Kavanaugh accused of sexually assaulting classmate in high school

[Badger]

The FBI literally dismissed this report  as BS really quickly . That indicates this document was more of a smear document than anything

FBI did no such thing. They gave it to the WH as apart of the vetting process (which is what they are suppose to do). FBI is in no position to turn this into a criminal matter, that would be up to the local authorities.

This. Osr, please kindly stop repeating the Mantra that the FBI supposedly dismissed this. The FBI does not prosecute sexual offences under state law on that occurred nearly 40 years ago. It does not mean that it didn't occur nor that is not worthy of consideration.

I frankly don't know if it should be or not, but please and this Jive about the FBI having dismissed the report as unreliable or some such. That's simply not true. At all.

[Badger]

Between McConnell's insistence that Kavanaugh not be selected as the nominee and the release of the counter letter in under twenty-four hours following the reveal of this incident leads me to believe that Senate Republicans knew about this well in advance (probably because Kavanaugh told them about it) and have been deliberately expediting this process to keep this hushed.

Considering this is for a lifetime appointment to one of the most important offices in the country, the hearing should be delayed until this is seriously investigated.

Admittedly this is true.   The release of a counter-letter in less than 24 hours is quite fishy when you consider it would have taken a few days just to receive it through the mail, especially with the Hurricane disrupting the post office.

It's also possible that they had that prepared in the event someone tried to do a false smear campaign. It hasn't exactly been secret that Dems want to to everything they can to block Kavanaugh's confirmation by any means possible. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Come on. It would be a hell of a coincidence for Republicans to preemptively have a back-up denial document just in case their candidate is accused of sexual assault and then have that exact thing happen with no relation or connection whatsoever.

It's certainly a possibility. It's not the first time it's happened during a justice's confirmation hearing, and it's pretty obvious the Dems will grasp at whatever straws they can to try and block Kavanaugh.

And in this day and age with politicians and such accused of sexual misconduct, it doesn't hurt to have those who can speak on your character ready in the event someone makes a false accusation.

65 specifically from his high school days? Even someone who thrives on be country for the sake of contrariness like yourself can't possibly believe that that is a coincidence. Did they get 65 women from his college days to? 65 more from Law School? Another 65 for his first four years of practicing law? Did they go ahead and get approximately 700 female character Witnesses over the last 40 Years of his life? Or....? Is it simply an example you calling out being more important than actually calling out for being realistic about sexual assault?

[Badger]

Again:

What's the source that the FBI has "dismissed" this? It's not in the article from the OP

There is none.  Old School Republican and Pandaguiniapig are making up stuff out of their ass.  They're Republicans, would you seriously expect anything different?

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1040348201478488065?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogl...

And they did the exact same thing with Porter and look what happened. The FBI's job here isn't to investigate, it is to do background checks.

Well anyway unless there is an actual corroborated accusation it shouldnt be held against him , because until that point its just a smear job .

What in hell are you talking about? Seriously? Do you not comprehend that, even if there was overwhelming evidence write down to a signed confession that the FBI would not criminally prosecute this due to statutory time limits and fundamental jurisdiction issues? Do you seriously, honestly, not comprehend this?

Lack. Of. Criminal. Prosecution. Does. Not. Being. A. Lack. Of. Evidence. Here. Kindly get that through your head before posting it again.

Now, one can discuss whether or not in fact the evidence is sufficiently believable in and of itself. And further discuss whether or not something Kavanagh may have done when he was 17 years old warrants him not being placed on the US Supreme Court now. However, please quit clinging to the FBI not dragging him down in cuffs upon this report Rising, which would have never ever ever ever happened if he signed a confession to the incident, somehow means that accusations are crownless. That's not how this works. At all. Thank you!

[Badger]

Between McConnell's insistence that Kavanaugh not be selected as the nominee and the release of the counter letter in under twenty-four hours following the reveal of this incident leads me to believe that Senate Republicans knew about this well in advance (probably because Kavanaugh told them about it) and have been deliberately expediting this process to keep this hushed.

Considering this is for a lifetime appointment to one of the most important offices in the country, the hearing should be delayed until this is seriously investigated.

Admittedly this is true.   The release of a counter-letter in less than 24 hours is quite fishy when you consider it would have taken a few days just to receive it through the mail, especially with the Hurricane disrupting the post office.

