Creepy Porn Lawyer

[Straw Man]

I haven't been following this

any updates ?

[Agnostic007]

Yep, because that can't possibly be true 

Depending on where you go to school/upbringing this is very possible and even likely.

Dude clearly liked his alcohol. IF he was a virgin into his college years, it was because he was too wasted. Just my opinion

[Agnostic007]

I haven't been following this

any updates ?

Avenatti says the internet rumors are false, he was not scammed and still on schedule to reveal person sometime today

[chaos]

I haven't been following this

any updates ?

Her story fell apart as soon as her name was released.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/26/questions-about-julie-swetnick-claims-she-was-in-college-when-brett-kavanaugh-was-in-high-school/

[Dos Equis]

Her story fell apart as soon as her name was released.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/26/questions-about-julie-swetnick-claims-she-was-in-college-when-brett-kavanaugh-was-in-high-school/

So if I'm tracking, she knew there was spiked punch and gang rapes, kept going to these parties, got drugged and gang raped herself, went back to the parties after she was drugged gang raped for a total of about ten parties, and did this while she was a college student attending high school parties. 

Sounds legit. 

[James]

The Truth About Kavanaugh

[SOMEPARTS]

“If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” - James Carville on behalf of the Clintons

[Kwon3]

I'm sure "Dr" Ford is enjoying the $500,000 USD she peeled off liberal cretins on gofundme, giving up their tax refund just to buy her a new house in exclusive Palo Alto, CA.

Has anyone seen any other photos of this woman besides the ubiquitous generic ugly American blond with sunglasses photo? Because she seems to be something of a unicorn - nobody seems to know her.

[Straw Man]

Dude clearly liked his alcohol. IF he was a virgin into his college years, it was because he was too wasted. Just my opinion

this statement is from his college room mate freshman year

We shared a two-bedroom unit in the basement of Lawrence Hall on the Old Campus. Despite our living conditions, Brett [Kavanaugh] and I did not socialize beyond the first few days of freshman year. We talked at night as freshman roommates do and I would see him as he returned from nights out with his friends…

It is from this experience that I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk. I did not observe the specific incident in question, but I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk.

—James Roche, former roommate of Brett Kavanaugh, in a statement following the allegations of fellow Yalie Deborah Ramirez against the Supreme Court nominee. Roche, CEO of HELIX RE, went on to note he believed Kavanaugh “capable” of the attack as Ramirez described it, and said Ramirez was “exceptionally honest, with a trusting manner.”

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/heres-what-brett-kavanaughs-college-roommate-has-to-say/

[Kwon3]

this statement is from his college room mate freshman year

https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/heres-what-brett-kavanaughs-college-roommate-has-to-say/

Yeah, I had a college roommate who liked to drink, too. He'd suck a bottle of stoli dry in an hour and couldn't get enough beer when his parents sent him his allowance.

Several girls on campus claimed to have been assaulted at keg parties during my first year there. I didn't witness the alleged assaults and I don't know if my roommate was there, but he did drink a lot, so that tells you everything about him.

I mean, right?

[Straw Man]

Yeah, I had a college roommate who liked to drink, too. He'd suck a bottle of stoli dry in an hour and couldn't get enough beer when his parents sent him his allowance.

Several girls on campus claimed to have been assaulted at keg parties during my first year there. I didn't witness the alleged assaults and I don't know if my roommate was there, but he did drink a lot, so that tells you everything about him.

I mean, right?

wrong, as usual, and Kavanaughs room mate nor anyone has has suggested "that tells you everything you need to know"

[Kwon3]

wrong, as usual, and Kavanaughs room mate nor anyone has has suggested "that tells you everything you need to know"

What's wrong? Everything in his statement mirrors mine. He's claiming the guy drank heavily but doesn't claim the guy was involved in the types of activities he's accused of. In other words, he's trying to connect the dots by inference without actually spelling it out, since he can't. That's called a smear. Care to amplify or revise your reply?

[chaos]

Despite our living conditions, Brett [Kavanaugh] and I did not socialize beyond the first few days of freshman year.

