Kavanaugh accused of sexually assaulting classmate in high school

[libertpaulian]

I agree with Fuzzy Bear, if the accusation was not made anonymously than it would have far more merit .

Currently, we dont even know if the accuser actaully even made the accusation , because since it was anonymous it could have been created with someone else who just wants to smear Kavanaugh.

I understand your concern, and skeptism is of course warranted. But if we assume her claim is legitimate, after all the crap Anita Hill went through, and the inevitable smearing by the Fox News, Daily Caller etc, cant you see why a victim may be legitimately scared to come forward? As soon as there’s a name, her photo will be on every cable news show, with Limbaugh types suggesting she brought the abuse on herself.

Sometimes there's a small price to pay for coming forward.  But coming forward is necessary if you feel that justice is warranted.

Imagine if none of the US Gymnastics girls ever came forward.  Larry Nassar (I won't give him the honor of calling him "Doctor") would probably be roaming free right now, continuing to add to his list of victims with impunity.

[libertpaulian]

GOP: " Hey guys...lets nominate a rapist to the SCOTUS to be the deciding vote on overturning Roe V. Wade"

Yes....im sure the women of America wont notice

That calculation will probably be the deciding factor that leads to Kavanaugh’s rescinding. Can the GOP really expect to push Brett through, and not push the gender gap further, in a year of historic female engagement?

At the very least I hope Murkowski and Collins see the writing on the wall and disavow Kavanaugh.

Honestly, even if Trump were to rescind Kavanaugh's nomination tomorrow morning, the damage is done, from an electoral standpoint.  The GOP nomianted a guy with allegations like these and stood by their man until the end.

[libertpaulian]

To me, this is a lose-lose situation for the GOP, either way:

1) If Judge Kavanaugh gets confirmed, that'll spike female, youth, minority, suburbanite, etc. turnout to insane levels.  We know who those demos are going for...

2) If Trump were to rescind his nomination, the GOP base will cruicify the GOP at the polls.

The damage has been done.

[libertpaulian]

To me, this is a lose-lose situation for the GOP, either way:

1) If Judge Kavanaugh gets confirmed, that'll spike female, youth, minority, suburbanite, etc. turnout to insane levels.  We know who those demos are going for...

2) If Trump were to rescind his nomination, the GOP base will cruicify the GOP at the polls.

The damage has been done.

Would they though? If Trump rescinds the nomination today and replaces him with another right-wing ideologue, I would think that would be fine to most of the base. I guess some voters might think Trump and McConnell pussied out and folded to the libs or whatever, but will that be enough to make them not vote?

Because it gives McConnell an image that he capitulated to the evil libtards.  Not to mention, the Senate won't be able to jam through a new nominee in a month and a half.  It took two months just for Kavanaugh to get an initial committee hearing.

[libertpaulian]

To me, this is a lose-lose situation for the GOP, either way:

1) If Judge Kavanaugh gets confirmed, that'll spike female, youth, minority, suburbanite, etc. turnout to insane levels.  We know who those demos are going for...

2) If Trump were to rescind his nomination, the GOP base will cruicify the GOP at the polls.

The damage has been done.

Would they though? If Trump rescinds the nomination today and replaces him with another right-wing ideologue, I would think that would be fine to most of the base. I guess some voters might think Trump and McConnell pussied out and folded to the libs or whatever, but will that be enough to make them not vote?

Because it gives McConnell an image that he capitulated to the evil libtards.  Not to mention, the Senate won't be able to jam through a new nominee in a month and a half.  It took two months just for Kavanaugh to get an initial committee hearing.

I can see McConnell bailing since he didn't like the Kavanaugh selection from the start. Not because of this, but because of his paper trail.

I thought McConnell wanted Kavanaugh and Trump therefore chose him as a consensus pick?

[libertpaulian]

FTFY.

This case really is a simple one.  These allegations are not sufficiently corroborated to impugn the character of Brett Kavanaugh.

Did you not read that it was in fact corroborated, she has been talking about it privately for 6 years, and she also apparently passed a polygraph test?