It's also possible that they had that prepared in the event someone tried to do a false smear campaign. It hasn't exactly been secret that Dems want to to everything they can to block Kavanaugh's confirmation by any means possible. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Come on. It would be a hell of a coincidence for Republicans to preemptively have a back-up denial document just in case their candidate is accused of sexual assault and then have that exact thing happen with no relation or connection whatsoever.

It's certainly a possibility. It's not the first time it's happened during a justice's confirmation hearing, and it's pretty obvious the Dems will grasp at whatever straws they can to try and block Kavanaugh.

And in this day and age with politicians and such accused of sexual misconduct, it doesn't hurt to have those who can speak on your character ready in the event someone makes a false accusation.

65 specifically from his high school days? Even someone who thrives on be country for the sake of contrariness like yourself can't possibly believe that that is a coincidence. Did they get 65 women from his college days to? 65 more from Law School? Another 65 for his first four years of practicing law? Did they go ahead and get approximately 700 female character Witnesses over the last 40 Years of his life? Or....? Is it simply an example you calling out being more important than actually calling out for being realistic about sexual assault?

I'm simply not foolish enough to believe one conveniently timed sexual assault accusation is true without some sort of evidence or other accusers to back it.

I'm also not crazy enough to think someone's career should be ruined for those same reasons.

You dodged the question completely. Why do they specifically have over 60 character witnesses from the same period the rape potentially happened? When the Republicans were also begging t###p to not pick Kennedys handpicked successor.

BTW, please don't turn this personal.

It's very possible they have a number of character witnesses from various points in his life, not just high school. It's a high profile appointment that's vulnerable to anyone taking any opportunity they can to sink it simply because Trump was the one who got to do it.

I see. So, devoid of any evidence, you're willing to believe that they would have approximately 7 to 800 character Witnesses from women lined up over 40 years of his life going back to his freaking High School Days just because them liberals and their don't smear campaign tactics. Utterly ignoring the gargantuan task that would take even for the combine stats of the White House and Republican Senate Judiciary Committee. And that to you seems like the logical response then they went out of their way and invested a huge huge amount of time to find 65 female character Witnesses specifically from his high school days because Cavanaugh spoke to them about this and they saw it coming. And to top it all off, well oh, you never know, it's certainly a possibility.

Got it contrariness for the sake of being contrary, combined with a basic ideology of Miss trusting liberal activist and sjws is all you got here. And the conclusion come up with is that is a more likely scenario than maybe Cavanaugh actually did this s***. Thank you, as it establishes further discussion is unnecessary.

[Badger]

This thread is an example of why polarization has become so bad in this nation .

To be honest, old chap, your own mistaken contributions insisting Kavanaugh is innocent because he hasn't been dragged out in cuffs by the FBI, based on an obvious fervent desire to see a hard-line conservative confirmed, is very much reflective of the problem.

[Badger]

Let Kavanaugh take a polygraph, by a certified polygrapher, before a vote is held.

Let Feinstein resign from the Senate if this matter is made of whole cloth.

Not that resigning would do McConnell any good considering that California has a Democratic Governor. Kavanaugh is the problem here, not Feinstein.

A Democratic Senator pulls a "victim" out of a hat.  While this shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, it's not unreasonable to look at least a little askance at this, especially given that the victim chooses to remain anonymous.

The allegation made is serious.  Kavanaugh probably cannot lie through a polygraph on this;  The allegation involves another party besides the victim, and it involves him putting his hand over the alleged victim's mouth.  But if he passes, Feinstein ought to be held to account for her role in bringing forth an "anonymous" victim to throw a wrench in the nomination confirmation process.  

I do not put it past pro-choice advocates to fabricate something such as this if they believe Kavanaugh to be a legitimate threat to Roe v. Wade.  And I don't believe that a nominee for a SCOTUS appointment should not be rejected solely on the basis of a last-minute accusation by a victim that will not break her anonymity.  I think the polygraph could be a reasonable compromise for the purpose of confirmation, only.

Yep, it's them feminazi abortion lovers we're behind smearing this good man's name.

Grotesquely disappointing.

