Kavanaugh accused of sexually assaulting classmate in high school

[Progressive Pessimist]

The vibe I'm getting here is: sexual assault/rape is only wrong (and victims only get the benefit of the doubt) if Democrats do it.

This is a decent post. Bravo!

hofoid said something constructive? I can't wait for pigs to start flying. I love pigs so much and it would just make them even more adorable!

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1041782446587568128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...

They want the benefits of putting this on television for their campaign portfolios.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I guess this is Trump's idea. It would explain a lot. It reflects badly on him, you see. So he'll take it to the Grave.

Trump doesn't want to give up on Kavanaugh because he selected him especially because of his views on executive power because of the Mueller investigation.

That, plus the fact that Trump feels like he needs to stand up for people accused of attempted rape, because he can easily imagine himself being accused of the same (probably for good reason).

Once one takes into account those 2 factors - Mueller investigation and Trump's own sexual assaults, it is not surprising in that sense that he wants to stick by Kavanaugh.

What is more surprising is that Senate Republicans are willing to play along. They ought to know better than to think that any of this serves them better (either procedurally or politically leading up to the midterms) than simply jamming through, as you put it so well, "some other Federalist society look-alike" ASAP instead.

[DrScholl]

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1041782446587568128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...

They want the benefits of putting this on television for their campaign portfolios.

The public does have a right to know what is happening. A lack of transparency is poor government.

[Brittain33]

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1041782446587568128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...

They want the benefits of putting this on television for their campaign portfolios.

Democracy dies in darkness, shua.

[Brittain33]

I guess this is Trump's idea. It would explain a lot. It reflects badly on him, you see. So he'll take it to the Grave.

Trump doesn't want to give up on Kavanaugh because he selected him especially because of his views on executive power because of the Mueller investigation.

That, plus the fact that Trump feels like he needs to stand up for people accused of attempted rape, because he can easily imagine himself being accused of the same (probably for good reason).

Once one takes into account those 2 factors - Mueller investigation and Trump's own sexual assaults, it is not surprising in that sense that he wants to stick by Kavanaugh.

What is more surprising is that Senate Republicans are willing to play along. They ought to know better than to think that any of this serves them better (either procedurally or politically leading up to the midterms) than simply jamming through, as you put it so well, "some other Federalist society look-alike" ASAP instead.

Well, even more than that, they're not going to pull the plug after only 24 hours. A week gives them time to see how the public mood goes and also (sad as it is to say) gives them a chance to find a way to trash Ford.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1041782446587568128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...

They want the benefits of putting this on television for their campaign portfolios.

Democracy dies in darkness, shua.

They should have the questions asked by staff members and release the audio.

[IndustrialJustice]

https://twitter.com/irin/status/1041859121211944960

Anyone still subscribing to that conspiracy theory?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Who could have guessed in late 2017 that a Republican President might be appointing a federal judge soon...it's not like the name didn't appear on a shortlist sent out in November 2017. This seems to be written as a 'checkmate' yet it comes across as anything but.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There are, indeed, many conflicting issues in all of this.

I understand why Kavanaugh won't back down and withdraw at this point.  If I were him, I wouldn't, either.  It's all about his good name now (at least for him); he can't quit at this point.  And, to be honest, if I were him, I'd be fighting to salvage my personal reputation, regardless of whether or not I would get the big job or not.

I don't particularly wish to see Kavanaugh go to prison, and I think its mildly silly to wish for this.  The event happened when he was a juvenile; I can't believe he could still be charged as a juvenile in this matter.  Had he been charged back then, he'd likely have received probation as a juvenile, with a sealed record if he didn't reoffend.  If Maryland wished to actually charge him as an adult, that's fine, I suppose, but how would that play when liberals discuss the issue of minority juvenile defendants being charged as adults with greater frequency than white juvenile defendants?  That's a current issue of fairness in criminal justice as well as victim's rights; how does making an example out of Kavanaugh bring some realism to that area of criminal justice?

There's a victim with a credible story who's passed a polygraph and has other evidence in the form of therapist's notes to support her story.  That's not enough for a conviction in a Court of Law, and a lot of time has passed, but it is enough to deny one this sort of job.  Indeed, a victim coming forth with a story like this with the level of proof she has would cause a lot of people job insecurity.  If someone brought this story to, say, the licensing body in one's state that certifies Clinical Social Workers, Mental Health Counselors, and Psychologists, their licensure would come under review, at a iminimum.  Even if one is not a "convicted felon", the circumstances of "prior bad acts" if substantiated are relevant to many types of professional licensure.

In that respect, Kavanaugh IS being treated just like anyone else.  And if he lied in the process of securing this appointment, that's relevant as well, as it would be if you or I lied on a job application.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Consider, all, that when you say you support Kavanaugh's innocence until proven guilty, you are saying you presume that Ford is lying until she meets some standard of proof which is likely impossible for her to meet.

