Kavanaugh faces gang rape claims. Third woman “witness and victim” to be revealed, Avenatti says

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/09/24/third-woman-witness-and-vic.html


That’s a bit like claiming poverty as evidence that you never tried to rob a bank.


It is curious logic for what we are to believe is a great legal mind.


It’s weird. According to McConnell; these allegations are all part of a Dem plot - something they do all the time.

Yet somehow- just last year - fellow Georgetown Prep alum Neil Gorsuch had not a single such allegation made against him.


Ford is almost certainly telling the truth, getting confused with someone else doesn’t seem plausible, and lying doesn’t make a bit of sense. And while we don’t know much about Ramirez her story also has the ring of truth (and it sounds like it was already being discussed before Ford went public).

But I don’t trust Avenatti.

He’s played the media with overhyped or false claims before and he’s supposedly planning his own presidential bid. I think he has a Trumpian love of being in the news and he’s trying to push himself into the centre of the Kavanaugh story. Plus, “gang rape” is a very lurid claim and a big step from what we’ve seen. One of the things that make Ford’s story so believable was the fact that it was so innocuous.

I’m sure he’s representing someone, and she may indeed be a victim of Kavanaugh, but I don’t think what gets revealed will match what Avenatti is selling.


On the morals and traditions end of things. Religious or political. Virgin doesn’t neccisarily just mean “didn’t do the sex”. Having not done the sex comes with all sorts of moral purity. It doesn’t just mean that he didn’t do the sex. Or that he didn’t do the sex on that lady without her consent. It means that no person who rates the virgin label could have possible acted that way.

He was pure as the driven snow incapible of such an act. Its just coded talk, messaging to the GOP base and nice bit of spin. Lets them give a non-response response that underlines the values they think people find most important.


Convicted Rapist Brock Turner could have still been a virgin after he perpetrated his sexual assault. His genitals weren’t involved.


That’s just because Republicans didn’t want to be mean! That’s it!


He’s adept at media manipulation and is a grandstanding asshole, but that doesn’t mean he’s not telling the truth about his client.


Which claims af Avenatti’s have been shown to be false?


I was just thinking about that ‘outer-course’ bullshit.



WTF? What crazy crack is he on… Virgin has no bearing on doing ‘rapey stuff’.
Man the denial runs deep.


I’m pretty sure that’s not an actual quote… but then again, who the fuck even knows anymore.

This is truly the most dumbass timeline…


And if it behooved him to send coded political messages to evangelicals to give a political party cover come the mid terms. He’d have been screaming his virginity and church bake sale cred to the high heavens.

Like the careful, repeated mentions of church. Its only meant to come off as a technical rebutal superficially. What this is meant to say is “I am a Christian of a particular sort”. And since a Christian of that particular sort couldn’t possibly commit a sin like rape. Well clearly Kavanaugh is a victim if a vast liberal conspiracy.

Its a dog whistle to the religious right.


Avenatti may be a showy lawyer that seems to thrive on sleazy cases, but I haven’t yet seen any evidence the he’s anything less than a competent and skilled attorney.

He definitely seems to be in it for the fame - and while it’s certainly not a noble reason to get into the law, it also shows me that he’s not going to take on a super high profile case like this that doesn’t have teeth or would risk causing him professional embarrassment.


Kavanaugh says he was a virgin in high school, so… that means he was a virgin in high school?

If we believe that, why not believe him when he says he didn’t do what he’s accused of?

Maybe because he’s full of shit?


If you’re arguing with a defensive lawyer with a decent set of wiring in their skull, be prepared for rhetoric, fallacy, mystery and every smoke and mirror in the book.

Much as BIll Clinton could straight-faced announce he didn’t have sexual relations, any lawyer expressing themselves will have layers and layers of filligree pastry explanations, diversions and distractions to essentially try and time the world out while they get instated to whatever thing they’re trying to do.

He can appear straight and confident by repeating in his mind “I was an LSD virgin while I was at high school”, and simply saying “I was a virgin”. It’s a neat lawyer’s mental trick. He may also quite convincingly announce to his internal mental audience that even if he had succeeded in the alleged rape, then because that would have been forced and against God’s laws, although he would be guilty of rape, he would not have been a non-virgin in that event. So he can quite confidently convince himself all is ok so long as he doesn’t touch on his guilt or otherwise relating to the very specific circumstances of attempted rape.

This is the sort of person who will deny the entire account if the witness account includes the wrong shade of yellow on the lampshade - just “guffaw!” and “the whole account is wrong, riddled with holes.”

That said, as has been pointed out, whether he was a virgin or not is totally beside the point.

I feel so sad for the USA, that his support base won’t actually apply a review process to him.

WTF is wrong with everyone?!?


Well, let’s hope so. But as Turmp has taught us, when you’re enough of a media whore, having the goods to back you up is not always necessary, and may even slow you down. That’'s why I am super reluctant to think of this Avenatti person as one of the good guys; I feel like he’d happily work for Turmp if the numbers were right.

Hopefully he is not lying here, but either way it’s already a little unpleasant that he’s teasing it like a saucy episode of Gray’s Anatomy. Why not act like it’s a serious business.

You’ve all seen K’s year book entry, right?

This lovely phrase - “Renate alumnius” (sic)

How can the mass of people support such a clearly prep-school fluffed and beyond-the-law-and-laughing person for this?

It’s unbalanced is what it is. He’s taking the extreme agenda of eg over-turning abortion rights etc - actually appealling to the stone-age bunch, who aren’t even asking if the behaviour is ok or not - they just see that they get what they want.

A kind of amalgam of an 1830s fervent, isolated, fundamentalist pastor and Gordon Gekko.


1 Like