Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drbubb

Supreme Court: Gorsuch + Kavanaugh = Sanity restored?

Recommended Posts

Eight big problems for Christine Blasey Ford’s story
Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Brett Kavanaugh are serious. She is accusing him of violent attempted rape. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me. He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing,” she told The Washington Post, recounting the alleged incident at a high school party “one summer in the early 1980s.”

But her story is also growing less believable by the day. Here are eight reasons why it’s hardly “anti-woman” for senators to question her account at Thursday’s hearing:

1) For starters, Ford still can’t recall basic details of what she says was the most traumatic event in her life. Not where the “assault” took place — she’s not sure whose house it was, or even what street it was on. Nor when — she’s not even sure of the year, let alone the day and month.

Ford’s not certain how old she was or what grade she was in when she says an older student violently molested her. (But she doesn’t plead inebriation: She described having just “one beer” at the party.)

2) Ford concedes she told no one what happened to her at the time, not even her best friend or mother. That means she can rely on no contemporaneous witness to corroborate her story.

[link to nypost.com (secure)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grassley Sends Scathing Letter to Feinstein – Refuses to Postpone Thursday’s Hearing – Warns About False Statements Made to Congress

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) sent ranking member of the Committee Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) a scathing letter Tuesday afternoon shooting down Feinstein’s demands to postpone Thursday’s hearing.

Grassley accused Feinstein and Senate Democrats of hiding Ford and Ramirez accusations from the Senate Judiciary Committee while secretly working with the mainstream media to circulate Kavanaugh smears.

Senator Grassley then warned about Ms. Ramirez’s flimsy accusations against Kavanaugh as reported in the New Yorker, “As you know, false statements made to the press are not subject to criminal penalty, but false statements to Congress are.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MEDIA CIRCUS is biased against the Right (& against the Truth?)

WILL SHE SHOW?
'Don't remember as much as would like... but will never forget details'...
Polygraph Presents Another Inconsistency...
Eight big problems with her story...
TV Networks Gear Up For Frenzy...
STUDY: Rigged Against Kavanaugh...

As of Wednesday morning, several networks are still putting the finishing touches on their coverage plans. Fox News' coverage will be co-anchored by the straight-news team of Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, who is still basking in the record viewership her show received for her Monday night sit-down with Kavanaugh and his wife. Over at CNN, anchors Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer will kick things off, joined by reporters like Dana Bash and experts like Jeffrey Toobin. ABC News will rely on morning anchor George Stephanopoulos, based in studio in New York, and evening news anchor David Muir, who will be on location in Washington, D.C. Gayle King, Norah O’Donnell, John Dickerson and Jeff Glor will all anchor CBS News' coverage. NBC News' coverage will lean on the network's stars, including Lester Holt, Savannah Guthrie, Chuck Todd, Megyn Kelly and Andrea Mitchell. Brian Williams will play a big role in MSNBC's coverage.

"This is a made-for-TV melodrama: a live confrontation between the sexes that will resonate in deeply personal ways with male and female viewers alike," said Mark Feldstein, a professor of broadcast journalism at the University of Maryland who called the hearing "a gigantic news event" for television.

The quantity of television news coverage is assured but the quality of that coverage is more in question. Some veterans of television news are cautioning the networks to keep the event in perspective and to treat it with the seriousness it requires.

"I hope that the cables don't make it into a sporting match. There are no winners here," said Greta Van Susteren, a lawyer who has anchored for all three major cable news networks.

She said the networks will all be taking the same pool video feed, and will be forced to distinguish themselves with onscreen graphics and on-air guests during breaks. She hopes the networks "are responsible," and, she said, "Don't litter up their screen with outrageous lower thirds that tend to diminish the importance of this."

Feldstein said the networks are covering the hearing as a "battle of the titans" clash. "It's hard for network executives to resist," he said. "This is ratings nectar, the kind of easily simplified, emotional issue that television intrinsically gravitates toward.

. . .

During the twelve days since Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein publicly announced the existence of an unspecified allegation against Brett Kavanaugh, the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows have spent nearly six hours (344 minutes) regurgitating various unproved allegations against the Supreme Court nominee.

But only a tiny percentage of that coverage — a measly eight percent — has been devoted to Kavanaugh’s denials and the lack of corroboration for his accusers’ accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full transcript: Christine Blasey Ford's opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee

When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind into a bedroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.

