Michael Avenatti

Planned Parenthood and NARAL: 'We Still Believe Julie Swetnick'

Activists assert that we must believe all alleged victims-even those who lost our trust.

|

Julie Swetnick, the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct but then contradicted her sworn statement, lost the confidence of many. But she still draws support from her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, and from certain pro-choice activist groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

Indeed, Planned Parenthood tweeted this on Thursday:

NARAL retweeted it.

Recall that Swetnick was confused about the timing of Kavanaugh's nomination, changed her mind about whether she specifically saw Kavanaugh spiking girls' drinks, borrowed key phrases from the more plausible allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford, and offered witnesses who were deceased, unavailable, or had no idea what she was talking about. The Senate Judiciary Committee has referred her and Avenatti to the Justice Department, and wants the pair investigated for potentially making false statements.

Avenatti
Christian Monterrosa/Sipa USA/Newscom

Swetnick's accusation, simply put, is not credible. It may never be definitively shown as false—and she shouldn't be subjected to formal reprisals unless it is—but the information we have severely undercuts the story. To believe Swetnick now is to disregard the facts and embrace blind faith.

I have often criticized fourth-wave feminism for doing just this: asserting that we must always and automatically believe self-professed victims of sexual assault. In response, critics sometimes tell me that the activists do not literally mean to believe all survivors—they only want society to show women respect, hear them out, and not dismiss their claims.

No doubt there are some activists for whom the hashtag "believe survivors" means just this. But activist groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL that continue to side with Swetnick and Avenatti are implying that they mean "believe survivors" in the literal sense—that belief, not mere respect, is what intersectional progressivism requires.

This is a very mistaken idea because false accusations do happen, rare though they may be. (The truth is, we really have no idea how common they are.) We should not callously disregard or distrust every accuser, and neither should we presume that every single person claiming victim status is as pure as driven snow.

NEXT: Brickbat: Caught on Video

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “borrowed key phrases from the more plausible allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford”

    More plausible allegation?

    Prove it.

    1. Robby doesn’t want to admit his half dozen articles were unsubstantiated. He’s holding firm.

      1. #BelieveRobby

        1. #hairdoesntlie
          #dccocktailparties

    2. the more plausible allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford

      An uncorroborated claim made with absolutely no evidence by a person who stands to gain notoriety and/or sympathy for their cause is considered plausible (and/or credible).

      When do we get an op/ed on the government’s inability to take action when US citizens are abducted and abused by foreign nationals of extraterrestrial origin or the lack of spotlight on the plight of the native Gigantopithecus population?

      1. Well, the use of plausible is far better than credible. It’s certainly possible it happen, there was just nothing credible to support it.

        1. Are you implying Gigantopithecus is not credible? #BelieveBigfoot

        2. Someone else pointed out here, that unsubstantiated allegations are more believable for being plausible. They said,”consider three claims:
          I saw my friend Bob yesterday
          I saw Barack Obama yesterday
          I saw Peter Pan yesterday
          All of them are completely unsubstantiated (and in fact, none is true), but they seem progressively less believable because they are progressively less plausible.”
          There was nothing inherently wrong with Ford’s story, except that it was almost unfalsifiable, until she started naming witnesses.

    3. More plausible allegation?

      Prove it.

      Have you read Swetnik’s allegations?

      ‘There’s a teacup between here and the moon.’ doesn’t have to be true for ‘Brett Kavanaugh has spiked 10,000 teacups between here and the moon.’ to be less plausible.

      Not to defend Robby, to be sure.

      1. Nbc sat on news that the second avenatti witness said he lied about what she said…

        link

        1. Avenatti released a 2 Oct 2018 Declaration of [BLANK] to back up the 26 Sep Declaration of Julie Swetnick repeating similar accusations. “I have known Christine Blasey Ford and Julie Swetnick for decades and I believe they are both honest and truthful.” The statement went on to describe 20 parties with the declarant, Brett Kavanaugh, and Mark Judge. “During the years 1981-82, I witnessed first hand Brett Kavanaugh, together with others, “spike” the “punch” at house parties I attended with Quaaludes and/or grain alcohol. … Brett and Mark would drink excessively and be overly aggressive and abusive toward girls. This conduct included inappropriate physical contact with girls of a sexual nature.”

