Right, because all fifteen-year-olds report such assaults immediately after they occur. Including, say, the multitude of underage victims of predatory Catholic priests over the years, right? You mean like that, right?
See is 55 years of age, meaning she was born in 1963, making her 19 or so during the alleged activity. Not exactly a child. More importantly she says she witnessed girls being drugged and gang raped at parties, note the plural. So she witnessed multiple gang rapes on multiple occasions, was a victim herself, but kept going to the parties. And of course there is no record of anything. This is your "credible" witness?
Also note that their is a difference between a gang bang and a gang rape. First is consensual while the latter is not.
Well, in the alleged incident she is stating that the girls were allegedly drugged, and that would make it rape. Neither allegation of course has any evidence or can be documented in anyway. Just the word of a woman who by her own admission attended these "gang rape" parties on multiple occasions witnessing multiple young women and girls being raped. Only took 35 years to find a moral compass and of great coincidence that she finds it at this exact moment in time. Quite fortuitous for the left.
Granted, I still think a nominee to SCOTUS should not have a history of gang bangs where alcohol and possibly drugs were involved.
Here are a few of the questions we’ve seen raised regarding Julie Swetnick’s sworn deposition https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018...d-regarding-julie-swetnicks-sworn-deposition/
Exactly. Why has no woman come forward yet and refute that Kavanaugh was a virgin in high school/college?