The Kavanaugh controversy

[yovargas]

I hate to say it because I do believe that false accusations are rare, but the article that Dave posted earlier did say that a common trait of allegations that end up being false is that they tend to be on the outlandish side. Saying that teen boys were regularly organizing drunken gang rape parties is pretty damn outlandish.

[elengil]

I hate to say it because I do believe that false accusations are rare, but the article that Dave posted earlier did say that a common trait of allegations that end up being false is that they tend to be on the outlandish side. Saying that teen boys were regularly organizing drunken gang rape parties is pretty damn outlandish.

I will offer that she is only saying they are at the parties, not that they are the ones who organized them. There would have to have been someone older supplying the alcohol, and of course someone's house was being used.

Secondly, this isn't just a claim, this is a sworn statement by someone in a government position with multiple security clearances. Giving such a false allegation would certainly ruin her career for life.

[Primula Baggins]

... I'm going to slide past all the accusations and denials for a moment and say... OMG you went to at least 10 parties where you knew women were routinely being gang raped!? WTAF!? Yes, I realize teens do not make the best decisions. Yes, I realize there is that sense of 'it won't happen to me'. Yes, I realize that there are a lot of reasons that can be offered. But I can't imagine being in high school - even in the 90's - and being at one party where I knew that kind of crap was going on, let alone going to multiple parties with that going on!

No, I am not criticizing the person, I still did plenty of my own stupid stuff. I am not saying she deserved any part of what happened. I'm just commenting for myself. I absolutely do not accept that this behavior is just 'par for High School'.

It's hard for me to conceive as well, elengil. But I was in high school in the 70s, not the 80s; in a working-class suburb, not a wealthy enclave. "Drugs" were weed and beer. Parents were mostly pretty careful and attentive. If they went on vacations, the kids came along. I was not part of the party scene (music and science nerd that I was), and I'm sure some grotty things happened, but it wasn't an embedded, protected culture. If you got caught with a beer in the parking lot, you got thrown off the cheerleading squad, or the football team, no matter who you were or your parents were.

Privilege on the level these stories portray is a poison.

I hate to say it because I do believe that false accusations are rare, but the article that Dave posted earlier did say that a common trait of allegations that end up being false is that they tend to be on the outlandish side. Saying that teen boys were regularly organizing drunken gang rape parties is pretty damn outlandish.

Stories similar to that ("trains") have been proven in connection with fraternity parties at some schools. And remember that in the 1980s there was zero "sensitivity" about consent. If a woman drank a lot at a party (some kinds of parties), that meant she didn't care what happened to her and anything anyone did to her was fair. She was "asking for it."

Back in 1978, Tom and I were aware enough of the problem that at one of our dorm parties, where a high school friend of mine had way too much to drink and where there were some guys we didn't know at all, before we left the party we carried her into an empty dorm room and locked her in.


edited to untangle my incompetent quoting

[Dave_LF]

I hate to say it because I do believe that false accusations are rare, but the article that Dave posted earlier did say that a common trait of allegations that end up being false is that they tend to be on the outlandish side. Saying that teen boys were regularly organizing drunken gang rape parties is pretty damn outlandish.

It actually wasn't me who posted that, but I concur.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Secondly, this isn't just a claim, this is a sworn statement by someone in a government position with multiple security clearances. Giving such a false allegation would certainly ruin her career for life.

Her statement says where she used to work, but it doesn't say where she currently works, so we don't know that she is currently in a government position.

(It was me who posted the article that yov referred to, and I also concur.)

[elengil]

Secondly, this isn't just a claim, this is a sworn statement by someone in a government position with multiple security clearances. Giving such a false allegation would certainly ruin her career for life.

Her statement says where she used to work, but it doesn't say where she currently works, so we don't know that she is currently in a government position.

It's #3 on the affidavit - 3. I presently hold the following active clearances associated with working within the federal government: Public Trust – U.S. Department of Treasury (DOT), U.S. Mint (USM), Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If you read it carefully, you will see that it doesn't say she works at any particular position, just that she holds clearances.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[elengil]

If you read it carefully, you will see that it doesn't say she works at any particular position, just that she holds clearances.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

It does not say what exact position she holds, but she holds clearances "associated with working within the federal government" - sounds like an active, current situation in #3 - she works within the federal government. The later points state previously held positions and clearances thereafter.

My point stands either way - she has active security clearances that she would have no reason to endanger by making a false affidavit to congress.

This article also states she is a current government employee
https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/third-kav ... -employee/

[yovargas]

(Sorry about misattributing that, V & D.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This article also states she is a current government employee
https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/third-kav ... -employee/

It doesn't, actually. It says she "is a Washington, DC, resident who has had a career working for the federal government." It says she "was employed as a senior production web master from 2002 to 2005 and held the same job with the DOJ from 2006 to 2009" and that "With Homeland Security and CBP, she worked as a senior web production manager in 2012." But it doesn't say anything about her being a current government employee.

That certainly doesn't mean that she is not telling the truth, but the whole way that Avenatti has presented this is a little fishy. It may well be that it is just a question of trying to protect her privacy by not revealing where she currently works, but something still seems off to me.

[elengil]

This article also states she is a current government employee
https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/third-kav ... -employee/

It doesn't, actually. It says she "is a Washington, DC, resident who has had a career working for the federal government." It says she "was employed as a senior production web master from 2002 to 2005 and held the same job with the DOJ from 2006 to 2009" and that "With Homeland Security and CBP, she worked as a senior web production manager in 2012." But it doesn't say anything about her being a current government employee.

That certainly doesn't mean that she is not telling the truth, but the whole way that Avenatti has presented this is a little fishy. It may well be that it is just a question of trying to protect her privacy by not revealing where she currently works, but something still seems off to me.

At the risk of beating what may be a dead horse, the article goes on to say "The government worker claims that..." not 'former' government worker. I am really not seeing the angle you are. I see a current government worker, with multiple current security clearances in accordance with that current work. I see many examples of her past specific positions, but that in no way means they are all past.

But again, no matter whether her work is current, her clearances are current, and there is no impetus for risking purgering herself to congress and losing those clearances, no matter what her current position may be, for a felony conviction! There is just no reason why someone at that level would do that and endanger themselves to such a degree if it was so easily provable that they had lied.

[Faramond]

I am baffled that anyone would take these lurid Swetnick allegations seriously. If they don't set off the BS detector then the partisan filter is on way too tight.

[Cerin]

I don't see that there is anything provable or disprovable about such vague and generalized statements, which is why I have a problem with them being offered in this context. If this person knew women were being gang raped, she is as culpable as anyone else who was there and did nothing to stop it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This article also states she is a current government employee
https://nypost.com/2018/09/26/third-kav ... -employee/

It doesn't, actually. It says she "is a Washington, DC, resident who has had a career working for the federal government." It says she "was employed as a senior production web master from 2002 to 2005 and held the same job with the DOJ from 2006 to 2009" and that "With Homeland Security and CBP, she worked as a senior web production manager in 2012." But it doesn't say anything about her being a current government employee.

That certainly doesn't mean that she is not telling the truth, but the whole way that Avenatti has presented this is a little fishy. It may well be that it is just a question of trying to protect her privacy by not revealing where she currently works, but something still seems off to me.

At the risk of beating what may be a dead horse, the article goes on to say "The government worker claims that..." not 'former' government worker. I am really not seeing the angle you are. I see a current government worker, with multiple current security clearances in accordance with that current work. I see many examples of her past specific positions, but that in no way means they are all past.

But again, no matter whether her work is current, her clearances are current, and there is no impetus for risking purgering herself to congress and losing those clearances, no matter what her current position may be, for a felony conviction! There is just no reason why someone at that level would do that and endanger themselves to such a degree if it was so easily provable that they had lied.

Again, to be clear, I'm not saying that her allegations are false, but the way they are being presented is not helpful. I've helped draft hundreds of declarations and I would never allow something to be so ambiguous. If it was a case of her being a current government worker who doesn't want to reveal her current position for the sake of privacy, it should clearly say that. If she doesn't currently work for the government, it should clearly say that, rather than implying that she does. But this has consistently been Avanatti's M.O. and one of the reasons why he has been subject to repeated California State Bar investigations, including at least one that is currently ongoing.

[Faramond]

Allow me to concern troll for a moment -- I am concerned that liberals are running into an obvious trap when they wager their credibility on this story.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/s ... nick-story

I would actually love to read a rebuttal to all these points -- maybe this take is completely wrong? But right now this story seems profoundly unfair to Kavanaugh.

When this thing Swetnick thing inevitably backfires it will not help Ford. And I don't think that's fair either. The real casualty here is good faith and the pursuit of the truth.

[elengil]

I am baffled that anyone would take these lurid Swetnick allegations seriously. If they don't set off the BS detector then the partisan filter is on way too tight.

Context:
She is asking for FBI investigation.
She states others can corroborate her statements.
She is risking felony conviction for perjury and loss of her clearances if found to have lied.
If she really wanted to lie about Kavanaugh, she could have said he was one of the men who raped her, but she didn't. She only places him at parties and describes behavior she saw. If you find that so lurid maybe it's Kavanaugh's character who should be questioned, not Swetnick's.

But also:
She is the third person to come forward. This is not happening in a vacuum.
Kavanaugh's high school yearbook confirms by his own account that he partied and drank to excess and raises some question as to his attitude towards women at the time.
His own calendar puts him at multiple parties during the summer of '82
Judge's book corroborates again the drinking that they engaged in in high school

[elengil]

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/s ... nick-story

I would actually love to read a rebuttal to all these points -- maybe this take is completely wrong? But right now this story seems profoundly unfair to Kavanaugh.

1. Given the seriousness of these allegations, why did Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick decline to go directly to the police?

Why would they go to the police? What can the police do with a 35 yr old accusation? They went to the body that is currently tasked with determining the fitness of the candidate for a lifetime appointment. How is that odd?

2. Likewise, why did Avenatti and Swetnick bypass the press? Did anyone in the press look into this story? What did they find? The New York Times confirms that “none of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.” Why?

So the lawyer who gets criticized for being too showy is now being criticized for keeping a lower profile? Maybe Swetnick is the one who doesn't want this to turn into a press circus. The press isn't responsible for investigating her claims, that's the FBIs job. Why is the FBI not being allowed to do their job?

3. Where are the witnesses? The charge is of gang rape. Leave aside the question of whether Brett Kavanaugh was involved — and forget for a moment that we’re debating whether he should be on the Supreme Court — surely there are a whole host of victims, perpetrators, and witnesses to this monstrous crime. Where are they?

Sounds like a good reason for the FBI to investigate.

4. Is is not a little strange that there are only two details provided, and that they are happen to be public knowledge already? The two names given are Mark Judge’s and Brett Kavanaugh’s. The time given is “BEACH WEEK,” which is listed on the calendar that Brett Kavanaugh released this morning. Why is there nothing new?

Sounds like a good reason for the FBI to investigate.

5. According to the New York Times, Swetnick left school in 1980, and then went on to college. Swetnick claims that she “attended at least 10 house parties in the Washington area from 1981 to 1983 where the two were present.” That means that, at the time of the alleged incident(s), she was between 18 and 20-years-old at the least, and that Kavanaugh and Judge were between 16 and 18 at the most. Why was she, an adult, attending high-school parties with minors?

Why is it assumed she was the one attending high school parties, why could it not be those two attending college parties? Again, it had to be at someone's house, and someone had to supply the alcohol - and that someone could easily have been over aged and had under age people at the party. None of that is bizarre. That happens.

6. Kavanaugh says that he’s never heard of the accuser. Is there anyone who can testify to the contrary? If so, how did they meet? What relationship did Kavanaugh have with her school, Gaithersburg High? Swetnick claims that she “met Judge Kavanaugh and Mr. Judge in 1980 or 1981.” Why did she, an 18- or 19-year-old, start hanging out with Kavanaugh and Judge, who were 15 or 16, depending on the year?