[emailking]

There's no middle ground in this allegation.  No room for misunderstanding.  Either Kavanaugh is lying or Professor Ford is lying, but there's no splitting the difference here.

I can think of 2 scenarios where neither is lying. Maybe Kavanaugh is guilty but has no memory of doing it or even her because he was drunk. Or maybe Kavanaugh didn't do it but someone else did and she somehow got his identity confused.

[Torie]

Here is what I think is a thoughtful analysis of the situation. This author agrees with me on the more likely than not standard of proof. Absent more evidence, how the two come across when they testify would be a key factor perhaps in tipping the balance one way or the other. I would think they would want the therapist to testify too, along with the other identified individual that was accused, particularly if both K and Ford seem credible with their contradictory testimony.

[fhtagn]

Consider, all, that when you say you support Kavanaugh's innocence until proven guilty, you are saying you presume that Ford is lying until she meets some standard of proof which is likely impossible for her to meet.

Innocent until proven guilty how it works (and should work) when someone is accused of a crime. Not everyone is saying she's a liar, but if she is going to accuse someone of a serious crime and potentially ruin their career, the burden of proof is on her, as it should be.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Consider, all, that when you say you support Kavanaugh's innocence until proven guilty, you are saying you presume that Ford is lying until she meets some standard of proof which is likely impossible for her to meet.

Innocent until proven guilty how it works (and should work) when someone is accused of a crime. Not everyone is saying she's a liar, but if she is going to accuse someone of a serious crime and potentially ruin their career, the burden of proof is on her, as it should be.

What is your standard for how she could be proven not to be lying about this?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

There's no middle ground in this allegation.  No room for misunderstanding.  Either Kavanaugh is lying or Professor Ford is lying, but there's no splitting the difference here.

I can think of 2 scenarios where neither is lying. Maybe Kavanaugh is guilty but has no memory of doing it or even her because he was drunk. Or maybe Kavanaugh didn't do it but someone else did and she somehow got his identity confused.

That and false memories - I have more than my share like anyone else.

[fhtagn]

There's no middle ground in this allegation.  No room for misunderstanding.  Either Kavanaugh is lying or Professor Ford is lying, but there's no splitting the difference here.

I can think of 2 scenarios where neither is lying. Maybe Kavanaugh is guilty but has no memory of doing it or even her because he was drunk. Or maybe Kavanaugh didn't do it but someone else did and she somehow got his identity confused.

Especially if alcohol was involved and decades went by before she said anything of this. Under the influence and in a dark room, it is very easy for a victim to not remember their attacker's face or identifying features. It's also very easy to be confused about what you did see trying to think back when questions are asked.  As an example, a couple years ago, I was assaulted by my neighbor. I didn't know his name, and his name wasn't on the lease for the townhouse next door. So the cops had to rely on what little physical descriptions I could give (as well as one witness statement from a neighbor who was across the street), which wasn't much because I only ever saw him at night, like I did the night of the assault. And while they asked me questions to help me think of anything else, one cop asked if he had any identifying tattoos, like a face or neck tattoo. I wasn't sure about it, which led me to question if maybe he did. When they brought me a photo lineup, I wasn't able to identify the attacker and picked the wrong person, thinking of questions like the ones cops had asked me days before to try and help me remember his face.

[J. J.]

I mean he was a minor when this allegedly happened, so it should not even be weighed that heavily even if it is true.

That is a valid point, but it would be a question if Kavanaugh told the truth.

It would be the flip side to Bill Clinton's Lewinsky situation.  Bill did absolutely nothing illegal nor impeachable, IMO in getting oral sex from Lewinsky. The problem came when he lied about it under oath.  It would be the same with Kavanaugh.

[J. J.]

That's not even taking into account any issue of Sexual Battery, which the circumstances suggest Kavanaugh attempted.

There's no middle ground in this allegation.  No room for misunderstanding.  Either Kavanaugh is lying or Professor Ford is lying, but there's no splitting the difference here.

The allegation isn't a situation where Kavanaugh allegedly groped a teenage female and got his hand slapped, or got told to F--- Off, after which he left, head between his legs.  Not at all.  This is an allegation of a drunken 17 year old who, disinhibited under the influence, falsely imprisoned a 17 year old girl and tried to have sex with her, while his buddy turned up the stereo and encouraged him.  That's the allegation, and that's criminal stuff.

There is another possibility, one legitimately is making a mistake.  As everyone has pointed out,it was 35+ years ago.

[Badger]

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1041782446587568128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...

They want the benefits of putting this on television for their campaign portfolios.

Democracy dies in darkness, shua.

They should have the questions asked by staff members and release the audio.

And rely on their staffers to ask follow-up questions based on the answers? That's dereliction of Duty, and frankly Beyond silly.

[Badger]

There's no middle ground in this allegation.  No room for misunderstanding.  Either Kavanaugh is lying or Professor Ford is lying, but there's no splitting the difference here.