[Badger]

I do not believe in the integrity of much of the Pro-Abortion movement.  This issue is a defining issue for so much of the Feminist Left, and it's an issue where folks view the ends as justifying the means.  I can easily see Feinstein exaggerating the credibility of this victim as needed to save Roe v. Wade.  That, of course, has to be balanced by the compelling nature of the allegation, and the fact that it's not unreasonable to believe that Kavanaugh did this.  This is, after all, a lifetime appointment.

If the victim came forth, I would feel differently.  The victim chooses to remain anonymous; what does that tell you?  It doesn't automatically mean that she's a fake, but when allegations such as this go far enough, people do have a right to confront their accusers.  

Let Kavanaugh step up and take a polygraph.  If he passes, let Feinstein take a polygraph to verify good faith in her acts here.  Then, let's vote.  

Stop trying to tie her in with the Pro-Choice movement, Jesus. Some things transcend politics. One (at least) of Roy Moore's accusers was a loyal Republican voter. Being sexually assaulted is a terrifying, permanently scarring event; trying to distort it into something more than that on the basis of nothing more than wishful thinking is shockingly cynical, inhumane, and unempathetic. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Do you know anybody who has ever been assaulted? It's not a comfortable thing to discuss, even to a wholly sympathetic audience. Now, multiply that discomfort by a million, because a deeply personal event that stripped you of all power and agency gets put on a national stage in the middle of an incredibly nasty arena, as people try to pry into your life and drag you through the mud because you had the temerity to speak out about someone trying to violate your personhood. I know people who have kept silent about being raped with far, far less at stake.

You trot out tragedies that have befallen your family on this board all the time. How about you play a thought experiment where being attacked while alone at a party happens to someone you know, then reread your response, and tell me if that's something you would appreciate reading.

I know many people, including family members.  I have a person with PTSD living in my household right now.  It's my daughter-in-law, whose son my wife and I have adopted.  I take a day off every week to drive her to therapy.  

I have worked as a substance abuse counselor.  I have worked with men and women who have been sexually traumatized, and were in a treatment center woefully inadequate to their needs, and I have seen episodes of PTSD occur before my eyes.  I have had routine conversations with clients when, all of a sudden, their mood and affect would change.

My first wife was a victim.  My last girlfriend, prior to meeting my current wife, was a victim.  A girlfriend before that was a victim of a false-imprisonment episode by a deranged husband; it happened on a military base, and the military did all they could to keep it quiet.  

I know more victims than I care to think about.  You really have no clue.  I may well know more people in this category than everyone on this thread combined.

I'm well aware of how pervasive the problem is.  I'm well aware of how devastating the damage is to the victim, and how long-lasting and life-runing it is. 

I don't discount that a guy like Kavanaugh could have done what somebody is saying he did.  And I can understand why that someone would wish to be nameless.  But I also understand that there comes a point where the alleged victim's wishes conflict with the principle of a person having a right to know who is accusing them and to confront the accusation directly.  And, yes, I know some people are damaged so badly that they can't do it; I'm less than 15 feet away from such a person as I type.

I am trying my best not to write anyone that would give anyone even the faintest idea of who I'm talking about.

Is that enough credentials?  Do you think that I might actually be able to have empathy for victims while balancing this with principles of fairness?  I mean, I've been called "vile", "a cultist", and such by a number of pinheads Atlas posters recently.  Perhaps I really am a reptile.  Because, after all, according to ProudModerate2, I'm making this all up just to win arguments.  

Trust me:  I have put myself in female victim's shoes as much as a male can.  Now, I'll sit back and wait for ProudModerate2 to insist I'm a fraud, with Doctor Imperialism and Invisible Obama providing his Amen Corner.

I take every word you say is true here fuzzy. Which makes your immediately discounting the accuser here as some tool of the pro-choice movement as utterly reprehensible. The fact that you allow politics in your fervent zealot like desire to overturn Roe v Wade blur the lines that you will do anything and everything to justify kavanagh's confirmation, is.... Well. For once I'm actually genuinely speechless. Good day sir.

[Badger]

I do not believe in the integrity of much of the Pro-Abortion movement.  This issue is a defining issue for so much of the Feminist Left, and it's an issue where folks view the ends as justifying the means.  I can easily see Feinstein exaggerating the credibility of this victim as needed to save Roe v. Wade.  That, of course, has to be balanced by the compelling nature of the allegation, and the fact that it's not unreasonable to believe that Kavanaugh did this.  This is, after all, a lifetime appointment.