This story is being blown up on my Facebook feed right now.  One of my FB friends said "She can't even remember the exact time of year that this supposed incident happen.  She can't even say if it happened when she was a junior or a senior, yet I'm supposed to take her seriously?!"

[libertpaulian]

If the confirmation vote does get delayed, I could see the GOP dragging Prof. Ford to come testify before the committee and grilling her about the incident for hours on end.

[libertpaulian]

https://twitter.com/saraecook/status/1041432458724560899

So, is this going to be a private meeting, or will it be a C-SPAN type hearing?

She's getting grilled either way, I'm sure.

[libertpaulian]

Since the incident occurred at a party, there should be witnesses.  It doesn't seem that hard to verify/refute.   

High school kids tend to party a lot.  However, once you get out of high school, you may not remember everything.  "Wait...I went to Tim Johnson's party...who was Tim again?  Was he the jock or the prep?"

[libertpaulian]

I could be way off here ... but wouldn't having the accuser testify in person to Congress be a disaster for the GOP?

Talk about ad material against the Republicans. Intersperse her testimony with Trump and [insert Republican here] talking about how great Kavanaugh is.

If the GOP tries to "Anita Hill" her or grill her like they grilled Hillary for 11 hours about Benghazi and the e-mails, that would be prime ad material for the Dems.

[libertpaulian]

If Kavanaugh tanks and R's can't get another nominee then that might be the breaking point for Trump and congressional Republicans.

That would only be a further war cry for the GOP to get the vote out: "If you don't vote, the Hollywood Liberals will derail any Supreme Court or federal court nominee!"

It could be a potential reversal of the blue wave's fortunes.

[libertpaulian]

THE FLAKE HATH SPOKEN!

https://twitter.com/WaPoSean/status/1041449153841254401

[libertpaulian]

Out of curiosity, what has been Kavanaugh's level of denial about this? "I never met her?" "I remember it differently?"

He "adamantly denies" this accusation or "any accusation of sexual assault".

Ah. So the incident probably did take place in some form, it's just a question of whether it was assault.

Sounds eerily similar to Roy Moore's non-denial denial.

[libertpaulian]

Sooo, I'm just going to throw this out there, but the reason "the right to be believed" was a big part of the past few years is because in a lot of cases of sexual assault / rape, there is no other evidence. This stuff tends to happen away from people, away from cameras, away for all of that. And even in cases of rape where evidence may exist, not all women report it immediately for a whole host of legitimate reasons. I get that people want more to go on, but in many cases, there won't be. And I'd be careful saying "well then that's sad but it's not enough," because you're essentially writing off a massive number of cases of sexual abuse then. Even without hard evidence, other available information should take on a higher meaning - such as who they told and when.

So I'm sorry, but in these cases, her word is all you have. The fact that she told people about this in counseling way back in 2012 is critical here. Kavanaugh wasn't really on the public's radar then, so there is no reason for her to do that unless there is truth to this. But so far from conservatives, this doesn't seem to matter?

While I agree that rape is a unique crime in this sense, Virginia, that's precisely why so many of us tend to take a skeptic's attitude toward a rape accusation.

While there have been many false accusations or convictions of crimes as serious as or more serious than rape, at least there's some sort of EVIDENCE for said crimes.  With murder, you have a dead body.  With burglary, you have a broken door and stolen valuables.  With assault/battery, you have a black eye and bruises on the body.  

With rape (or attempted rape), there's obviously physical evidence (DNA from the unwanted invasion, torn clothes/underwear, etc.).  However, if the victim doesn't report it within a particular timeframe, the evidence goes away.  The body physically heals, the DNA washes away after showering, the unwanted clothes go in the garbage, and so forth.  Then, it becomes a purely he said/she said deal.  

[libertpaulian]

Sooo, I'm just going to throw this out there, but the reason "the right to be believed" was a big part of the past few years is because in a lot of cases of sexual assault / rape, there is no other evidence. This stuff tends to happen away from people, away from cameras, away for all of that. And even in cases of rape where evidence may exist, not all women report it immediately for a whole host of legitimate reasons. I get that people want more to go on, but in many cases, there won't be. And I'd be careful saying "well then that's sad but it's not enough," because you're essentially writing off a massive number of cases of sexual abuse then. Even without hard evidence, other available information should take on a higher meaning - such as who they told and when.

