PDA

View Full Version : Another Kavanaugh accuser admits to fabricating rape story



Common
11-04-2018, 03:15 PM
Like I said and got some members agry at me, Women lie as much and as often as men

Kavanaugh has been vindicated Democrats have been exposed and Trump and the GOP were right to support him and Appoint him.


One of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brett-m-kavanaugh/)’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.


Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/judiciary-committee/) revealed the fraud in a letter (https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Munro-Leighton%20Referral)%20with%20redacted%20enclosure s.pdf)to the FBI and Justice Department Friday, asking them to prosecute Judy Munro-Leighton for lying to and obstructing Congress.


Mr. Grassley said Ms. Munro-Leighton is a left-wing activist who hijacked another “Jane Doe” anonymous report about a backseat rape and claimed it as her own story, calling it a “vicious assault.”

“I am Jane Doe from Oceanside CA — Kavanaugh (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brett-m-kavanaugh/) raped me,” Ms. Munro-Leighton wrote in an Oct. 3 email claiming to have been a victim of the judge.

Mr. Grassley’s investigators tried to reach her for a month but were unsuccessful until this week, when they spoke to her by phone and she confessed that she was not the original Jane Doe, and “did that as a way to grab attention.”


She admitted to the false allegation, and said she has actually never met Justice Kavanaugh (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brett-m-kavanaugh/).
“I was angry, and I sent it out,” she told investigators.
“In short, during the committee (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/judiciary-committee/)’s time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brett-m-kavanaugh/),

Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted committee resources,” Mr. Grassley wrote. “When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a ‘ploy,’ and a ‘tactic.’ She was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brett-m-kavanaugh/)’s confirmation.”



President Trump seized on the report Saturday, calling her “a vicious accuser.”

“What about the others? Where are the Dems on this?” he demanded via Twitter.

Mr. Grassley has previously asked the FBI to probe Julie Swetnick and her lawyer, anti-Trump crusader Michael Avenatti, for lying to Congress and obstructing. Ms. Swetnick had originally claimed to have been the victim of gang rapes involving Justice Kavanaugh (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brett-m-kavanaugh/) during high school parties, saying she saw him and a friend spike punch to leave girls unable to resist. She later changed her story to say she saw Justice Kavanaugh (https://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/brett-m-kavanaugh/) and his friend near a punch bowl, and could not identify them as having actually been part of any rape.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/

Chris
11-04-2018, 03:20 PM
This is exactly why you don't presume guilt on an accusation alone. Innocent till proven guilty.

gamewell45
11-04-2018, 03:28 PM
I think that the DOJ needs to get to the bottom of this and do it quickly because if it is proven that any organization had a role in this, then those involved need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is no excuse for concerted activity of this sort IMO.

MMC
11-04-2018, 04:00 PM
Typical leftist.....I was emotionally upset that's why I did it.

nathanbforrest45
11-04-2018, 04:18 PM
Typical leftist.....I was emotionally upset that's why I did it.


Maybe she had a panic attack while listening to the news and didn't know what she was doing.

ODB
11-04-2018, 04:25 PM
Women lie as much and as often as men

Anything you can do, we can do better....

:cheers:

Helena
11-04-2018, 04:30 PM
Anything you can do, we can do better....

:cheers:
Yes, but in context.. those women did it wrong. Amateurs.

stjames1_53
11-04-2018, 05:09 PM
Yes, but in context.. those women did it wrong. Amateurs.

hard to do the wrong thing right..........

Helena
11-04-2018, 05:10 PM
hard to do the wrong thing right..........
That's why men get caught.

The Xl
11-04-2018, 05:29 PM
If this is true, then I don't see why she shouldn't be prosecuted.

Captdon
11-04-2018, 05:36 PM
All of this makes it harder for real victims to get justice. Now, it will be harder that before. The party that loves women knocked them back a generation. This includes most of the women here.

Helena
11-04-2018, 05:47 PM
All of this makes it harder for real victims to get justice. Now, it will be harder that before. The party that loves women knocked them back a generation. This includes most of the women here.
I keep hearing and seeing that, but it doesn't ring right to me. Our system of justice should be predicated on facts, not feelings or how the general public feels about the accused or the accuser. What are the facts? What can be proven?

I think if the liars are handled properly and justly, then the real victims who aren't lying and have proof should be dealt with justly as well.

If the law is applied properly.

These days, that's a big if.