          25 Oct SJC Chairman Grassley told DoJ no news media had contacted this declarant.

          26 Oct NBC News released that they had had a phone interview with her 30 Sep, before Avenatti’s release of the 2 Oct Declaration. She told NBC: “I didn’t ever think it was Brett.” 4 Oct she texted NBC: “It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn’t see anyone spike the punch. … I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one. … I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence.” 5 Oct she stated that she did not like Avenatti twisting her words.

          I suspect that, like the Swetnick Declaration (which she strayed from in her 1 Oct Kate Snow interview) this 2 Oct [BLANK] Declaration was not the words of the declarant but the words of Michael Avenatti.

          1. I’ll go a step further: the name and signature blocks in the 2 Oct 2018 Declaration of [BLANK] were blacked out in Michael Avenatti, “Yet another accuser has come forward (see sworn stmt below). She is prepared to meet with the FBI today and disclose multiple facts and witnesses.”, Twitter, 3 Oct 2018, because she refused to sign it. I base this on reading the coffee grounds in the bottom of my cup this morning. (No, I base this on her statements to NBC News that Avenatti twisted her words.)

            The belief in the allegations of Christine Ford, Deborah Ramirez, Julie Swetnick and [BLANK] has nothing to do with the credibility of their stories. It started with opposition to Brett Kavanaugh based on his constitutional history and judicial record. When objections to that were not enough to derail his nomination to the Supreme Court, these partisan personal attacks were mounted.

            The fact that NBC sat on [BLANK]’s denials to them on 30 Sep, 4 Oct, and 5 Oct of the allegations in the 2 Oct Declaration released by Avenatti on 3 Oct shows the blatant partisanship of our biased news media. This affair from the 16 Sep 2018 WaPo release of Emma Brown’s Ford interview onward is very much like the CBS attack on George Bush based on the six forged memos supplied by Bill Burkett to Mary Mapes for the infamous 8 Sep 2004 60 Minutes II broadcast that ended the careers of Mapes and Dan Rather.

      2. The context here is the fascist wing of the looter kleptocracy was moving one if its pieces into strategic position to endanger supporters of the international socialist wing of the same blob of lying, cheating robbers and murderers AND all females able to reproduce. Even the script is the same as when Clarence Thomas was named. Of course both gangs of looters are lying through their teeth. What else is new? The LP is being slowly infiltrated by tentacles of the Organized Mysticism we defeated in 1972-73 while sockpuppets argue about which Nixon-subsidized network lies more artfully. It was a clumsy, desperate move motivated by basic fear of coercion. We should be trying to again attract those female votes instead of letting The Antichoice turn the LP into a fratboy lodge or sixties gay bar.

        1. “or sixties gay bar”
          Well we do have Tony and Kirkland …and Robby’s hair.

    4. compared to Swetnick Ford was more “plausible”.

      plau?si?ble
      [?pl?z?b(?)l]

      ADJECTIVE
      (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.

      But, on her own – particularly after her testimony – Ford falls below the plausible threshold too.

      1. Not to defend Robby, but her allegation was and might reasonably still be considered plausible. Phlogiston was probably plausible at one time, as absurd as it seems now. It also seems plausible that someone assaulted her sometime in the 80’s, but I’m not sure why we’d expect her to be more able to identify her assailant now than the location it happened.

        The big thing is that previously people considered her allegation credible. That definitely went out the window with her testimony.

        1. If you accuse someone while knowingly being wrong about the person, you are a liar.

          Ford is a liar.

          1. I make room for the possibility that she is insane.

        2. I wonder why Christine Ford removed all her personal media from the internet.

          Was the persona presented at the hearing for testimony (glasses, hair, dress, demeanor) different from the persona she normally presented to the world?

