Kavanaugh hearing

[Stewey]

 

[Stewey]

Gotta do more than slut shame these liars, sue the **** out of them

Oh right

Women never lie about rape!


Jury orders blogger to pay $8.4 million to ex-Army colonel she accused of rape

Col. David "Wil" Riggins, after a highly decorated Army career that included multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, was on the verge of promotion to brigadier general in July 2013 when he got a phone call at the Pentagon from the Army's Criminal Investigative Division to come in for a meeting. Once there, he learned that a blogger in Washington state had just accused him of raping her, when both were cadets at West Point in 1986. An investigation was underway.

Riggins waived his right to an attorney and immediately gave a statement denying any sexual assault of the woman, Susan Shannon of Everett, Washington. Shannon also cooperated with the CID investigation, which could not "prove or disprove Ms. Shannon's allegation she was raped," the CID report concluded. But in the spring of 2014, with the armed forces facing heavy criticism for their handling of sexual assault cases, Secretary of the Army John McHugh recommended removing Riggins from the list for promotion to general. Riggins promptly retired.

Then, Riggins sued Shannon for defamation, claiming that every aspect of her rape claim on the West Point campus was "provably false," and that she wrote two blog posts and a Facebook post "to intentionally derail [his] promotion" to brigadier general. During a six-day trial that ended Aug. 1, a jury in Fairfax County, Virginia, heard from both Riggins and Shannon at length. And after 2½ hours of deliberation, they sided emphatically with Riggins, awarding him $8.4 million in damages, an extraordinary amount for a defamation case between two private citizens.

The jury ordered Shannon to pay $3.4 million in compensatory damages for injury to his reputation and lost wages, and $5 million in punitive damages, "to make sure nothing like this will ever happen again," according to one of the jurors.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...r-army-colonel-rape-trial-20170812-story.html

Kavanaghs career is ruined if they buy her story. What happens to her if they don't buy her story?

Nothing.

 

[Steelr4evr]

The demoncrats are blazing those true colors across the sky. **** I don't want any of these ***** in any office. That party needs to go the way of the dinosaur. Give me libertarians, conservatives and any maybe a few independents with some ******* common sense.

We need term limits and qualifying aptitude tests in US history,The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers before you can run for public office.

 

[Gypsy]

Cruz gives the hysterical commies a reality check:

12:38 PM: Cruz says Kavanaugh battle is nothing more than an attempt to “re-litigate” the 2016 presidential election. He says Gorsuch/Kavanaugh have a “super legitimacy” because voters in 2016 knew the election was about the Supreme Court. He points out that Trump released his list of potential Supreme Court nominees for voters to know. He also specifically cites free speech, religious liberty, and the Second Amendment as being important to 2016 voters. Cruz notes that Clinton specifically said that she would appoint Justices to overturn the seminal ruling in Heller. Cruz says overturning the individual right to keep and bear arms (Heller) would be “radical” because it could potentially “erase” the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights.

Even a murderer gets a jury trial. Let the women speak. Maybe, just maybe they are telling the truth.

For you Pharisees, the Old Testament says, if two witnesses were approach you and you refuse to IF, and I’ll give you that, they are telling the truth after the accused is brought to Elders and the truth be found out. If the accused be lying, or the witnesses. I as one former Elder, would recommend the death penalty. I come to this decision by not allowing emotion to cloud my logic.
It is such a disgusting, despicable act. Either in doing it, or wrongly accusing, that is my and only Gypsy’s belief as one reason and there are many more reasons for the death penalty.

I believe in only one way for the death penalty and that is a totally different subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Gypsy]

I am a devout member of the NRA!
Proud of it! I don’t care who doesn’t like it. WE CAN NEVER GIVE UP OUR GUNS BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT KEEPS US FREE!!!!!!! THEY CAN HAVE MY GUNS, ...... FROM THE MUZZLE END!! SERIOUS AS A HEART ATTACK!!!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Confluence]

Even a murderer gets a jury trial. Let the women speak. Maybe, just maybe they are telling the truth.

For you Pharisees, the Old Testament says, if two witnesses were approach you and you refuse to IF, and I’ll give you that, they are telling the truth after the accused is brought to Elders and the truth be found out. If the accused be lying, or the witnesses. I as one former Elder, would recommend the death penalty. I come to this decision by not allowing emotion to cloud my logic.
It is such a disgusting, despicable act. Either in doing it, or wrongly accusing, that is my and only Gypsy’s belief as one reason and there are many more reasons for the death penalty.

I believe in only one way for the death penalty and that is a totally different subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

Katsung, did you find a way to get another IP address?

Sent from my SM-N950W using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Even a murderer gets a jury trial. Let the women speak. Maybe, just maybe they are telling the truth.