I can think of 2 scenarios where neither is lying. Maybe Kavanaugh is guilty but has no memory of doing it or even her because he was drunk. Or maybe Kavanaugh didn't do it but someone else did and she somehow got his identity confused.

Especially if alcohol was involved and decades went by before she said anything of this. Under the influence and in a dark room, it is very easy for a victim to not remember their attacker's face or identifying features. It's also very easy to be confused about what you did see trying to think back when questions are asked.  As an example, a couple years ago, I was assaulted by my neighbor. I didn't know his name, and his name wasn't on the lease for the townhouse next door. So the cops had to rely on what little physical descriptions I could give (as well as one witness statement from a neighbor who was across the street), which wasn't much because I only ever saw him at night, like I did the night of the assault. And while they asked me questions to help me think of anything else, one cop asked if he had any identifying tattoos, like a face or neck tattoo. I wasn't sure about it, which led me to question if maybe he did. When they brought me a photo lineup, I wasn't able to identify the attacker and picked the wrong person, thinking of questions like the ones cops had asked me days before to try and help me remember his face.

That is an interesting hypothesis clouded only buy the niggling fact that there is not a single shred of evidence that she did not remember Cavanaugh's identity at the time. Not at all.

For all you go on about not wanting to rush to judgment and asking reasonable questions, it is very very clear you rushed to near immediate judgement on this matter, which is shown by a you're asking a bunch of very borderline nonsensical questions. for someone whom has repeatedly criticized a rush to judgement not based on the facts of the case but rather based on preconceived notions of taking political sides, your posting history on this subject has been one long exercise in projection.

[J. J.]

Under Maryland State law, he could still be prosecuted for (attempted) rape and sent to jail if state officials would be willing to prosecute him, because there is no statue of limitations for (attempted) rape in Maryland. I already sent a letter to Brian Frosh asking him to launch a prosecution, and have been trying to get other people to send similar letters.

Kavanaugh is clearly guilty, and would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case got to the courtroom.

First,  a claim the something happened 35 years ago, refuted by a witnessed, where the documentation shows that the the the accuser's story changed, would be tossed out in a preliminary, if a prosecutor were stupid enough to file.  There would need to be more.

Second, it might make a difference, even if proven, that he was a juvenile.

 it might not apply to a juvenile.

[elcorazon]

The vibe I'm getting here is: sexual assault/rape is only wrong (and victims only get the benefit of the doubt) if Democrats do it.

absolutely. That's why no democrats insisted that Al Franken resign and all of the Republicans  insisted that Alabama elect Doug Jones.

[BL53931]

Just wait until this woman is interrogated by Orrin Hatch, Grassley and the other old GOP fossils on that committee next week. Ought to be good for another 20 or so House seats in November.

[fhtagn]

There's no middle ground in this allegation.  No room for misunderstanding.  Either Kavanaugh is lying or Professor Ford is lying, but there's no splitting the difference here.

I can think of 2 scenarios where neither is lying. Maybe Kavanaugh is guilty but has no memory of doing it or even her because he was drunk. Or maybe Kavanaugh didn't do it but someone else did and she somehow got his identity confused.

Especially if alcohol was involved and decades went by before she said anything of this. Under the influence and in a dark room, it is very easy for a victim to not remember their attacker's face or identifying features. It's also very easy to be confused about what you did see trying to think back when questions are asked.  As an example, a couple years ago, I was assaulted by my neighbor. I didn't know his name, and his name wasn't on the lease for the townhouse next door. So the cops had to rely on what little physical descriptions I could give (as well as one witness statement from a neighbor who was across the street), which wasn't much because I only ever saw him at night, like I did the night of the assault. And while they asked me questions to help me think of anything else, one cop asked if he had any identifying tattoos, like a face or neck tattoo. I wasn't sure about it, which led me to question if maybe he did. When they brought me a photo lineup, I wasn't able to identify the attacker and picked the wrong person, thinking of questions like the ones cops had asked me days before to try and help me remember his face.

That is an interesting hypothesis clouded only buy the niggling fact that there is not a single shred of evidence that she did not remember Cavanaugh's identity at the time. Not at all.

I'm sorry, but you were lying of so-called reasonable questions hear sound less like pulling up anything remotely based in what actually happened or what anyone knows about the incident, and just a case of wanting to be contrarian for the sake of being contrary, a wholly unreasonable degree of what if ism, and a political ideology that seems to support " whatever triggers the Libs".

For all you go on about not wanting to rush to judgment and asking reasonable questions, it is very very clear you rushed to near immediate judgement on this matter, which is shown by a you're asking a bunch of very borderline nonsensical questions.

There's nothing nonsensical about the questions asked, they're very reasonable questions that should be asked to get a better understanding of what could have possibly happened that night. It's possible she doesn't really remember his identity at the time, he's 2 years older and they may not have regularly interacted in the same circles. Maybe she met him at a previous party or school event. She could have remembered some facial features and saw a guy that looked similar in a yearbook and got a name that way.