[Straw Man]

What's wrong? Everything in his statement mirrors mine. He's claiming the guy drank heavily but doesn't claim the guy was involved in the types of activities he's accused of. In other words, he's trying to connect the dots by inference without actually spelling it out, since he can't. That's called a smear. Care to amplify or revise your reply?

he said he saw Kavanuagh get incoherently drunk and that when so "he became aggressive and belligerent"

he also said he believed the accuser (another fellow classmate). That's a belief and not an accusation.  Everyone is entitled to a belief.

a smear is by definition a false accusation

what part of his statement is the false accusation?

smear
smir/Submit
verb
1.
coat or mark (something) messily or carelessly with a greasy or sticky substance.
"his face was smeared with dirt"
synonyms:   streak, smudge, mark, soil, dirty; More
2.
damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations; slander.
"someone was trying to smear her by faking letters"
synonyms:   sully, tarnish, blacken, drag through the mud, taint, damage, defame, discredit, malign, slander, libel, slur; More

[Kwon3]

he said he saw Kavanuagh get incoherently drunk and that when so "he became aggressive and belligerent"

That is called hearsay. It's an unsubstantiated claim, something you claim Trump does on a regular basis. To that end, it can be dismissed as unfounded.

he also said he believed the accuser (another fellow classmate). That's a belief and not an accusation.  Everyone is entitled to a belief.

There's far more people that don't believe her, so if belief is weighted quantitatively, he's innocent and she's lying.

a smear is by definition a false accusation

what part of his statement is the false accusation?

All of it, since accusations are false by default until proven otherwise. That's how our legal system works, dummy.

[Straw Man]

That is called hearsay. It's an unsubstantiated claim, something you claim Trump does on a regular basis. To that end, it can be dismissed as unfounded.

wrong yet again

he didn't "hear about it"  he witnessed it (the incoherent drunk and acting  aggressive and belligerent"

There's far more people that don't believe her, so if belief is weighted quantitatively, he's innocent and she's lying.

now that an example of hearsay but maybe you can prove this claim

All of it, since accusations are false by default until proven otherwise. That's how our legal system works, dummy.

accusations are not "false by default" until proven otherwise

Where did you get that idea

Maybe you're confusing that with the presumption of innocence but this is not a court of law

[Kwon3]

wrong yet again

he didn't "hear about it"  he witnessed it (the incoherent drunk and acting  aggressive and belligerent"

How can that be proven? He said nothing of it at the time, which suggests he held onto information that was explosive and potentially harmful to others, making him complicit and no better than the guy's he's accusing.

accusations are not "false by default" until proven otherwise

In China, you'd be right. Which is why I said you like their system better than ours, since no proof is needed for claims to be considered truthful there, as long as the accused is politically suspect.

Where did you get that idea

The constitution, I guess.

Maybe you're confusing that with the presumption of innocence but this is not a court of law

Nope, there's laws against slander and defamation when claims are made without proof, and cases are often settled out of court or successfully prosecuted for just that reason. Can't prove? It's bullshit.

[Straw Man]

How can that be proven? He said nothing of it at the time, which suggests he held onto information that was explosive and potentially harmful to others, making him complicit and no better than the guy's he's accusing.

Are you really this dumb.  Witnesses state what they've seen and heard. 
That's all they do. There statement could be verified by other people but they don't have to be.
If this were a trial (which it's not) the witness would state what they've seen and hear and the jury would decide whether to believe this

Do you actually not understand this?

In China, you'd be right. Which is why I said you like their system better than ours, since no proof is needed for claims to be considered truthful there, as long as the accused is politically suspect.

People believe all sorts of accusation without proof and even after they are proven false

For an example, take any bullshit you believe about Hillary Clinton

The constitution, I guess.

can you post the section that states "accusations are false by default until proven otherwise"

Nope, there's laws against slander and defamation when claims are made without proof, and cases are often settled out of court or successfully prosecuted for just that reason. Can't prove? It's bullshit.

I'm looking forward to Kavanaugh slander suit against his former classmate

If he doesn't file one I assume the statements made are true

[Kwon3]

Are you really this dumb.  Witnesses state what they've seen and heard.  
That's all they do. There statement could be verified by other people but they don't have to be.
If this were a trial (which it's not) the witness would state what they've seen and hear and the jury would decide whether to believe this

Actually, before being called to the stand, witness testimony has to be verified, otherwise it would be discredited by the defense, causing the entire prosecution to potentially collapse. This has not occurred with these witnesses.

