By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 'I was angry and I sent it': Another Justice Brett Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting

Hiku said:
o_O.Q said:

swetnick is the one who claims that kavanaugh gang raped her right?

No, that was the original author of the Jane Doe letter. We don't know who she is.
Swetnick claims that she was gang raped at a party that Kavanaugh attended. Not that she was raped by Kavanaugh.

However she also says she witnessed him and Mike Judge "consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women", and efforts by him and his friend Mike Judge "to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys. I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms and many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh,"

Swetnick allegations however have been treated less seriously than accusations against Kavanaugh from two other women: Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez.

" I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms and many of these parties"

so if i understand correctly there were at least two of these parties and most likely more given her description where women were forced to have sex with numerous men against their will

 

...so the first question i would ask... is uh why did these women continue to attend these parties after the first one?

does this really make sense to you? seriously?




Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Hiku said:

No, that was the original author of the Jane Doe letter. We don't know who she is.
Swetnick claims that she was gang raped at a party that Kavanaugh attended. Not that she was raped by Kavanaugh.

However she also says she witnessed him and Mike Judge "consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women", and efforts by him and his friend Mike Judge "to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys. I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms and many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh,"

Swetnick allegations however have been treated less seriously than accusations against Kavanaugh from two other women: Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez.

" I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms and many of these parties"

so if i understand correctly there were at least two of these parties and most likely more given her description where women were forced to have sex with numerous men against their will

 

...so the first question i would ask... is uh why did these women continue to attend these parties after the first one?

does this really make sense to you? seriously?


I don't know about other girls going there multiple times. They may not know what happened if the victims are too afraid or ashamed to tell anyone about it. However, that's the exact question I was thinking regarding Swetnick herself. Because it's clear that she supposedly went to more than one of those parties in spite of knowing that this took place.
That's primarily why I've been less interested in the details of her allegation, as it sounded pretty questionable. Not sure if she has some great explanation for this, but if she does I haven't heard it or looked into it.

Last edited by Hiku - on 05 November 2018

LivingMetal said:
SecondWar said:

There is a difference between false and unproven.

Similarly, I wonder how you'd feel if someone who had committed a serious crime against you was about to gain a significant position of power/success. You spoke out against them, and they dragged you through the mud, branded you a liar and got off scot free.

I would call that person out.  I would also recant my statement if there were contradicting evidence because I would never falsely accuse anyone of such wrong doing that would ruin his and his family's lives.  You do know that after the most recent FBI investigation, someone has come out to claim that is was possibly him who was with Dr. Ford and not Justice Kavanaugh, right?

Wait so, if a scenario where you know somone has committed a serious crime against you (I don't necessarily mean sexual assault), you would be more concerned about about ruining their life with your accusations. Doesn't matter if he is rapist/murderer/fraudster etc

I don't mean scenario where you think you know, I mean are certain it was them.

You also site a 'claim' that it was 'possibly' this other person in the alleged incident. How do you know that this person isn't making their story up for attention, like so many people say Dr Ford is?



Torillian said:
DonFerrari said:
And we are led to believe that false claims aren't common and if a woman says she was rapped then it must be true.

About a month ago we had a singer in Brazil accusing Vice President candidate of having tortured him during military regime in Brazil. Even though the VP candidate was still 16 years old at the occasion (and would only join army several years later). But again we are led to believe the person wouldn't ever forget someone who made such a heinous act. So did the guy lied that he was ever tortured or just that this person was the perpetrator?

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

Studies indicate false claims happen between 2-10%. I'd call that not common. You found an instance where it happened and tossed out another one and you want to use that to make claims about overall trends. Do you even math, bro?

Considering law have "innocent until proven otherwise", "burden of proof", "total and ample defense", "false accusations", "false testimony" even 2 or 10% is enough reason to not accept a simple claim as solid proof as many try to push for sexual assault trial don't you think?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

SecondWar said:
LivingMetal said:

I would call that person out.  I would also recant my statement if there were contradicting evidence because I would never falsely accuse anyone of such wrong doing that would ruin his and his family's lives.  You do know that after the most recent FBI investigation, someone has come out to claim that is was possibly him who was with Dr. Ford and not Justice Kavanaugh, right?

