Kavanaugh: The roomer. Avenatti: He has a client, but does he have a case? - Hallo friendsDARMO NEWS TODAY, In the article you read this time with the title Kavanaugh: The roomer. Avenatti: He has a client, but does he have a case?, We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article culture, Article economy, Article health, Article healthy tips, Article news, Article politics, Article sports, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title : Kavanaugh: The roomer. Avenatti: He has a client, but does he have a case?
link : Kavanaugh: The roomer. Avenatti: He has a client, but does he have a case?

Kavanaugh: The roomer. Avenatti: He has a client, but does he have a case?

Way I figure it, you probably know as much as I do about the recent developments in the Kavanaugh case. Of all the info-bombs that have exploded during the past 40-odd hours, this one, from BK's former roomie at Yale, seems to be the most under-appreciated:

"It is from this experience that I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk. I did not observe the specific incident in question, but I do remember Brett frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk."

Roche says he became friends with Debbie Ramirez. "She stood out as being exceptionally honest, with a trusting manner. As we got to know one another, I discovered that Debbie was very worried about fitting in. She felt that everyone at Yale was very rich, very smart and very sophisticated and that as a Puerto Rican woman from a less privileged background she was an outsider. Her response was to try hard to make friends and get along."

At that point, the former Yalie claims up. He does not address the question that we all want answered: Did Ramirez mention the Kavanaugh penis-waving incident?

A word about Michael Avenatti's as-yet unnamed client: We know that she has held a security clearance and that she has worked for the "State Dept, U.S. Mint, & DOJ." I'm trying to think of a specific job that could fit this description.

Avenatti may have revealed more than intended when he framed the questions he would like Kavanaugh to answer:

1. Did you ever target one or more women for sex or rape at a house party? Did you ever assist Mark Judge or others in doing so?

2. Did you ever attend a house party at which a woman was being gang raped or targeted for sex by multiple men?

3. Did you ever witness a line of men outside a bedroom in any house where you understood a woman in the bedroom was being raped or taken advantage of?

4. Did you ever participate in sexual conduct with a woman at a house party whom you understood to be intoxicated or under the influence of drugs?

5. Did you ever communicate with Mark Judge or anyone else about your participation in a “train” involving an intoxicated woman?

6. Did you ever object or attempt to prevent any man from participating in the rape or taking advantage of a woman at any of the house parties?

Most people have not noticed that, in every instance, Avenatti left himself an out: Maybe rape occurred, or maybe a group of college students used a drunk woman sexually. The former is a crime; the latter is simply...what's the word? "Icky" isn't strong enough, but it will do for now. There are woman who willingly submit to what we may call the Full Messalina Experience. Don't tell me that such women do not exist; I've met at least one. ("Met" as in talked to, years after the fact. Being an ugmo, I would never be invited to help a would-be Messalina achieve glory.) (By the way, there are those who doubt the stories about Messalini, but I am not among the doubters.) And y'know what? As long as all parties are willing, I do not judge.

Thus, Avenatti has cleverly sidestepped the most pertinent question: Were all parties willing?

I suppose we'll get an answer within the next 48 hours. At some point during this time period, we are promised a full revelation. Question: Why not today?

Another question: If Avenatti is representing the woman, what is the case? Is this a civil or criminal matter? Is the issue even triable at this point?

Here is the best information I can find concerning the statute of limitations for rape in Connecticut:

In Connecticut, the statute of limitations for prosecuting rape and felony sexual assault cases is five years from the date of the offense (CGS § 54-193). As in Massachusetts, periods when the accused is outside the state are not counted. Special rules exist for offenses involving sexual abuse, exploitation, or assault of a person under age 18. In cases involving such victims, prosecutions must be brought within (1) two years of the victim turning age 18 or (2) five years of the victim reporting the offense to the police or a prosecutor, whichever is earlier. The time period cannot be less than five years after the crime was committed (CGS § 54-193a).

Connecticut also provides an extended period for prosecuting certain sexual assault crimes when DNA matching the accused was collected at the crime scene. Prosecutions can be brought up to 20 years after the offense, so long as the victim reported it to the police or prosecutor within five years of its commission. The covered offenses are: (1) first-degree sexual assault, (2) aggravated first-degree sexual assault, (3) sexual assault in a spousal or cohabiting relationship, (4) second-degree sexual assault, (5) third-degree sexual assault, and (6) third-degree sexual assault with a firearm (CGS § 54-193b).

Sorry, but even if the woman was raped, I don't see how Kavanaugh can be charged.

There is such a thing as a civil action to recover damages in a case of rape. See here. Seems to me that the passage of time would make such a case very difficult to pursue.

As you know, I have very mixed feelings about Avenatti. His ambition for office annoys the hell out of me. On the other hand, that same ambition makes it likely that he would not take on such a case unless he had his ducks in a row. That said, it's perfectly fair to ask the obvious question, a question so for avoided by Rachel Maddow and all other interviewers: Mr. Avenatti, you say you are representing this woman -- but in what case?

By the way: I'm continually amused by the right-wingers who denounce Avenatti as a "creepy porn lawyer" or a "sleazy porn lawyer." Most lawyers have clients who are part of what we may call the demimonde. How can anyone argue that Avenatti is creepy for representing a porn star but that Trump is not creepy for fucking a porn star and then paying her hush money?

There are also Trumpers who slam Avenatti for being insufficiently transparent about his taxes. Now that is freakin' hilarious.

In closing: Non haberet Avenatti. That's going to be my version of Carthago delenda est.

Thus Article Kavanaugh: The roomer. Avenatti: He has a client, but does he have a case?

That's an article Kavanaugh: The roomer. Avenatti: He has a client, but does he have a case? This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article Kavanaugh: The roomer. Avenatti: He has a client, but does he have a case? with the link address https://darmonewst.blogspot.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-roomer-avenatti-he-has-client.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: