then we'll always wonder. And in that case I'll choose to believe that those rascals at 4chan punked him. Because I'd find that to be awesome.
Yes, I think it's far fetched too....but this guy is basically a celebrity version of an ambulance chaser....who has $10m bankruptcy judgment against him, and owes half a mil to the IRS. He needs something bigger than Stormy and her $130k payoff from Trump.
So here is what Renate has to say about the yearbook, and by the way, she was an original signee of the 65 women that supported him.
The yearbook insinuation is horrible , hurtful, and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. Sound like she was a popular girl that dated all of them?
Look up what FFFF Fourth of July means and Devil’s Triangle and boofing. Yep, just horseplay.
Use Urban Dictionary.
Oddly, the Senate is going by their rules. Every Senator may use their allotted time and question or not. Most Republicans will yield to the newly hired staff attorney - maybe all of them. Chair and Rankin minority ember will make opening remarks. The staff lawyer will ask questions of Kavanaugh also. Its is, as it should be, the way the Senate conducts business under their rules. You probably can count on some Dem Senators to thrust themselves into the limelight and attempt to practice law - or run their mouths for their political advantage.
My guess is that he does indeed have a client with a story, but this client doesn't want to testify or tell the story publicly. The whole "soon," or "in 48 hours,", or "when she's ready," is just a delay hoping that the threat of this will be enough.
We'll see. I'd say there's a 35% chance we never hear from this one.
There's several Dems on the committee who have been prosecutors/AGs, so it'd be silly to act like they shouldn't ask questions. I would be fine if Republican Senators wanted to ask questions of Ford is well, although I see how it's politically smart to disassociate themselves from grilling an alleged victim in 2018.
The guy said he had a client....and then publicly accused a Federal judge of drugging and gang raping girls. I'm guessing he could have some fairly serious trouble with the bar if nothing comes of it. And could be the reason he pulled his Twitter account where he posted all this stuff.
Taking this at its worse, Kavanaugh and his friends gave the impression of having sex when they weren't. I'm not shocked.
All he has to do is say that his client has declined to pursue it further, and wishes to retain her anonymity. Personally I think we'll ultimately hear from the client, no doubt the timing of which will necessitate another delay. Not that this would be the plan, or anything like that.
What kind of teenage boys would do that sort of thing?
Conversely, what kind of teenage boys would get an underage girl drunk and as a group try to take advantage and sexually humiliate her in front of their friends. You ever hear of such a thing? It was reportedly a routine practice among the good young men at Georgetown prep at their drunken beach parties. Would that surprise you? For my part I would be a great deal more surprised if a significant fraction of priests were molesting children.
No need to overthink it. It starts with the idea, the realization that they can play this drinking game and get a girl drunk. Then they do it. Then they realize they can bang her and do it. Then they do it again. And again. And again. And again.
I think the biggest problem here and the reason so many women signed on to vouch for Kavanaugh is that they don't want their present husbands, children, family to know what happened back then, consensual or not. Makes them feel dirty. They're Catholics after all. Same goes for the men. They'd all rather pretend it never happened.
Me neither. The really perverse thing is that the number of actual victims would be very small compared to the number of abusers. My guess is that there are many, many more grown men who know the truth about what happened at Georgetown prep than there are women. But they can't talk about it now either because they were stoogified accomplices.
So now you are just fabricating your own stories? The actual one not juicy enough?
What in the hell is wrong with you?
The hired gun is Rachel Mitchell of Arizona:
Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell emerges as GOP choice to question Kavanaugh and accuser at hearing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...104e9616c21_story.html?utm_term=.9ac93ad20a0c
Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell emerges as GOP choice to question Kavanaugh and accuser at hearing
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...104e9616c21_story.html?utm_term=.9ac93ad20a0c
I don't think most Senators should ask questions during these hearings. Most of them use their opportunity to make a political commercial. They usually pontificate about something kind of related to make a political point and rarely even ask relevant questions. When they do, with exceptions of course, they are stupid questions. We could probably improve these hearings by quite a bit if this happened all the time. Just my opinion based on watching more than a few of these things.
I think Senators should ask good questions during this hearing. No reason to expect the questions will be better with hired hacks. They hired a woman to do it in this case because the GOP doesn't want the optics of octagenarian men railroading a woman abused as a 16 year old.
Well, yeah.
But Aloha is right. Politicians turn into preening morons at these things. It’s just camera time for these clowns.
Hired hacks? This has happened before. Look it up. Have you not watched these things? Some Senators actually are capable of asking pertinent questions, but some aren’t capable of that at all and pontificate for the cameras at best.
Last edited:
You believe they weren’t having sex? And they chose Renate because she was popular? That’s adorable. I bet you get excited for the Easter Bunny every year too!
I think it best for people to quit guessing what high school kids were doing 35 years ago based upon cryptic yearbook words.
Dems won't do it....because there are at least 2 on their side of the committee that want to run for President in 2020....and didn't feel they embarrassed themselves enough during their first circus act.
I’m sure this is politically incorrect, but it appears that zeke thinks Renate was “easy,” “put out,” or something along those lines. Doesn’t seem to be believing Renate when she says she wasn’t like that. Is that right, zeke?
It’s not cryptic. It’s pretty plain. No idea whether they did what they said. As for Renate, that’s a pretty despicable thing to imply. I’m going by the other guy saying what Kavanaugh told him.
I have no idea what they actually did way back then, but the idea floated by some of those guys today that they were just memorializing "innocent dates" with a particular girl is laughable. They were clearly implying they all boned her. I think - without speaking for her, just deduction here - that is what Zeke is taking issue with. And rightfully so, although I'm sure this sort of thing has appeared in tens of thousands of yearbooks over the years.
But it can be a serious thing: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...k-renate-alumnius_us_5baa8e31e4b0f143d10e2639
Similar threads