For you Pharisees, the Old Testament says, if two witnesses were approach you and you refuse to IF, and I’ll give you that, they are telling the truth after the accused is brought to Elders and the truth be found out. If the accused be lying, or the witnesses. I as one former Elder, would recommend the death penalty. I come to this decision by not allowing emotion to cloud my logic.
It is such a disgusting, despicable act. Either in doing it, or wrongly accusing, that is my and only Gypsy’s belief as one reason and there are many more reasons for the death penalty.

I believe in only one way for the death penalty and that is a totally different subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

Welcome back Elftard. Are you a Jew or a Hispanic or a Ghetto Black guy today? Just need to understand how to address you in reply.

 

[Superman]

Ze is a Hawaiian transgender alt-right leaning Hillary loving homophobe who leads Gay Pride parades through abortion clinics when not crying over dead black kids in Chicago while wearing cop pig socks and a Kaepernick jersey and oiling up ze’s Trump tattoo on ze’s chest while fisting zeself in the back seat of an ‘81 Cadillac ze’s cousin Kelly restored, using leftover parts to construct ze’s new sexuality.

 

[Gypsy]

If the commiecrats get in power again across the board they're going to disarm all of you peasants with pitch forks and then pass laws to shut you up. You will submit to them or else.

All kidding aside these folks are ******* unhinged.

They can’t take certain areas. Out here it’s your right to open carry. The only place not is logical. Federal buildings, schools and banks. You see people everywhere open carry.
Walmart, Convenient stores, Fruit and vegetable markets, grocery stores, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Gypsy]

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.

Mao Zedong


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Gypsy]

Libs pitching temper tantrums like children. Go for it.

View attachment 4136

That is so hilarious!!! I love it!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Gypsy]

Like I have said before, they can have my guns from the muzzle end!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Well now, look at this. Either we have real witnesses, or Republicans are now stooping to Democratic levels and playing the game on their turf....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ord-may-have-mistaken-them-for-kavanaugh.html

Ahead of pivotal Senate hearing, witnesses surface to say Christine Ford may have mistaken them for Kavanaugh

As an extraordinary series of uncorroborated, lurid last-minute allegations threatens to derail his confirmation to the Supreme Court, nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Ford, the California professor accusing him of sexually assaulting her more than three decades ago, are set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday morning.

The proceedings threatened to be upended by late-breaking developments: Wednesday evening, Judiciary Committee Republicans revealed that on Monday, they conducted their "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." They conducted a second interview the next day.

On Wednesday, Republicans said, they received 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." GOP investigators also spoke on the phone with another man making a similar claim.

Ford has previously said there is "zero chance" she would have confused Kavanaugh for anyone else.

Key swing-vote senators have said Thursday's hearing, which will begin at 10:00 a.m. ET, presents a pivotal opportunity to assess Ford's credibility and determine whether to advance Kavanaugh to the nation's highest court.

It will also be a chance for the public to see Ford, in person, explain in detail what she claims happened at the Maryland house party in 1982 where Kavanaugh allegedly jumped on top of her and tried to muffle her screams -- and why she didn't tell anyone about the episode until 2012.

The proceedings will commence with opening statements from Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking committee member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. After taking an oath, Ford will deliver the prepared remarks she has already provided publicly, according to a schedule provided by the committee. Each senator on the committee will then be afforded a single five-minute round of questions, with the opportunity to ask questions alternating between Democrats and Republicans.
Republicans have retained Rachel Mitchell, an experienced sex-crimes prosecutor, to handle some of their questioning, but Democrats have indicated they intend to ask their own questions. After Ford's testimony is completed, the process will repeat for Kavanaugh.

In her prepared remarks, which Ford's attorney's released in advance on Wednesday, Ford will tell senators that she "thought that Brett [Kavanaugh] was accidentally going to kill me," and "I believed he was going to rape me."

She will explain that she remembers "four boys" being at the party, including one "whose name I cannot recall." The people she did name -- Kavanaugh and his classmates Mark Judge and P.J. Smyth -- have denied under penalty of felony knowing anything about the alleged episode.

Ford will also describe one girl, "my friend Leland Ingham," as also in attendance. Ingham, in a previously released statement, has also denied knowing Kavanaugh or having information about the alleged assault.

Ford's letter to Feinstein in July, however, Ford gave a different tally, writing that the gathering "included me and 4 others."

Additionally, in a handwritten statement she provided the former FBI agent who administered her polygraph exam in August , Ford wrote "there were 4 boys and a couple of girls" at the party -- again apparently contradicting her letter to Feinstein.

