Avenatti releases name and account of accuser

a reply to: Vasa Croe

They have not testified under oath because they expect Kavanaugh to cave on accusations alone.

This was timed to get Ford out of testifying tomorrow.

I hope that Grassley and Kav stay tough. Let this other woman testify if she wants, but it must be tomorrow.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: soberbacchus

There’s no need, now that this info is released to the public people are going to say anything. That’s why you do these background checks before high level clearances.

Please.

Like these Nominees for Federal Judgeship that were bungled?

FROM DECEMBER LAST YEAR:
Poor Vetting Sinks Trump’s Nominees for Federal Judge
www.nytimes.com...

3 Trump Judicial Nominees Withdraw, Raising Some Questions About Vetting
www.npr.org...

Two controversial federal judge nominees will not be confirmed, Senate Republican says
www.texastribune.org...

a reply to: TheRedneck


We are witnessing a coup!


Mark my words,, these women will disappear forever just like the ones the that were rolled out accusing Trump before he was elected.


For those that don't think our elected officials represent a Banana Republic, open your eyes.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Fortunately, I don't see how that is NOT the plan. These are felony charges sworn to under oath. That is FBI territory, as there are Federal laws that may have been broken.

As I said, this just got real.

TheRedneck

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

She better hope she has some serious evidence backing up her story

originally posted by: TheRedneck

• Why did Swetnick continue to attend these rape parties if she knew they were rape parties?
  
  
• Why did Swetnick not provide names of corroborating witnesses from this supposedly huge list of girls who were raped?
  
  
• Why did Swetnick wait until this last minute before coming forward?
  
  
• Why are there no police reports of complaints about these rape parties?
  
  
• How did the FBI miss uncovering allegations of this, despite six separate background investigations, the first occurring a mere 11 years after the supposed events?

One thing is for certain... the next time I go walking through a cow pasture, I will be careful not to step in any avernattis.

This is no longer about the Supreme Court. Felony charges have been attested to under oath. Swetnick should now be forced to swear out a warrant with the authorities or face felony charges herself. If the FBI can locate credible corroborating evidence, then Brett Kavanaugh should be removed from the Supreme Court and charged with multiple counts of rape. If no corroborating evidence can be found, Swetnick should be charged with either malicious prosecution, or at least a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 4. Either way, a line has now been crossed and someone needs to be in a Federal penitentiary.

I would also say that, should Swetnick be found guilty of a felony, another investigation into Michael Avernatti should be launched to determine if he is guilty of sedition for trying to improperly affect the legal processes of the US government.

No more games. This just got serious.

TheRedneck

THAT is what I was saying, or trying to. This just escalated from some stories, to something much more. And one of the two are lying. Of that, there is no dispute. So who goes to jail seems the only important question left.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: soberbacchus

It's not the FBI's jurisdiction.

It never has been no matter how often the Democrats lie to you and say otherwise.

It is entirely in the jurisdiction of the FBI Background check process.
Do you not think they investigate sexual misconduct?

I was interviewed by the FBI once about a roommate in college (25 years prior at the time).
He was applying at an alphabet agency.
The agent rattled off all multiple college friends that were smoking pot or using '___' at the time. People that I had completely forgotten about. He knew the girls my friend had dated in college etc.

The FBI conducts BACKGROUND CHECKS, not just criminal investigations.

They conduct background checks on Judicial Nominees at the direction of POTUS.

Absent that direction, they do not conduct the checks or re-open checks, like they did with the Anita Hill allegations.

Ha....so on a virtual nobody they found all the people he had ever done drugs with in a single background check.

Well, technically they had an undercover DEA agent on campus at the time posing as a student. He partied at our apartment on a regular basis. Still cracks me up. He was a nice guy. It explains how a bunch of people we knew got arrested that year.

But on Kav they have done 6 already and never found a single person that helped him gangrape multiple women at apparently dozens of parties....right....

Right. It depends on what they look for and how deep they dig. SCOTUS is a different ballpark. Trump (like Bush did with his own nominee Thomas) needs to tell the FBI to look into it, if for no other reason than to remove doubt.

Good lord stop with the dissembling. To believe that the FBI doesn't uncover this in 6 background checks is the height of stupidity.

It just isn't realistic or possible.

You would have to be a lunatic to think the FBI wouldn't discover this stuff.

a reply to: seeker1963

This particular woman can no longer disappear. If she does not go forward with charges now, she is guilty of a Felony under Federal law.