If the victim came forth, I would feel differently.  The victim chooses to remain anonymous; what does that tell you?  It doesn't automatically mean that she's a fake, but when allegations such as this go far enough, people do have a right to confront their accusers.  

Let Kavanaugh step up and take a polygraph.  If he passes, let Feinstein take a polygraph to verify good faith in her acts here.  Then, let's vote.  

Stop trying to tie her in with the Pro-Choice movement, Jesus. Some things transcend politics. One (at least) of Roy Moore's accusers was a loyal Republican voter. Being sexually assaulted is a terrifying, permanently scarring event; trying to distort it into something more than that on the basis of nothing more than wishful thinking is shockingly cynical, inhumane, and unempathetic. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Do you know anybody who has ever been assaulted? It's not a comfortable thing to discuss, even to a wholly sympathetic audience. Now, multiply that discomfort by a million, because a deeply personal event that stripped you of all power and agency gets put on a national stage in the middle of an incredibly nasty arena, as people try to pry into your life and drag you through the mud because you had the temerity to speak out about someone trying to violate your personhood. I know people who have kept silent about being raped with far, far less at stake.

You trot out tragedies that have befallen your family on this board all the time. How about you play a thought experiment where being attacked while alone at a party happens to someone you know, then reread your response, and tell me if that's something you would appreciate reading.

I know many people, including family members.  I have a person with PTSD living in my household right now.  It's my daughter-in-law, whose son my wife and I have adopted.  I take a day off every week to drive her to therapy.  

I have worked as a substance abuse counselor.  I have worked with men and women who have been sexually traumatized, and were in a treatment center woefully inadequate to their needs, and I have seen episodes of PTSD occur before my eyes.  I have had routine conversations with clients when, all of a sudden, their mood and affect would change.

My first wife was a victim.  My last girlfriend, prior to meeting my current wife, was a victim.  A girlfriend before that was a victim of a false-imprisonment episode by a deranged husband; it happened on a military base, and the military did all they could to keep it quiet.  

I know more victims than I care to think about.  You really have no clue.  I may well know more people in this category than everyone on this thread combined.

I'm well aware of how pervasive the problem is.  I'm well aware of how devastating the damage is to the victim, and how long-lasting and life-runing it is.  

I don't discount that a guy like Kavanaugh could have done what somebody is saying he did.  And I can understand why that someone would wish to be nameless.  But I also understand that there comes a point where the alleged victim's wishes conflict with the principle of a person having a right to know who is accusing them and to confront the accusation directly.  And, yes, I know some people are damaged so badly that they can't do it; I'm less than 15 feet away from such a person as I type.

I am trying my best not to write anyone that would give anyone even the faintest idea of who I'm talking about.

Is that enough credentials?  Do you think that I might actually be able to have empathy for victims while balancing this with principles of fairness?  I mean, I've been called "vile", "a cultist", and such by a number of pinheads Atlas posters recently.  Perhaps I really am a reptile.  Because, after all, according to ProudModerate2, I'm making this all up just to win arguments.  

Trust me:  I have put myself in female victim's shoes as much as a male can.  Now, I'll sit back and wait for ProudModerate2 to insist I'm a fraud, with Doctor Imperialism and Invisible Obama providing his Amen Corner.

I take every word you say is true here fuzzy. Which makes your immediately discounting the accuser here as some tool of the pro-choice movement as utterly reprehensible. The fact that you allow politics in your fervent zealot like desire to overturn Roe v Wade blur the lines that you will do anything and everything to justify kavanagh's confirmation, is.... Well. For once I'm actually genuinely speechless. Good day sir.

You being speechless improves Atlas exponentially.  The drama of this post, the attempt to resurrect the aura of the late Joseph Welch is, really, a cross between John Barrymore and Edgar Cayce.

IIRC, were you not a public defender?  Would an anonymous accuser be OK as you and your client went to trial?

I'll retract the snark and ask you a serous question:  Why not have Kavanaugh take a polygraph as to whether or not he committed the act he is accused of?  If he passes, move the matter to a vote; what's the matter with that plan?

Is the real issue getting payback for Merrick Garland?  That's OK with me; just be honest about that.  Getting honest payback may be the way to stop the vicious cycle. 