          1. She was one of the weirdest witnesses I’ve ever seen.

    5. Oh man, this is a denunciation of resident conspiracy theorist, ENB. I kind of think that a Thai prostitute holds the key to unraveling the Swetnik story or something also insane, but everyone pretends like is not insane

    6. I do not really object to the ph
      rase “more plausible allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford,” so long it is followed up by the phrase “but no more substantiated allegations than those of Julie Swetnick.”

    7. Make more profit weekly… This is an awesome side job for anybody… Best part about it is that you can work from comfort of your house and earn 100-2000 dollars every week … Apply for the job now and have your first check at the end of the week.

      linked here…..=====??? http://www.Jobs73.com

    8. Ford’s allegations are only “more plausible,” if you completely discount (1) her weird demeanor, (2) her lack of witnesses, (3) her failure to remember the location, and (4) her lying about other unrelated matters, such as, “Whoa is me, I can’t fly all the way to Washington, DC. I don’t like to fly.”

      There’s NOTHING more plausible about her allegations.

  2. How cute. Assuming their belief was anything based in reality.

    Swetnick’s accusation, simply put, is not credible.

    Nor was Ford’s, to be blunt.

    1. Yes, I didn’t find it credible either. Possible yes. Credible, no. Credible is IMO a higher level, that involves some kind of corroborating evidence and/or testimony. A 50 year old women make a vague claim about what happened 30 years ago doesn’t reach that level.

    2. The National Organization for Women supported Juanita Broaddrick even though her accusation was not believable, having only told the person who walked in right after it happened why she had a swollen lip and was in shock. This is how activist organizations gain or lose credibility.

      1. One corroborating witness.

        Score Juanita 1 Ford 0

        1. Isn’t Ford -3?

          1. Looks like it.

            The three witnesses cited by Christine Ford to corroborate her story (Leland Keyser, P.J. Smyth and Mark Judge) denied being present at any such party described by Ford (house party, two girls, three boys, drinking, Ford present). In her 30 Jul letter to Sen Feinstein, Ford claimed that after the alleged rape attempt that put her in fear of her life, but before she left the party, she witnessed Kavanaugh speaking with Leland Keyser and P.J. Smythe. When asked, Keyser denied even knowing Kavanaugh much less meeting and speaking with him at a party.

            And Ford is Robby Soave’s most credible witness.

            1. Robb Soave is either an idiot, or he’s simply trying to be oh, so kind to Ford. Because I love this website, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, but ….

              It’s a close call, isn’t it?

      2. Their loss can be the LP’s gain. Canada is in the thrall of Climate Econazis but free from the control of mystical bigots. The reverse is true in These States. Both the Carbon Taxers and Antichoice fanatics are down an all fours for the initiation of force wherever force can be initiated. Only the LP offers a way to decouple 1940s-style Hitler-Stalin polarization that limited the entire universe of discourse to weaponized variants of communo-fascist socialism. Let’s not lose sight of that or we’ll never get others to see the big picture and work on law-changing strategy.

  3. Robby, as a cishetero white male, does not get to decide her truth.

    1. You positive on that cishetero description?

    2. If “her truth” exists only in her head, and she seeks to impose that truth on others for partisan purposes, then we do indeed get to decide.

    3. “Robby, as a cishetero white male”
      He is definitely white, but…

  4. That’s right, keep printing this shit. You’re going to love the midterm results.

    1. Unlike all the hit pieces against Kavanaugh, Reason staff dont have any of Democrats lose big election 2018 articles written ahead of time.

  5. They believe in killing.

  6. Because….Of course.

  7. Anybody who uses the phrase “intersectional progressivism” and isn’t a traffic engineer discussing red light timing automatically loses credibility points in my book.

    1. Hey, traffic signals with only red, yellow, and green are colorist!

      1. What if the red light identifies as green?

        #LGBTTL (lesbian, gay, bi, trans traffic lights)

      2. I think there are people who argue against those, but for the more practical reason that red/green color blindness effects about 8 percent of men or so.