So I'm sorry, but in these cases, her word is all you have. The fact that she told people about this in counseling way back in 2012 is critical here. Kavanaugh wasn't really on the public's radar then, so there is no reason for her to do that unless there is truth to this. But so far from conservatives, this doesn't seem to matter?

I'm willing to believe what is out front here now.  This isn't a criminal trial, and what is presented is enough for a "No" vote in good conscience by any Senator.

I will say that if I were a Senator, I would still be uncomfortable voting "No" on the basis of an anonymous allegation.  We have much more now; we have the victim, herself, a polygraph, and we have the detail that there was another party present for at least part of this who was a friend of Kavanaugh.  All of this I find infinitely more compelling.

The idea that Kavanaugh's BFF may have turned up the music on the stereo to conceal the victim's screams on Kavanaugh's behalf makes me sick to my stomach, especially when coupled with the fact that Kavanaugh and his buddy were a couple of preppies who fully expected to live privileged lives.  

We also have the victim's husband and therapist's notes.

[libertpaulian]

Relevant?

https://twitter.com/Wolfe321/status/1041454700346966016

[libertpaulian]

So who are the 10 Democrats on Judiciary?

DiFi, Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, and Harris.

[libertpaulian]

He's toxic and tainted.  If it was up to the voters, they'd tank him faster than they did New Coke.  He's very lucky it's going to be a partisan job.  If Susan Collins votes yes, she will be defeated by the Glorious Jared Golden.

And if she votes no, she risks being primaried out by a Paul LePage clone...who will be defeated by the Glorious Jared Golden.

[libertpaulian]

To help Trump in selecting a new nominee, My current views on the 24 remaining nominees on Trump's list:

Support/Lean Support:
Britt Grant of Georgia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Joan Larsen of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Federico Moreno of Florida, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Kevin Newsom of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
David Stras of Minnesota, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Undecided:
Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Keith Blackwell of Georgia, Supreme Court of Georgia
Charles Canady of Florida, Supreme Court of Florida
Steven Colloton of Iowa, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Raymond Gruender of Missouri, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Edward Mansfield of Iowa, Supreme Court of Iowa
Margaret Ryan of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Robert Young of Michigan, Supreme Court of Michigan (Ret.)

Lean Opposed:
Diane Sykes of Wisconsin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Amul Thapar of Kentucky, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Allison Eid of Colorado, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Thomas Lee of Utah, Supreme Court of Utah

Firmly Opposed:
Mike Lee of Utah, United States Senator
William Pryor of Alabama, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Don Willett of Texas, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Patrick Wyrick of Oklahoma, Supreme Court of Oklahoma

What’s holding you back from supporting Kethledge or Hardiman?

Basically don't know enough about them.

Hardiman is essentially Kavanaugh without the fratbro doucheiness.

[libertpaulian]

Apparently Flake is voicing his opposition to proceeding Kavanaugh's nomination. Let's see if that sticks.

Let's put it this way.  When Cocaine McTurtle forced Senators to stay through the August Recess, Flake waltzed on to Africa for some missions trip.  McCain was, of course, absent, forcing the GOP to be a minority (tied) party for the time being. 

Flake can be a pretty nasty dude when necessary.  Don't mess with the Mormons.

[libertpaulian]

Corker (!) doesn't want Judiciary to vote yet either: https://twitter.com/KasieDC/status/1041492710526525440/video/1

If Corker and Flake force a hearing, this could get ugly fast.

[libertpaulian]

If the accuser signals she's willing to testify before the committee, I could absolutely see McConnell quietly scuttling the nomination without any actual testimony.   No Republican Senator is going to want to be seen on live TV aggressively questioning her story.

In the Era of Trump, never say never.

[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.

[libertpaulian]

Donnelly has stated that there should be NO confirmation vote until this is thoroughly investigated.

[libertpaulian]

If today's technology and social media existed in 1991, do you think Thomas would have been confirmed?

(The sociopolitical culture of 1991 stays the same)