And remember, she’s a sexual crimes prosecutor. She’s not in the adversarial role to the alleged victim. She’s experienced with interviewing the victim carefully and humanely n an effort to prosecute the accused, The point was to disarm the old white men attack dog narrative.Female sexual crimes prosecutor.
That awkward moment when a renowned lawyer isn’t capable of using any strategy that isn’t the same as the armchair law degree would assume she has.
Because real life is law and order
Incorrect.
Her testimony serves the interest of the Senate. If the Senate wants to bring in someone else to ask questions because they think it better gets to the veracity of her claims - which isn’t unusual - that’s the Senate’s prerogative, not hers.
If she wants to assert her own interests here, she should contact the DA where the event occurred and have him/her prosecute.
3 Likes
Remember too that she has been retained by the Republicans to interview a woman who threatens the nomination of their guy. It remains to be seen whether she will adopt an adversarial stance toward the victim.
I would say the point was to relieve the old white men of the fraught responsibility of questioning her. #cowards
To the contrary, it’s highly unusual.
There is nothing to preclude her from negotiating the terms of her appearance.
She’s an American citizen. As such, I’d say that makes Kavanaugh’s nomination one of her interests.
Obstruct at all costs, resist at all costs? What is their mantra again?
If her interest was actually in bringing a man that assaulted her to justice, she sure chose a funny way of going about it.
Now if her interest was to disrupt or derail a supreme court nominee she chose the perfect way of going about it.
Which one do you think is most likely?
1 Like
Sorry, no idea to whom you’re referring.
Clearly, she’s not trying to bring the man who sexually assaulted her to justice; she’s trying to prevent the man who sexually assaulted her from being seated on the SCOTUS. Does that strike you as an inappropriate goal on her part?
As an aside, I don’t think she’s ever claimed that the purpose of coming forward was to achieve any sort of personal justice.
See above.
1 Like
But, she had no issue with him being a Lawyer or a Federal Judge for over a decade?
1 Like
Apparently?
Well, I appreciate the coversation. I will be glued to the tv on Thursday. It’ll be great to get everyone’s impressions then. Goodnight, folks!
2 Likes
Looks like they will be voting on Friday…
No, it’s really not.
She can negotiate all she wants, but all she’s really doing is asking. Whatever she gets is at the courtesy of the Senate, not the obligation.
Which would be perfectly appropriate (as long as it remained professional). If the goal is to get to the truth, there’s nothing wrong with adversarial questioning.
If they decided to question her themselves, there’d be alternative (selective) outrage that can you imagine the audacity of a bunch of privileged old white dudes to challenge a victim’s story? Point being, there’s going to be outrage theater no matter which choice they made, so might as well make the choice that does the best job of getting to the truth.
2 Likes
Julie Swetnick Accuses Brett Kavanaugh Of Sexual Misconduct, Alleges He Was Present During ‘Gang Rape’
She said she attended “well over ten house parties” from 1981-1983. Between 1981-1982, she said at these parties she began to notice Judge, Kavanaugh and others would attempt to “‘spike’ the ‘punch’ at house parties I attended with drugs and/or grain alcohol so as to cause girls to lose their inhibitions and their ability to say ‘No.’”
Kavanaugh and Judge, she said, would “‘target’ particular girls … it was usually a girl that was especially vulnerable because she was alone at the party or shy.” She said she has a “firm recollection” of seeing boys ― including Judge and Kavanaugh ― “lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room.”
Here’s a big ass picture of her. Please respect her privacy. This is a fucking shit show.
1 Like
She went to multiple parties with rape lines extending out of bedrooms. Men literally lined up for their turn at rape.
The 80s were a wild time, apparently.
If that actually happened and she kept going to parties and never did anything about it, she’s an accomplice to rape.
It’s odd because despite the number of Ford’s former classmates supporting her as a person, none of them have ever come forward to mention how Georgetown prep boys were throwing gang rape parties,. How they had heard rumors of it, or whatever. They were all willing to put their names out there, but didn’t say anything about parties with lines of rapists?
I can’t tell if this is biting sarcasm or not. From a legal standpoint, it is almost impossible to prove any event never happened, which is why the burden of proof in the U.S. legal system has always been on the prosecution rather than the defense.
I wonder if more folks aren’t coming forward because they don’t want to deal with the media and public shit show… And they think the women who have come forward will be able to accomplish their goal for them. If there was a way for accusors to maintain anonymity to the public, I wonder if more would come forward?
Thursdays testimony will be interesting to hear.
3 Likes
Why aren’t they filing charges in MD? Rape/attempted rape is a felony, no? My understanding is that felony sex crimes have no statue of limitations in MD, at least? @thunderbolt23 seems to be pointing this out, also. I mean, we’re talking about a gang rape ring.