Common
11-04-2018, 06:53 PM
I think that the DOJ needs to get to the bottom of this and do it quickly because if it is proven that any organization had a role in this, then those involved need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is no excuse for concerted activity of this sort IMO.

Even if its democrat senators and congress men and women

Common
11-04-2018, 06:55 PM
This is the example of all examples why the Metoo movement and their mantra that we must always believe the woman is absurd.

Ask any honest woman without a political agenda if other women lie and they will start laughing hysterically and say NEED YOU EVEN ASK.

gamewell45
11-04-2018, 08:12 PM
Even if its democrat senators and congress men and women

To me, no one is above the law regardless of who they are in life. It has to be applied equally and fairly. Just saying.

Adelaide
11-04-2018, 09:58 PM
Think that is pretty uncommon if you apply logic and crime models. This woman did not have much to gain by lying. In many of the high profile cases that arose during the climax of the #MeToo movement, there was no real financial incentive, for example (as opposed to Tiger Woods' mistress, to use an example, and that was not sexual assault/harassment). The only reason to lie at this level (nominee process) was to alter the outcome or for fucked up psychological reasons. She should be charged. But generally speaking, it does not make sense for women to lie in highly publicized cases because there is nothing to gain and a lot to lose, in addition to most estimates on the percentage of false accusations.

ODB
11-04-2018, 10:02 PM
^^Are you really applying sense and logic to why a female might lie?

LOL

Adelaide
11-04-2018, 10:08 PM
All of this makes it harder for real victims to get justice. Now, it will be harder that before. The party that loves women knocked them back a generation. This includes most of the women here.

Actually, you want to know what makes it hard? There is a list of like 100 things that come before "someone once falsely accused Kavanaugh." The thought that you won't be believed when you go to law enforcement is based on a lot of already established issues like the "she said/he said" and whether the woman was drinking and whether the woman wore a short skirt and whether the woman has had sex before and whether the woman immediately thought to get a rape kit and so on. The deep-seated fear about being believed has pretty much nothing to do with the few women who make false complaints and everything to do with stereotypes and fears and the unknown. So few cases are successful, which doesn't help. Media depictions are even better.

Helena
11-04-2018, 10:12 PM
You forgot waiting 75 years to come forward.

Sergeant Gleed
11-04-2018, 10:15 PM
Think that is pretty uncommon if you apply logic and crime models. This woman did not have much to gain by lying. In many of the high profile cases that arose during the climax of the #MeToo movement, there was no real financial incentive, for example (as opposed to Tiger Woods' mistress, to use an example, and that was not sexual assault/harassment). The only reason to lie at this level (nominee process) was to alter the outcome or for $#@!ed up psychological reasons. She should be charged. But generally speaking, it does not make sense for women to lie in highly publicized cases because there is nothing to gain and a lot to lose, in addition to most estimates on the percentage of false accusations.

What did tawana Brawley have to gain?

What about mattress girl?

What about the Duke lacrosse team hooker?

What about the woman who wasn't raped buts wants to murder baby, anyway?

Does the presumption of INNOCENCE mean NOTHING to you people?

Just say "yes", we already know the answer.

Sergeant Gleed
11-04-2018, 10:18 PM
I think that the DOJ needs to get to the bottom of this and do it quickly because if it is proven that any organization had a role in this, then those involved need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is no excuse for concerted activity of this sort IMO.
But the Rodents need to steal elections SOMEHOW!


It's what the DO.

Adelaide
11-04-2018, 10:28 PM
You forgot waiting 75 years to come forward.

Well... so far as we know, most sexual assaults go unreported and the reasons vary. Most sexual assaults occur before the age of 18, and definitely before age 24 on the norm (to ballpark it). Add 20 years of thinking about the event, the person, and processing it - there may be some therapy in there. I can see why women would come forward if their attacker is suddenly going to be in a major position of power, or if suddenly everyone is coming forward and you realize you're not alone and could help the prosecution (Crosby, for example).

barb012
11-04-2018, 11:20 PM
Women that make false allegations should be put in jail.

Toober
11-05-2018, 12:27 AM
false accusers should face the same penalties their victims would receive.

fair is fair.

Common
11-05-2018, 03:13 AM
Think that is pretty uncommon if you apply logic and crime models. This woman did not have much to gain by lying. In many of the high profile cases that arose during the climax of the #MeToo movement, there was no real financial incentive, for example (as opposed to Tiger Woods' mistress, to use an example, and that was not sexual assault/harassment). The only reason to lie at this level (nominee process) was to alter the outcome or for fucked up psychological reasons. She should be charged. But generally speaking, it does not make sense for women to lie in highly publicized cases because there is nothing to gain and a lot to lose, in addition to most estimates on the percentage of false accusations.

