Avenatti: New client will go public with Kavanaugh accusations by Wednesday

here is how I see it.

If there is a group of people so passionate, so organized, so displine in their approach that they are able to pull this off then I want to vote for them. REGARDLESS of if any of the accusations are true or not.

This guy has even before these women came forward lied to the senate, takes a stance against abortion but pretends not to and is highly political.

if dirty tricks and lies are needed to get him off the court then I am all for it.

hahaha................you don't have to say you're Republican when your posts say it for you. You constantly preach their party line and support trump. Only hard core Republicans at this point support him.

And like the good little trump fan you are you immediately state the women are wrong......not Kavanaugh even though he lied about being at the party. Why lie if you're innocent?

No I let the facts speak about the competency of his picks. They are deplorable. Must are unqualified for their positions. I said most....not all. Apparently you can ONLY name one pick that is qualified and even then he called trump a fifth or sixth grader and an idiot. You can't have it both ways.

Well actually the case was before the courts so you're wrong.

Turn what? link to a credible source as to what Cohen has turned on and what criminal charges have come from it.

Also, he said Cohen would turn on Trump, so remember that.

Agree. Republicans have also played this dirty trick before with Obama's nominee. If anything democratcs should continue their tricks until we get a moderate as the next supreme court nominee.

Utter nonsense. Republicans did not use dirty tricks to let the people decide who they wanted as the Scotus nominator.

They used the normal political rules.

It was dirty, plain and simple. Considering your love for Trump, you should know either party plays it dirty to win - to think otherwise is to be a blind fanboy.

hahahaha.........are you auditioning for the comedy club..........

What is dirty about using the political rules? compared to fabricating accusations of sexual misconduct.

Don´t worry though I know liberals have a hard time with common sense.

@LJS9502_basic:

Let me be clear. I believe the Paula Jones lawsuit was a political hit job. She was a pawn of the republicans. Of course, Bill Clinton was such a lecherous creep, it made it a lot easier.

I also do not believe any of these accusations against Kavanaugh.

This is just another high tech lynching brought to us by the senate democrats.

I remember the last one they conducted. The old white democrat senators couldn't stand the idea of confirming an educated african american man who did not bow down to their politics. Add to that the fact that the uppity N-word had the audacity to have a white wife, and those good ol boys had to do everything in their power to bring him down. So they found an african american woman to accuse him of being nothing more than a jungle N-word, looking to stick his pecker in every female he could. After all, we all know "those people" can't keep it in their pants, right.

The moral proselytizing by the left, and people like you, that these obviously politically motivated, completely unsubstantiated, utterly unproveable allegations must be believed, is laughably transparent. The double standard, hypocrisy, whatever term you want to use, is as plain as the nose on your face.

You know when someone mentions they were the victim of sexual assault years ago it makes one do several mental gymnastics to call them political hit jobs.

Your statement has the inherent assumption that the person claiming to be assaulted is telling the truth. What follows from that assumption is the acceptance of the accusation as truth, requiring to accused to prove they are innocent.

Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental principle that should be cherished and embraced by all citizens of the USA.

Guilty until proven innocent is the way of despots and tyrants, and not what I would expect from you, a man who wore the uniform and gave his service to the constitution of our great nation.

What I'm saying is to conclude these women came forward solely for political purposes and are making things up is beyond incredulous since the assault was spoken of years before this was politically expedient. Also stop confusing the court stance that one has their day in court with deciding if perhaps someone should not be given a high position in government for life without asking questions.

You say you're impartial but you have a most definite bias in your posts. I don't see any middle ground wherein you want the truth.

which is why an investigation needs happen. an investigation that the accused does not want but the accussor does want.

The POINT of an investigation is to determine guilt or innocent.

in fact the very phrase 'guilty until proven innocent' came from the advocation of having INVESTIGATIONS before sentencing.

but even if they are lying, its a seriously well organized, disciplined thought out conspiracy and that reason alone I would respect them. They were able to convince classmates to make these lies? that is pretty cool actually

How do you propose we determine the truth in this situation? What specifics in any of these allegations do want the FBI, or some other law enforcement agency to investigate, and how?

It seems to me that, 30 years after the fact, there is no forensic evidence to be gathered, so we are left with the testimony of the accuser, the accused, and any witnesses that can be found. Correct me if I am wrong, but has anyone besides the accusers come forward to corroborate any of these accusations? Are we going to ruin the career of a citizen based on recollections from over 30 years ago? And when there a some who corroborate, and some who contradict, how do we keep score?

The reality is that we will never know the truth about these 30 plus year old allegations. I choose to use my wisdom, guided by experience, and put emotions aside. We have seen politicians pull these kind of shenanigans before, and the timing of all this is just too convenient. Color me skeptical, but I smell bullshit. Washington DC political bullshit. A smell we've all become much too familiar with over the last few decades.

The only thing impartial about me is my disdain for all politicians.

