It’s not every day that lining up a second accuser lends LESS credibility to the original claim. But they found a way.
We already know about the first accuser claiming Kavanaugh was sexually inappropriate with her at a party that none of the other named participants have any recollection of. That’s a bad start to any claim of wrongdoing.
But if there’s a SECOND accuser, that adds credibility to a shaky story, right? Even better if there’s a THIRD accuser?
In this case, the claims may cast further doubt on it, depending on your opinion of the source.
Or your thoughts about why the original complaint went to politicians and not law enforcement. Or what you think about Soros money being dumped into the ‘Demand Justice’ anti-Kavanaugh
In fairness to the man accused, let’s begin by stating his categorical denial of the sexual allegations upfront:
These allegations come after doubts have started to grow over recent accusations made by Ford as all four of the people that she claimed were at a party, where she claims she was assaulted, have denied that the party ever happened or say they do not remember the party ever happening.
Kavanaugh responded to the allegations in a statement, writing:
This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name–and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building–against these last-minute allegations.
Advisor to Kavanaugh’s accuser was caught on audio in July predicting a coming plot to destroy nomination https://t.co/vLEXkdmwyZ
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) September 24, 2018
Here’s that strategy conversation to “ultimately defeat the nominee” (or at the very least drive up Get Out The (Democrat) Vote efforts):
They had made up their minds that ANYONE on the judges’ list had ‘passed the litmus test’ and therefore would be vigorously opposed. You don’t seriously think they would treat any other nominee with less vitriol than what the current nominee has endured… do you?
Are we now seeing how a Soros-aligned group sees ‘vigorous opposition’ in the #Resist movement? Has it gone beyond orchestrated protests to straight up character assassination?
Now two other accusers have stood up against him. (Maybe two. One of them — if she exists — is hiding behind the Creepy Porn Lawyer.)
First, there is Deborah Ramirez, 53, who attended Yale with Kavanaugh.
The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.
Source: New Yorker
She described a drinking game, in which she had been quite intoxicated, and someone in the group standing in front of her, exposing his genitals in front of her face.
“We were sitting in a circle,” she said. “People would pick who drank.” Ramirez was chosen repeatedly, she said, and quickly became inebriated. At one point, she said, a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction. Later, she said, she was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words, as that male student and another stood nearby. (Ramirez identified the two male onlookers, but, at her request, The New Yorker is not naming them.)
A third male student then exposed himself to her. “I remember a penis being in front of my face,” she said. “I knew that’s not what I wanted, even in that state of mind.” She recalled remarking, “That’s not a real penis,” and the other students laughing at her confusion and taunting her, one encouraging her to “kiss it.” She said that she pushed the person away, touching it in the process. Ramirez, who was raised a devout Catholic, in Connecticut, said that she was shaken. “I wasn’t going to touch a penis until I was married,” she said. “I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated.” She remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.” She recalled another male student shouting about the incident. “Somebody yelled down the hall, ‘Brett Kavanaugh just put his penis in Debbie’s face,’ ” she said. “It was his full name. I don’t think it was just ‘Brett.’ And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there.”
And yet, after several days of considering the matter carefully, she said, “I’m confident about the pants coming up, and I’m confident about Brett being there.” Ramirez said that what has stayed with her most forcefully is the memory of laughter at her expense from Kavanaugh and the other students. “It was kind of a joke,” she recalled. “And now it’s clear to me it wasn’t a joke.”
Source: New Yorker
Somehow, a memory from thirty-some-odd years became clear after six days of consulting with a lawyer? Wow. That’s some lawyer.
This is the evidence that some would offer to destroy a man’s reputation and career, and scuttle a Supreme Court nomination that doesn’t fit with the Progressive agenda.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) September 24, 2018
Ramirez has a ‘corroborating witness’…or not.
WATCH: The journalist for the New Yorker story says the witness DIDN'T SEE WHAT HAPPENED… but "remembers it clearly" because he "heard about it from someone who was there."
That's hearsay evidence that would be thrown out of every court in America. pic.twitter.com/lCFkLGNI2w
— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) September 24, 2018
It depends on whether you think ‘I heard a guy say’ actually qualifies as a corroborating ‘witness’. Courts tend to call such thing by a different name: Heresay.
Ramirez has an interesting choice for a lawyer. It was first Colorado’s Stan Garnett the litigation attorney mentioned in the original article, but the case is now handled by John Clune. He’s the guy hired by the victim in the Kobe Bryant rape case, among other high-profile rape cases.
Weird that she’d get a high-profile rape lawyer on her side when she just wants the truth to come out?
Although, at least it isn’t as bad as the Creepy Porn lawyer jumping into the mix with some wild accusations about well, the sort of wild accusations we have come to expect from Creepy Porn laywer. He’s trying to get his pound of flesh from the publicity.
Brett Kavanaugh must also be asked about this entry in his yearbook: "FFFFFFFourth of July." We believe that this stands for: Find them, French them, Feel them, Finger them, F*ck them, Forget them. As well as the term "Devil's Triangle." Perhaps Sen. Grassley can ask him. #Basta
— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) September 24, 2018
He’s so desperate to get that hashtag trending, is he? It looks like a typo to us.
Let’s fix it for him. He should sign off with this one, instead: #bastard. What does the (slightly) Left of center Law and Crime blog have to say about creepy porn lawyer’s latest accusations?
He’s going to have to put up or shut up… and fast.
Legal ethics point. Lawyers cannot make factual claims like this about judges without evidence. My expectation is that @MichaelAvenatti will either produce backup for this soon or face discipline. https://t.co/H6vqBiUiwO
— Ben Edwards (@BenPEdwards) September 24, 2018
Why? The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 8.2(a) very clearly states that “a lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial legal office.”
Prof. Edwards would add that this “isn’t the kind of allegation a lawyer who values her law license would make lightly” and that his “presumption here is that [Avenatti] has evidence for the claims.”
“If he doesn’t, he should be disciplined by the bar,” he added.
Law And Crime
Wouldn’t it be so very tragic if this loudmouth were to be disbarred?