The final section of my last post, ‘Kavanaugh Conformation and Ford Accusation‘, was “There’s Never Just One Victim”. (Of course, there were two in that post – Christine Blasey Ford and Debbie Ramirez.) It included a tweet from lawyer Michael Avenatti referring to bombshell revelations to come.
I updated that post with a transcription of an Avenatti email noting, “… Avenatti has so far always come through with public claims of evidence.” Today he did that.
First, here’s the transcription of the emails.
Mike Davis Email
From: Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep)
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 4:42 PM
To: Michael J Avenatti
Subject: SCOTUS — Avenatti claim of evidence
Dear Mr Avenatti
According to your Tweet from 7.33 p.m. E.T this evening, you claim to have information you consider credible regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. Please advise of this information so that Senate investigators may promptly begin an inquiry.
Mike Davis, Chief Counsel for Nominations
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Chairman
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Michael Avenatti Email
From: Michael J Avenatti
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2018 6:06 PM
To: Davis, Mike (Judiciary-Rep)
Subject: RE: SCOTUS — Avanatti claim of evidence
Dear Mr Davis
Thank you for your email. We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties on the Washington D.C. area during the early 1980s during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a “train” of men to subsequently gang rape them. there are multiple witnesses that will corroborate these facts and each of them must be called to testify publicly. As a starting point, Senate investigators should pose the following questions to Judge Kavanaugh without delay and provide the answers to the American people:
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 any house party during which a woman was gang raped or used for sex by multiple men?
3. Did you ever witness a line of men outside a bedroom at any house party where you understood a woman was in the bedroom being raped of taken advantage of?
4. Did you ever participate in any 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 one or more men from participating in the rape, or taking advantage, of a woman at any house party.
Please note that we will provide additional evidence relating to the above conduct to the Committee and the American public in the coming days.
Avenatti Comes Through
Today Avenatti has come through, backing up his claims with a virtually unimpeachable source. Julie Swetnick is both a victim/survivor and a witness to the events alluded to in the Avenatti email above. The Guardian begins their article with the words:
Julie Swetnick says she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and others ‘to cause girls to become inebriated … so they could then be gang-raped’.
In a sworn affidavit, Swetnick provides details that make a mockery of Kavanaugh’s Fox News appearance. As we know, there was already evidence that he was a liar. However, the gulf between his claims that he was a virgin until “well into his college years” and Swetnick’s affidavit put a seal on that.
The Guardian Article
Here are some excerpts from the Guardian article, though I urge you you to read it for yourselves. There’s a lot to digest, but I consider the most important part relates to Swetnick’s credibility. No assessment is 100% reliable, but this part of the article points to some reasons why she’s a good witness:
Swetnick said she … currently holds government security clearances to work for the US treasury, the US Mint and the Internal Revenue Service. She said she previously held clearances with the departments of state, justice, homeland security and customs and border protection.
This is a woman who is worthy of her government’s trust in her career as an IT professional. At the very least, she knows how important it is to be truthful in a sworn affidavit.
Further, Swetnick told two friends of the attack at the time. Therefore, this is not something just coming to light now. According to the Guardian, this is what she says:
Shortly after the incident, I shared what had transpired with at least two other people. During this incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off boys raping me. I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking.
For these reasons, this appears an entirely credible allegation. As a result, I believe we can have a high degree of confidence in it.
The New Allegations Against Kavanaugh
Here’s part of what the article says:
The declaration said she had “observed Brett Kavanaugh drink excessively at these parties and engage in abusive and physically aggressive behaviour towards girls, including pressing girls against him without their consent, ‘grinding’ against girls and attempting to remove or shift girls’ clothing to expose private body parts”.
Swetnick, 55, said she was at parties where Kavanaugh and his friend Judge were involved in situations that resulted in women being gang-raped.
She wrote: “I witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett Kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be ‘gang-raped’ in a side room or bedroom by a ‘train’ of numerous boys…”
“In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present.” …
She said: “I attended well over 10 house parties in the Washington DC area during the years 1981-1983 where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present.”