Wait so, if a scenario where you know somone has committed a serious crime against you (I don't necessarily mean sexual assault), you would be more concerned about about ruining their life with your accusations. Doesn't matter if he is rapist/murderer/fraudster etc

I don't mean scenario where you think you know, I mean are certain it was them.

You also site a 'claim' that it was 'possibly' this other person in the alleged incident. How do you know that this person isn't making their story up for attention, like so many people say Dr Ford is?

Reread my response.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Even accusers.  Even you... like now.



Around the Network
o_O.Q said: 

"If you ever saw me say say something specific, call me out on it. If not, don't do this BS where you're assuming that everyone you talk to is of the same cookiecutter mindset you've convinced yourself of."

you should have more sympathy for me, you have no idea on the kind of toll being constantly disappointed has

 

"I've never once said "women are all credible". "

and i didn't say you did, what i was commenting on were the women involved with kavanaugh

You said it in a direct reply to me referencing Dr Ford as "credible", in the GOP's own words. And you even posed it as a question for me to answer. That's implying that it is somehow a point against my argument. But if I never agreed with it to begin with, it's not.

Think about your comment if you had omitted that sarcastic question.
You would have gotten the exact same point across, without unnecessary assumptions or implications that I'd be forced to clarify.

" And not only because that's an idiotic statement. I've said "accusers should be heard."

but isn't it just as idiotic to imply that accusers aren't heard? are you implying that women when they report their cases to the police are not taken seriously? why, therefore, have we made sexual assault and rape illegal? going as far in some cases as making staring too hard illegal?

You mean like how thousands of people, including some on this forum (perhaps you as well) were convinced that Dr Ford was lying before the hearing began?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. In her case, she surprised a lot of people, including myself, with her testimony. I was expecting something else, and I'm sure several GOP members, including Trump, would rather not have had to say afterwards that she was "credible". But they were obviously advised to say so, and that was because of how the hearing went.
Furthermore, the GOP had decided to move on with the confirmation before hearing her testimony as well. Mitch Mcconnell said as much several times. It was only when Jeff Flake changed his mind last minute that they decided to have an FBI investigation first. Brief, but none the less.

And yes we have laws against rape and sexual assault. But the law enforcement officers who enforce the laws differ as individuals. Some write the case off immediately depending on the circumstances. What she was wearing, how many glasses of wine she had, the relationship between the victim and assailant, etc. And like in this case with Christine Ford, it's very common for people to dismiss sexual assault allegations if they're brought forward years later. Around 2/3 of sexual assault victims never come forward, studies show. People should not criticize when, if ever, someone decides to step forward. Because it will be difficult no matter when they decide to do it.

And in a recent case here on this forum, I remember a person posting that he "read that she said yes" and decided that the allegation was untrue.
Nowhere in the article did it say that she said yes. In fact, it even said that the alleged perpetrator himself said that she said no several times.
And yet you have people forming very strong opinions about very serious charges, while having the gall to claim they read it, without reading even a fraction of it. Let alone properly.

So yes, people are commonly not interested in hearing the victims before they form their opinions. They make their decisions based on a few cliff note points, and call it a day. Or call them liars.

"Because a statement from someone who may or may not be who NYT's source thinks he is, is not the equivalent of a polygraph test and a testimony under oath."

i guess so, but he's an accuser right? so we should hear what he has to say right?

That's what I'm saying. It would be nice if he stepped forward, like she did, so we can get the full story. Anonymous accusers are never treated with the same credibility as named accusers who testify under oath.

"Who seemingly thinks it's ok to lie under oath."

but any reasonable person doesn't think that the example you provided above is evidence of lying anyway so i really don't know how to respond to that, do you have another example?

Well let's start with Devil's Triangle. Some of his former classmates have backed up his claim that it was a drinking game. Others however, including his roommate, say that it was, as we know, a common sexual reference. And they're certain that he lied about it. Now aside from picking who to believe, let's say they're both right. Someone named a drinking game after a common sexual reference. So then that means that Kavanaugh just threw out a common sexual reference, without any context, under a list of his accomplishments in his yearbook, but was actually referring to a drinking game.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't just write "69" in my yearbook as an accomplishment with no further context, unless I wanted people to think I was referring to the sexual position.

