Thursday, September 27, 2018

The Kavanaugh Accusations

Let’s see… the charges against Brett Kavanaugh are accumulating. Either he has sexually assaulted and harassed multiple women… facts which the FBI failed to uncover in numerous background investigations… or some people are either misremembering or making things up.

Today, we learn that two men have presented themselves to the Senate Judiciary Committee, explaining that they, not Kavanaugh, assaulted Christine Blasey Ford in 1982.

Powerline has the story, as put out by the Judiciary Committee:

September 24: Committee staff have first interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his complaint. He submitted a written statement earlier in the day.

September 25: Committee staff have a second interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in the summer of 1982 that is the basis of her allegation. He described his recollection of their interaction in some detail.

September 26: Committee staff receives a more in-depth written statement from the man interviewed twice previously who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter in question with Dr. Ford.

Committee investigative staff spoke via phone with another man who believes he, not Judge Kavanuagh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of her allegation. He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter.

We await further developments.

As for Deborah Ramirez, who has accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her while a Yale freshman, the New York Times did not find her story worth printing. Her memory was too sketchy and none of her classmates could corroborate the story.

And then there is Julie Swetnick, represented by one Michael Avenatti, whose claims yesterday, in an affidavit, were the most salacious and most spectacular. For the record, Alan Dershowitz said that the Swetnick affidavit was one of the worst, the most incompetent, the most imprecise that he had ever seen. Filled with suggestions and with innuendo, it will never withstand scrutiny.

Nor, apparently, will Swetnick’s claims, reported in the New York Post:

In her declaration, Swetnick claims to have attended “well over ten house parties” in the Washington area, at which Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were also present. What she doesn’t mention is how she wound up at those parties, which took place when she had graduated high school while Kavanaugh was still in high school.

Unlike his first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, Swetnick didn’t attend a sister school of Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep high school. And unlike his second accuser, she wasn’t an undergraduate classmate of his at Yale. On the available evidence, it is a mystery how she mingled in the same circles that he occupied. Kavanaugh says he’s never heard of her.

Swetnick says she saw Kavanaugh and Judge drink to excess at these parties and behave crudely toward young women. What she doesn’t mention? The names of any of the women in question. At least Ford named potential witnesses, all of whom said they don’t recall the parties and events in question. Not so Swetnick, whose declaration appears designed to frustrate attempts at corroboration.

Next, Swetnick accuses Kavanaugh of “grinding women” and “shifting girls’ clothing” and “making crude sexual comments.” But again, she doesn’t identify these alleged victims. Was she one of them? She doesn’t say, and Avenatti likewise demurred when pressed by a co-host on ABC’s “The View” as to whether Swetnick herself was victimized — in any way — by Kavanaugh.

Swetnick also claims that she witnessed “this conduct” on at least one other occasion, “during the Summer months in Ocean City, Maryland” and was told that other women in Ocean City witnessed the same. But what “conduct”? By whom? What year? Swetnick doesn’t say.

Then Swetnick writes: “During the years 1981-82” — that is, while she was of majority age and the judge still in high school — “I became aware of efforts by . . . Brett Kavanaugh and others to ‘spike’ the ‘punch’ at house parties I attended with drugs.” Note that she doesn’t claim to have witnessed or seen Kavanaugh drug the booze — only that she “became aware,” somehow.

In the same vein: “I witnessed efforts by . . . Brett Kavanaugh and others to ‘target’ particular girls so they could be taken advantage of.” Which girls and targeted for what purpose, Swetnick doesn’t say.

Then we get to the “train”-rape stuff. To wit, Swetnick alleges that Kavanaugh was “waiting outside a room” where a gang rape supposedly took place, where boys had presumably lined up to take advantage of a young woman. But she doesn’t say that she witnessed the gang rape or that she witnessed the future judge engage in the gang rape. And once more, she doesn’t list any alleged victims.

Finally, Swetnick claims that “in approximately 1982,” she became a victim of these gang rapes. Forgive me for sounding like a broken record, but again: She doesn’t allege that Kavanaugh was one of her group rapists or even that he was aware that she was being raped — only that he was “present.”

So, the college age Swetnick was hanging around with high school students at parties where girls were routinely gang raped. And she kept coming back until she herself was subjected to the gang rape. She offers no details and no corraboration. Worse yet, she cannot explain how it happened that so many people were involved in so much criminal activity… and yet, no one ever said anything to anyone. These high school students outdid the mob in Omerta.

Of course, it makes no sense. And yet, in the matter of destroying a reputation and smearing a  man, it did have an effect. Because, didn’t you know, we must always believe the accuser in these cases.


Christopher B said...

If Creepy P0rn Lawyer was a Trump plant, how would he be acting differently?

Sam L. said...

"As for Deborah Ramirez, who has accused Kavanaugh of exposing herself to him while a Yale freshman,..." HUH?? Ought that not be "himself to her"?

Stuart Schneiderman said...

Yes, thanks.

Ares Olympus said...

It does seem like the Swetnick accusations were intentional Avenatti trolling Kavanaugh, not caring if her memory is true or has anything to do with Kavanaugh. And to the testimonies Thursday, it looks like the trolling worked. Kavanaugh's performance was frayed and gave little reason for sympathy or trust in any of his answers. He didn't come across as someone you want in a position of power over others.

But it was a predicament, having a high school best friend write a book called "Wasted: Tales of a GenX drunk." doesn't offer much room to maneuver. "I like beer" might be a defense that a majority of the country accepts as ordinary, an equal number of people know someone with the same sentiment who has acted badly under the influence and denial is the very center of every alcoholic that everyone else can see.

Christopher B said...

Yup, BK was so unsympathetic and untrustworthy that he flipped two Democrat Senators (Manchin and Donnelly) to yes votes. Which means Schumer had to step out of the way of the stampede for the exits.

Maybe United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Kavanaugh and Ford can have another of those beer summits somebody popularized. I'm sure his problems with Mark Judge will make him sympathetic to somebody whose best friend unequivocally denied being at the party where she was attacked.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Identity politics is destroying our nation. Those who most boldly and regularly proclaim their rejection racism and stereotypes are the same ones who prosecute “politically correct” stereotypes with impunity. It is disgusting. All this talk of the evils of men alongside the innocent-as-the-wind-driven-snow view of women is the latest spectacular example. If Kavanaugh were a Democrat, he would’ve sailed through. Disgraceful. As for the evils of drinking, it’s too bad Teddy Kennedy wasn’t there to partake in that rich, dignified line of questioning about alcohol and yearbooks.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Also, it is striking how much this hit job mirrors the gameplan for the Trump Dossier. I suspect Democrats do this kind of thing A LOT.

Dr. Irredeemable Dreg said...

My reading of history informs me that there were many lynch mobs like the one Judge Kavanaugh experienced, in the Deep South, fronted by fragile, lachrymose white women, disregarding even the most basic rules of evidence, when the Deep South was run by Democrats. "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."

-- TW

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Now Democrats are talking about impeaching Kavanaugh after they take over Congress. They can impeach and do whatever show tactics they like -- they've shown they're good at it, especially in the last 10 days. Ahem, this just in... it take a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict and remove a Federal judge, which includes a Supreme Court Justice. Good luck with that, Chuckie. Just more red meat to the Looney Tunes Dem base to generate campaign checks. So silly... I hope they keep talking this way and get everyone excited, only to be disappointed. But then again, it will be another Leftist exhibit in why our "white-male-slaveholder-created-system-of-government" needs to be changed.

Ares Olympus said...

Christopher B said... Yup, BK was so unsympathetic and untrustworthy that he flipped two Democrat Senators (Manchin and Donnelly) to yes votes.

Do you expect those two Democrats will vote yes in the final vote in the full Senate? Of course, that's a trick question. The only reason any Democrat might vote yes is if the Republicans were guaranteed to win, and they wanted cover for the next Democrat nominee, as long as that nominee also was sure to have a majority support anyway.