I also was a prosecutor. And I understand that reported offenses that aren't clearly groundless need to be investigated with an open mind. You clearly lack that by any stretch.

Yes, let's make it real clear that this accusation could, repeat could, be groundless. I readily acknowledge that, and have never said otherwise. However, you and others here have said that as a grain of salt, but are clearly 90-plus percent convinced in your hearts it's merely a smear buy the abortion lovers and Democrats to stop the confirmation. The fact that you purport to hold what is clearly at most a scintilla of Doubt as to whether this might be a fabricated claim makes you not even remotely impartial or not subject to your basic desires to see Cavanaugh on the bench come hell or high water. You, and frankly osr and ft THHN as well, have clearly prejudge this case to assume it's a smear attack. Furthermore, the way you and your lot are blatantly ignoring some obvious signs of smoke, if not fire yet, to be 99% convinced right off from the start this a smear campaign, is fooling no one.

The fact that this woman has come forward, anonymously for the moment, but obviously knows the very real risk her name could get leaked and being subjected to death threats, hate mail, and horrible media scrutiny either shows that either she is a planted agent of the so called pro-abortion crowd and the Democrats, or she actually was assaulted by Cavanaugh and moved to speak out even risking her name might not remain anonymous. Despite sexual assault having occurred in your own family, you and your ilk are already 90-plus percent of the way towards assuming the former even though it makes far far less sense to any truly neutral Observer.

Republican staffers coincidentally have at hand 65 affidavits from women who new Kavanaugh just during High School to claim he is a man of high moral character in their opinion? Again, we are stuck with two alternatives. Either they are doubling down on the sheer sumption that some me too accusation would be made completely without basis, so they have obtained literally hundreds and hundreds of female acquaintances of Kavanaugh's throughout his life, even going back as far as High School oh, as a purely just in case insurance policy. Oh, and presumably they've also obtained hundreds and hundreds of affidavits from individuals who dealt with him in business in case something baseless accusation his being financially corrupt came up. And of course hundreds of African Americans and Latino acquaintances in case a baseless accusation of racism were bought up. And did this all to the expense of the time necessary to prepare Cavanagh and review his record for points he would actually have to defend, etc etc oh, because the investment in literally thousands of Staff hours, if not tens of thousands, was worth it, and let's make it clear that this was purportedly the motive, " just in case".

Or alternatively, and let's just go out on a limb here, they spent enormous hours tracking down and getting affidavits from 65 Pryor High School classmates, which alone would take hundreds and hundreds of Staff hours, because the Republicans we're aware of this potential issue, likely from Kavanaugh's own disclosure. Again, to anyone who hasn't already 90-plus percent made up their mind from the start that this is a smear campaign rather than a report worthy of serious consideration it's clear which one is more likely.

Issue here isn't that this tentative evidence demonstrates Kavanaugh committed such an assault, let alone to what degree it should be considered if he had. The point here is that this thread is far far less populated with individuals saying Kavanaugh obviously did this and needs to be rejected as a nominee, as most of the Kavanaugh opponents here have simply pointed out, as I have, that there are certainly some indications the complaint isn't frivolous and therefore should be appropriately investivated. Rather, This Thread is chock-full of post from you and several others whom, despite mouthing barely believable platitudes that you don't necessarily, completely, I absolutely, 110%, Beyond many doubt, believe that the accusations are necessarily false, you all are clearly 90 to 99 percent convinced from the very start and contrary to what admittedly little evidence there is this far at discussed, is a complete set up by the Democrats and "pro-abortionists".

In summary, there is infinitely less problem in this thread with people supposedly ready to assume Kavanaugh's guilt based on their political persuasion despite Limited evidence this far, then there is with people automatically willing to assume Kavanaugh's innocence due to their adamant zealous desire to see Cavanaugh tip the courts balance even further right come hell or high water, and despite the present complete lack of evidence the accuser is lying.

So no, while I would absolutely want you as a juror as a public defender since you already largely assumed my client's innocence before any presentation of evidence barely began, any Fair prosecutor and judge would toss you for your obvious deep bias as well.