Which leads me to another time he very obviously lied under oath. In his yearbook, under his list of accomplishments he also wrote 'Renate Alumnius', referring to a female friend of his at the time.
Nobody on this planet would read that comment, again, without any further context, and not think it was referring to them hooking up. That's how she took it as well when she found out about it. Kavanaugh however, under oath, claimed it meant something nice, and not what everyone thinks it means. And there's no way Kavanaugh didn't know how people would interpret it when he wrote it. Complete BS.

And then there's his explanation of the term "Boofing". He claimed it was flatulence. But people from his school claim it means something going into you rectum, rather than out of it.
And then there's two cases regarding his involvement of a court nomination around 2003. I went into detail about that in my reply to NightlyPoe above.

you don't mean the classmates who claim they don't recall there even being a party right?

I don't know. But it's just people remembering that they and others at the school were talking about it happening, at the time that it allegedly happened. A rumor that went around.
I mentioned that not due to whether or not they were there, but because this allegation didn't originate from the accuser herself, but from various classmates who remembered hearing about it at the time. That's at least an interesting distinction from some of the other allegations.

Last edited by Hiku - on 05 November 2018

DonFerrari said:
Torillian said:

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

Studies indicate false claims happen between 2-10%. I'd call that not common. You found an instance where it happened and tossed out another one and you want to use that to make claims about overall trends. Do you even math, bro?

Considering law have "innocent until proven otherwise", "burden of proof", "total and ample defense", "false accusations", "false testimony" even 2 or 10% is enough reason to not accept a simple claim as solid proof as many try to push for sexual assault trial don't you think?

I mean if you want to push your goalposts from "common" to "happens enough that we should not accept a claim as solid proof" I can agree. Though I'm unsure about your last bit of the sentence "not accept a simple claim as solid proof as many try to push for sexual assault trial don't you think?" If you're saying that you don't think an accusation should be enough to start a trial I agree, but I agree that it can't be the only evidence. I don't think a "simple claim" should be the only evidence for a conviction, but it's certainly a part of the evidence. 

Now, can we agree, however, that math does not work by "I found two examples I think it's common"?



...

LivingMetal said:
SecondWar said:

Wait so, if a scenario where you know somone has committed a serious crime against you (I don't necessarily mean sexual assault), you would be more concerned about about ruining their life with your accusations. Doesn't matter if he is rapist/murderer/fraudster etc

I don't mean scenario where you think you know, I mean are certain it was them.

You also site a 'claim' that it was 'possibly' this other person in the alleged incident. How do you know that this person isn't making their story up for attention, like so many people say Dr Ford is?

Reread my response.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Even accusers.  Even you... like now.

Reread my response. I'm not talking about a scenario where you think it is somone, I mean a scenario where you categorically KNOW it is them who did it. 

They call you a liar, the papers says who made it up for attention. Somebody else says maybe it was possibly it was actually them (not who you 'falsely' accused) they don't remember that well. Guess that this random claim means you're definitely lying, as this other person can't be making it up like you are.

But you know it was them, their face burned I to your brain forever. Still, some people make a thread online that says you should go to jail because you're a liar and have ruined someone else's life with you accusations and pursuit of justice.



SecondWar said:
LivingMetal said:

Reread my response.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Even accusers.  Even you... like now.

Reread my response. I'm not talking about a scenario where you think it is somone, I mean a scenario where you categorically KNOW it is them who did it. 

They call you a liar, the papers says who made it up for attention. Somebody else says maybe it was possibly it was actually them (not who you 'falsely' accused) they don't remember that well. Guess that this random claim means you're definitely lying, as this other person can't be making it up like you are.

But you know it was them, their face burned I to your brain forever. Still, some people make a thread online that says you should go to jail because you're a liar and have ruined someone else's life with you accusations and pursuit of justice.

The problem is you are taking her side and believing her words. Just cause she says that she is 100% certain, and no mistake, ect, doesn't mean that it is true.



Sad when inncocent men, including leaders have to fight to be proven innocent with meetoo.

Men are the new witches, and we are being hunted.



    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter