This actually is interesting

But a senior staffer for a Republican on the judiciary committee told the Guardian that as long as Kavanaugh categorically denies the allegation, there is no way to overcome the “innocent until proven guilty” threshold and justify altering the vote.

The source acknowledged that adding a name and a face changed the calculus to a degree but said a number of Republicans feel there is not enough to investigate, with the accuser understandably forgetting details and with no corroborating witnesses.

Well, no, here is a witness, the third person in the room.

According to her account, she escaped when Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Preparatory School friend, Mark Judge, jumped on top of them, “sending all three tumbling”. She said she ran, locked herself in a bathroom, then fled the house.

Judge told the Weekly Standard he had “no recollection of any of the events described in today’s Post article or attributed to her letter”.

But who does it corroborate?

37 comments on “This actually is interesting

  1. “…there is no way to overcome the “innocent until proven guilty” threshold …”

    Not that they aren’t working feverishly on that.

  2. I’m sorry, I must be on the wrong planet.

    If having your cock sucked and putting a cigar in a woman’s vagina and causing semen stains on a dress of a woman are not sexual relations and are nothing at all to be concerned about, as democrats have told us many times, what, exactly, is the problem here?

  3. “She said she ran, locked herself in a bathroom, then fled the house.”

    Presumably out of the window? How big was it? What floor was it on? If not the ground floor how did she get down?

  4. “clumsily attempting to pull off her one-piece bathing suit and the clothing she wore over it.”

    In purely practical terms, attempted to pull off the clothes she was wearing over a one piece bathing suit, one would have thought. Unless he was known for stage-magic tricks..

  5. Eh. I give this one two Cliff Richards out of ten.

    First off, a lot of people in these degenerate times would consider her “almost raped” story to be too PG-13 to care about, but I give her retro style points for it. It’s like being in the supermarket and hearing Alanis Morrisette or Lisa Loeb over the tannoy – a charming blast from the past.

    Unfortunately she falls down on details. Maybe this is a good way of avoiding the kind of critical scrutiny that ultimately caused the Rolling Stone rapefic tale to fall apart, but it also weakens her story.

    Apparently she’s been traumatised by her almost-rape for nearly 40 years, endlessly replaying in her mind the terrible, awful, no-good incident when another teenager tried to have sex with her but didn’t.

    So, where did it happen?

    “Some party, not sure where…”

    When?

    “Uhhh… the early 80’s?”

    But you told someone about this at the time, right? Or at least, before the guy became a famous judge some decades later?

    “Nooooooo?”

    Bonus Rape Content: Remember how, in October 2016, the press was full of stories about multiple women suing Republican Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump for sexy misdeeds?

    Sure you do. It was a Serious Business, the talking heads and typists informed us, and the doomed candidate was facing financial ruin or even jail time after his inevitable defeat by Hillary Clinton.

    So… whatever happened to them? Have we always grabbed Eastasia’s pussy, or something? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  6. Now why does a girl wear a one piece bathing suit under her clothes? Maybe for easy changing on the beach, but this was at a house with a bathroom where she could have changed, and presumably intended to after it got wet. And the two/four guys, according to whether you believe what she told her therapist or what she says now we’re roaring drunk, so presumably late on in the party. Her own state of inspiration is not remarked on, but I doubt we can assume her the sole teetotal present. It’s bit of a stretch.
    I wonder what the reaction would be if the then host now came forward and accused her of say stealing the silver, or getting drunk and doing a.striptease? I doubt automatic belief would follow.

  7. As credible a statement as that deranged person who dragged a mattress on campus claiming she was raped.

  8. Trump has shown Republicans that they don’t have to play Leftard games anymore. It seems they WANT to:

    ‘The source acknowledged that adding a name and a face changed the calculus to a degree but said a number of Republicans feel there is not enough to investigate’

    Rather than tell them to go fvck themselves.

    ‘But a senior staffer for a Republican on the judiciary committee told the Guardian’

    Why are they talking to the Guardian? Why didn’t they tell them, “You losers are going to lose.”

    Republicans want to keep playing losers. Perhaps actually winning is Trump’s biggest flaw amongst establishment Republicans.

  9. It is the same tired, stale old cockrot that is now the left’s SOP.

    Along comes someone they don’t like and who threatens their shit and out comes some drab from 100 years before with an unprovable tall tale of sex capers. Trump, Roy Moore and now Kavanaugh. Frankly this woman and her socialistic handlers need to be jailed themselves. Or perhaps they could choose a beating as the lesser punishment. They certainly deserve to be punished for their pack of lies.

  10. And the Democrat Senator has been sitting on this story since July, but waited until after the hearings to release it because…. err….

    Very very hard indeed not to ascribe poor motive to her.

  11. Don’t they have a defamation law in USA then?
    This statement clearly libels both Kavaugh and the alleged ‘witness’ who has denied the fabrication; so she and Washington Post are claiming one committed sexaul assualt while the other is complicit.
    The Trump faction should assist with defamation suits against both the WP and the poor sap. Once both ruined, the next liar will have pause for thought perhaps.
    If there’s anything in her clains (unlikely given the hype) then it’s a matter for the police and nobody else. After 36 years, I am sure she can give accurate testimony /sarc

  12. I should add that sexual assualt is a nasty offence to be taken most seriously, and that means making examples of those bearing false witness. Every fabrication devalues the real cases.

  13. Being a “public figure” in the U.S. enables others to say whatever they want about you.

    Kavaugh (sic) is such.

  14. Thanks GC, that probably explains the low quality of their ‘public figures’ then! 🙂
    Apologies for the fat-fingered typos.

    But even if Kavanaugh is a ‘public figure’ the other one, Mark Judge, is not….

    And the other attack vector is on the #metoo line, as this discredits real claims. So she trivialises sexual assault by making up such obvious political fancies. Should be worth a bit of sisterly venom.

  15. Allow this and it is a Democrat veto on any future Republican appointments. They will play the same card and everyone in the media will pretend not to notice.

    Stand your ground and smash them.

  16. Rob – it’s what they tried with Trump (unsuccessfully, but he won by the thinnest of margins), and Roy Moore (successfully), so it’s the obvious tactic.

    #MeToo was probably originally conceived as the next phase of the “War On Women” meme the Democrats used against poor, hapless Mitt Romney (who has probably never failed to open a door for a lady in his life). But it went off track when it turned out large swathes of the media are actually disgusting sexual predators in real life.

    As far as we know, no US Republican politician has a custom-built, high-tech rape suite in his office, with scream-proof walls and remotely locked doors… but high-ranking liberal journalists do.

  17. No place and time means no ability to defend (ah, sorry, I was visiting New Zealand during that attempted rape). if you can’t remember the decade you were assaulted, maybe you can’t remember that actually you were just drunkenly larking about.

    Feinstain had the letter in July, but somehow it’s an “issue that must be dealt with” in September.

    Even the FBI thinks it’s bullshit.

  18. Wasn’t one of Trumps short listed candidates a woman who was a practicing Catholic with a handful of kids, they should be careful of what they might get instead……

  19. The only corroboration I’ve seen mentioned is the fact that she told a therapist years later, but before the Supreme Court hearings.
    Which while it does add some weight to her story is still fairly flimsy.
    Reminds me of one of the U.K. cases against a 60’s band where they pointed out that in the date specified they were playing a concert somewhere else, you would think plod would have checked the concert she claimed to be at actually took place, but can’t be suggesting people might be unsure of their facts or it’s victim blaming

  20. The Swedes did a study some yrs ago finding that young women received more sexual attention than they wanted while older women received less than they wanted.

    As someone noted:
    “The only reason the female orgasm exists is to give them another excuse to moan”.
    –Anon

  21. Would it be going too far to require that the liar in question was branded by the government:

    I am a liar

  22. BniC – The only corroboration I’ve seen mentioned is the fact that she told a therapist years later, but before the Supreme Court hearings.
    Which while it does add some weight to her story is still fairly flimsy.

    It’s flimsier than that, even.

    She says she told a therapist (crazy people often have therapists) in 2012 that Brett Kavanaugh almost-raped her nearly 30 years prior.

    The actual documents she produced from her therapy session don’t mention his name at all, but do say there were four boys in the room at the time of her almost-rape. (Her story now is that there were two, but perhaps the trauma of a teenage boy awkwardly trying to fondle her boob through her clothes that one time is to blame for this narrative revision)

    Her other “evidence” is that her lawyer hired a polygraph tester (i.e. science-grade Bullshitium) to say she’s telling the truth (lawyers rarely hire polygraph testers to say their client is a crazy liar).

    Remember those polystyrene toy gliders you used to get in corner shops for pocket money? That would be fun for about ten minutes, before being broken and rendered useless by the dog standing on it, or something?

    This is flimsier than them.

  23. If he did it, and is now lying about it, fuck him. But it needs evidence not just ‘I believe her’.

    The only thing I’ve seen so far that looks bad for him is that he had his letter signed by lots of women to say what a stand-up guy he is all ready to go. Before the allegation. I’m interested to know why. It doesn’t prove anything either way… Is it standard practice now? Or was it a contingency because he knew his previous behaviour posed a risk?

  24. “Her other “evidence” is that her lawyer hired a polygraph tester (i.e. science-grade Bullshitium) to say she’s telling the truth (lawyers rarely hire polygraph testers to say their client is a crazy–and politically motivated– liar).

    Fixed it for you Steve.

    TTG–If it isn’t SOP for any non-leftist stepping up for anything it should be. Because bullshit accusations such as this latest pile of turds are the left’s SOP.

  25. To be honest, even if he did it – so what? This was thirty years ago when he was a teenager. Has no bearing whatsoever on his suitability to be a Supreme Court judge in 2018.

  26. TTG firstly he shouldn’t IMO have to answer questions about it.
    But that’s by the by.
    Going forward, while I agree with you generally, in this specific case there is no (apparent) possibility of anyone accurately assessing the truth of any statement he makes. The whole thing might well be made up for political ends and it should be assessed in that light if a dozen witnesses come forward to say they saw it. They would on the balance of probabilities be lying and should be dismissed.

  27. “Doing it doesn’t. Lying about it under oath does, though.”

    No. She is not entitled to a decent response. She is a political creep, worthy only of scorn and derision.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.