Yes. Cohen did turn on Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/25/politics/donald-trump-michael-cohen-tape-recording/index.html

https://www.ft.com/content/81388eae-a5ab-11e8-8ecf-a7ae1beff35b

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/ex-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-discussing-plea-deal-prosecutors-n902571

Yes. He plead guilty. He also said these crimes were done in the name of Trump.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/michael-cohen-to-plead-guilty-to-criminal-charges-1534875978

Why am I posting this stuff, don't you keep up?

Cohen got all of this right as it comes to his attack on Cohen starting well before all of this. I'm not saying he's 100% reliable, but to instantly dismiss him as absurd.

Then it's time to move on and rescind his nomination and find someone else. No justice should be appointed to the SC if we cannot be sure they haven't committed crimes. So if as you say there is no way to know.......then err on the side of caution and move on.

@LJS9502_basic:

First, I notice you did not offer a way to determine the truth, so I assume you agree with me, it can never be known.

Second, if the new standard is allegation=disqualification, I'm racking my brain trying to figure out how ANYONE can be qualified. Both sides will simply make accusations of any candidate they don't like. And once the accusation is out there, well, we can't be sure they didn't commit that crime, so out they go.

Surely you can see the ridiculousness of that standard.

Eh this isn't the only reason he should be disqualified. He didn't answer one damn question that was asked of him. That ALONE should disqualify him. Nonetheless considering this an important job if there is ANY hesitancy on his character........it's rescinded. Period.

You are talking nonsense here.

Nowhere did he provide anything that could be used to impeach or file allegations on Trump.

So stop making up facts based on your invalid opinions.

[Straw-Man Argument]

WTF, Impeachment? Proof? I never said any of that shit. I never gave an opinion on those factual events!

I very simply stated Micheal Avanatti isn't wrong all the time to the point were you can completely dismiss the OP. He said Cohen would flip and Cohen DID flip (MY LINKS SHOW THIS HAPPENED). Cohen DID plead GUILTY and he DID implicate Trump (I never gave my opinion on that, I'm just telling you IT HAPPENED!). Avanatti said there would be recordings on Trump, and recording soon after released (THIS HAPPENED). He said Trump lied on Air Force One, which was later confirmed. My only point was that he isn't completely unreliable.

Are you properly reading peoples posts? Half of your replies in this section are Straw-Men.

My posts say that I'm a Republican? They would call me a liberal if I posted the exact same way on right-wing forums that I post here. The whole reason you may see me defend Republicans more often is because the majority of the forum is left-wing. Not that being left-wing in itself is bad, but when the forum holds a certain bias, people that fall outside of that bias are accused of being farther to the right than they really are.

You say that I immediately said the women are wrong, you are automatically saying that they are right and Kavanaugh is a sexual predator with no evidence. We don't even have a way to investigate since every single witness has denied knowledge of the assaults.

Now, if you are saying that the accusation alone is enough, then what is stopping a conservative woman from accusing whomever the 2020 Democratic nominee is of sexual assault? Apparently, questioning them or asking for evidence makes you a rape apologist. Or does that only apply when the accused is a Republican?

@ad1x2: I'm still not sure why you just don't say that you prefer Republicans. When you post things from Breitbart insinuating that Google alters search results against Trump purely because their's a video of Google executives stating they don't like Trump, as an example, then yeah, people are going to know that you prefer Republicans.

And it's OK to prefer one political party over another. I think Republicans are nuts, and I prefer Democrats. That's not a shock to anyone here, and people would know it whether I explicitly stated it or not.

So, is this another conspiracy to pay off women to fake rape allegations against powerful republican men?

If you read my post, you would have saw that I stated there was no evidence they were actually doing that and I don't believe that they are. The main reason I even post topics like that in the first place is because if I don't, then nobody will other than possibly Jacanuk. Everyone else will post anti-Republican posts and it just turns into an echo chamber.

You don't have to be a Republican to lean right. There's just too many things Republicans do that I disagree with to call myself one, and I have supported and voted for Democrats before. I supported Obama over Romney during the 2012 election, for example. But if you want to believe that I'm a hardcore Republican, then by all means do so.

The problem with this forum is there is no middle ground. If you don't absolutely despise Trump, call all of his supporters bigoted morons, and dismiss positive stories as the act of Russian bots then you must kiss his ass and worship people like Sean Hannity.

@ad1x2: Jac doesn't post stuff like that because it's too insane. There's no reason to post Breitbart level "coincidence? I think not!" nonsense because it's nonsense. We won't be missing anything if you ignore it and focus on valid pro-Republican news/opinions, just like we aren't missing anything due to no one posting that some people think Melania Trump is using a body double.

I would think the story was insane too if it wasn't for recent stories like this claiming that some people in the company were considering altering search results to counter the travel ban back in 2017. While I understand that Google is a private company, if they are going to alter search results to cater to a certain viewpoint then they should do their users the courtesy of informing them so that they can decide whether or not they want to use another search engine. The story in that link states that they never actually implemented the proposed changes, so I never followed up on it in the forum. You would also see that in some of my later posts in the thread, I reiterated that I saw no proof that they were actually altering search results.

