Kavanaugh accused of sexually assaulting classmate in high school

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1041696688942010373

[Brittain33]

https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1041696688942010373

I bet Trump is telling him about his unprecedented victory in the electoral college.

[Del Tachi]

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

[Zaybay]

https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1041696688942010373

Two things can happen from this:

1. Kavanaugh is rescinding his nomination and a new nominee will be chosen

2. Kavanaugh is going to discuss with Trump, where Trump will push/force him not to give up the nomination

Im going with option 2

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

CBF allegations are robustly holding up to increased scrutiny.

[Zaybay]

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

? Nothing has been disproven in her testimony yet. Im pretty sure you just think that they dont hold up.

[junior chįmp]

Don Jr. really is vile:

[Brittain33]

https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1041696688942010373

Two things can happen from this:

1. Kavanaugh is rescinding his nomination and a new nominee will be chosen

2. Kavanaugh is going to discuss with Trump, where Trump will push/force him not to give up the nomination

Im going with option 2

I’m also going with option 2. Wouldn’t be surprised to see a tweet today.

"Brett's a good kid."

[Del Tachi]

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

CBF allegations are robustly holding up to increased scrutiny.

I don't know what there is to hold up given 1) no corroborating evidence to support her allegations and 2) possible motives for Ford to want to discredit Kavanaugh and prevent him from taking a seat on the Court.

[windjammer]

https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1041696688942010373

Two things can happen from this:

1. Kavanaugh is rescinding his nomination and a new nominee will be chosen

2. Kavanaugh is going to discuss with Trump, where Trump will push/force him not to give up the nomination

Im going with option 2

I’m also going with option 2. Wouldn’t be surprised to see a tweet today.

Yes option 2 makes totally sense. Trump isn't the kind of person who likes to back down.

[Del Tachi]

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

? Nothing has been disproven in her testimony yet. Im pretty sure you just think that they dont hold up.

Under increased scrutiny, the inconsistences in her allegations,  the lack of evidence to support her allegations, and her possible motives in wanting to discredit Kavanaugh are all becoming more widely known.

[Torie]

I don't think it right to tar and feather someone for something that they did of this genre when age 17, decades later. The problem is a matter of Kavanaugh's candor now however. And the rule of evidence here should be more likely than not, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems that if this nomination moves forward (because K claims it is all a tissue of lies), then it looks like we will have full fledged hearings on this under oath (because the accuser's lawyer says that she is ready and willing to do that). I think that is essential at this point. Anita Hill all over again. It should be great for TV ratings. I suspect the odds are more than insignificant that the nomination will be withdrawn. We shall see.

[libertpaulian]

I don't think it right to tar and feather someone for something that they did of this genre when age 17, decades later. The problem is a matter of Kavanaugh's candor now however. And the rule of evidence here should be more likely than not, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems that if this nomination moves forward (because K claims it is all a tissue of lies), then it looks like we will have full fledged hearings on this under oath (because the accuser's lawyer says that she is ready and willing to do that). I think that is essential at this point. Anita Hill all over again. It should be great for TV ratings. I suspect the odds are more than insignificant that the nomination will be withdrawn. We shall see.

If his nomination is rescinded, the GOP will get crucified at the polls by the base.

[brucejoel99]

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

CBF allegations are robustly holding up to increased scrutiny.

I don't know what there is to hold up given 1) no corroborating evidence to support her allegations and 2) possible motives for Ford to want to discredit Kavanaugh and prevent him from taking a seat on the Court.

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

? Nothing has been disproven in her testimony yet. Im pretty sure you just think that they dont hold up.

Under increased scrutiny, the inconsistences in her allegations,  the lack of evidence to support her allegations, and her possible motives in wanting to discredit Kavanaugh are all becoming more widely known.

The context surrounding Ford's story clearly is evidence. Its corroborating evidence is that she told her therapist 6 years ago. That therapist made notes, & could testify if asked to do so.  What we have right now is enough for a Senator to vote no, b/c the evidentiary standard for SCOTUS nominees isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's a lifetime SCOTUS seat; a whiff of impropriety should be too much. Even if your point is absent corroboration, just stop (for all intents & purposes) insulting & ignoring this accusation just b/c it doesn't fit your political preference (as Democrats mostly did re: Al Franken & Republicans mostly failed to do re: Roy Moore).

[Torie]

I don't think it right to tar and feather someone for something that they did of this genre when age 17, decades later. The problem is a matter of Kavanaugh's candor now however. And the rule of evidence here should be more likely than not, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems that if this nomination moves forward (because K claims it is all a tissue of lies), then it looks like we will have full fledged hearings on this under oath (because the accuser's lawyer says that she is ready and willing to do that). I think that is essential at this point. Anita Hill all over again. It should be great for TV ratings. I suspect the odds are more than insignificant that the nomination will be withdrawn. We shall see.

If his nomination is rescinded, the GOP will get crucified at the polls by the base.

I don't think so, because K will have asked that his nomination be withdrawn. He will need to be prepared to testify on this under oath however if he goes forward, unless perhaps the accuser falls apart when she testifies.