        1. But men, so…

          1. Yeah, also you can just use position to differentiate anyway.

        2. I have a friend that is colorblind. I didn’t know it until we played bocce ball one time. He kept rolling towards the wrong balls and it made no sense. Finally, I got exasperated and yelled “you are supposed to go after the purple balls, not the green balls!” To which he replied “wait, the balls are of different colors?” He sure opened up my world to something I never thought about before.

          1. Yep. A point for all game designers. Use shapes as well as colors to distinguish things on game markers. Real hard to do in a ball game, but there are stripes.

        3. My grandfather was color blind, but he could still interpret stop lights by their position

  8. Also, the sheer implausibility of her story. She went to multiple parties where girls were supposedly being gang raped, including herself. A rather large implied number of perpetrators, victims and witnesses, and no one corroborated her tale.

    1. And that she went to high school parties while in college…

      1. Almost as scandalous as underage drinking…

        1. Stop justifying your weekends as normal.

        2. If you are unaware that college girls do not go to high school parties, I do not know what to tell you.

          1. If you are aware of where college girls go to party, that is borderline creepy.

          2. If you are aware of where college girls go to party, that is borderline creepy.

          3. If you are aware of where college girls go to party, that is borderline creepy.

    2. It wasn’t a kidnap a stranger and gang rape kind of deal. It’s more of a consensual party fucking that in retrospect was suspect because the girls were too fucked up. It’s just the type of thing a person would try to forget. Of course alcohol and pride make not remembering so much easier. I guess we’ll find out if the FBI can crack the case. That’s what we all want, right?

      1. Alcohol induced consensual group sex is somewhat more plausible, but a little less than something that should be a crime and more a Penthouse Letter.

      2. Except there is literally zero evidence he fucked anybody.

        And why would an adult sit back and allow gang rapes to occur?

      3. Ford lies to much to spend any more taxpayer money on the issue.

    3. If folks voluntarily go multiple times I think it would be called an orgy.

    4. I wish we had tape recordings of her talking to her friends about the parties. Was it like this?

      “Whoa, another rape party coming up! I don’t want to be late! The last seven or eight have really been fun to watch.”

  9. It’s easier to believe her because Kavanaugh is such a fucking liar. It’s great if the FBI took the lead into determining the truth of her allegations. The FBI could find other witnesses and of course would have to question Kavanaugh and Judge.

    1. Yes, rogue law enforcement doing whatever they want is VITAL for freedoms.

      Funny, few can point out to ACTUAL lies he said. I doubt you will do better.

      1. Kavanaugh possibly lied about when and how he learned about the dick in the face allegation. Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. Kavanaugh lied about his involvement using stolen confidential emails. Kavanaugh didn’t tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Other people and places have complied the list if you want to see a list.

        1. Every assertion you’ve made is laughably wrong. Please link the media matters lists you treat as gospel.

        2. God what a joke.

        3. Kavanaugh possibly lied about when and how he learned about the dick in the face allegation.

          He learned she was calling around about something, not what she was calling about.

          Fail.

          Kavanaugh lied about his drinking.

          He admitted to drinking.

          Fail.

          Kavanaugh lied about his involvement using stolen confidential emails.

          He had nothing to do with the emails which, mind you, were not stolen. They were not behind the firewall.

          Fail.

          Kavanaugh didn’t tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

          Your three examples were all fails. So, clearly, he did.

          Fail again.

          1. The only conclusion I can reach is that by Ordinary Person’s own standard, Ordinary Person is a liar.

        4. “because Kavanaugh is such a fucking liar.”

          “possibly lied”

          So, you don’t actually KNOW that he lied.

          Glad you cleared that up.

        5. Ordinary Person|10.26.18 @ 8:51AM|#
          “Kavanaugh possibly lied about when and how he learned about the dick in the face allegation. Kavanaugh lied about his drinking. Kavanaugh lied about his involvement using stolen confidential emails. Kavanaugh didn’t tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Other people and places have complied the list if you want to see a list.”

          You”re a lair and you lost, loser.
          Grow up and fuck off.