Do you actually not understand this?

Sure, I understand that you have zero understanding of how our legal system works.

People believe all sorts of accusation without proof and even after they are proven false

For an example, take any bullshit you believe about Hillary Clinton

Which is why people can't be trusted to make decisions on innocence or guilt without professional lawyers and a judge to filter the information for them and only tell them what they need to hear, rather than whatever everyone in the general population tells them. In case you hadn't noticed by now, people are dumb. Look who they elected.  

can you post the section that states "accusations are false by default until proven otherwise"

Yep

The 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee “due process of law” to all persons, including foreign students and other aliens in the US. Due process of law requires that orderly legal procedures be followed to establish guilt before a person can be put in jail or otherwise punished. In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, “equal protection under the law.” Equal protection under the law means that the law applies to everyone equally, regardless of age, sex, race or wealth, and that no law may discriminate between persons or classes of persons. There are, however, laws that apply only to certain classes of people, such as aliens. As long as there is a reasonable basis for these laws, they satisfy the requirement of fairness and justice. These laws may limit and modify basic rights. Except for these special alien laws, foreign students are subject to the same laws as are American citizens. They are also guaranteed the same protection under the laws and the same civil rights as are American citizens.

https://www.wabash.edu/international/uslaws

I'm looking forward to Kavanaugh slander suit against his former classmate

If he doesn't file one I assume the statements made are true

He certainly will if he's not appointed. I hope he does, and I hope he wins.

[Straw Man]

Actually, before being called to the stand, witness testimony has to be verified, otherwise it would be discredited by the defense, causing the entire prosecution to potentially collapse. This has not occurred with these witnesses.

Sure, I understand that you have zero understanding of how our legal system works.

Which is why people can't be trusted to make decisions on innocence or guilt without professional lawyers and a judge to filter the information for them and only tell them what they need to hear, rather than whatever everyone in the general population tells them. In case you hadn't noticed by now, people are dumb. Look who they elected.  

Yep

The 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee “due process of law” to all persons, including foreign students and other aliens in the US. Due process of law requires that orderly legal procedures be followed to establish guilt before a person can be put in jail or otherwise punished. In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, “equal protection under the law.” Equal protection under the law means that the law applies to everyone equally, regardless of age, sex, race or wealth, and that no law may discriminate between persons or classes of persons. There are, however, laws that apply only to certain classes of people, such as aliens. As long as there is a reasonable basis for these laws, they satisfy the requirement of fairness and justice. These laws may limit and modify basic rights. Except for these special alien laws, foreign students are subject to the same laws as are American citizens. They are also guaranteed the same protection under the laws and the same civil rights as are American citizens.

https://www.wabash.edu/international/uslaws

He certainly will if he's not appointed. I hope he does, and I hope he wins.

No shit that witnesses are vetted but if it's an eye witness with no other source how do you think that's "verified"

If every witness statement is verified before they are put on the stand then they wouldn't even need the witness. They could just present the "verification" as evidence

I see you haven't been able to find the section in the Constitution that states "accusations are false by default until proven otherwise" and of course this process is NOT a trial

However witnesses are sworn in and can be convicted of lying to Congress so I guess we'll see the Republican congress soon convicted all these "false witnesses" of lying...right?

If Kavanuagh is not appointed I'd bet he doesn't sue any of the people mentioned so far (i.e. his former college roomate, or the 3 women who have come forward so far)

[Kwon3]

No shit that witnesses are vetted but if it's an eye witness with no other source how do you think that's "verified"

By cross-referencing their whereabouts at the time of the alleged incident they witnessed. Ever see My Cousin Vinny? The prosecution's whole case rested on an eyewitness who saw something hundreds of feet away, and then admitted she couldn't even see something 10 feet away when Pesci held out an object for her to ID. Eyewitnesses are the least reliable of all evidence, and that's why cases don't rely on them. That's all you have in Kavanaugh's situation, except none of those people can corroborate their testimony, so it should be discounted unless new evidence comes to light confirming their account.

