Kavanaugh
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
You’ve watched too many old movies. You need to move out of the 60’s.
Protecting rape victims from what you describe has been a subject for 35+ years. By the early 80’s most states had shield laws. Even without shield laws most judges were limiting the scope of cross examination in those days. Victim advocates were part of prosecution teams.
That said there are a lot of questions to ask the alleged victim starting with how a 15 year old ended up at a boozy high school party. Who brought her? Did she drink? How did she get home? I could go on.
I have no doubt that she could pass a lie detector test. Memories change over the decades. I see it regularly as we reminisce with our adult children about childhood memories. We might be discussing an event and my stoker and I look at each other wondering if we were even present.
Oh, and you can stop with that condescending “you are a man” crap. That has nothing to do with anything.
If true, then that should do it, providing the story is believable. It provides a behavior pattern that is currently lacking. And for a SCOTUS appointee that'd be enough for me.
Either way I hope that before this is finished we're given more than the current facts to work with. While I still think he's going down regardless, I'm not sure the current circumstances will be a net positive the MeToo movement if it is perceived to be nothing more than an unassailable club that can be used to destroy anyone for political gain.
If there are other women affected, I hope they come forward and put the matter to rest.
I will be interested to hear her testimony. The problem I have with her accusation so far is the lack of detail. In a he said/she said type of situation, things like where and when become pretty important IMO. When the Duke Lacrosse players were accused of rape (wrongfully) what helped to exonerate them was an ATM receipt showing that some of the accused were not even around when the assault was said to take place. Ambiguity on her part as to the where and when makes it harder for Kavanaugh to defend himself. She says that there were 4 males at the party but only Judge and Kavanaugh were involved in going after her. Who were the other 2 males? Was she the only female at the party or were their others? Who were they?
The lack of detail on those elements is what I find questionable because they are exactly the type of elements that one would use to prove their innocence in a case like this.
The lack of detail on those elements is what I find questionable because they are exactly the type of elements that one would use to prove their innocence in a case like this.
Kavanaugh not getting appointed before the election might precipitate just the turnout boost Republicans need to get them over the hill in November. Democrats already have the motivation, so I only see it helping Republicans. The Garland./Gorsuch SC seat definitely motivated Republicans in 2016.
This might be a careful-what-you-wish-for moment for the Democrats. Of course, you've got to maintain your principles.
Me too.
And I agree with Susan Collins.
Ms. Collins said in an interview on Sunday night that she considered the allegations serious and that Ms. Ford needed to be personally interviewed to get a fuller account. But Ms. Collins, who could conceivably decide the outcome in the narrowly divided Senate, said Democrats had done a disservice to both Ms. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh with their handling of the accusations.
“What is puzzling to me is the Democrats, by not bringing this out earlier, after having had this information for more than six weeks, have managed to cast a cloud of doubt on both the professor and the judge,” she said. “If they believed Professor Ford, why didn’t they surface this information earlier so that he could be questioned about it? And if they didn’t believe her and chose to withhold the information, why did they decide at the 11th hour to release it? It is really not fair to either of them the way it is was handled.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/...ugh-christine-blasey-ford-sexual-assault.html“What is puzzling to me is the Democrats, by not bringing this out earlier, after having had this information for more than six weeks, have managed to cast a cloud of doubt on both the professor and the judge,” she said. “If they believed Professor Ford, why didn’t they surface this information earlier so that he could be questioned about it? And if they didn’t believe her and chose to withhold the information, why did they decide at the 11th hour to release it? It is really not fair to either of them the way it is was handled.”
I’m in the same boat. These situations are difficult because you want to balance the severity of sexual assault versus the consequences of an accusation. When there are multiple accusers, rightly or wrongly, to me the burden of proof shifts to the accused. May not be right but that’s how I’ve internally come to grips with it.
I don’t see what’s puzzling Collins about how this was handled. According to published reports, the accuser didn’t initially want to go public, so Feinstein (and apparently others) kept her allegations to themselves. When information about the allegations leaked out, Feinstein felt pressured to acknowledge the existence of the allegations. With her identity known — and the ugly process of discrediting her begun — the accuser decided to come forward.
Republican partisans are fulminating about sleazy Democratic tactics where there don’t seem to be any tactics at all.
This has nothing to do with your post, really, but I think it's worth tacking on anyway . . .
. . . when my sons were in high school they dated only one girl at a time. Both my wife and I thought that was a little stuffy, and asked why they didn't date other girls, particularly since neither of them was all that serious about the girls they were dating at the time . . .