          1. Even worse is willingly participating in the sleazy technique of submitting someone to thousands of questions over a period of weeks, regarding incidents, some of which were far in the past. Then retire to lairs and pore over the answers for any inaccuracies, misremberances, or inconsistencies

            Find any at it isn’t, just as one would expect, imperfect memory, but “This means he is A LIAR!”.

            Which does not really match the reality, but hey…

        6. Hey faggot, Kavanaugh told HIS truth. So fuck you for disputing him.

        7. Under home rule in Maryland, each county set their own alcohol laws. Age rules apply to buying, possession and use in public. Underage drinking at private homes was legal in a lot of Maryland counties in 1982, still is under certain circumstances.

      2. There are two provable lies that Kavanaugh said.

        1: He arguably lied about the meaning of certain slang from his high school yearbook
        2: He lied about drinking alcohol legally when 18.

        The first has numerous defenses, from forgetfulness, to different local meanings, to refusing to “slut-shame” a former girlfriend on an international stage, to the fact that he should not have been asked any of it.

        The second one doesn’t have these excuses. It’s hardly unusual for high schoolers to drink, especially back then (it was estimated 80% of high schoolers at least tried alcohol). However, shortly before he turned 18, the drinking age was raised to 21.It was very widely known, and I do not think it plausible that he knew otherwise. The fact that he knowingly broke the law at any time is relevant to his appointment (though, I do not believe it to be important, it is relevant).

        1. He provably, arguably lied? What?

        2. 1: He arguably lied about the meaning of certain slang from his high school yearbook

          You mention PROVABLE lies then IMMEDIATELY backtrack to an “arguable” one. Duly noted.

          2: He lied about drinking alcohol legally when 18.

          No, he did not.

          The first has numerous defenses, from forgetfulness, to different local meanings, to refusing to “slut-shame” a former girlfriend on an international stage, to the fact that he should not have been asked any of it.

          Or that he is correct since nobody has actually said he was wrong.

          The second one doesn’t have these excuses. It’s hardly unusual for high schoolers to drink, especially back then (it was estimated 80% of high schoolers at least tried alcohol). However, shortly before he turned 18, the drinking age was raised to 21.It was very widely known, and I do not think it plausible that he knew otherwise. The fact that he knowingly broke the law at any time is relevant to his appointment (though, I do not believe it to be important, it is relevant).

          He never said he drank legally.

          1. Who gives a fuck? Like any of this matters.

        3. The trolls cannot give up.

        4. Seriously, what the fuck Huston Ben.

        5. Under home rule in Maryland, each county set their own alcohol laws. Age rules apply to buying, possession and use in public. Underage drinking at private homes was legal in a lot of Maryland counties in 1982, still is under certain circumstances.

    2. This persona is much angrier than your old persona Chandler.

  10. If they believe Swetnick’s story, then they believe that she, as an adult, repeatedly watched minor children being drugged and raped without doing anything about it. Is that a heroine to them?

    1. The 2 Oct 2018 Declaration of [BLANK] posted by Mike Avenatti on 3 Oct is remarkably similar to the 26 Sep 2018 Declaration of Julie Swetnick posted by Avenatti.

      Except [BLANK] texted NBC News on 4 Oct: “It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn’t see anyone spike the punch. … I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one. … I would not ever allow anyone to be abusive in my presence.” 5 Oct she also told NBC that she did not like Avenatti twisting her words.

      (I suspect Avenatti released [BLANK]’s statement with the names and signature blacked out because she refused to sign it. I also suspect Julie Swetnick’s 1 Oct interview with Kate Snow contradicted her signed Declaration because she did not read it.)

  11. Could you explain what NARAL means?

    Some of us dont give a shit about social media and what these new weekly abbreviations represent.

    1. National Abortion Rights Action League, i think. They love killing babies…specifically darker skinned ones.

      1. Thanks.

        It’s real annoying that Robbie assumes that Libertarians keep abreast of the latest Lefty murder or violence group.

        1. This one has been around decades.

          1. Fair enough about this being an old Abbr.

            Never heard of it before.

            1. NARAL: I thought it was one of those sea mammals with the long tooth out the front. What? You didn’t say NARWHAL … oops … my bad.