Adelaide crime defies logic for men and women, what you stated was logic and common sense and that many times is absent from crime.

She intentionally sought to defame and destroy Kavanaugh for Political purposes.

Asia Sargento one of the originators of the metoo movement, paid off a sexual assault accuser, she was out there constantly raging about sexual assault, we havent heard from her since publically since she was exposed

stjames1_53
11-05-2018, 05:13 AM
Well... so far as we know, most sexual assaults go unreported and the reasons vary. Most sexual assaults occur before the age of 18, and definitely before age 24 on the norm (to ballpark it). Add 20 years of thinking about the event, the person, and processing it - there may be some therapy in there. I can see why women would come forward if their attacker is suddenly going to be in a major position of power, or if suddenly everyone is coming forward and you realize you're not alone and could help the prosecution (Crosby, for example).

so, do you think Ellison's accuser should be reprimanded? OR do you think Ellison is guilty?
do recall that there is physical evidence, bruising etc. of the event in question. He claims she loved the rough stuff, she says she didn't.

stjames1_53
11-05-2018, 05:39 AM
Well... so far as we know, most sexual assaults go unreported and the reasons vary. Most sexual assaults occur before the age of 18, and definitely before age 24 on the norm (to ballpark it). Add 20 years of thinking about the event, the person, and processing it - there may be some therapy in there. I can see why women would come forward if their attacker is suddenly going to be in a major position of power, or if suddenly everyone is coming forward and you realize you're not alone and could help the prosecution (Crosby, for example).

Prosecution? Is that how you viewed an interview for a job? Because that is exactly what happened to K. He was prosecuted, not interviewed for a job. And why wait until the 11th hour when she knew well weeks in advance? Why didn't she report the crime to local authorities when she ahem "realized" what she claimed was done to her?
She is a SJW activist. That should pretty much clear up her motives.

Helena
11-05-2018, 07:02 AM
I read an article written by a female psychologist or psychiatrist (and forgive me, I didn't save it and cannot recall who wrote it) that decided to opt out of the profession because it was taken over by a decidedly SJW female ideology. She wrote that the culture was toxic; gossip and caustic complaining about men ruled the day and if you didn't fall in line you were treated much as the outcast in high school by mean girls. Wish I could find it. As I recall, she was disgusted by her colleagues basically coaching clients to remember things that may or may not have happened. A disgusting breach of trust for the whole dynamic.

Anyway. This unreported sexual assault assumption. It's just that. An assumption.


As to the fears that the accuser won't be believed: Yes, their character, history and habits of life are all dragged out there to be perused and dismantled, picked though and magnified. I can definitely understand how that would be severely intimidating. However, this is what happens in any criminal case with an accuser and the accused. It's not special just for cases of sexual assault.

Hoosier8
11-05-2018, 07:15 AM
Well... so far as we know, most sexual assaults go unreported and the reasons vary. Most sexual assaults occur before the age of 18, and definitely before age 24 on the norm (to ballpark it). Add 20 years of thinking about the event, the person, and processing it - there may be some therapy in there. I can see why women would come forward if their attacker is suddenly going to be in a major position of power, or if suddenly everyone is coming forward and you realize you're not alone and could help the prosecution (Crosby, for example).

In the Senate report someone else interviewed remembered the incident as follows. In the bedroom Ford kissed him until a friend jumped on the bed. Described the incident almost identical to Fords testimony only it wasn’t Kavenaugh.

countryboy
11-05-2018, 07:23 AM
Think that is pretty uncommon if you apply logic and crime models. This woman did not have much to gain by lying. In many of the high profile cases that arose during the climax of the #MeToo movement, there was no real financial incentive, for example (as opposed to Tiger Woods' mistress, to use an example, and that was not sexual assault/harassment). The only reason to lie at this level (nominee process) was to alter the outcome or for $#@!ed up psychological reasons. She should be charged. But generally speaking, it does not make sense for women to lie in highly publicized cases because there is nothing to gain and a lot to lose, in addition to most estimates on the percentage of false accusations.