[junior chįmp]

I don't think it right to tar and feather someone for something that they did of this genre when age 17, decades later. The problem is a matter of Kavanaugh's candor now however. And the rule of evidence here should be more likely than not, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems that if this nomination moves forward (because K claims it is all a tissue of lies), then it looks like we will have full fledged hearings on this under oath (because the accuser's lawyer says that she is ready and willing to do that). I think that is essential at this point. Anita Hill all over again. It should be great for TV ratings. I suspect the odds are more than insignificant that the nomination will be withdrawn. We shall see.

If his nomination is rescinded, the GOP will get crucified at the polls by the base.

I highly doubt that the GOP base that wears T shirts saying "Trump that bitch," while shouting "lock her up" at rallies cares about Trump's SCOTUS nominee. They are getting crushed no matter what they do

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I recruited a bunch of other Maryland Daily Kos users to join me in sending an email to Brian Frosh asking him to prosecute Kavanaugh.

[RaphaelDLG]

I don't think it right to tar and feather someone for something that they did of this genre when age 17, decades later. The problem is a matter of Kavanaugh's candor now however. And the rule of evidence here should be more likely than not, not beyond a reasonable doubt. It seems that if this nomination moves forward (because K claims it is all a tissue of lies), then it looks like we will have full fledged hearings on this under oath (because the accuser's lawyer says that she is ready and willing to do that). I think that is essential at this point. Anita Hill all over again. It should be great for TV ratings. I suspect the odds are more than insignificant that the nomination will be withdrawn. We shall see.

If it is as she described, he absolutely deserves to get tarred and feathered, because this type of behavior indicates a severe lack of moral character at any age.  You should know that this type of behavior is wrong at 17, for sure.

It really doesn't bother me much at all that he lied about it.  What bothers me is that he did it.

The problem is that it is right now just a "he said, she said" allegation.  An allegation that should be explored that I personally believe to be true, but an allegation, and not one that should end Kavanaugh's career without more corroborating evidence to come out.

[Joe Biden 2024]

Don Jr. really is vile:

And people wonder why she didn't come forward.

[Del Tachi]

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

CBF allegations are robustly holding up to increased scrutiny.

I don't know what there is to hold up given 1) no corroborating evidence to support her allegations and 2) possible motives for Ford to want to discredit Kavanaugh and prevent him from taking a seat on the Court.

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

? Nothing has been disproven in her testimony yet. Im pretty sure you just think that they dont hold up.

Under increased scrutiny, the inconsistences in her allegations,  the lack of evidence to support her allegations, and her possible motives in wanting to discredit Kavanaugh are all becoming more widely known.

The context surrounding Ford's story clearly is evidence. Its corroborating evidence is that she told her therapist 6 years ago. That therapist made notes, & could testify if asked to do so.  What we have right now is enough for a Senator to vote no, b/c the evidentiary standard for SCOTUS nominees isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's a lifetime SCOTUS seat; a whiff of impropriety should be too much. Even if your point is absent corroboration, just stop (for all intents & purposes) insulting & ignoring this accusation just b/c it doesn't fit your political preference (as Democrats mostly did re: Al Franken & Republicans mostly failed to do re: Roy Moore).

Brett Kavanaugh is never indicated as the assailant in the therapist's notes, so I fail to see the notes as corroborating evidence to Ford's allegations.

How a senator should vote on this matter is really a political issue and not a moral one.  There are no evidentiary standards for these types of allegations concerning a SCOTUS nomination, so the Republican majority is free to take them with a grain of salt (as they should, because there's no evidence corroborating them).

I'm not insulting or ignoring an allegation.  The allegation would be very serious and the withdrawal of Kavanaugh's nomination would be warranted if there was more corroborating evidence to support Ford's testimony.  The allegations regarding Roy Moore and Al Franken were much more substantiated than these.  

[brucejoel99]

I recruited a bunch of other Maryland Daily Kos users to join me in sending an email to Brian Frosh asking him to prosecute Kavanaugh.

Any good prosecutor doesn't base decisions of whether to prosecute an individual for a crime on public opinion.

[Torie]

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

CBF allegations are robustly holding up to increased scrutiny.

I don't know what there is to hold up given 1) no corroborating evidence to support her allegations and 2) possible motives for Ford to want to discredit Kavanaugh and prevent him from taking a seat on the Court.

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

? Nothing has been disproven in her testimony yet. Im pretty sure you just think that they dont hold up.

Under increased scrutiny, the inconsistences in her allegations,  the lack of evidence to support her allegations, and her possible motives in wanting to discredit Kavanaugh are all becoming more widely known.

The context surrounding Ford's story clearly is evidence. Its corroborating evidence is that she told her therapist 6 years ago. That therapist made notes, & could testify if asked to do so.  What we have right now is enough for a Senator to vote no, b/c the evidentiary standard for SCOTUS nominees isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's a lifetime SCOTUS seat; a whiff of impropriety should be too much. Even if your point is absent corroboration, just stop (for all intents & purposes) insulting & ignoring this accusation just b/c it doesn't fit your political preference (as Democrats mostly did re: Al Franken & Republicans mostly failed to do re: Roy Moore).