> https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/26/christine-blasey-ford-opening-statement-senate-845080

I wonder how much time Katz and other Dem-paid lawyers spent in drafting this

I truly believe this is UTTER Horsefeathers, based on the following:

+ "I believed he was going to rape me."

+ "I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me"

REALLY??  She is imputing some very serious motivations and possible consequences to what may have been a simple feel-up, by someone who may or may not have been Brett Kavanaugh.  She needs to tell us WHY she thinks it was him, and why the three other people deny it - or this is totally not credible,  Even if she does explain those things, a simple drunken feel-up is a big yawn.

. . . My hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh’s serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family, or anyone’s family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy we have faced since my name became public. In a letter on August 31, 2018, Senator Feinstein wrote that she would not share the letter without my consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t believe a gender. Believe evidence.

September 18, 2018 10:31 PM by Michelle Malkin

61rukkCrcCL._SX401_BO1204203200_-e150833

DOTS CONNECTED: Regarding “accuser #3” Julie Swetnick—a decade ago she sued her employer for sexual harassment...
representing her in the complaint was the firm run by Debra Katz, the lawyer now rep’ing Dr. Ford.

"It's not victim blaming to get to the bottom of the truth. It's liar shaming!"

Opportunistic piling on & ensuing hysteria don't make allegations true.

See also:

- Salem, Massachusetts
- McMartin preschool
-Wenatchee, WA witch hunt
-Fells Acres, MA day care
-San Antonio Four

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TWO VILLAINS... who are actually like Heroes now, in support of Truth & Fairness

" Two men have come forward ... to claim that they are the ones who actually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford"

kav1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=41

A minor groping incident (from decades ago) which had been blown up into worldwide headlines... gets shattered?

Two men have come forward to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to claim that they are the ones who actually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford during a house party in 1982 — and not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Republicans on the committee released a timeline of events late Wednesday, which included details about their interactions with the two men who admitted to the attacks.

On Monday, the timeline recounts GOP staff members interviewing “a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982.”

The “encounter” refers to an episode in which Ford claims that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in a bedroom at a Maryland house party.

They had a follow-up interview with that man, and he provided more detail about the assault.

Then on Wednesday, the committee staff said they spoke with a second man who said he assaulted Ford in 1982.

The committee did not release any more details about the men, or why both were coming forward with the claims.

> https://nypost.com/2018/09/27/two-men-tell-senate-that-they-not-kavanaugh-assaulted-ford/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brett+Kavanaugh+Dr+Christine+Blasey+Ford
KAVANAUGH CLEARS HURDLE
BUT FLAKE FLAKES
CALLS IN FBI

The panel split along strict party lines with the 11 Republican members backing Kavanaugh and all 10 Democrats voting against the president's controversial nominee.

The nomination of the 53-year-old conservative judge to the nation's highest court will now go to the full Senate, where Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority.

But in a dramatic last-minute move, Republican Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona asked for a delay of up to a week before the full vote takes place to allow for an FBI investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh.

"This country's being ripped apart," said Flake, a vocal critic of Trump who is retiring from the Senate. "And we have to ensure that we do due diligence here."

Democrats have repeatedly demanded an FBI probe into the allegations by university professor Christine Blasey Ford that she was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh decades ago.

Kavanaugh strongly denied the charges at a committee hearing on Thursday

=====
CABLE NEWS RACE / SUPREME BATTLE...
THURS SEPT 27, 2018
FOXNEWS HANNITY 5,857,000
FOXNEWS INGRAHAM 5,369,000
FOXNEWS TUCKER 5,283,000
MSNBC MADDOW 4,033,000
MSNBC HAYES 2,791,000
MSNBC O'DONNELL 2,705,000
CNN COOPER 2,061,000
CNN CUOMO 1,889,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just cos someone got involved in the odd bit of gang rape when they were drunk in school shouldn't disqualify them from being the former united states top judge. no need to even investigate it.

i tried watching several versions, all of them were cringeworthy, but only Trevor Noah really nailed it:

"It was at that moment that Brett knew he had fucked up"

Genius.

Definately a choreographed sideshow tho. If you can't cope with the mainstream version, this one pretty much summerises the whole show:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily show has been Unwatchable since that Rounded-head, Obama impersonator took it over.

And it is FAR from humorous.  Only hateful, in a highly biased way

===

Christine Blasey Ford: No One Has Told Me They Remember Driving Me Home from Alleged Party

Mystery: Who Drove Her Home?

Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, as the Senate Judiciary Committee’s outside counsel, quizzed Christine Blasey Ford Thursday

Using a map, Mitchell showed that if the party were within one mile of the country club from which Ford claimed she came before the party, it would be between 6.2 and 8.2 miles from her home.

Ford confirmed that this would have been the driving distance. “Would it be fair to say that somebody drove you somewhere, either to the party or home from the party,” Mitchell asked, and Ford responded that it was.

Next, Mitchell inquired if anyone could corroborate this aspect of Ford’s story by saying he/she was the driver. “Has anyone come forward to say to you, ‘Hey, remember I was the one who drove you home?'” Mitchell asked.

on how she got home from her alleged early 1980s encounter with Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

“I do not remember, other than that I did not drive home,” Ford told the committee.

How Ford got home after she claims to have fled the high school gathering, where, she alleges, a 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh groped her before she managed to escape, remains an unexplained area of Ford’s accusation. She claims to have walked out of the bathroom where she hid after escaping from Kavanaugh and friend Mark Judge’s clutches, rushing out to the street upon hearing the pair go back downstairs to a living room from the bedroom where they assaulted her.

. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE FBI INVESTIGATION (another week wasted... thnx to Dem tricks)

Trump Orders FBI Investigation ‘completed in less than one week’

Statement from President @realDonaldTrump:
“I’ve ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file. As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week.”

/ 2 /

Exclusive — Sen. Bill Cassidy: FBI Should Investigate Democrats Handling of Kavanaugh

‘Delay, Delay, Delay. That’s all they want.

Just like their other tactics throughout this confirmation process, Senate Democrats’ demands for an FBI investigation have never been about getting the facts or finding the truth.

If they were, they would have alerted law enforcement months ago, as soon as they learned of the claims. Instead, they waited until the last minute to leak them in order to delay the vote.

That is why any FBI investigation of the allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh should include potential coordination between the Democrat operatives and lawyers that assisted in bringing them forth.

What Senate Democrats really want is more time to smear Judge Kavanaugh, regardless of the toll it takes on his wife, his daughters, and our country.

Democrats will not suddenly require evidence to declare Judge Kavanaugh guilty of being the worst kind of criminal. They will not suddenly abandon their assumption that all accusations against Republicans are credible and to be believed.

If the FBI turns up nothing significant, they will say what Joe Biden said in 1991, that the FBI does not reach conclusions. They will say the FBI did not have enough time to conduct a thorough investigation.

What they will not do is admit they were wrong to accuse Judge Kavanaugh of being a gang rapist, or a rapist, or a sexual assaulter, or a drunk, or a perjurer, or a hothead unfit for the bench.

If the delay facilitates new allegations from Michael Avenatti or someone else, it will not matter how ludicrous they are. Democrats will instantly call them credible, demand more delays, more FBI resources, and more hearings. They will attack anyone who disagrees.

Delay, delay, delay. That’s all they want, because their goal is to do anything and everything to smear any nominee — anyone — and block Republicans from appointing another justice to the Supreme Court.

We cannot and should not let that happen.

/ 3 /

Report: Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell ‘Would Not Charge Kavanaugh or Even Pursue a Search Warrant’

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RIGHT ANGLE: A KAVANAUGH HEARING SPECIAL EDITION

==

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, drbubb said:

The Daily show has been Unwatchable since that Rounded-head, Obama impersonator took it over.

Like i said, they were all cingeworthy. quite a few of them even focus'd on fords testimony which was pointless compared to how well Kavenaugh coped with the pressure. Ford isn't the one being nominated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creepo-Crat lawyers

Gregg Jarrett: In Kavanaugh battle, are Ford's lawyers representing her, or the Democrats?

Professor Christine Blasey Ford – who has accused Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her some 36 years ago – may well have been betrayed and victimized by her own attorneys, who are Democratic activists with a record of fierce opposition to President Trump.

As a result, the attorneys ostensibly representing Ford may have breached their client’s trust and violated their ethical responsibility to act in her best interests. They may instead be motivated primarily by a desire to block President Trump’s appointment of a conservative justice to the nation’s highest court. An investigation of their conduct is warranted to determine if this is the case. 

Kavanaugh has strongly denied Ford’s claim that he groped her, tried unsuccessfully to take off her clothes, and covered her mouth to stop her from screaming when the two were high school students. “I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearing Thursday.