Sounds like a good reason for the FBI to investigate.

7. Why would an adult go repeatedly to parties at which minors were being gang raped, and, having figured out what was going on, resolve only to “avoid the punch”? Did Ms. Swetnick tell anybody what she had seen? Why did she keep going back?

I did raise that question already, but I could still see a possibility, especially at that age. You go to a party with lots of people. You are with friends so you feel safer, even if you know there are other people at the party you don't want to be around. Maybe you'be brought your own drink to 'avoid said punch' but it got spiked when you weren't looking.

Putting yourself in a dangerous situation is part of being at an age where you don't fully appreciate the consequences of your actions. Sexually abusing someone else is not just part of being at an age where you don't fully appreciate the consequences of your actions. Why is she being held to a higher standard than they are?


I very much doubt the liberals are running into an obvious trap, what they are doing is going by the statistic that on average, only 6% of rape allegations are proven to be false, and simply not liking a candidate is not a good enough reason to have your entire life destroyed by coming forward with false allegations. Three women have now done so.

I may not be ready to lynch Kavanaugh based on allegations, but I'm more than happy to have his entire confirmation process put on hold to allow the FBI to investigate the allegations! Why is this not already being done? The only reason - and we all know it - is that Republicans want to fill the vacancy before they lose their majority. It's a pity they didn't stake that hope on a better candidate.

[Faramond]

I am baffled that anyone would take these lurid Swetnick allegations seriously. If they don't set off the BS detector then the partisan filter is on way too tight.

Context:

She is asking for FBI investigation.

A little late, don't you think, assuming she's telling the truth? The time to ask for an investigation was after the first gang-rape party she went to.

She states others can corroborate her statements.

Well, yes, since what she describes would have left dozens of witnesses! Where are they?

She is risking felony conviction for perjury and loss of her clearances if found to have lied.

Yes, and if she is telling the truth she was risking rape and assault every time she went back to one of these parties. I mean, she's either a liar or she really really bad judgment.

If she really wanted to lie about Kavanaugh, she could have said he was one of the men who raped her, but she didn't.

I don't follow this. She accused Kavanaugh of rape. Why does it matter that she is a victim or not?

She only places him at parties and describes behavior she saw. If you find that so lurid maybe it's Kavanaugh's character who should be questioned, not Swetnick's.

I'm not going to question someone's character based on an obviously BS story. Why should I?

But also:
She is the third person to come forward. This is not happening in a vacuum.

But if her story is BS then she's not the third person with a credible accusation. This, right here, is the bad faith I'm talking about. The partisan filter that prevents seeking the truth.

Only one accusation has any possible credibility. The first one.

The second one has no corroboration ( the NY times looked and looked for it and came up with nothing ) and comes from a witness who had to decide for six days what she really remembered. In other words, the specifics of her memory are highly suspect. There is no way to look at that second case in good faith and decide that the preponderance of evidence indicates Kavanaugh did anything wrong.

Kavanaugh's high school yearbook confirms by his own account that he partied and drank to excess and raises some question as to his attitude towards women at the time.

And this proves that he took part in gang rapes?

His own calendar puts him at multiple parties during the summer of '82

You know, I was in the CA wilderness a bit during the summer, and some awful fires were started around that time, so -- holy shit! -- did I start some fires? Man, I suck.

Judge's book corroborates again the drinking that they engaged in in high school

So what? Has Kavanaugh denied drinking in high school?

[elengil]

She is asking for FBI investigation.

A little late, don't you think, assuming she's telling the truth? The time to ask for an investigation was after the first gang-rape party she went to.

No. It isn't too late.

[yovargas]

I am baffled that anyone would take these lurid Swetnick allegations seriously. If they don't set off the BS detector then the partisan filter is on way too tight.

To be fair, I don't think this is particularly a partisan issue. The general message around accusations of sexual assault has recently been that the person making the accusation should be given the benefit of the doubt because false accusations are rare. Many of the men who have been caught up in #metoo scandals have been liberals, but they have been condemned as harshly as anyone else.


eta - I generally agree with elen's responses to the National Review questions.