Republicans, through Mitchell, are expected to question Ford on the apparent discrepancies.
Additionally, questions have surfaced concerning the credibility of some of Kavanaugh's other accusers, who will not be present Thursday.

For example, Julie Swetnick, who emerged Wednesday to accuse Kavanaugh of participating in "gang rapes" and rape "trains" in the 1980s, had a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend, Politico reported.

“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Richard Vinneccy told Politico. "I know a lot about her. ... She’s not credible at all. Not at all."

Swetnick is represented by anti-Trump lawyer Michael Avenatti. Wednesday afternoon, 60 men women who attended Kavanaugh's high school or sister schools signed a letter saying they had never heard of Swetnick or anything like the overt, systemic gang raping that she described.

None of the sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh has first-hand corroboration. In The New Yorker on Sunday, former Kavanaugh classmate Deborah Ramirez claimed that Kavanaugh had exposed his penis to her at a party decades ago, even as her close college friend denied ever hearing about the episode and suggested she was making the claim for political reasons.

Ramirez has acknowledged not being sure whether Kavanaugh had assaulted her until last week, after she spent days consulting with her attorney.

"It's bad -- it's doing damage to the Supreme Court," Kavanaugh told congressional investigators this week. "It's doing damage to the country. It's doing damage to this process. It's become a total feeding frenzy, you know? Every -- just unbelievable."

 

[Steelin]

The Tawana Brawley deception comes to mind. They need to pay. They need to pay big time.

 

[madinsomniac]

If the republicans want to really stick it to the Democrats for this abomination, they will just vote him in and not lose the Senate so the threat of future conservatives looms large.....
The democrats are a heartbeat away from that total meltdown one of the two major parties was destined for ... of they lose this fight and don’t get that blue wave they are done

 

[Skott]

A 2 question polygraph? Wtf! And vague questions st that...
Mehta a joke

 

[SteelChip]

They can’t take certain areas. Out here it’s your right to open carry. The only place not is logical. Federal buildings, schools and banks. You see people everywhere open carry.
Walmart, Convenient stores, Fruit and vegetable markets, grocery stores, etc.

Where is " out here" ?

 

[jitter77]

A 2 question polygraph? Wtf! And vague questions st that...
Mehta a joke

Did you see the interview of the guy who gave it? While i agree the 2 questions seemed to be not enough there was a lead up to those. He interviewed her, went over the storm statement etc etc. The 2 questions referred to the detailed statement that was written up. He also said the test they used was DOD standards. He also said normally if the polygraph shows deception it is up to the agent giving the test to interview the person taking it to try to figure out what is going on. It was an interesting interview. Also her 2 questions are 2 more than Kavanaugh answered (just saying).

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Now it turns out Swetnick was in college when she said she was going to all these high school house parties.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Now it turns out Swetnick was in college when she said she was going to all these high school house parties.

I can see someone in HS sneaking into a college party....but why would someone in college go to a HS party?

When I was a freshman in college, my bf was a Senior in HS. I would come home for weekends and I would hang out as his house and have a few beers and all. But I knew him and his family. We had been together over a year when I left for school. I was usually the only girl there, and NOTHING happened. That being said....it sure as hell does NOT sound like the same scenario Sweatnick is portraying.

 

[Superman]

rut roh, raggy

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-avenatti-bankruptcy-20180711-story.html

Bankruptcy judge hits Michael Avenatti's firm with restraining order to freeze legal fees in 54 cases



A federal bankruptcy judge issued a restraining order late Wednesday to block the firm of Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels, from spending any fees it collects while it owes more than $10 million in unpaid debts and back taxes.

The move by Judge Catherine Bauer of U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Santa Ana was a severe blow to Avenatti, whose personal financial troubles have deepened as his star has risen on cable news.

“I don’t want him going out and buying a new house,” Bauer said at a court hearing a few hours before she signed the restraining order.

Bauer’s order covers fees from 54 court cases, including the suit that Daniels filed against President Trump to void the nondisclosure pact that bars her from talking about their alleged 2006 sexual encounter.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, has set up a crowdfunding account to cover her legal bills and other costs stemming from the Trump case. It’s unclear whether Avenatti has received any of the $582,000 in donations that she has collected.

His Newport Beach firm, Eagan Avenatti, emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March after reaching agreements to pay its creditors.

But Avenatti soon broke his promise that the firm would meet a May deadline to pay the Internal Revenue Service $440,291 in back taxes, penalties and interest. The firm also missed a $2-million payment, personally guaranteed by Avenatti, to Jason Frank, a lawyer who used to work there. As a result, Frank won a $10-million judgment against Eagan Avenatti.



Frank says the firm cheated him out of more than $15 million in pay. Avenatti denies the charge.

Hamid Rafatjoo, an attorney for Avenatti, urged Bauer on Wednesday to deny Frank’s request for the restraining order.