"Nothing to gain". LOL!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/christine-blasey-ford-gofundme-campaign.html

countryboy
11-05-2018, 07:25 AM
Actually, you want to know what makes it hard? There is a list of like 100 things that come before "someone once falsely accused Kavanaugh." The thought that you won't be believed when you go to law enforcement is based on a lot of already established issues like the "she said/he said" and whether the woman was drinking and whether the woman wore a short skirt and whether the woman has had sex before and whether the woman immediately thought to get a rape kit and so on. The deep-seated fear about being believed has pretty much nothing to do with the few women who make false complaints and everything to do with stereotypes and fears and the unknown. So few cases are successful, which doesn't help. Media depictions are even better.
There still should be a presumption of innocence. You don't indict a person (figuratively and/or literally) without actual evidence. In the Kavanaugh case, there was not a shred, not a scintilla, not a single piece of evidence presented.

countryboy
11-05-2018, 07:29 AM
Prosecution? Is that how you viewed an interview for a job? Because that is exactly what happened to K. He was prosecuted, not interviewed for a job. And why wait until the 11th hour when she knew well weeks in advance? Why didn't she report the crime to local authorities when she ahem "realized" what she claimed was done to her?
She is a SJW activist. That should pretty much clear up her motives.
And she gained financially from the whole affair. So much for that theory. Seems to me Adelaide is doing nothing more than making excuses for false allegations.

countryboy
11-05-2018, 07:32 AM
I read an article written by a female psychologist or psychiatrist (and forgive me, I didn't save it and cannot recall who wrote it) that decided to opt out of the profession because it was taken over by a decidedly SJW female ideology. She wrote that the culture was toxic; gossip and caustic complaining about men ruled the day and if you didn't fall in line you were treated much as the outcast in high school by mean girls. Wish I could find it. As I recall, she was disgusted by her colleagues basically coaching clients to remember things that may or may not have happened. A disgusting breach of trust for the whole dynamic.

Anyway. This unreported sexual assault assumption. It's just that. An assumption.


As to the fears that the accuser won't be believed: Yes, their character, history and habits of life are all dragged out there to be perused and dismantled, picked though and magnified. I can definitely understand how that would be severely intimidating. However, this is what happens in any criminal case with an accuser and the accused. It's not special just for cases of sexual assault.

Exactly. Crime is crime. The accused should be assumed innocent until proven guilty by the EVIDENCE, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Captdon
11-05-2018, 10:46 AM
I keep hearing and seeing that, but it doesn't ring right to me. Our system of justice should be predicated on facts, not feelings or how the general public feels about the accused or the accuser. What are the facts? What can be proven?

I think if the liars are handled properly and justly, then the real victims who aren't lying and have proof should be dealt with justly as well.

If the law is applied properly.

These days, that's a big if.

You're talking about should be. Should be wasn't the standard women used for Kavanaugh. Why would you think men will use facts when women didn't?

Women considered Kavanaugh guilty before anything was offered. That alone will raise a doubt in men's heads. Men serve on juries too. The bar for guilt has been raised by the very women who decry that.

Men saw what happened and they will see it in any trial. It's not right but it is going to happen. A lot of progress has been destroyed by the women who believed in his guilt with no reason.

So far, the liars haven't been dealt with at all.

Captdon
11-05-2018, 11:00 AM
Actually, you want to know what makes it hard? There is a list of like 100 things that come before "someone once falsely accused Kavanaugh." The thought that you won't be believed when you go to law enforcement is based on a lot of already established issues like the "she said/he said" and whether the woman was drinking and whether the woman wore a short skirt and whether the woman has had sex before and whether the woman immediately thought to get a rape kit and so on. The deep-seated fear about being believed has pretty much nothing to do with the few women who make false complaints and everything to do with stereotypes and fears and the unknown. So few cases are successful, which doesn't help. Media depictions are even better.


We are not talking about the same thing. No matter how hard it was, it is going to be harder now. The men I know say that women lie and make things up. More of then are saying it now. They all say it is the Kavanaugh hearings.

I didn't say it was easy before. I said it will be harder now. A lot of men have raised the bar. You don't have to like it but it's there. Women who automatically believed Ford did all women a disservice.

Whatever reasons women had before not to go to the judicial system, they now have one more. If it doesn't matter about reporting a sex crime is something I'll leave to women. If they do go to court they are going to have to have more proof now than they did before. I'm saying that there is now more men who won't believe. This was highly publicized. They serve on juries too.

Tahuyaman
11-05-2018, 11:08 AM
I think that the DOJ needs to get to the bottom of this and do it quickly because if it is proven that any organization had a role in this, then those involved need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is no excuse for concerted activity of this sort IMO.


If this woman is admitting to fabricating a rape story, I'm sure she's going to also say whether she did it on her own or was persuaded by someone else.