She went on: “I have reviewed Brett Kavanaugh’s recent claim on Fox News regarding his alleged ‘innocence’ during his high school years and lack of sexual activity. This claim is absolutely false and a lie. I witnessed Brett Kavanaugh consistently engage in excessive drinking and inappropriate contact of a sexual nature with women during the early 1980s.”
Senate Confirmation Hearing
Avenatti is indicating that Swetnick is able to testify on Thursday along with Ford. However, it appears she won’t get the chance. Although he has gone as far as asking the committee to hear her, they appear to he ignoring him.
We know why. Firstly, a Supreme Court pick in the US is a political appointment. As a result, what the GOP wants is control of the Supreme Court. As well as meaning they can control the country’s laws to suit themselves, they can keep their president in the White House. Besides being anti-choice, Kavanaugh has written that he believes a president is above the law. That means Trump cannot be subpoenaed, and therefore won’t testify. That’s crucial as Trump is unable to tell the truth, and even if he did, the truth would probably condemn him.
CNN is reporting two new accusations against Kavanaugh that have come out today. Although it appears that they may be credible, they are currently anonymous. While we can understand why someone would like to retain their privacy in the current environment, we cannot use anonymous accusations against someone. If that changes, we can properly assess them.
Even before these new allegations though, some organisations were wavering in their support for Kavanaugh. It’s time he, Trump, and the GOP took their heads out of the sand. This nomination cannot go forward. If it does, the Supreme Court will lost all credibility. At the very least, the GOP will need to start worrying about all the women voters they will lose at the next election. However, because they have such a poor understanding of how to treat women as equals, perhaps they do not realize the Pink Wave that’s coming.
(These cartoons are all new since my last post.)
If you enjoyed reading this, please consider donating a dollar or two to help keep the site going. Thank you.
The hearings are gong on now. Dr. Ford is a very credible witness but I don’t think Grassley and cohorts will change their mind.
Ford is a credible witness but the other accusers are not. I would be shocked if all the accusations are true. They have turned a difficult situation into a circus. Unfortunately, if anything, they undermine Ford’s account because they show that some people (e.g. Swetnick not Ford Ford) are willing to lie.
Starting with Swetnick, I would be skeptical that there was one party where boys lined up at the door to rape girls and no one said anything to the police or parents. In fact, I have never heard of this type of gang rape ever occurring in the US. Swetnick’s claim of “seeing boys lined up at MANY of these parties waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl” means that there were 3 years worth of parties where girls continued to show up to be gang raped and no one else knew. This is simply not credible. Another small detail is that she is 55 that means she was presumably 18 to 20 when the parties occurred. A college girl regularly attending high school parties is possible but unlikely. She is almost certainly a liar.
As far as anonymous accusations, the less said the better. They could be absolutely true but without names or dates or locations, they should be ignored.
Kavanaugh even entered that into his year book – keg parties, having met the denoted “school tramp” – and that goes with the anonymous witnesses to a pattern.
Also, according to the news two anonymous men has both confessed to “be Kavanaugh”, i.e. having been lined up (assailant and witnesses) for Ford. Circumstances cannot be cut both ways.
And in general, gang rapes are likely common in US: “As with other countries, the US does not collect separate data on gang rapes; Vogelman and Lewis estimate 25% of all rapes in the US are gang rapes. Another source indicates 21.8% of American rapes are gang rapes. A Roger Williams University study estimates from survey of crime data that 16% of all male rapists in the US participated in a gang rape crime.”
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_rape#United_States ]
Including known lineups with cover up: “… a female student of Richmond High School was gang raped repeatedly by a group of young males in a courtyard on the school campus while a homecoming dance was being held in the gymnasium. … As many as 20 witnesses are believed to have been aware of the attack, but for more than two hours no one notified the police.”
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Richmond_High_School_gang_rape ]
There is an easy way to find out if the two women are lying; do an FBI investigation. One of the women signed a sworn affidavit, and is risking a felony charge if she is lying. Why would any person risk that? But the Republicans don’t want to have an investigation into these charges because they don’t want to know the truth. Big surprise!
Chris Cuomo asked all the questions you have asked about Swetnick and more of Avenatti on CNN last night. His answers were credible, though some would not convince someone who didn’t want to believe the accusations.