Oh, and cute snark about my being speechless, but at least I never wrote off someone reporting  sexual assault because of my political views, especially when one's own family went through the same hell. That alone will make me a better poster, and arguably even a better person, then you will ever be. Not because I'm necessarily that great guy, but because you have shamelessly stooped to a very very low threshold indeed.

[Badger]

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.

Oh absolutely. The ‘case’ against Kavanaugh would be a lot stronger if the accuser came forth. I’m just saying that given the environment, I sympathise with her reticence to unmask herself. 

Agree. Something tells me that with the story now out there, the accuser will probably decide to reveal her name and even make herself available to the committee for any questions they may have. But if so, she needs to come forward and make her intentions known, very soon (in the next day or two).

If true, that would be a good thing.

[Badger]

Buzzfeed News: Here’s How That Letter From 65 Women Supporting Brett Kavanaugh Came Together So Quickly

I suppose all these 65 women could be lying, this was really put together along time ago, and every single person contacted to help with this conspiracy agreed to it or stay silent.

Unlikely you say?  Sure, but what's the alternative?  All these people are connected somehow with some sort of modern technology that allows people to keep in contact and communicate quickly with each other?

The letter should not be totally dismissed, however I don't find it very probative in determining whether or not the assault occurred, assuming none of the women in question rashly at the party and have specific facts to offer disputing whether the incident occurred or not.

The mere fact that individuals knew him and didn't think he'd be the type to sexually assault someone doesn't particularly disprove that a particular incident, fueled by alcohol and adrenaline, might not have still occurred. Quite truthfully, before his hidden life was uncovered, it would have been very easy to find 65 female acquaintances vouching for Ted Bundy's Behavior because he was such a likeable and Charming guy. And no, before anyone asks, I am not remotely, even hyperbolically, comparing Justice Cavanaugh 2 Ted Bundy. I'm merely pointing out that it's a small minority of Those who commit a sexual assault, particularly if it is a one-time thing as thus far the evidence suggests, whom aren't normally decent acting family man and "good kids". I've seen it many many times.

[Badger]

An accusation with no proof and with no one even willing to put their name to it cannot be used as a weapon to derail any person’s career, even that of a Supreme Court nominee. If the accuser stepped forward and repeated the accusation publicly then that would be an entirely different manner. We have no idea where this account came from or who wrote it, what the accuser’s mindset or history with Kavanaugh was leading up to or at the time of the accusation, or any other context for examining what is essentially just a story.

The notion that an anonymous accusation made 35 years ago ought to be grounds for voting down a nominee is lunacy. Anonymous accusations in general should be treated as false - it is unjust to punish someone for something that no person is even willing to accuse them of to their face. You are guaranteed the right to face your accuser in this country as protected by the constitution, and to allow for punishment to be made in the lack of any such accuser is to spit in the face of the accused’s guaranteed rights.

First, let's make this clear, with rare exception I believe even kavanagh's opponents in this thread are saying merely that the matter needs to be investigated further. A number are saying he needs to be voted down even regardless of this accusation, and that's fine, but very few are saying that this so far unexplored accusation in and of itself is grounds to deny him confirmation.

From your own post, so I won't assume because it's not explicit, it certainly sounds as if you believe this matter should be given minimal scrutiny and the confirmation moved on. That's the problem. The Republican majority at least this far seems quite confirmation through quickly regardless. Again, this should be seriously investigated, as whatever delay is necessary to do so it's well worth the scrutiny for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

[Badger]

I do not believe in the integrity of much of the Pro-Abortion movement.  This issue is a defining issue for so much of the Feminist Left, and it's an issue where folks view the ends as justifying the means.  I can easily see Feinstein exaggerating the credibility of this victim as needed to save Roe v. Wade.  That, of course, has to be balanced by the compelling nature of the allegation, and the fact that it's not unreasonable to believe that Kavanaugh did this.  This is, after all, a lifetime appointment.

If the victim came forth, I would feel differently.  The victim chooses to remain anonymous; what does that tell you?  It doesn't automatically mean that she's a fake, but when allegations such as this go far enough, people do have a right to confront their accusers.  

Let Kavanaugh step up and take a polygraph.  If he passes, let Feinstein take a polygraph to verify good faith in her acts here.  Then, let's vote.  