The Xl
11-05-2018, 11:18 AM
The whole believe all women and men are guilty until proven innocent philosophy is both insane and anti male. People should be proven guilty based on tangible evidence and nothing else, male or female.

Tahuyaman
11-05-2018, 11:22 AM
Exactly. Crime is crime. The accused should be assumed innocent until proven guilty by the EVIDENCE, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does that change if one is accused because they came out and admitted guilt before they are formally charged?

Ransom
11-05-2018, 02:10 PM
You forgot waiting 75 years to come forward.

Forgot none of her stated witnesses could corroborate her testimony. Forgot there was zero evidence. Forgot this was used as a last minute ploy to unseat a Supreme Court Justice. Forgot this woman was never told the Committee would come to her but was forced to fly(when she'd stated she had issues with flying). Forgot to give her decent representation, her story had more holes in it than Sonny Corleone. Forgot to mention how many people, including Member here, who outright dismissed Kavanaugh's Constitutional presumption of innocence.

In fact, they've all today forgotten Dr. Ford. Where is all the promised continued investigation, if you believed this woman...and many in here claim to have....then this should be a front burner issue for the Left entering elections and of course, it's not. Dem candidates especially those in tight races in Missouri or Montana do not mention it. The media doesn't cover this woman any longer, they've already used her for their warped purposes.

Ransom
11-05-2018, 02:15 PM
The whole believe all women and men are guilty until proven innocent philosophy is both insane and anti male. People should be proven guilty based on tangible evidence and nothing else, male or female.

Make sure @exotix (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=516) sees your post there. Both insane and anti-male. Hmmm. Not insane or anti-male......but insane and anti-male.

Damn. That's brutal.


Exo. You were one that believed Kavanaugh was guilty before before proof was ascertained, remember?

:biglaugh:

"Insane and anti-male."

That's a winning post there, Xl. Keep up the good work.

countryboy
11-05-2018, 04:20 PM
Does that change if one is accused because they came out and admitted guilt before they are formally charged?

Not in my mind.

Tahuyaman
11-05-2018, 04:24 PM
Not in my mind.
I would say that if one admits guilt, there is no longer a need for a trial to determine guilt or innocence. The presumption of innocence is gone if one admits guilt.

Tahuyaman
11-05-2018, 04:24 PM
Exactly. Crime is crime. The accused should be assumed innocent until proven guilty by the EVIDENCE, beyond a reasonable doubt.Or by admission.

countryboy
11-05-2018, 04:35 PM
I would say that if one admits guilt, there is no longer a need for a trial to determine guilt or innocence.

I disagree. People falsely admit guilt for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is having it wrung out of them by unscrupulous investigators.

What if there is irrefutable exculpatory evidence to a crime which someone has confessed to? What, you convict them anyways, and the actual perp gets off?

Ransom
11-05-2018, 04:36 PM
What Members should keep in mind here, how many kneejerk reactions surfaced as a result of these mere accusations? Without a shred of evidence, without a corroborating witness, not even one. Misled by her lawyers, used by the Democrat Party.....but done the greatest disservice by those who immediately believed Dr. Ford. Even prior to any information or lack of evidence or testimony, indeed, without having heard one word from the accused.....this woman was wholesale hook, line, and sinker believed. Never forget that.

:hello: @Dangermouse (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=832)

Ransom
11-05-2018, 04:38 PM
How many believed these rape allegations? These handing out rape drug and drink allegations?

I mean other than the entire Democrat side of the Senate who believed those allegations?

Tahuyaman
11-05-2018, 04:39 PM
I disagree. People falsely admit guilt for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is having it wrung out of them by unscrupulous investigators.

What if there is irrefutable exculpatory evidence to a crime which someone has confessed to? What, you convict them anyways, and the actual perp gets off?

If one admits guilt, they admit guilt. Don't admit guilt if you are innocent.

Ransom
11-05-2018, 04:43 PM
https://neonnettle.com/news/5545-senate-report-witness-had-encounter-with-ford-similar-to-her-kavanaugh-claim

countryboy
11-05-2018, 08:04 PM
If one admits guilt, they admit guilt. Don't admit guilt if you are innocent.

It really isn't quite that simple.

Tahuyaman
11-05-2018, 09:19 PM
It really isn't quite that simple.It is If one admits gui,t, the presumption of innocence is gone. What are you supposed to do when someone admits guilty? Say "no you're innocent until you go to trial and are proven guilty"? In your world, no one can plead guilty?