Kavanaugh accuser: 'I'm disgusted and appalled at the way I have been re-victimized'

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Julie Swetnick, the third woman to accuse Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, said Sunday that she is outraged by the way her allegations against Kavanaugh have been handled.

"As a sexual assault victim, I am disgusted and appalled by the way that I have been re-victimized over the last 2 weeks after I had the courage to come forward," Swetnick said in a statement released by her lawyer, possible 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful Michael Avenatti.

"These attacks have included certain media 'pundits' (i.e. Chuck Todd) and politicians (i.e. senators Coons and Kennedy) claiming I should have 'shut up' and continued to stay silent about what happened to me," she explained.

"They claim my allegations were 'not helpful to the process,'" she said. "This is outrageous and shows a lack of empathy for survivors."

Link to tweet

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/410284-kavanaugh-accuser-im-disgusted-and-appalled-at-the-way-i-have-been-re

[SWBTATTReg]

1. My heart truly goes out to this victim and is full of disgust with this ramming down our ...

throats an obviously very unqualified candidate to the Supreme Court.

[triron]

2. "Unqualified"--yes, very likely a criminal!

[olegramps]

14. Chuck Todd should be boycotted along with his sponsors. He is a worthless Rep shill.

[katmondoo]

47. _I always turn off MSNBC as son as Chuck appears, I really cannot stand him

His smirk makes me want to smack him upside the head.

[Squinch]

3. I know it's really too much to ask of anyone, but I wish she would go on Rachel with her

corroborating witnesses and get the truth of this story out once and for all.

[llmart]

4. possible 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful

Why does the writer have to put this in the article? It isn't even relevant to the content, but somehow Avenatti is now going to be attached to this adjective all the time?

[Trust Buster]

5. +1000

[Hermit-The-Prog]

13. it plays to RW

It follows lock-step with the Repugnant theme that all of the victims are part of a Democrat ploy.

Disgusting.

[Koch Ebola]

6. Kavanaugh is not a far gone conclusion.

If you read the constitution, it will tell you that both houses can impeach a Supreme Court justice. If most American get off of their selfish fannies and vote left. We can send Kavanaugh to A.A.A or anger management class.

https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/yahoo-news-explains-can-supreme-court-justice-impeached-131912298.html

[busterbrown]

8. Did you mean A.A.?

The alcohol must be addressed first.. I thought he was high, but not drunk..

[john657]

15. Actually, that's wrong.

If you read the constitution, it will tell you that both houses can impeach a Supreme Court justice

The House impeaches, the Senate tries, convicts, removes or acquits.

It will take 67 Senators to convict and remove a SCJ, and even if we win all the Senate seats up for election this year, we would still be far short.

[brush]

49. Impeach his ass anyway in the House. Put another permanent stain on his fratboy face.

To hell with what the Senate does with it.

Whenever he's mentioned so will be his impeachment.

[john657]

51. Ok,

why don't you ask the pubs how well it went for them after they impeached President Clinton but failed to convict him in the Senate.

[brush]

54. They got W Bush. Better question: What happened after Clarence Thomas?

A huge number of women were elected.

[john657]

55. I was talking about the congressional elections. n/t

The only reason we got Dubya is because the SC intervened in the FL recount and handed the election to him over Gore.

[brush]

56. Nothing new there. The repugs pulled their typical cheat job.

Acknowledge what happened in Congress after Clarence Thomas.

[john657]

57. Sorry about that.

Acknowledge what happened in Congress after Clarence Thomas.

You are correct.

[mainstreetonce]

7. I really would like to hear her corroborating witnesses

If she has people who actually saw the incident,I want to hear them.

I am disappointed that Avenatti said she had corroboration and then didn't produce eye witnesses.

[suegeo]

9. She is a corroborating witness herself

She is the eye witness, herself.

She can corroborate that the Kav frequently got drunk at parties, then sexually assaulted women.

Her eye witness account--of how she saw a drunken Kav grope a woman at a party--supports the claim that the Kav gets drunk at parties then sexually assaults women,

As was the claim made by Dr. Ford, under oath.