Stop trying to tie her in with the Pro-Choice movement, Jesus. Some things transcend politics. One (at least) of Roy Moore's accusers was a loyal Republican voter. Being sexually assaulted is a terrifying, permanently scarring event; trying to distort it into something more than that on the basis of nothing more than wishful thinking is shockingly cynical, inhumane, and unempathetic. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Do you know anybody who has ever been assaulted? It's not a comfortable thing to discuss, even to a wholly sympathetic audience. Now, multiply that discomfort by a million, because a deeply personal event that stripped you of all power and agency gets put on a national stage in the middle of an incredibly nasty arena, as people try to pry into your life and drag you through the mud because you had the temerity to speak out about someone trying to violate your personhood. I know people who have kept silent about being raped with far, far less at stake.

You trot out tragedies that have befallen your family on this board all the time. How about you play a thought experiment where being attacked while alone at a party happens to someone you know, then reread your response, and tell me if that's something you would appreciate reading.

I know many people, including family members.  I have a person with PTSD living in my household right now.  It's my daughter-in-law, whose son my wife and I have adopted.  I take a day off every week to drive her to therapy.  

I have worked as a substance abuse counselor.  I have worked with men and women who have been sexually traumatized, and were in a treatment center woefully inadequate to their needs, and I have seen episodes of PTSD occur before my eyes.  I have had routine conversations with clients when, all of a sudden, their mood and affect would change.

My first wife was a victim.  My last girlfriend, prior to meeting my current wife, was a victim.  A girlfriend before that was a victim of a false-imprisonment episode by a deranged husband; it happened on a military base, and the military did all they could to keep it quiet.  

I know more victims than I care to think about.  You really have no clue.  I may well know more people in this category than everyone on this thread combined.

I'm well aware of how pervasive the problem is.  I'm well aware of how devastating the damage is to the victim, and how long-lasting and life-runing it is.  

I don't discount that a guy like Kavanaugh could have done what somebody is saying he did.  And I can understand why that someone would wish to be nameless.  But I also understand that there comes a point where the alleged victim's wishes conflict with the principle of a person having a right to know who is accusing them and to confront the accusation directly.  And, yes, I know some people are damaged so badly that they can't do it; I'm less than 15 feet away from such a person as I type.

I am trying my best not to write anyone that would give anyone even the faintest idea of who I'm talking about.

Is that enough credentials?  Do you think that I might actually be able to have empathy for victims while balancing this with principles of fairness?  I mean, I've been called "vile", "a cultist", and such by a number of pinheads Atlas posters recently.  Perhaps I really am a reptile.  Because, after all, according to ProudModerate2, I'm making this all up just to win arguments.  

Trust me:  I have put myself in female victim's shoes as much as a male can.  Now, I'll sit back and wait for ProudModerate2 to insist I'm a fraud, with Doctor Imperialism and Invisible Obama providing his Amen Corner.

I take every word you say is true here fuzzy. Which makes your immediately discounting the accuser here as some tool of the pro-choice movement as utterly reprehensible. The fact that you allow politics in your fervent zealot like desire to overturn Roe v Wade blur the lines that you will do anything and everything to justify kavanagh's confirmation, is.... Well. For once I'm actually genuinely speechless. Good day sir.

You being speechless improves Atlas exponentially.  The drama of this post, the attempt to resurrect the aura of the late Joseph Welch is, really, a cross between John Barrymore and Edgar Cayce.

IIRC, were you not a public defender?  Would an anonymous accuser be OK as you and your client went to trial?

I'll retract the snark and ask you a serous question:  Why not have Kavanaugh take a polygraph as to whether or not he committed the act he is accused of?  If he passes, move the matter to a vote; what's the matter with that plan?

Is the real issue getting payback for Merrick Garland?  That's OK with me; just be honest about that.  Getting honest payback may be the way to stop the vicious cycle.  

I also was a prosecutor. And I understand that reported offenses that aren't clearly groundless need to be investigated with an open mind. You clearly lack that by any stretch.

Yes, let's make it real clear that this accusation could, repeat could, be groundless. I readily acknowledge that, and have never said otherwise. However, you and others here have said that as a grain of salt, but are clearly 90-plus percent convinced in your hearts it's merely a smear buy the abortion lovers and Democrats to stop the confirmation. The fact that you purport to hold what is clearly at most a scintilla of Doubt as to whether this might be a fabricated claim makes you not even remotely impartial or not subject to your basic desires to see Cavanaugh on the bench come hell or high water. You, and frankly osr and ft THHN as well, have clearly prejudge this case to assume it's a smear attack. Furthermore, the way you and your lot are blatantly ignoring some obvious signs of smoke, if not fire yet, to be 99% convinced right off from the start this a smear campaign, is fooling no one.