I have been to parties like this. The boys were not exactly lined up like a line for the bathroom – it was more discreet than that, and it was possible not to know it was happening. Avenatti did say that once she became a victim of a “train” she didn’t go back.
Talking about no one telling the police etc shows a lack of understanding of what it was like for young women in the 1980s. There was a case in NZ not that long ago where young men basically got away with this sort of behaviour because the young women weren’t prepared to testify due to peer pressure.
I was sexually assaulted as a teenager in the early 80s. I am an extremely strong person who has no problem standing up for what I believe is right and against peer pressure. However, I never even considered telling my parents, let alone the police. I don’t want to get into why, but it’s not as simple as many seem to think.
“Avenatti did say that once she became a victim of a “train” she didn’t go back.” That is contradicted by her sworn statement. She says:
1) “I attended well over ten house parties … during the years 1981-1983”.
2) “In approximately 1982, I became a victim of one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes.”
That means that she continued to attend the parties.
“I have been to parties like this. The boys were not exactly lined up like a line for the bathroom – it was more discreet than that.” If Swetnick claimed discretion, her claim might be credible but she did not and she is not.
I totally understand and sympathize with women who do not contact the police. But Swetnick claims that there were many parties where boys lined up in the hallway to rape a girl. If this were true, some of the boys would have bragged and others would been confessed to someone after sobering up. Some child who saw the lines of rapists would have said or done something. There were too many people involved for this kind of sensational story to have stayed secret.
I hear rumors of dodgy things happening at my kids’ high school and I do not believe something like this would stay hidden. For what it is worth, my daughter and her friends are convinced that one accusation of assault was fabricated by the girl.
I don’t think Avenatti is ill informed, why would he be? The 3 years likely refer to Swetnick’s high school years.
Inserting other’s anecdotes to make an informed judgment instead of known statistics – gang rapes are common in US, even during school activities – may satisfy you. But I am sure you may acknowledge that many others wants to use available facts instead.
While I understand your misgivings, I think the problem is you’re putting the current environment into the early 1980s. Things like this could and did stay hidden. People talked about them, but there was a “boys will be boys” attitude to such behaviour. Girls were expected to put up with all sexual assault, and it usually wasn’t even considered sexual assault. Even if it went as far as rape, there were excuses looked for by the police and everyone else to avoid blaming the man, especially if he was young, white, and came from a “good family”. This isn’t that easy to read, but the flow chart is accurate, and it’s the main reason no one reported being abused.
I think Ms Ford’s testimony was very, very convincing. Even the despicable Mr Grassley and Mr Wallace from the equally despicable FOX News admitted she is a ‘very credible’ witness.
I think Mr Kavanaugh’s nomination is over: I doubt he will make it out of the Senate Committee, but if so, in the Senate Ms Collins and Ms Murkowski would commit political suicide if they would upheld that nomination. Those tables have turned now.
I mean, even FOX News!
And then Mr Kavanaugh, he lost it completely: angry, shouting and threatening, appeared he thinks he’s entitled to this SC seat. And he was sober, what would he be if drunk? (As he’s reputed to be during the times this case is about). His performance gives credibility to all the accusations, and the reservations many have about his nomination.
As said, I thought he probably was finished after Ms Ford’s testimony, but he sealed it. I think many Republican Senators will be very reluctant to vote for him after his disgraceful performance.
Who is this Kavanaugh guy? On FOX he was the choir boy virgin who never did anything wrong, mild and meek. At the hearing, he’s a roaring, pissed-off, sometimes crying, emotional mess. I think a good quality to have as a SCOTUS justice is temperance; NK doesn’t have that quality. He’s quite the actor, and it’s easy to see he’s been coached.
Just the fact that he continues to rail against Democrats shows that he is far from unbiased. He’s a Republican operative, simple as that.
Remember his acceptance of the nomination speech at the White House? His nose was so far up Trump’s bum it’s amazing he managed to get it out again. it reminded me of that cabinet meeting where they all went around the table telling Trump how wonderful he was etc. for the camera.