But nobody talked to Avanatti's client. Because we no longer live under the rule of law. Coup 2000, Coup 2004, and Coup 2016.

And I'll bet dollars to doughnuts nobody even talked to Mark Judge, the other person who participated in the Kav's sexual assault of Dr. Ford. No investigation, no police questioning. No under oath statements. What a shitty party the GOP/Putin are.

[LisaL]

10. Corroborating witnesses for her would be other people who support what she is saying.

She can't be her own corroborating witness. She made the most serious accusations. So presumably people would want the most proof for such serious accusations.

"Corroborating witness is a witness whose testimony supports or confirms testimony that is already given. For example, if “A” has approached the court to grant a divorce, s/he must bring to the hearing a witness who can corroborate the grounds for divorce stated by “A”."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/corroborating-witness/

[suegeo]

12. Correct.

She never stated that the Kav gang raped her. Her attorney is too smart to let her say that or hint at that.

Her corroborating witnesses (if she were to get her own hearing) would be someone who looked into the room where she was being raped by multiple boys.

Her testimony -- if she were ever allowed to give it -- would support the testimony that Dr. Ford has already given. That the Kav is sexually abusive of women.

She can add credibility to Dr. Ford's testimony. Mr. A's client said that the Kav was drunk at parties, and she saw him sexually assault a woman. (I think this accuser also stated that she saw the Kav put shit in drinks at the party, but I could be wrong about that eye witness part.)

That's what she can add to the evidence of the Kav being a drunk, out-of-control football player who assaults women.

She adds to the credibility of Dr. Ford, who testified, under oath that the Kav sexually assaulted her. With Mark Judge as a supporting criminal. Mark Judge, a foaming-at-the mouth rightwing propagandist admitted to a former girlfriend that he participated in a gang rape.

Nobody followed up with anybody. It was a sham investigation. I doubt anybody even questioned the Kav's accomplice in his sexual assault of Dr. Ford, rabid dog, Mark Judge.

And then there's the next post (#11), with another person saying the Kav is an aggressive serial abuser.

[john657]

16. The FBI interviewed M. Judge for several hours,

apparently he had nothing else to add to his earlier statement that he has no recollection of the allegation nor of the party.

[suegeo]

19. Thanks!

Last edited Sun Oct 7, 2018, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I only read that he put out a statement, under the threat of felony.

Under the threat of a felony isn't a legal thing. Under the threat of purjery is a thing. Which means under oath.

I am not an attorney, but I hate republicans. They twist things by saying "no corroborating witnesses" where there are. And saying stuff like "under threat of felony" which isn't a thing.

The Kav also said "under threat of felony" in his shoutfest, which is the same language as Judge, which might mean witness tampering.

On edit: I just read that "under the threat of felony" is a thing. It's what papodopolous and Flynn were charged with when they lied about what they did for Putin's puppet. It was in an article in the Washington Post, which is now behind a paywall for me.

[suegeo]

23. Ah ha here is a link about Judge/FBI

Mark Judge, a high school friend of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, has completed his interview with FBI agents.

His attorney, Barbara "Biz" Van Gelder, wouldn't say Tuesday when the interview concluded or what Judge was asked. Judge is one of multiple people the FBI has already interviewed as part of its reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.

On Monday, Van Gelder said her client had been questioned by the FBI but the interview was "not completed."

Christine Blasey Ford, a California college professor, has said Judge was in the room when a drunken Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers in the early 1980s. Judge has denied the allegations, as has Kavanaugh.

[link:http://amp.miamiherald.com/news/nation-
world/article219351650.html|

This particular link doesn't say anything about what he actually told the FBI, but I guess I can find a credible news story like that on my own.

Lying to the FBI is a big deal. So is lying under oath. I guess you'd be under the pressure of both when interviewed by the FBI?

[john657]

30. Lying to the FBI is a very big federal offense that could earn you a trip

to a fed prison and a pretty hefty fine.

[LisaL]

31. How do you prove that somebody has or doesn't have recollection of

something alleged to have happened 35 years ago?

