Dem Senator Blames Michael Avenatti for Turning Kavanaugh Fight Into ‘Circus,’ Distracting From ‘Serious Allegations’


Why blame the lawyer who propped up a woman who kept changing her story until, in the end, she stated she witnessed Kanavaugh handing out 'red' cups to women. I can see where it was important to him to have her story told. I mean, blue cups...good, red cups...bad. that in itself was almost enough for me to get on the anti-kavanaugh band wagon. Of course, the payment given out by Soros wouldn't hurt either. Think of this poor woman attending, not 1 or 2 wild parties, but 10. Her story needed to be told and Avenatti was the perfect one to tell it. I, for one, am glad he did.

Now, if only he could find someone willing to testify that he saw Kavanaugh winking...that would justify impeachment.

Here we go. The very predictable modus operandi of the Democrats on full display - never take responsibility for your own actions, blame others for your failures and beat it up into a national issue. LOL!

Forget about the absence of a credible case with corroborating evidence in the first place. Push that one under the mat, bleat and whine about how it was such a "credible allegation", but somehow Michael Avenatti's client distracted the Democrats' focus away from it?

I guess we are to believe that Democrats have the attention span of two year olds. Appears to be true of their level of political intellect.

Yes, good question, but I think this article more or less answers that. Swetnick's claims were a bridge too far = gang rape allegations and the Dems were probably politically savvy enough to know that they could cause a public backlash against them.

It appears that the Dems "got to her" and persuaded her to walk them back, to prevent that possible backlash, which would have been transferred to them, putting them in the public's firing line.

The fact they admit her claims are not credible, but try to then hold that Ford's are, makes them look truly inconsistent and ridiculous from the standpoint of evidence and that's the whole point.

But isn't that the whole point here? The leaked allegations, totally uncorroborated and unsubstantiated, should be ignored and until they are verified and corroborated cannot be treated as any kind of evidence at all and should not, therefore, be any influence. A Court would dismiss them, so on that basis so should the Committee.

IF they can be backed with some credible evidence, then I would agree with Collins and agree with you, that a worthy area of doubt regarding his good character has been raised and must be further investigated.

Until some credible supporting evidence arises, to treat the allegations in any other way, as some kind of "evidence", immediately becomes the perfect example of a government official prejudicing Kavanaugh's right to the presumption of innocence and procedural fairness.

If you read the accounts of women who have genuinely experienced a frightening sexual assault, they all say you never forget the details, they are seared into your brain like a hot branding iron, that they never leave you and haunt you.

They say you don't forget the trauma of escaping and how you escaped either, yet Ford can't remember how she got home. They say that suggests she cannot even remember the subsequent trauma she would have been going through on the way home and when she was lying in bed that night following the events, still fresh in her mind, that these would have been hammering in her brain, going over and over in her mind, that no victim forgets those facts..

We don't know who leaked the allegations to the media, but we do know that only two people had any knowledge of them when they were leaked - Feinstein and Blasey-Ford.

Agreed, that it is a quantum leap from privately choosing to doubt an account and proving it is a knowing lie. Isn't that what this is all about? The burden of proof, the right to the presumption of innocence, to procedural fairness, an obligatory burden the Constitution places on our government in its treatment of its citizens?

Isn't leaking very damning but uncorroborated libelous, slanderous and defamatory claims alleging criminal acts against a citizen, in the absence of evidence, the same as making a false allegation public?

My takeaway from all of this is that the public is terribly confused. Many don't seem to understand the simple principles of our Constitutional law, written to protect the people from unfair treatment by government officials. Government officials are bound by the Constitution.

Corroboration of evidence includes corroborating testimony from witnesses and medical and forensic evidence too. If an allegation has no corroboration to support it then it does not meet the standard of evidence, which means it must be ignored and cannot be taken into account.

Any allegation which does not meet the standard of evidence is dismissed by a Court and on that basis must likewise be dismissed by the Committee in its confirmation hearings. If any member of the Committee allows it to influence his/her decision then that constitutes a denial of the presumption of innocence, a denial of procedural fairness. Collins should not even be considering the "merit" of the allegations. The burden of the Constitution applies to her.

I also think it is very telling that the Democrats launched their anger towards the lawyer for Swetnick and not Swetnick herself. It suggests they know that Avenatti orchestrated her claims, perhaps even paid her to make them. It looks like the Dems persuaded her to walk them back because they saw them as a 'bridge too far' which would generate a public backlash against the Dems - protecting their own interests and evidence irrelevant to them.