Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
7. Avenatti's client, while imminently credible, does not appear to be ready to testify to direct
Fri Sep 28, 2018, 03:16 PM
Sep 2018

knowledge of any serious sexual misdeeds perpetrated by Kavanaugh.

I'm not sure she'd be accepted as a witness in any regular court of law if the accused had remotely competent representation.

Her testimony, if given, would be immediately (and rightly) be attacked by the Defense as basically hearsay and guilt-by-association.

She's saying she was raped while attending the 'kinds' of parties that she'd seen Kavanaugh at, not that Kavanaugh was involved in her own rape.

She also said she saw him 'lined up' outside a bedroom whereing she SUPPOSES that a girl was being taken advantage of ... i.e hanging out with the group of boys she SUPPOSES ... were involved in this theoretical assault. That's a lot of 'supposition', to the point that it would not, and should not ... be allowed in a Courtroom.

UNLESS the victim of the particular incident had come forth, and therefore, she could be a witness in that way. At this time, as far as anyone knows, no such victim has come forth. Swetnick is not claiming Blasey-Ford was 'the girl in the room' in her recollection about Kavanaugh 'waiting outside the room', IOW.

I'm afraid that while this is a clearly COMPELLING news, and SHOULD BE HEARD, something like 60 minutes is a really a significantly more appropriate venue than a Senate Hearing. Blasey-Ford was brought in because she could testify to direct knowledge/experience of a sexual assault committed BY the nominee.

Ms. Swetnick, OTOH, does not appear to be able to do so. She essentially has 'innuendo'.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
8. My take is,
Fri Sep 28, 2018, 03:41 PM
Sep 2018

Avennati would not be going here if he does not have the facts. Read this fellows BIO,he does not go off half cocked in any of his cases.

The Law firm whom he worked with in California is considered one of the most repeatable in the Nation. He was one of the few to Sue a Trump entity and actually get paid ten million in damages. BTW,that was a suit involving Paris Hillton and Trump's so called Apprentice TV show copy right infringement of a Paris Hillton fashion item.

Like Maddow say's,buckle up ,Trump's ride is getting shorter by the day.

 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
9. Oh, I've no doubt he thinks his client should be heard at a Senate hearing ...
Fri Sep 28, 2018, 03:53 PM
Sep 2018

But ultimately, I doubt it's going to happen, mainly because she's not claiming direct knowledge of any serious sexual misconduct on the part of the Nominee.

I ABSOLUTELY think that he should get her onto 60 minutes, if she wants to. The country 'should know' about what she's testified to in her declaration, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of 'court of law testimony' against any particular individual. Or even 'Senate Hearing' level.

I'd LOVE IT if he pulls that off though, and gets her on the Senate record, don't get me wrong. But I doubt it happens.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
4. That's what Flake said. One of the Dems asking clarification said Ford and others.
Fri Sep 28, 2018, 02:52 PM
Sep 2018

If FBI came back with damning evidence involving the other two ladies, don’t think GOPers would get very far saying it’s not admissible or relevant.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Limited in scope