. . . And last weekend attorney Michael Bromwich joined Katz and Banks on Ford’s legal team. He represents disgraced former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired after clashing with the Trump administration over the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton and Russia investigations.

Are these the kind of attorneys who are interested in protecting their client’s best interests or are they more interested in advancing their own partisan anti-Trump agenda? 

. . . The very senator who Ford trusted to keep her story confidential encouraged the professor to hire Democratic-activist lawyers who may have been motivated to push for a public hearing in defiance of their client’s wishes is extraordinarily significant.

. . . the private interview never happened. When Ford finally testified at Thursday’s Judiciary Committee public hearing, she seemed surprised that she could have avoided the public spectacle.

Here is Ford’s exchange with counsel for the committee Rachel Mitchell at the Thursday hearing. Importantly, note how Ford’s attorney objected in an effort to stop her from answering:

Mitchell: Was it communicated to you by your counsel or someone else that the committee had asked to interview you, and that they offered to come out to California to do so?  

Ford Attorney:  I’m going to object, Mr. Chairman, to any call for privileged conversation between counsel and Dr. Ford.

Mitchell: Could you validate that the offer was made, without saying a word?  Is it possible for that question to be answered without violating any counsel relationships?

The Rules of Professional Conduct that govern lawyers prohibit conflicts of interest and require that all offers must be fully, honestly, and promptly conveyed to the client (American Bar Association Rule 1.4).

In Washington, where Katz and Banks practice law, Rule 1.3 states: “A lawyer should always act in a manner consistent with the best interests of the client.” There are now serious and legitimate questions as to whether this rule was violated. 

Sadly, the travesty of Thursday’s ugly and acrimonious hearing could all have been avoided, if only Professor Ford understood clearly that she had another option available to her. That is surely her lawyers’ fault.

The Rules of Professional Conduct that govern lawyers prohibit conflicts of interest and require that all offers must be fully, honestly, and promptly conveyed to the client (American Bar Association Rule 1.4).

In Washington, where Katz and Banks practice law, Rule 1.3 states: “A lawyer should always act in a manner consistent with the best interests of the client.” There are now serious and legitimate questions as to whether this rule was violated. 

Sadly, the travesty of Thursday’s ugly and acrimonious hearing could all have been avoided, if only Professor Ford understood clearly that she had another option available to her. That is surely her lawyers’ fault.

Ford: Can I say something to you? Do you mind if I say something to you directly?  I just appreciate that you did offer that. I wasn’t clear on what the offer was. If you were going to come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and been happy to speak with you out there. I just did not – it was not clear to me that that was the case.

Did Ford attorneys Katz and Banks not make it clear to their client that she could avoid the nightmarish scenario that unfolded in Thursday’s hearing?

. . . The Rules of Professional Conduct that govern lawyers prohibit conflicts of interest and require that all offers must be fully, honestly, and promptly conveyed to the client (American Bar Association Rule 1.4).

In Washington, where Katz and Banks practice law, Rule 1.3 states: “A lawyer should always act in a manner consistent with the best interests of the client.” There are now serious and legitimate questions as to whether this rule was violated. 

Sadly, the travesty of Thursday’s ugly and acrimonious hearing could all have been avoided, if only Professor Ford understood clearly that she had another option available to her. That is surely her lawyers’ fault.

> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/28/gregg-jarrett-in-kavanaugh-battle-are-fords-lawyers-representing-her-or-democrats.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Good Decent & Honorable women are against Accusation-Insanity

Many women line up in support of Brett...

800.jpeg

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — As the Senate is divided on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick, so too are women across the country.

Female voices have echoed throughout the U.S. Senate this week demanding male senators justify their support for Brett Kavanaugh’s U.S. Supreme Court nomination despite an allegation of high school sexual assault.

But other women have spent hours calling Senate offices in support of Kavanaugh, condemning what they saw as an anti-Republican ploy that’s damaged not only Kavanaugh’s reputation and livelihood but also his accuser’s.


ACLU breaks policy, comes out against nomination...

ACLU? (Ars3hole Commie Lefty Undesirables?)
DOWD: Capitol Hill Ralph Club...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a Great job!

This was the best analysis of the Deranged Snowflake Accuser that I have heard.

The assumed "he was trying to Rape me" - matters, HOw could she know?

Even worse, "I thought he would accidentally kill me!" What??? Is she so easy to kill? What a weak, vulnerable and Baby-ish creature she is!

Only child? Yeah, that must explain it.  The bullies may have been rough-housing with her, exactly because they saw her as a baby-snowflake.