[john657]

33. You really can't. n/t

[LisaL]

34. Then he is pretty safe from being prosecuted.

[john657]

35. Probably, unless other compelling evidence comes to light

like, his diary outlining the allegations, or photos of him doing what is alleged.

Other than that?

[LisaL]

39. Compelling evidence coming to light sure would be nice.

[john657]

42. It sure would, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it,

life's too short, especially at my age.

[LisaL]

43. Neither do I.

[suegeo]

36. Lie detector test?

Is it called polygraph?

Also Judge's old g.f. was ready to come forward to testify that Judge admitted to participated in raping a woman whose drink was spiked.

Mr avanatti appears to have an eyewitness to the kav spiking drinks @ parties, so...

[LisaL]

37. Generally not admissible in court and generally not considered highly credible.

And you can't make someone to take one either.

[john657]

40. No one can be compelled to take a polygraph against their will,

also, polygraph's are notoriously unreliable, that's why the majority of states don't allow them in a criminal proceeding.

I have my doubts about Avenatti, if he has the goods, as he claims, then why hasn't he walked it over the the FBI along with his client?

[triron]

45. Avenatti said his client was willing to be interviewed by the FBI; Kavanaugh never said that.

FBI turned away numerous witnesses so your claim is nonsense.

[john657]

48. So why didn't Avenatti just march her to the nearest FBI office?

Sorry, well, no I'm not, but I just don't trust Avenatti and, IMO, Swetnick's story has just too many holes in it..

Dr. Ford was much more credible than Swetnick, again, IMHO.

[brush]

50. No one knows that for sure. It's just what the report said.

How long does it take for Judge to say: "I don't remember anything. I was drunk."?

[john657]

52. Granted.

I would love to see that FBI report.

[triron]

11. There has been.

Link to tweet

[suegeo]

17. So this means Brett is an accomplice to other rapes? Right?

If he was spiking drinks at parties, for the purpose of making women unable to provide consent to sexual acts.

Then, someone or many someones, rapes women under the influence of drinks spiked by Brett...

then Brett is an accomplice to the rapes.

No wonder he tampered with witnesses.
No wonder the FBI was so limited in its investigations.

And what is in all those documents of his prior work as the Forrest Gump of the repubican party, that nobody is allowed to look at?

[LisaL]

18. You would have to prove it first.

[suegeo]

20. Agreed.

We agree.

But, how can the FBI or lawyers prove it, if the investigation was not done, limited in scope, or witnesses were tampered with.

Maybe that is what you were trying to say earlier, hoping Ms. Swetnick gets her own hearing, with her own corroborating witnesses.

[triron]

21. Nope, this was a job interview not a criminal investigation.

No proof needed. Corroboration, yes. Proof, no.

[LisaL]

22. I am answering to a specific question from a poster.

Not discussing merits of Supreme Court nomination.

[triron]

46. I don't follow you.

[suegeo]

25. Thanks for that Triron

I forgot the whole squid ink the republicans squirted out around proof vs. corroboration.

So Ms. Swetnick might have given corroboration to Dr. Ford's testimony, when she might have been able to testify herself that she saw the drunken or coked up Kav grope and assault a woman at a party. Adds to Ford's credibility.

And Mr. Avanatti's other client could have corroborated as well (post 11).

[john657]

32. Swetnick walked back her claim that she saw him spiking the punch,

she now says she saw him and Judge near the punch bowl but didn't actually see him or Judge spike the punch.

[suegeo]

38. But then another person came forward (post 11)

To say she/he saw the Kav spike the drinks, so there's that

[john657]

41. There is that, I suspect we'll never really know the truth. n/t

[Takket]

24. just because congress silenced these women..........

Doesn't mean the media has to............ will they follow up with interviews and specials highlighting these women, or discard their stories to the dustbin of history, never to be made public?

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Apropos of Nothing

Try again!

[LisaL]

28. Not sure what you are responding to.

But clearly not the OP.

[Scurrilous]

44. K&R

[lpbk2713]

53. As what usually happens in situations like this ...

future victims will be reluctant to say anything to anyone and
the sleazebag perp will feel free to commit more assaults.