. . . their response floored me: They said that they weren't "players" and wouldn't want to become one. Apparently, the social standard in the mid-2000s in this high school was that even going out to get a milk shake with someone other than the girl you were "dating" was frowned upon. As a result, my guys didn't get the chance to experience a range of personalities among the girls in their high school . . . I still don't understand the ethos, especially considering some of the other things that went on with that school's social scene.
OK, I'll go back to my nap now . . . .
. . . all those permutations and more to consider . . .
. . . the more I think about it, I'm wondering whether this Judge character - you can't make this stuff up - will end up being a central witness, even with all of the credibility issues that his ne'er-do-well autobiography apparently presents. Seems to me he's the only contemporaneous-in-time lead that hasn't been followed up on in the media reports . . . .
I imagine that I'm overly cynical, but I can't believe that things at this level just play out, on either side. There are always tactics. Whether they're sleazy or not depends on one's allegiances.
My gut tells me that the timing is designed to push the vote past the Nov elections, at a minimum. I just have too much distaste for politics and those who play at that level to assume anything but than the worst.
But that's my problem, and probably why I'm a shitty poster.
Her lawyer said this morning that she wanted anonymity. That put Feinstein in a tough spot. I think the person purporting to be the victim gets to choose if they are outed or not. It wasn't until the media got ahold off it and was going to run with it anyway that the letter was outed.
If you had been given that letter and told the person wanted to remain anonymous, what would you have done?
The ol' "She asked for it" defense. Classic.
Feinstein should have had a sit-down with her at the outset. If she wants to keep it anonymous, then why send it at all? How does she expect Feinstein to use it? And so on. Then the woman would have realized she's got to come out.
If this had come out earlier, Kavanaugh would have been long gone as a nominee by now.
If the vote is pushed past the November elections, that sort of impinges upon the GOP's desire not to make it a campaign issue, I get that . . . that's a short-term political goal that is driving McConnell's tactics . . .
. . . but given the questions here and the long-term effects of the nomination, isn't the effect on the mid-term elections something that really doesn't matter all that much in the big picture? This could be a 30 or 40 year appointment . . . and the GOP will still control the Senate after the election. What's the harm in looking into things so we know what really is/isn't - or at least know where the dead ends are, if we can't find out for sure what happened? If the Senate confirms Kavanaugh and then new evidence soon shows that Kavanaugh was the lout he is accused of being, doesn't that undermine the credibility of SCOTUS just when we need that credibility the most?
Maybe, maybe not. Wouldn't it make sense to test the credibility of her memory, too? If she did have a lot to drink, wouldn't you want that to be part of the inquiry if you were accused by her?
I'm sorry...I don't recall posting anything about "copping a feel" Would you direct me to that post? Thanks
So, you're saying that Kavanaugh is as good a nominee as Hillary Clinton? Bravo.
Kavanaugh will to testify again.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Monday said he is willing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee against a woman's charge that he sexually assaulted her in high school.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Monday said he is willing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee against a woman's charge that he sexually assaulted her in high school.
Kavanaugh in a new statement called the woman's accusation a "completely false allegation."
“This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes—to her or to anyone," Kavanaugh said. "Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday."
The federal judge said he would speak to the Judiciary panel "in any way the committee deems appropriate" in order to "defend my integrity."
Kavanaugh was spotted by television cameras walking to the White House shortly before his statement was released.
He needs to practice his new lines.“This is a completely false allegation. I have never done anything like what the accuser describes—to her or to anyone," Kavanaugh said. "Because this never happened, I had no idea who was making this accusation until she identified herself yesterday."
The federal judge said he would speak to the Judiciary panel "in any way the committee deems appropriate" in order to "defend my integrity."
Kavanaugh was spotted by television cameras walking to the White House shortly before his statement was released.
So, you're saying that Kavanaugh is as good a nominee as Hillary Clinton? Bravo.
I’m pretty agnostic toward Kavanaugh at this point as previously mentioned. He could have done it. He could not have. It’s a really tough situation to make sense of 35 years after the fact. Other than denying he’s done nothing to attack her.
Bill Clinton’s transgressions are well known and made by multiple women. Hillary knew and went after those women. Yet somehow the Dems are the beacon of morality?
Our system will be much better if the two party system emplodes and if we get term limits for congress.
Pitched it in the permanent out box. (Because an anonymous accusation is useless)
I don't know, maybe there is nothing that could be done but can you see how Republicans might be a little perturbed at how this came about?
I have been annoyed with the GOP of late, I had considered abstaining this go around on Donnelly, if the Supreme Court seat sits open, I will have to go vote for Braun...a guy I am not really sold on.
Yes, but I’d bet $1,000 that they wouldn’t have done it if the Minnesota Governor was a Republican. Color me skeptical.