The line has been crossed.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: TheRedneck

if shes lying she just completely ended her job and any future prospects of working in government as she maintains many security clearances heavy.com... heres heavys fast facts on the accuser ,and with her apparnently sword statment at this point some one is going to jail kavanaugh if the claims can be proven or his accuser if she can not prove it

It isnt a sworn statement....that is how all of them are getting around the legal problems they would have if they were sworn. No notary seal, witness signature or court stamp anywhere on any of their claims....none.

The reason none of them have made a sworn statement is because they are lying.

a reply to: Majic

Moral panic is a new one for me. Had not seen, or even heard, that one prior to today. It is, however, most apropos to the events on going in DC as we speak/type, isn't it?

Ah, yes...

Mob rule, and burn the witch. My comparison with instances of "justice" in the Deep South during Jim Crow just keep coming to mind.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: xtradimensions


Only issue with that is she is described as black. The pics the media is showing of her she certainly doesn't look like she is black to me. Like I said, it is very strange that the only Julie Swetnick is on Mylife. She is a ghost otherwise.....

Sorry I am still back on page 11! I have been trying to find a photo of the accuser since there was some consternation on her description vs photo. Unfortunately, the only image and reference thatI could find of her was in the 1978 class yearbook.

The class image is grainy, but perhaps someone can tweak her out of it and determine if this accuser is even the real Julie Swetnik?

1978 class pics with Julie Swetnik

Okay, going to go read and catch up on the thread again.

Apparently she has an older brother Alvin. 1 year older.

Yeah I had noted him in the class of 77 yearbook, but like his sister...he just seems to vanish!

Edit add: Also, the only thing I discovered were some docs and xls templates that she had created for DC gov in 2011 and 2014. Whether this is the same woman or not...it would fit in with her Microsoft certification and security clearances claimed in the statement released by her attorney.

a reply to: Majic

If that were true, one would expect the victims of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler and countless other examples of cultural revolution would have fared much better.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I'm thinking it's been, what's the word, hacked?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Fortunately, I don't see how that is NOT the plan. These are felony charges sworn to under oath. That is FBI territory, as there are Federal laws that may have been broken.

As I said, this just got real.

TheRedneck

None of them have made any statements under oath or sworn. They would have to have a notary stamp, witness signature or court case stamp.

They are all lying and cant make sworn statements because that makes them legally responsible.

time.com... kavanaguh denies the new allegations

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: TheRedneck

if shes lying she just completely ended her job and any future prospects of working in government as she maintains many security clearances heavy.com... heres heavys fast facts on the accuser ,and with her apparnently sword statment at this point some one is going to jail kavanaugh if the claims can be proven or his accuser if she can not prove it

It isnt a sworn statement....that is how all of them are getting around the legal problems they would have if they were sworn. No notary seal, witness signature or court stamp anywhere on any of their claims....none.

The reason none of them have made a sworn statement is because they are lying.

this was released to the Senate from Avanatti, so it was my understanding that anything in that regard was already under the penalty of perjury. I could be wrong, but I sure hope that is the case. If this is as serious as Avanatti claims, the under oath part should be a snap. and then, whomever is lying, goes to jail. And perhaps their lawyer as well.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Fortunately, I don't see how that is NOT the plan. These are felony charges sworn to under oath. That is FBI territory, as there are Federal laws that may have been broken.

As I said, this just got real.

TheRedneck

This falls under FBI Background Checks for Judicial Nominees.

They don't do those investigations of their own initiative.

They need an official request from the Executive Branch to investigate.

That has not been done.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Hmmmm... missed that. You're right, there is no notary stamp or witness signature.

I'm not an attorney, for a reason. I'm not 100% sure stating that the statements are made under oath is the same as them actually being under oath. Anyone else know for a fact?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Fortunately, I don't see how that is NOT the plan. These are felony charges sworn to under oath. That is FBI territory, as there are Federal laws that may have been broken.

As I said, this just got real.

TheRedneck

This falls under FBI Background Checks for Judicial Nominees.

They don't do those investigations of their own initiative.

They need an official request from the Executive Branch to investigate.

That has not been done.

again, it was done six times. McFly, is anyone in there?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: seeker1963

This particular woman can no longer disappear. If she does not go forward with charges now, she is guilty of a Felony under Federal law.

The line has been crossed.

TheRedneck

I thought the same Redneck until Vasa educated me on the document not having a stamp. I guess the committee has sent lawyers to interview Avanatti's client so there is that, if we want to trust them at this point.....