“Yes, he has not been paid, but a secured creditor has ways of getting paid that are short of destroying” Avenatti’s firm, Rafatjoo said. “There is ways of doing things that are proper for recovering your money, and then there is personal vendettas and taking actions that are frankly just unnecessary.”

Rafatjoo also asked the judge to reject Frank’s request that all legal fees collected by the firm in the 54 cases be automatically transferred to Frank until the full $10-million judgment is paid.

Bauer declined to order any automatic transfers to Frank.

“We fully support the order,” Avenatti said in an email, “and are pleased the court agreed with us as opposed to Mr. Frank. This is what we wanted.”

Frank’s lawyer, Sara Chenetz, told the judge that Avenatti would find ways to dodge paying Eagan Avenatti’s creditors in the absence of a restraining order. The day after the bankruptcy case was settled, Chenetz told the judge, he started practicing law under the name Avenatti and Associates rather than Eagan Avenatti.

Avenatti and Associates, owned entirely by Avenatti, holds 75% of the equity in Eagan Avenatti; the remaining share belongs to San Francisco lawyer Michael Eagan.

At the hearing, Bauer voiced concerns that Avenatti would find ways to collect legal fees without moving the money through Eagan Avenatti, thus evading obligations to the firm’s creditors. “Maybe he’s tried to make it complex on purpose for years,” she said.

The restraining order requires the firm to notify the IRS, Frank and other creditors every time legal fees are received in any of the 54 court cases, regardless of whether the payments are made to Eagan Avenatti, Avenatti and Associates, Avenatti or Eagan personally, or any entity under their control.

Frank lawyer Eric George said the order would “enable us to keep track of every dollar Michael Avenatti and his firm receives in the future so we will be able to fully collect our $10-million judgment.”

11:55 p.m.: This article was updated to add the judge’s rejection of Jason Frank’s request for automatic diversion of Eagen Avenatti’s legal fees, along with clarification on the restraining order.

This article was originally published at 8:10 p.m.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

I can see someone in HS sneaking into a college party....but why would someone in college go to a HS party?

When I was a freshman in college, my bf was a Senior in HS. I would come home for weekends and I would hang out as his house and have a few beers and all. But I knew him and his family. We had been together over a year when I left for school. I was usually the only girl there, and NOTHING happened. That being said....it sure as hell does NOT sound like the same scenario Sweatnick is portraying.

Well at least she stopped drinking the punch at those HS house parties after she got gang raped at one of them. Which she's pretty sure was in 1982.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Two other men say they were the ones groping Christine Ford. From that noted right-wing smear merchant USA Today.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...d-sexual-encounter-christine-ford/1439569002/

WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations.


The revelation was included in a late-night news release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the committee. The release includes a day-by-day view of the committee's investigative work over the last two weeks since allegations surfaced targeting Kavanaugh.

Ford was the first to step forward with allegations and claimed Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982. Since then a number of accusations have piled on, including that of a physical assault and several other sexual encounters.

Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied all the allegations lodged against him.

The committee has interviewed two men who came forward about the disputed assault at a summer house party. Both told the committee they, not Kavanaugh, "had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his complaint," the release states.

The previously unknown interviews could add a new layer to the evolving saga on the eve of a possible explosive hearing between Kavanaugh and Ford, though it's unknown whether the men's claims are being taken seriously.

One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday.

Committee staff spoke to a second man over the phone Wednesday who also said he believed he, not Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Ford. "He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter" to staff, the release states.

Both men were not named. USA TODAY was not able to independently vet the claims.

The committee has said it is investigating all claims made in the Kavanaugh saga, attempting to "make sure no stone was left unturned."

In this regard, the committee has also questioned Kavanaugh about a series of anonymous allegations, including a physical assault on a woman in the 1990s.

The release also outlines a number of others the committee has interviewed, including friends of Kavanaugh and those who know the women who have lodged accusations against him.

 

[deljzc]

Again, why do we have status of limitations on certain crimes in this country? Because eye witness testimony is often incorrect and unreliable after too much time has past.

If these men go on legal record (affidavit) to the level Swetnick did, then this whole thing goes bye bye. Because without Ford being correct, then the whole thing breaks down. All the testimony from the other two women becomes almost inadmissible/untrustworthy because it never would have happened had the first story not been released. In essence, the 2nd two women are only there to try to corroborate the first story (not really add to any sexually deviant behavior or assault).

This is starting to become must watch TV this morning.

 

[Gypsy]

Two other men say they were the ones groping Christine Ford. From that noted right-wing smear merchant USA Today.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...d-sexual-encounter-christine-ford/1439569002/

Love the quote by Adam Smith