    2. LOL! Now I’m positive you’re a parody account.

      But I’ll play along. NARAL is one of the most important organizations fighting to preserve abortion access and prevent Drumpf’s attempt to turn this country into The Handmaid’s Tale.

      #SaveRoe
      #SUPER-PRECEDENT

    3. MAGA is the only abbreviation that I need right now.

  12. Wait, which story do they believe, the story in her sworn statement or the story she told in the subsequent NBC interview?

    1. The second avenatti accuser, schwetnicks friend, basically told the committee that avenatti took her statement and completely twisted it in his affidavit.

      1. But, of course, we believe all versions, because

  13. But the Ellison accuser is a lying whore. Even if he did it, its because she was asking for it. You can’t expect important men like that to keep their hands off the rubes.

    1. Women just need to learn to take one for team blue. All to the better cause.

      1. The Clinton Creed if you will

        1. She just better learn to ‘put ice in that’.

  14. None of the allegations are credible.

    Ford’s is just the most relatively credible one. Still incredible on an absolute scale.

    Like being the sanest person in the asylum.

    The language gets abused these days,

    1. Except for all the lies she told around the accusation. Her two doors story and her flying story.

      1. Her handlers were too attracted to the fine storytelling details to pass on implausibilities.

  15. …neither should we presume that every single person claiming victim status is as pure as driven snow.

    Hopefully we’re not doing that to either the accuser or the accused. No one is perfect. It’s the accusation itself that needs to be scrutinized. To be sure that includes looking at both parties in the dispute with respect to their character and possible motives, but only to an extent. Witness testimony and physical evidence are what need to be examined before you can start asserting likely conclusions.

    1. This allegedly happened 36 years ago. There is no physical evidence.. There are no witnesses except those that say they don;t recall or it didn’t happen.

      Waiting 36 years to the oh so most politically opportune time to spring the allegation, scrub your social media, hire a lawyer whose claim to fame is politics an d most notably DNC politics, and take a laughably staged polygraph

      And then act totally disorientated about everything even stuff that just happened but know with absolute certainty only two things. 36 years ago Kavanaugh attempted to rape her and she had just one beer. Who knows when or where.

      This is too absurd to even make a movie out of it.

      And Oh wait that is the supposedly “credible” claim.

      1. It just makes me want to mass slaughter all progtards out of disgust for how pathetically stupid they are. Just release giant roving wood chipper terminator machines with an AI set to hunt and slaughter progressives.

        It would be a dream world.

  16. But she still draws support from her lawyer, Michael Avenatti

    He owes money all over town.

    1. Maybe he get some rubes to contribute to a Go Fund Me page

  17. This is like reading a high school column

  18. Planned parenthood is planning to be a parent. Abortion is murder.

    Feminists are rightly afraid that justice will remove their convenient ability to murder the creation of a new distinct living human resulting from their irresponsibility.

    What is murder if not criminal convenience?

  19. They believe lots of stupid things. That’s why they’re “progressives”.

  20. Funny how all these women who were “attacked” by Kavanaugh chose to go after him only when he was a candidate for the Supreme Court! Kavanaugh was already a district court judge before his nomination to be on the SC, so where were these women then? I’ll tell you, they were silent until the Dems paid them to go against Kavanaugh. They and the Dems should be ashamed of themselves, but as neither group has ANY conscience, this was impossible.

    1. Shame? You must be new here.

    2. It’s not funny; or odd, weird, crazy, or unbelievable. People in mass have always been this way; a certain subset that goes bonkers. Whether it’s convicted mass murderers get hundreds of marriage proposals (Manson had thousands) or the hundreds that confessed to police they had kidnapped Lindbergh’s baby.

      On a police site I heard that over 400, including a number of men, claimed to have been sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh. LOL except it eats up our taxes running preliminaries on this BS. They all get weeded out of course, but F.Crazy Blasey’ and Avenatti figured out ways –assisted of course– around the most basic checks in the system.

      For ANY notorious event there are thousands of people more that willing to join in.