I know people from both sides of the aisle and it's not a bad idea to get different viewpoints, assuming that they are not bigoted viewpoints. When you only stick around people that agree with you, then it makes it that much easier to dehumanize people that you only read about on the internet but never actually talk to. Sticking to people that think like you is why you have some conservatives that look at liberal men as weak blame America first SJWs and some liberals that look at conservative men as bigoted bible-thumping morons that cling to their guns at all costs. It's why people here think I'm far-right when I'm not even close compared to many people out there.

The easy thing for me to do would be to just leave like other posters that lean slightly right did (assuming they weren't banned first like Airshocker and some others), but I think I'll stick around for now. And it's hard to post pro-Republican stories since most of them come from Fox News and other sources that automatically get dismissed as unreliable here, even though many of those same posters have no problem using sources like Huffpost and Slate here.

Now you're just being silly.

Didn't answer one damn question?? You know that's not true.

If it were true, the democrats would have a legitimate reason to oppose him and wouldn't need to resort to this character assassination smear campaign they've engaged in.

Try not to be too disappointed when he is confirmed and seated on the court.

Ah so you paid no attention to the entire thing and expect us to give your opinion validity. He did NOT answer questions. The Democrats for the most do oppose him. You're talking out of your ass.

What about Kavanaugh's children?

Stage left bring out the court jester.

he bats a 1000, its pretty awesome. he has not been wrong about anything yet that I am aware of

if I was in charge of this I would make his children and his parents a public spectical. I would drive them all thru the media mud.

as far as I am concerned there is ZERO excuse for a JUDGE to be misleading about his legal views on abortion to the public. that alone I would metaphorically crucify him and drag his entire family with him.

@ad1x2: By all means, stay, post, contribute. Post about why the GOP is the party of fiscal responsibility or why veterans should support the party over Democrats. Heck, post the Breitbart conspiracy stuff as well, just don't expect anyone to buy the, "I'm not a Republican, but..." schtick.

Aaand Avanatti delivers, again.

yeah tonight is going to be a bombshell.

news has been for the most part ignoring this story but not for long

@zaryia:

Not really; well maybe for those too slow to see the slight of hand.

what has he gotten wrong thus far?

I think the count is zero

What do you mean.

He delivered what he promised. Many on the right were saying this was all a fabrication and there wasn't even a 3rd woman.

@zaryia:

All that is really in all that is that the man was an obnoxious drunk as a youth; then thrown on the end (the slight of hand), was that he wasn’t seen doing something he possibly could have done.

that is not true

that is not even a slight of hand on your part, that is an absolute flat out lie

DONT FORGET:

that the allegations are now PUBLIC. so any assertion you make about those allegation might inspire me to read the allegation in question in which my eyes will be reading those allegations.

1. The allegations from the 3rd woman include more than obnoxious drinking. You should read it all. She said she explicitly saw him pushing his crotch on women, spiking punch, and shifting their clothes to expose nudity. She saw him standing in line on some of these rape trains.

2. The allegations were detailed in an affidavit, signed under penalty of perjury. If this is just a stunt, that's insane.

3. I'm not saying any of this is true, I'm saying Avanetti delivered what he said he was going to deliver. A woman with allegations, who appears to have a credible background and detailed the events with great risk. Many on the right thought this was all fake and he had literally nothing. They are eating crow.

and to point, the more people like Fuhrer start making claims about what is in the allegations the more likely people will read said allegations.

ironically doing Avanetti a favor

It doesn't hurt my feelings to be called a Republican, so if that's what you want to call me then by all means. I have my beliefs, and they fall on both sides of the aisle.

Answer the following

1. 10 parties and according to this statement, "hundreds" of boys and countless girls who were gang-raped (Pizzagate 2.0) Where are all the corroboration?

2. Which female even around 17-19 years old would go to not just one or two but to ten parties and not say anything about the "long line" of boys who molested drunk/passed out girls. Not to the other women, not to any adults, not to any friends she may have.

3. Someone working at the DOJ with such a strong recollection of the events, despite working for the DOJ (Do you even know what that is?) did not say anything the 6 times the FBI was doing a background check on Kavanaugh or during the July background check but waited until now when he is a hair from being confirmed..

And again do not excuse this with "but she was scared for her job etc. etc. etc." With the seriousness of the allegations and considering she is working for the DOJ.

This seems more likely to be a 4Chan prank or just a creep ambulance chasing Lawyer who wants to get the glory if it turns out Kavanaugh does not get confirmed on Friday.

Lol the creepy porn lawyer.

We have a creepy SCOTUS nominee and a creepy president.

supported by creepy senate.

I literally had a creepy dream about all this last night.

Your third point I wasn't privy to; which makes sense because I don't participate in social media nor pay the news any attention beyond the financial world (all that really matters to me). With that said, if all he was saying was that he was going to produce was a woman with allegations (true or not) then I will concede my "not really." However, there really wasn't much in it other than what I describe, the "standing in line" is the slight of hand.

It wont surprise me when he is confirmed.

Ah Clinton days! yeah thanks for reminding me, those where the days.

wow...let me think back on those days. I wonder what the similarities are with today...derp