Even Christine said there was No Rape.  Are drunken guys who REALLY want to rape, so easily put off by a weakling?  I think not !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh Accuser’s Husband Breaks His Silence, Exposes ‘Sick Issue’ His Wife Has

Over the weekend, Christine Blasey Ford’s husband finally broke his silence, exposing his wife’s “issue.” It’s not looking good for the liberal professor as she prepares to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday.

Fords-678x356.jpg

According to Russell Ford, his wife Christine has long had issues with not getting “the attention or respect she felt she deserved.” She’s certainly getting a lot of attention now, which calls into question the validity of her claims that Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh attempted to rape her during a drunken high school party 36-years-ago. Were Christine Ford’s unbelievable accusations rooted in her incessant need for attention all along?

“She didn’t always get along with her parents because of differing political views,” Russell Ford told The Washington Post. “It was a very male-dominated environment. Everyone was interested in what’s going on with the men, and the women are sidelined, and she didn’t get the attention or respect she felt she deserved. That’s why she was in California, to get away from the D.C. scene.”

Hmmm… An issue with those who have “differing political views”? A burning desire for “the attention or respect she felt she deserved”? Sounds like exactly the type of person who might randomly come out of the woodwork to accuse a well-respected judge of an attempted rape from more than three and a half decades ago just as he is nominated to the Supreme Court by a Republican president.

News flash: Respect isn’t something given. Respect must be earned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

INVESTIGATION - Trump Clarifies...

Sep 28

10 hours ago

NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If she is lying about THAT (flying), What else is she lying about?"

5 Major Problems With Dr. Ford’s Testimony That Could Ensure Kavanaugh Gets The Vote

Susan Kwon
Ford is a very sick woman. She needs to be investigated. She can not fool people with her psychology background. Why is she acting like a little kid??.????
Michael Donofrio
I am a behavioral specialist and I have one thing that I don't like about this testimony it is not a courtroom them attorneys do not have the right to speak for her when she was asked questions they were answering for her that's one thing I do not like about this whole thing they are lying even the attorneys God bless Kavanaugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Splendid rant

Once he is approved, the knives are really going to come out from Franken-Feinstein and Cry-baby Ford.

I reckon, people are holding back, because they think it is the wrong moment to go after wimmin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, drbubb said:

A Splendid rant

Once he is approved, the knives are really going to come out from Franken-Feinstein and Cry-baby Ford.

I reckon, people are holding back, because they think it is the wrong moment to go after wimmin

If he is approved, 

I wouldn't count those chickens just yet. especially with several of his former Yale roommates and i think profs saying he just lied under oath.

I can find plenty of people who have never saw me puking in the toilet after drinking to much when i was young, but i remember them well enough and dont understand why he would need to deny it.

Doing so negates all his other denials.

The more that comes out about his background, the more it seems he was nominated just so this whole metoo nonesense can have their current conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rachel Mitchell Memo Highlights Weaknesses In Ford Testimony, Exonerates Kavanaugh

christine-ford-gofundme.jpg?itok=DvfUrvc

"I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard"

/ 2 /

Megyn Kelly Questions Credibility Of Avenatti-Backed Accuser

NBC News’ Megyn Kelly questioned the credibility of Julie Swetnick, the woman who claims Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was present during multiple gang rapes in high school, during her show Monday.

WATCH:

 
 
 
 

Swetnick, who is being represented by celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti, claims that she witnessed Kavanaugh waiting in line for gang rapes and that she was a victim of such a rape. (RELATED: Who Is Julie Swetnick, The Avenatti Client Accusing Kavanaugh Of Attending Gang Rape Parties?)

Kelly pointed out that Swetnick has a history of lying and being involved in scandal, such as an old company claiming that she was sexually inappropriate with coworkers.

“She faced her own accusations of misconduct at a Portland company years ago — that company claims she told them she graduated from Johns Hopkins but they learned the school had no record of her, she also falsely described her work experience … she engaged in unwanted, sexually offensive misconduct herself, they said she made false and retaliatory allegations against her coworkers that they had been inappropriate with her, that she took medical leave and simultaneously claimed unemployment benefits at the same time in DC, there was a restraining order filed against her by an ex-boyfriend.”

Kelly concluded that there are “reasons” the FBI is not investigating Swetnick’s claims of gang rape, and suggested that Avenatti is looking for attention with the outrageous claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×