a woman who was gang-raped by Judge KKKavanaugh and friends, was, suddenly, no longer gang-raped the moment she committed a wrongful act in the future? Or, that the gang-rape should no longer matter? That's ridiculous!

she claims that they were there when it happened

and, yes, being there when she was raped, so they were aiding and abetting. Okay, so what? That does not justify victim shaming! My point still stands... the fact that she was accused of wrongdoing sometime later as an adult, whether true or not, does not erase the rape lines she saw and her identification of KKKavanaugh as the serial rapist who arranged the assaults of other women, including herself.

assertation, that's all.

I agree with you then & glad you agree with my main premise.

Now, let's all get busy unleashing as much hell and fury to assure ourselves that gang-rapist KKKavanaugh gets nowhere near a seat on the Supreme Court. Indeed, once the Democrats take over the House and Senate in the next session of Congress after the 2018 election, the first order of business should be to impeach him and the Sexual-Abuser-in-Chief who nominated him.

Looks like there is more to it though. Avenatti is saying it was bogus and a suit brought in retaliation against her when she complained about harassment.

"This lawsuit never had any merit as evidenced by how quickly it was dismissed," Avenatti wrote. "It was originally filed in retaliation for my client making claims against the company."

Please consider editing the OP.

"A dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after adjudication.The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim."

field representative says something to just get rid you you, who has more sway, when you brought into the office......the cards are already stacked against the person..............and according to this newspaper:


"The suit also alleges Swetnick "engaged in unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct" while at Webtrends and "made false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her."

The suit alleges Swetnick "engaged in unwelcome sexual innuendo and inappropriate conduct" directed at two male employees during a business lunch, with Webtrends customers present. Swetnick claimed two other employees had sexually harassed her, according to the suit.

Webtrends' suit said it determined Swetnick had engaged in misconduct but could not find evidence to support her allegations against her colleagues. Later, the company alleged, Swetnick took medical leave and simultaneously claimed unemployment benefits in the District of Columbia.

In the suit, Webtrends alleged Swetnick threatened legal action against the company over her own harassment claims. The lawsuit claimed that act defamed the business and sought at least $150,000 on behalf of an employee that Swetnick had allegedly made false statements about.


In my opinion I do not think she would have said anything in front of business clients at a table.................that makes no sense..........................

He's a worm. Out for his own glory, IMO. But the kind of guy you need going up against a Trump type.
I just think this lady picking HIM in this case was a terrible mistake.

In the cases against his client they suited up, then went home.

Just not gonna get a case to move forward based on insulting a public figure. IMO of course.

He wants the deposition, apparently Stormy does too.

Avenatti is NOT gonna get trump in a deposition though. Its just a pipe dream.

This, I think, goes a pipe too far.

This suit would have been discovered while she was applying for clearance. I would assume an investigator came to question the veracity of it and found them unsubstantiated. Otherwise, she would not have gotten clearance

She may also have had top secret clearance, but I can't recall.

"Senate panel refers "apparent false statements" about Kavanaugh for criminal investigation", (Thank you, Duppers!)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-senate-judiciary-committee-refers-apparent-false-statements-to-justice-department-today-2018-09-29/

So in other words, discourage any other women from coming forward.

Many years ago, I went to higher up's at the company where I worked to tell them my manager was not harassing me, but I had observed him trying to kiss an unwilling female employee in the hallway. Besides, he was padding his expense accounts, and putting in for hours that he was playing golf. I knew because I had to file the reports.
I was fired, and the company tried to keep me from getting unemployment.

You could've had more proof for a lawsuit. It is awful how the good old boy Network sticks together.

The person making the claim recanted, said he made it up and is a troll on twitter.

https://turnto10.com/news/local/kavanaugh-accused-of-sexually-assaulting-woman-on-boat-in-ri-in-1985

I think the question is if her allegations could be plausible.

As an analogy, if I committed a crime in the past but also witnessed an unrelated one, I'm still a witness.

Example: I don't think you should hire Mr. Smith as a police officer. He used to sell drugs. I know, because I sold drugs with him more than 7 years ago.

Not a criminal violation (statute of limitations), but certainly a disqualifier for being a police officer.

ever getting a job? Mr. Smith should be unemployed from now on?

...after such a credible accusation by a named source who provides dates and witnesses.

Or do you think a criminal drug dealer is OK being a cop?

and they were acquired by Oracle in 2017, so I'm sure it's gone even further downhill since then.

That was easy.