I wouldn't say the Democrats are beacons of morality. Not many people are. And I'm not aware that folks have been holding out the Democrats as such.*
On the flip side, though, the Republicans have absolutely and explicitly been holding themselves out as such for decades. Same thing with patriotism. That was fraudulent and caustic.
*Except that it's mostly Democrats calling out Trumpism as immoral.
I'm glad to hear she won't feel any torment from you. She shouldn't feel any from anyone. Lots of people on both sides are acting very politically about this and it's really disappointing to see.
As for me, the incident itself doesn't seem disqualifying for me given all the mitigating issues surrounding it. That's not to say that the behavior that has been accuses is in any way acceptable. I'm just of the opinion that the youth involved, the different cultural time, the amount of time since the incident is said to have occurred, and the lack of corroboration from the time make it difficult to accept it as a thing to stop the nomination on its own. However, rushing forward to vote on the nomination without examining and considering it is asinine. Likewise, if something did happen between Cavanugh and the woman making the accusation, Cavanaugh doesn't show that it was merely a teenage mistake by denying it every took place. He only shows that by owning the mistake and showing contrition.
I think we're much better off treating the allegations against Kavanaugh on their own merits than trying to use this as the basis for determining the relative "morality" of either political party or comparing it against anybody else's transgressions . . . the generalizations that one attempts to derive - or impose - from all that extra stuff is just bull---t. Let it go, and let's get on with the task of assessing Kavanaugh's candidacy to SCOTUS, good and bad, on all of the merits and the merits alone. That approach might allow us to reach more of a consensus on what should be done.
Interesting that you felt compelled to make those denials here . . .
. . . maybe you ought to tell us what you did do?
Whatever stupid shit he did, he was sober when he did it.
Maybe. He just said he didn't drink . . . he didn't mention any other mind-altering activities.
This is the kind of post that makes it impossible to take you seriously. This is a serious topic. Both Kavanaugh and the woman accusing him deserve better than you are giving. One would hope you could grow up some.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ett-kavanaugh_us_5b9fb3c2e4b04d32ebfabbc6?ite
200+ women from her HS have already signed a letter supporting the accuser.
Meanwhile Drudge is attacking another person with a different name then the accuser
Edit: to Drudge's credit, he seems to have deleted the tweet
200+ women from her HS have already signed a letter supporting the accuser.
Meanwhile Drudge is attacking another person with a different name then the accuser
Edit: to Drudge's credit, he seems to have deleted the tweet
Last edited:
I did not say he should not be appointed. I simply believe there are better candidates.
I haven’t gotten my information from old movies. I’ve gotten my information from women and girls who have been sexually abused and raped. Every woman knows someone that has. Many women don’t tell anyone for years, if ever. You guys talking about different memories. Of course people have different memories. But you don’t likley forget a rape or an attempted rape. Unless your pysche he’s worked really hard to cover it up. You actually didn’t address the main topic of my post, which was what happens to women when they do come forward. I guarantee you this woman has already received death threats. Want to talk about Steve Alford? Or the Stanford case? Feel free.... or just blame it on me watching too many movies.
I know. Clarence Thomas - and something like 2/3rds of Americans believed him and not her at the time.
No need to argue that one all over. I already know some of you are convinced he was lying and she was telling the truth and no one will change his/her mind either way.
Classic my ass. Why do you think a victim must be confronted? All the circumstances, especially including victim demeanor, at the time of the alleged attempted kiss, attempted rape, or whatever are highly relevant.
Unless of course you are a committed partisan and don’t give a damn about due process.
No, you’re not. I actually appreciate posters who aren’t so biased they can change their opinions within a thread, depending on evidence. Although this obviously is a hot button and emotional issue for me, and I imagine most women, I’ve tried to restrain myself and look at both sides. Because once again, not only do I know multiple females that have been sexually abused, many of whom told no one for years, I also know several males with false allegations. I always try to look at the motive too, partly because the males I know were in education. You can imagine how scary it isn’t for male teachers and how easy it is for a female that’s mad at her teacher. The accusation is page one and the clearing of the person is often not even published.
One thing I’m holding out on is if indeed she came forward on her own or if she was sought out.
I don’t disagree, but I’m not the person who said Republicans not calling for BK to step down is further evidence that the Democrats are the beacon of morality.
I did address it. You are over stating it because you don’t understand shield laws and other witness support efforts. No doubt coming forward is stressful, but that has nothing to do with how the Democrats manipulated this victim and her charge. They talked to her in August. There can be little doubt now that Feinstein and company held this ‘till the last minute.
And I don’t need to tell you my experience with the legalities of child abuse, which is a big part of what we are talking about; but it’s rather considerable. I know quite a bit how traumatic induced memories work.
Similar threads