I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m worn out. It is now 5:30 PM central time and this thing is not over yet. The only outcome will be that it was disgusting and a great embarrassment to anyone looking for good government. These additional women who have come forward are likely to never be heard. That will be too bad as well. It is probably good that so many people got to see this thing in living color today. I say that because it might show the public, who usually pays little attention, just how screwed up things are in this county. Beyond repair I would say.
But Kavanaugh is not supreme court material. Even if he never touched a female in his life, his character and actions today show clearly that he is not qualified to be judge of anything. Instead of answering questions he became argumentative and nasty and just mad. He railed on about a left wing conspiracy to get him and he sometimes reminded one of Trump in his wild statements.
If he was a bad candidate yesterday, he is worse today. It will be a very bad thing if he gets 50 votes and gets in.
If even Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano says Kavanaugh’s not SCOTUS material, you know he’s in trouble.
I hope some got a chance to see Maddow’s show this evening because she really took this thing apart. She crushed several of Kavanaugh’s selling points or yelling points as I would call them. I won’t try to remember all of them but the time line of Ford’s testimony on when she came forward is most telling and important. Remember, the big screaming complaint by Kavanaugh is that the democrats and the people on the committee are doing this evil hit job on me. He even called it revenge going back to Bill Clinton. But this is pure garbage because Ford testified she first went forward to act and attempted to contact her representative when Kavanaugh was added to the short list for the court. She said that she wanted to warn them to not pick him before it was too late. Now, if he had taken the time this morning to watch her testimony he might have known this. But as he sad, he did not watch her testimony. Now why do you suppose that? Maybe because he did not care.
I will not go into how many times he refused to answer the simply question of why did he not ask for an FBI investigation on all of this but none of the republicans could do anything but lie. Why not at least question the other guy that was in the room?
I agree. I’m writing a post about the testimony, which may or may not see the light of day, and it includes all you’ve written here.
Unfortunately, just a few hours on, confidence that Kavanaugh’s “performance” would not push wavering Senators to Yes appears to be misplaced. Even a couple of Democrats are tettering on Yes. Unlike the politicians, Kavanaugh’s legal peers are backing away from him and demanding a proper FBI investigation. But SCOTUS isn’t the highest legal authority any more, it’s become the president’s collection of political appointee activist judges.
In the rest of the developed world, most people don’t even know the names of their Supreme Court justices, let alone what their political affiliation is. I certainly don’t know about ours in NZ. They rule according to the law, and there’s no question of politics influencing their decisions, whoever appointed them. They are appointed by the party in power, but it’s a non-controversial process. It’s about getting the best person for the job, It’s also not a lifetime appointment – they’re required to retire (at 70 iirc).
In case you are sleeping or not able to watch, the committee just voted 11 to 10 to move it on to the Senate. However, it appears that Jeff Flake is voting for it as long as they delay for a one week investigation by the FBI. Of course this will take action by Trump, as I understand it so who knows for sure. All we can do is stand by while the politics continues.
To clarify further, it looks like Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Flake and maybe Susan Collins have kind of agreed that more investigation must be done to get the votes required. Just two votes provides the power to request this delay and more investigation. This could be the beginning of the end for Kavanaugh.
I profoundly hope so (the beginning of the end).
Mr Kavanaugh’s performance revealed he is a deeply partisan hack, and emotionally completely unsuited as a judge. I mean, apart from the lying, a candidate for the SC going into a Clinton conspiracy? How deep can one sink?
Unsuited for the SC is putting it mildly, he is unsuited for any court.
I think people like Flake want to vote against him. I think their assessment it that the longer they can delay, the more will come out, and the more public opinion will go against Kavanaugh. I suspect he’s hoping that in a week it will be politically acceptable to vote against Kavanaugh. The tide is going against Kavanaugh. Basically all that needs to happen is for Fox News to go against him, and for Trump to be given a way he can denounce him without losing face. If Trump doesn’t support him, the Sheep (my word for his Base) will cave, and politicians who need to appear to not be too against Trump to get re-elected can vote against Kavanaugh.
Mr Flake not just got some info in the elevator (how ironic is that?), he also hinted at some woman (women?) close to him that revealed she (they?) had been sexually assaulted (raped?), while having no idea about it.
