There is now a third accuser.
Shocking.

https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.usatoday...1416699002

It seems that, as usual, the GOP picks the shit-of-the-draw for a SC candidate.

The third accuser claims to have information on Mike Judge as well, and also claims multiple witnesses will back her up.

As AM himself said, when these guys are guilty there tends to be multiple accusations. Well.... There you go. A new one every day or three.

---

You’ll also note that when Republicans learned of the new allegation last week, their response was not, “Gee, with more women coming forward, maybe we should pause at least a few days, just to be sure.” Nope. That was when they ACCELERATED the process, to try to ram him into the court before more evidence became public.

---

It turns out one of the women who signed the letter of support only recently became aware that Kavanagh and his friends bragged about sexual conquests with her behind her back. 

Article here

Quote:Washington (CNN)A woman who signed a letter supporting Brett Kavanaugh after he was accused of sexual assault earlier this month called revelations from his high school yearbook that showed he and his friends reportedly boasted about their supposed conquests with her "hurtful," The New York Times reported Monday.
Renate Schroeder Dolphin joined 64 other women this month who signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee saying they knew the Supreme Court nominee during their high school years and that "he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect."
However, Kavanaugh included "Renate Alumnius" as an entry in his high school yearbook page, and two of Kavanaugh's classmates told the Times the mentions of "Renate" were part of the high school football players' unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests.

When Dolphin, who attended a nearby Catholic girls' school and was then known as Renate Schroeder, signed the September 14 letter, the Times reports, she wasn't aware of the "Renate" yearbook references about herself on the pages of Kavanaugh and his football teammates.
"I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago," Dolphin said in a statement to the Times. "I don't know what 'Renate Alumnus' actually means. I can't begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way. I will have no further comment."
The word "Renate" appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School's 1983 yearbook, the newspaper reports, including in the caption of a group photo of nine football players that includes Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, In the photo caption, the group of student athletes are described as the "Renate Alumni."

Oh yes, implying that the entire football team slept with this girl, and poems indicating she was easy, how respectful to women!

I suppose this falls under that typical locker room talk excuse.

(September 24, 2018 at 11:34 pm)Joods Wrote:

(September 24, 2018 at 1:14 pm)alpha male Wrote: I don't particularly care if you believe me.

Way to dodge and evade the question. Based on your answer, you have no right to sit there and condemn anyone here because they don't agree with your twisted views.

I didn't respond because it's a stupid charge that applies to both sides. 

By the left's standards, Hillary helped Bill keep the rape of Anita Broadrick quiet. They therefore have no right to sit there and condemn me for not agreeing with their twisted views.

In a two-party system, you're frequently presented with a choice between the lesser of the two evils. I believe you're in PA like I am. You know that we generally don't even get a choice in our party's nominee, as it's pretty much wrapped up before our primary is held. This new tactic of saying anyone who voted for a candidate shares in every sin such candidate ever committed is ridiculous.

(September 25, 2018 at 12:41 am)Tres Leches Wrote: I'm nauseated by a story in the NY Times today about Kavanaugh's appearing to brag with a group of other male students in their high school yearbook about their supposed sexual exploits with a female student. Truly despicable. I feel for the woman. How humiliating. I have to remind myself sometimes that not all men act like this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/busin...e=Homepage

-Teresa

Judge Kavenaugh says he kissed her once (under the bleachers or some such thing), she has no recollection of even that. There’s something fishy, when you look beyond the headlines.

(September 24, 2018 at 10:56 am)alpha male Wrote: They've all said they don't recall such a party. Would you just feel better if they were asked under oath? Do you think this will be like Perry mason and they'll all confess on the stand?

Under oath after an investigation by the FBI. I rather expect the investigation to get to the bottom of things, or at least determine if there is a findable bottom to things; and whether their testimony matches or conflicts with the FBI's findings. You seem to be saying that if they're lying now, they'll lie under oath. It's likely, but not necessarily so. Lying now isn't a felony.

I don't get why having the FBI investigate the accusations or having the witnesses testify under oath is even controversial, besides partisanship.

---

Brett Kavanaugh's friend, Mark Judge, supposedly in the room during the alleged attempted rape, reminiscing about a rehearsal dinner for a wedding party:

“I had blacked out again,” Judge recalled in a memoir about his troubled youth. “I didn’t remember anything after doing the shots.”

He asked his friend, Denny, what had happened.

“You put on quite a show,” Denny said. “After doing all those shots, you tried to get up on the table and started taking your clothes off, but Shane and I pulled you down. You also tried to make it with one of the bridesmaids.”

Judge was surprised.

“I tried to make it with a bridesmaid?” he said. “Please tell me I didn’t hurt her.”

Denny reassured Judge that he hadn’t harmed the bridesmaid, though he had made a “serious lunge” at her and started kissing her toes. His friends had pulled him off and got him out of the bar and took him to Denny’s home a few blocks away.

(September 25, 2018 at 9:16 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Under oath after an investigation by the FBI. I rather expect the investigation to get to the bottom of things, or at least determine if there is a findable bottom to things; and whether their testimony matches or conflicts with the FBI's findings. You seem to be saying that if they're lying now, they'll lie under oath. It's likely, but not necessarily so. Lying now isn't a felony.

Lying to Congress can put you in jail, even if you're not under oath

Quote:Federal law makes it a crime to "knowingly and willfully" give "materially" false statements to Congress, even if unsworn

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Quote:Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. 

So, if he's innocent, why speed up the process when they hear of new allegations?  I mean, if they want the actual truth, a few days or even weeks to investigate and demonstrate that innocence clearly is not much, and seem like something they would want. 
What could the motive possibly be?

(September 25, 2018 at 10:05 am)Aroura Wrote:

Quote:Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. 

So, if he's innocent, why speed up the process when they hear of new allegations?  I mean, if they want the actual truth, a few days or even weeks to investigate and demonstrate that innocence clearly is not much, and seem like something they would want. 
What could the motive possibly be?

They have pushed back the vote for this 11th hour accusation a number of times now. How is accelerating the vote? Also, isn’t it guilt that needs to be demonstrated?

(September 25, 2018 at 10:08 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(September 25, 2018 at 10:05 am)Aroura Wrote: So, if he's innocent, why speed up the process when they hear of new allegations?  I mean, if they want the actual truth, a few days or even weeks to investigate and demonstrate that innocence clearly is not much, and seem like something they would want. 
What could the motive possibly be?

They have pushed back the vote for this 11th hour accusation a number of times now. How is accelerating the vote?  Also, isn’t it guilt that needs to be demonstrated?

A number of times?  The first time they gave the first accuser literally hours to respond and they requested she show up almost instantly.  They gave her only a few days to arrive despite death threats made against her.  

But in any case, why the rush in the first place?  They have given almost zero time to review documents or anything else.  It has been only 11 days since the accuser came forward, 11 days!  Attempting to push through a vote instead of taking time to fully look into accusation IS acceleration.
This seat has sat vacant for ages, the world isn't going to end nor the seat vanish if they take the time to do these things properly.

Do you think they should take the time required to do a thorough investigations for each allegation, or just go through the process despite the accusations? It sort of seems like you think the latter.  Who cares how often they need to push back the vote if the final outcome of that is truth and justice?

---

My error, it's been 10 days. Not 11. I forget I'm 6 to 9 hours (a whole day of daylight) ahead of where this is happening.