  21. “We still believe Julie Sweatneck”

    That’s because you’re a bunch of fucking idiots.
    And stop using the word survivor when someone experiences a non lethal situation. Getting slapped on the ass is not the same as crawling out of a burning building using only your chin!

    1. They’re not idiots; they’re liars.

      Okay, lots of them are idiots , too. But mostly they’re just liars.

  22. “Swetnick was confused about the timing of Kavanaugh’s nomination…”

    Ford was also confused about timing… Originally the alleged assault was mid or late 80’s.

    “…changed her mind about whether she specifically saw Kavanaugh spiking girls’ drinks…”

    Ford also changed her mind about important details, like who was actually at the alleged party.

    “…offered witnesses who were deceased, unavailable, or had no idea what she was talking about.”

    Ford also offered witnesses who had no idea what she was talking about. Specifically Leland, Smyth, and Judge.

    And yet, according to Soave, Swetnick is not credible but Ford is? I think the word which Soave probably should be using is “plausible”. In that case, Ford’s allegation is at least plausible (if unlikely) while Swetnick’s account is utterly risible.

  23. So? Robbie is talking about the Inner Party Doublethink Kleptocracy here, not anyone rational or consistent. God’s Own Prohibitionists seek to use the State to bring back Comstock Coathanger Abortion laws based on gibberish, mendacity, self-deception, superstition and pseudoscience. Their intended victims are not THAT much brighter or they’d vote libertarian and derail the Kleptocracy instead of supporting it. NARAL uses the same election strategy as libertarian spoiler votes, only directed. They go after specific bigots in close elections and back the other looter. The LP offers everyone the chance to vote for individual rights; voters see their chance and take it. NARAL’s strategy is single-issue, and Ayn Rand-approved. But LP spoiler votes are effective across the board, and have accomplished much these past 46 years–beginning with compiling the text of Roe v Wade.

    1. Just STFU. No one even tries to read your Wall of Word Salad.

      1. Do you ever wonder if he converses like that? I have visions of him babbling at people on the street, or in a mental institution. Writing this nonsense on the wall of his padded cell with his own shit..

        1. Writing this nonsense on the wall of his padded cell with his own shit
          It’s probably not his own. He probably picked up some dried out turd another lunatic left behind, just like his ideas and opinions.

  24. This article reminds me of the meme/gif of the middle-aged pro-Rasslin Fan, who cries into the mic after being asked if his life’s passion is faked.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0EZobdiJ4M

    Both the Abortion Lobby on mental patient Swetnick, and Robby on CBF

    I’ts still real to me dammit.

  25. ‘This is a very mistaken idea because false accusations do happen, rare though they may be.’

    and

    ‘(The truth is, we really have no idea how common they are.)’

    He first asserts that false accusations are rare and then states the truth is we have no idea how common they are.

    WTF?

    1. A literal reading would be that false accusations may be rare (there is no shortage of people who claim they are) but we really have no idea how rare they are.

      We do know for a fact some allegations are knowingly false, so when evaluating any individual allegation, there’s no reasonable default position to take other than listen with some skepticism.

      1. My anecdotal life experience has about 3/4 of rape allegations I know of being false. One study supposedly found around 60% IIRC. It was then black listed as ever being mentioned again of course!

        NOW, if we wanna talk about MINOR stuff. Like getting slapped on the ass when some guy is drunk. I would imagine there are TONS of made up cases of that too… But probably a metric fuck ton that are true. Cuz that kinda shit just happens.

        Funny thing is, women do that stuff too… Men just don’t bitch about it, even if it was an unwanted advance.

        1. You probably deny the truth of Cornerstore Caroline too.
          She believed she had been groped.
          Just because the video showed it was not fact is irrelevant.
          A belief that supports the power of the believer is the standard of truth these days.

  26. Did you also know that “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary?

  27. What a bunch of tards. I still go case by case, and see what seems credible, what hard proof there is etc… But honestly, in politics, I really do think the majority are made up bullshit hatchet jobs.

    1. In the typical “She said; he said,” there’s just no way to really know.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.