So yes, I think he indeed wants to vote against Mr Kavanaugh.
I’m reposting two comments that I’d intended as responses to this post on Kavanaugh but instead entered them in the previous post on Kavanaugh. Though I posted them in different places in the thread, I post them together here.
1 By the time I saw your previous post on the subject, the other women were already coming out of the woodwork, along with reports of Kavanaugh’s other peccadilloes, and that he was mean and belligerent when drunk. Now, every time I start to comment on your follow-up post, the news changes dramatically, and I can’t keep up with it. I woke up this morning (Friday in the US), only to hear that the Dems had just walked out of the morning’s proceedings.
The one thing that remains a constant is that the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are shameless in their crass manipulation of the process, and will do anything to ram Kavanaugh through, due process be damned. And Kavanaugh has shown his true colors. As someone on the radio opined, “He’s belligerent when drunk and he’s belligerent sober.” The soi-disant virgin altar boy, is, as the bible says, a “whitened sepulchre,” a corrupt, narcissistic sonofabitch, demonstrably Trump’s bitch; and the fact that he has no compunction about lying like a rug when it redounds to his favor is as alarming as his sexual aggression — that corrupts justice at its core, and he’ll be called a “Justice.”
2 There’s a weird and disgusting “priestly” connection to the SF Bay Area. Several days ago, one Bernie Ward, an ex-priest, was quoted in a piece in the WaPo recounting what life was like at Georgetown Prep when he was the sex-ed teacher there
— however, he’d left or been driven out of the priesthood (perhaps for sexual indiscretion) by this time. Some time later, Ward moved back to the Bay Area, had a talk show on KGO, a local AM radio station here, and became a fixture on AM radio, until he was arrested convicted and imprisoned for distributing child pornography.
Some years before his arrest, I heard him declare on air that he taught his children how to masturbate???!!! HOLY COW! I got the distinct impression that this wasn’t just a lecture class, but a practicum. For years, I thought that my ears must have deceived me, until the revolting facts came out after Ward’s arrest. It should be noted that Mark Judge writes about attending a “masturbation class” at Georgetown Prep. Ward was the sex-ed teacher at that time, so the inference is clear about who led the class (I doubt this was an adjunct of a physics class). After Ward was arrested, audios of conversations he had with a dominatrix (who turned him in) were released by the cops, wherein he graphically describes his nauseating sexual activities with his teenaged children and their friends (both sexes). Now, all the pieces of that jigsaw puzzle fall into place.
I replied to this comment on the other post in case anyone’s interested in what I had to say.
A local talk show host (not a right wing show) made two comments this afternoon that I wholeheartedly agree with. The first is that she thinks the FBI should interview Bernie Ward — he might well remember specifics of Kavanaugh’s attitude and behavior during those days, even though as a witness, he’d be impossibly tainted. But if he’s contacted by the FBI, I’d bet Mr. Ward wishes he never opened his trap to offer his two cents to the WaPo because that revives interest in his crimes (for which I think he should still be rotting in jail — he should have been charged and convicted of child molestation and incest, not one count of distributing child porn. BTW, leaving the priesthood and getting married obviously did nothing to curb his pedophiliac inclinations, to which he added incest.
The second is she’s convinced that after Kavanaugh’s performance on Fox, TV which did not please Trump, in the interim Kavanaugh had a role-playing practice session on how to come across in a Trumpian fashion, because that’s just what his delivery was — the Trump playbook through and through, straight down the line — belligerancy, obfuscation, speaking over the interlocutor, self-pity, etc… Furthermore, not only was it scripted in Trump style, Kavanaugh was playing straight to Trump — not even to the Republicans on the committee. That’s why I wrote that he was Trump’s bitch. I also think that most of the Republicans lapped it up. They’ve proved that they are shameless opportunists. They have no ethics or morals, or integrity or character, despite the fact that they trumpet those words at every opportunity.
