Avenatti The Slayer

Frederick Foresight said:
That wasn't the point. Try to keep up.

In any event, Trump is a huckster fraud who'd have been homeless had it not been for his father, who bailed him out repeatedly. If you're always swinging for the fences because that's all you know, and someone is covering your losses with cash and contacts/influence, eventually even a moron will catch a break. Well, your moron did.
More...

Although most of your posts have little real content or support, often involve name calling in some form, or an excercise in semantic manipulation, I still gave you credit for being an intelligent person. It takes great skill and intelligence to argue points that have little merit, but sound plausible at first glance. At least to people who are still clinging to the idea that Trump is a bad President.

However, based on this post of yours above, I must now question my own intelligence of giving you credit for being an intelligent person in the first place. May I suggest you reread and edit, if not rewrite entirely your quoted post above to reflect reality in order to preserve at least some of your credibility. If this is too difficult for you, I am more than willing to break it down for you into small, sound bite like pieces for you to intellectually digest. Again.

By the way, I don't normally try to address your unspoken points that may be bouncing off the walls inside of your head at any given time. Try be more specific with your points. Perhaps even putting your bong down once in a while on your "big" points may be helpful to you in more effectively communicating your position to others.
 
oh chuck, what have you gotten yourself into....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1055572627333566465

huge tactical error, republicans:

Donald Trump and the GOP went out of their way to try to prevent the FBI from even so much as speaking to Julie Swetnick about Brett Kavanaugh. Whatever evidence and testimony she’s sitting on, it clearly spooked the hell out of Kavanaugh. But now, because Chuck Grassley just asked the DOJ (and by default the FBI) to criminally investigate Swetnick, suddenly we’re looking at a situation where the FBI will have to interview her about Kavanaugh. But it gets worse.

The Democrats have already stated that if they take control of the House, they’ll immediately launch a (real) investigation into Brett Kavanaugh. By putting things in motion now, Chuck Grassley is unwittingly helping to lay the groundwork for the Democrats to take Kavanaugh down. Grassley has consistently shown that he’s a small and petty man who is also very unintelligent. He’s seeking simplistic revenge by harassing his enemies with imaginary political charges that won’t stick, and he’s too dumb to understand what he’s putting in motion.
 
maximumpossiblesuffering said:
Although most of your posts have little real content or support, often involve name calling in some form, or an excercise in semantic manipulation, I still gave you credit for being an intelligent person. It takes great skill and intelligence to argue points that have little merit, but sound plausible at first glance. At least to people who are still clinging to the idea that Trump is a bad President.

However, based on this post of yours above, I must now question my own intelligence of giving you credit for being an intelligent person in the first place. May I suggest you reread and edit, if not rewrite entirely your quoted post above to reflect reality in order to preserve at least some of your credibility. If this is too difficult for you, I am more than willing to break it down for you into small, sound bite like pieces for you to intellectually digest. Again.

By the way, I don't normally try to address your unspoken points that may be bouncing off the walls inside of your head at any given time. Try be more specific with your points. Perhaps even putting your bong down once in a while on your "big" points may be helpful to you in more effectively communicating your position to others.
More...
 
gwb-trading said:
It is time that both of these people were locked up for their criminal lying with the political intent of smearing an SC appointee.
More...

Just don't come crying when the Dems take the house and demand investigating Kavanaugh because Chuck asked for it.
 
Its unlikely Grassley would have done that without having evidence that Swetnick was lying and that his democrat buddies wanted him to take out Avenatti with her. The Kabuki only gets suspended for a short period of time every once in a while like when they are nominating Sup Ct justices.
 
Last edited:
This surprises no one with a brain. By the way... I mentioned at the time...this is when conservatives and particularly many suburban women turned on the democrats. This is the difference between independent women, Republican women and democrat women. The former two think for themselves contrary to what Hillary said about them.
=
"Ms. Swetnick also contradicted the timeline she provided in her sworn statement, in which she stated: “I attended well over ten house parties in the Washington D.C. area during the years 1981-83 where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present.” In the NBC interview, Ms. Swetnick stated that she was sexually assaulted at one of these house parties when she was 19 and stopped going to them afterwards. According to public records, Ms. Swetnick would have turned 20 toward the end of 1982. So, her claim that she attended these parties through 1983 is contradicted by her claim she stopped attending when she was 19.20?
 
Last edited:
This is going to be the gravaman. If it turns out Avenatti can not produce the person who made this declaration... he may be disbarred or see bars.

"After the media hubbub about Ms. Swetnick’s contradictory interview and the lack of any corroboration for her claims, Mr. Avenatti belatedly produced a vague and anonymous declaration he claimed supported her allegations. 30 Mr. Avenatti did not provide the identity of this supposed declarant to the Committee, nor did he make him or her available for an interview with Committee staff. It does not appear any media outlet has been able report any interview with the purported declarant or validate anything in the anonymous declaration. Indeed, it is unclear who actually wrote the anonymous declaration. Mr. Avenatti also apparently has a history of claiming to have anonymous clients who never materialize in any verifiable form.31"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top