Brett Kavanaugh is never indicated as the assailant in the therapist's notes, so I fail to see the notes as corroborating evidence to Ford's allegations.

How a senator should vote on this matter is really a political issue and not a moral one.  There are no evidentiary standards for these types of allegations concerning a SCOTUS nomination, so the Republican majority is free to take them with a grain of salt (as they should, because there's no evidence corroborating them).

I'm not insulting or ignoring an allegation.  The allegation would be very serious and the withdrawal of Kavanaugh's nomination would be warranted if there was more corroborating evidence to support Ford's testimony.  The allegations regarding Roy Moore and Al Franken were much more substantiated than these.  

What if it is established that they were at the same party? Do the notes from 2012 indicate when the sexual assault is supposed to have occurred? If say, in reality there was an assault, but it was by someone else at another venue around this time, but yes, both were at the same party, and the accuser uses that coincidence to go after K, that is certainly a lot of bad luck for K. If it was by someone else at the same party, that is really bad luck.  

Someone posted that the notes say four were involved, but elsewhere it was two. Which is it? If four, does anyone know the other two names?

[brucejoel99]

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

CBF allegations are robustly holding up to increased scrutiny.

I don't know what there is to hold up given 1) no corroborating evidence to support her allegations and 2) possible motives for Ford to want to discredit Kavanaugh and prevent him from taking a seat on the Court.

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

? Nothing has been disproven in her testimony yet. Im pretty sure you just think that they dont hold up.

Under increased scrutiny, the inconsistences in her allegations,  the lack of evidence to support her allegations, and her possible motives in wanting to discredit Kavanaugh are all becoming more widely known.

The context surrounding Ford's story clearly is evidence. Its corroborating evidence is that she told her therapist 6 years ago. That therapist made notes, & could testify if asked to do so.  What we have right now is enough for a Senator to vote no, b/c the evidentiary standard for SCOTUS nominees isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's a lifetime SCOTUS seat; a whiff of impropriety should be too much. Even if your point is absent corroboration, just stop (for all intents & purposes) insulting & ignoring this accusation just b/c it doesn't fit your political preference (as Democrats mostly did re: Al Franken & Republicans mostly failed to do re: Roy Moore).

Brett Kavanaugh is never indicated as the assailant in the therapist's notes, so I fail to see the notes as corroborating evidence to Ford's allegations.

How a senator should vote on this matter is really a political issue and not a moral one.  There are no evidentiary standards for these types of allegations concerning a SCOTUS nomination, so the Republican majority is free to take them with a grain of salt (as they should, because there's no evidence corroborating them).

I'm not insulting or ignoring an allegation.  The allegation would be very serious and the withdrawal of Kavanaugh's nomination would be warranted if there was more corroborating evidence to support Ford's testimony.  The allegations regarding Roy Moore and Al Franken were much more substantiated than these.  

You can judge for yourself what is/isn't corroborating evidence but it seems pretty clear that all of this is sufficient so as to ensure that the claim shouldn't be ignored due to the various amounts of supporting evidence, including the therapist's notes from 2012 (which say she reported that she was attacked by students "from an elitist boys' school" who went on to become "highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington"), the husband further corroborating the fact that this was brought up by name not just now but also in 2002 when she told him personally & in 2012 in the therapy sessions (who even recalled from the latter that his wife used Kavanaugh's last name & voiced concern that Kavanaugh, then a federal judge, might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court), & the polygraph.

How much weight one gives those is fairly a matter of judgement & degree, & reasonable opinions and evaluations about that may differ somewhat. But it's not reasonable to say that it carries no more weight than would an accusation made w/out any support of any kind; it's already more than just a pure case of "he said, she said." You can judge for yourself exactly how much more it is than that, but it is definitely something more than that.

Indeed, the very existence of all of the above evidence establishing a record of all this long before any of this circus occurring proves that this is, at the very least, something to look into. The only other alternative is she attended private therapy sessions with her husband & a therapist to lie about some guy from high school, all presumably out of the blue with no major motive. A person would have to be sick in the head to do all of that.

[Zaybay]

Maybe this will turn out to the be the "Duke Lacrosse" case of the #MeToo movement.

(That is, assuming that CBF's allegations will continue to fail under increased scrutiny).

? Nothing has been disproven in her testimony yet. Im pretty sure you just think that they dont hold up.

Under increased scrutiny, the inconsistences in her allegations,  the lack of evidence to support her allegations, and her possible motives in wanting to discredit Kavanaugh are all becoming more widely known.

Ok,let me get this straight, you think that, because her parents had a case with Brett's mother, that she would want to disqualify Brett for some reason? And she did this in advance, starting in 2012?

This is the only way I can describe that idea:

[Torie]

Well K still says it is all BS, and is willing to testify, so game on. He's not withdrawing.