If every witness statement is verified before they are put on the stand then they wouldn't even need the witness. They could just present the "verification" as evidence

Not really, because that would mean they're putting forward a case that has no witnesses, which makes sense if it's based on forensic evidence, DNA, or documentary or video proof. None of which exist here, so eyewitnesses is ALL they have. But those witnesses aren't credible because they can't prove what happened any more than you can.

I see you haven't been able to find the section in the Constitution that states "accusations are false by default until proven otherwise" and of course this process is NOT a trial

It's right there: Presumption of innocence on the part of the accused. Anything said against the accused is not true unless it's proven true. I realize it requires you actually connecting the dots but everyone else gets it and has from 300 years. It IS a trial because his integrity and reputation are on trial, same as in a civil suit.

However witnesses are sworn in and can be convicted of lying to Congress so I guess we'll see the Republican congress soon convicted all these "false witnesses" of lying...right?

Perjury is when you're proven to have lied. Nobody can prove a negative, ya donk. Doesn't mean we should believe it, either. In other words, it's hearsay, like I said 3 posts ago. You don't disqualify on hearsay.

If Kavanuagh is not appointed I'd bet he doesn't sue any of the people mentioned so far (i.e. his former college roomate, or the 3 women who have come forward so far)

I bet you have no idea what Kavanaugh plans to do or not do, like every other nobody following this story.

[mazrim]

Kwon doing yeomans work.
Using blatant logic over and over again against Grasping.

[Dos Equis]

By cross-referencing their whereabouts at the time of the alleged incident they witnessed. Ever see My Cousin Vinny? The prosecution's whole case rested on an eyewitness who saw something hundreds of feet away, and then admitted she couldn't even see something 10 feet away when Pesci held out an object for her to ID. Eyewitnesses are the least reliable of all evidence, and that's why cases don't rely on them. That's all you have in Kavanaugh's situation, except none of those people can corroborate their testimony, so it should be discounted unless new evidence comes to light confirming their account.

Not really, because that would mean they're putting forward a case that has no witnesses, which makes sense if it's based on forensic evidence, DNA, or documentary or video proof. None of which exist here, so eyewitnesses is ALL they have. But those witnesses aren't credible because they can't prove what happened any more than you can.

It's right there: Presumption of innocence on the part of the accused. Anything said against the accused is not true unless it's proven true. I realize it requires you actually connecting the dots but everyone else gets it and has from 300 years. It IS a trial because his integrity and reputation are on trial, same as in a civil suit.

Perjury is when you're proven to have lied. Nobody can prove a negative, ya donk. Doesn't mean we should believe it, either. In other words, it's hearsay, like I said 3 posts ago. You don't disqualify on hearsay.

I bet you have no idea what Kavanaugh plans to do or not do, like every other nobody following this story.

This beat down is Dos Equis approved.  Well done.   

[Dos Equis]

Kwon doing yeomans work.
Using blatant logic over and over again against Grasping.

Yep.

[Straw Man]

By cross-referencing their whereabouts at the time of the alleged incident they witnessed. Ever see My Cousin Vinny? The prosecution's whole case rested on an eyewitness who saw something hundreds of feet away, and then admitted she couldn't even see something 10 feet away when Pesci held out an object for her to ID. Eyewitnesses are the least reliable of all evidence, and that's why cases don't rely on them. That's all you have in Kavanaugh's situation, except none of those people can corroborate their testimony, so it should be discounted unless new evidence comes to light confirming their account.

Not really, because that would mean they're putting forward a case that has no witnesses, which makes sense if it's based on forensic evidence, DNA, or documentary or video proof. None of which exist here, so eyewitnesses is ALL they have. But those witnesses aren't credible because they can't prove what happened any more than you can.

It's right there: Presumption of innocence on the part of the accused. Anything said against the accused is not true unless it's proven true. I realize it requires you actually connecting the dots but everyone else gets it and has from 300 years. It IS a trial because his integrity and reputation are on trial, same as in a civil suit.

Perjury is when you're proven to have lied. Nobody can prove a negative, ya donk. Doesn't mean we should believe it, either. In other words, it's hearsay, like I said 3 posts ago. You don't disqualify on hearsay.

I bet you have no idea what Kavanaugh plans to do or not do, like every other nobody following this story.

I love that movie

you'll enjoy this clip