All they care about is getting someone that will do their bidding on the SC. Here is something I copied from a Facebook comment on the group I get all my cartoons from:
“[Written by] Scientia Rules. Google: Gamble vs. United States
This case comes up before the Supreme Court SOON. This disaster of a judge (appointed by 44.5) is being rushed through the process so that he can cast the deciding vote to protect many GOP folks from possible prosecution. The corruption and Russian money runs deep in the GOP.
Passing on these specifics:
On next month’s SCOTUS docket is Gamble vs US. No 17-646. This is the reason behind the rush to confirm this person. Yes, they want him to overturn Roe. Yes, they want him to drag us all back to the Dark Ages with women’s rights, healthcare and environmental protection; but they need him seated by October to rule on this specific case.
At stake is the “separate sovereigns” exception to double jeopardy. If he (and the other 4 conservative judges) vote to overrule it, people given presidential pardons for federal crimes cannot be tried for that crime at the state level. Bam. Trump can pardon the lot of them, and they have nothing to fear from state’s attorneys.
Everyone is looking at the shiny coin, and not seeing the bigger picture. CALL YOUR SENATORS and tell them to VOTE NO!”
I didn’t know about this case. Very interesting!. I for one have been satisfying myself with the knowledge that Trump can’t pardon people convicted by state courts – only federal courts. This is a VERY BIG DEAL.
Yes, I wonder how the SC will rule on ‘Gamble vs US’ if the SC vacancy is not filled. Probably 4-4. I gather that in such a case the present law will not be changed?
The stakes appear very high indeed. I was worried about women’s rights and Jim Crow, but this will give the POTUS truly dictatorial powers.
However, it seems that Mr Kavanaugh is toast indeed, especially if the FBI is diligent and examines witnesses such as Mr Judge, Ms Swetnick and the like. I gather the only constraint laid upon the FBI is one of time.
I also have a question for some expert: if the Gamble vs US case is presented to the SC before a 9th Justice is sworn in, does the latter have a vote in the case?
If it’s 4-4, the law stays as it is. The 9th justice cannot come in and change things.
On a more edifying note , the AB’s defeated Argentina 46-24, order was restored. Nevertheless, the AB’s supreme performance did not hide the “they are human after all” for a second time. There were some (rare) moments they did not look as superhuman as they are prone to do. 🙂
Nevertheless, a nice come back after their very close defeat against the Bokke 2 weeks ago.
The Bokke took revenge for their humiliating defeat against the Wallabies a four/five weeks ago, by beating them 23-12. The Wallabies never appeared really threatening, order was restored there too.
2 great matches to watch.
Because of the time difference, I once again missed the rugby and have stayed away from all media where I might find out the results. (not purposely – you haven’t spoiled things for me!). I’m very glad to hear about both those results! I’ll see the games at some point. I’m loving the idea that Aussie will finish last! Not just because it’s Australia and we have a little brother complex here, but because I don’t like their coach and a couple of their players. e.g. I like that all the praying isn’t getting Israel Folau the win he expects God to give him for going public with his anti-gay message. I would like him to take it that God prefers the players that gave the supportive message like some All Blacks, the Black Ferns, and especially the Aussie league team (who’ve been most vociferous). I doubt he will though. Religious people always stick to or join the religion that most closely mirrors their own beliefs, then attribute those beliefs to God.
Johann Cruyff, arguably the greatest footballer ever, once mentioned, while he was coaching Barcelona: “In Spain all 22 players make the sign of the cross before they enter the pitch, if it works therefore all matches must end in a draw.”
My apologies for revealing the results.
After the discomforting farce that Mr K’s confirmation was, we had a great Rugby game to lift our spirits a bit.
The AB’s beat the Bokke with a narrow margin, 30-32. In fact the same margin the Bokke beat the AB’s 2 (3?) weeks ago. Strangely, in the earlier game I thought the AB’s were the better team, albeit losing by 2 points, while in yesterday’s match I thought the Bokke were the better team despite losing with a same 2 point margin.
How much more edifying than the circus of nominating a SCOTUS Judge!
The difference between rugby and politics is the best team usually wins, and when they don’t there’re usually still things to take comfort from like the last game, or a great match, or the spirit in which the game was played etc.
I’ve gotta say, as a NZer those last few minutes of the game were pretty exciting!!!!