The fact that this woman has come forward, anonymously for the moment, but obviously knows the very real risk her name could get leaked and being subjected to death threats, hate mail, and horrible media scrutiny either shows that either she is a planted agent of the so called pro-abortion crowd and the Democrats, or she actually was assaulted by Cavanaugh and moved to speak out even risking her name might not remain anonymous. Despite sexual assault having occurred in your own family, you and your ilk are already 90-plus percent of the way towards assuming the former even though it makes far far less sense to any truly neutral Observer.

Republican staffers coincidentally have at hand 65 affidavits from women who new Kavanaugh just during High School to claim he is a man of high moral character in their opinion? Again, we are stuck with two alternatives. Either they are doubling down on the sheer sumption that some me too accusation would be made completely without basis, so they have obtained literally hundreds and hundreds of female acquaintances of Kavanaugh's throughout his life, even going back as far as High School oh, as a purely just in case insurance policy. Oh, and presumably they've also obtained hundreds and hundreds of affidavits from individuals who dealt with him in business in case something baseless accusation his being financially corrupt came up. And of course hundreds of African Americans and Latino acquaintances in case a baseless accusation of racism were bought up. And did this all to the expense of the time necessary to prepare Cavanagh and review his record for points he would actually have to defend, etc etc oh, because the investment in literally thousands of Staff hours, if not tens of thousands, was worth it, and let's make it clear that this was purportedly the motive, " just in case".

Or alternatively, and let's just go out on a limb here, they spent enormous hours tracking down and getting affidavits from 65 Pryor High School classmates, which alone would take hundreds and hundreds of Staff hours, because the Republicans we're aware of this potential issue, likely from Kavanaugh's own disclosure. Again, to anyone who hasn't already 90-plus percent made up their mind from the start that this is a smear campaign rather than a report worthy of serious consideration it's clear which one is more likely.

Issue here isn't that this tentative evidence demonstrates Kavanaugh committed such an assault, let alone to what degree it should be considered if he had. The point here is that this thread is far far less populated with individuals saying Kavanaugh obviously did this and needs to be rejected as a nominee, as most of the Kavanaugh opponents here have simply pointed out, as I have, that there are certainly some indications the complaint isn't frivolous and therefore should be appropriately investivated. Rather, This Thread is chock-full of post from you and several others whom, despite mouthing barely believable platitudes that you don't necessarily, completely, I absolutely, 110%, Beyond many doubt, believe that the accusations are necessarily false, you all are clearly 90 to 99 percent convinced from the very start and contrary to what admittedly little evidence there is this far at discussed, is a complete set up by the Democrats and "pro-abortionists".

In summary, there is infinitely less problem in this thread with people supposedly ready to assume Kavanaugh's guilt based on their political persuasion despite Limited evidence this far, then there is with people automatically willing to assume Kavanaugh's innocence due to their adamant zealous desire to see Cavanaugh tip the courts balance even further right come hell or high water, and despite the present complete lack of evidence the accuser is lying.

So no, while I would absolutely want you as a juror as a public defender since you already largely assumed my client's innocence before any presentation of evidence barely began, any Fair prosecutor and judge would toss you for your obvious deep bias as well.

Oh, and cute snark about my being speechless, but at least I never wrote off someone reporting  sexual assault because of my political views, especially when one's own family went through the same hell. That alone will make me a better poster, and arguably even a better person, then you will ever be. Not because I'm necessarily that great guy, but because you have shamelessly stooped to a very very low threshold indeed.

The charge isn't frivolous, and the circumstances described are certainly the circumstances of an act that could well have happened, but to say the timing isn't an eyebrow-raiser isn't particularly unreasonable.

Now I grant you that Kavanaugh's alleged victim may well have been unaware that Kavanaugh was a Federal Judge until a few weeks ago.  I do get it that high stakes nominations such as this bring people who have done crappy things to light to where the people they hurt in the past come out of of their own anonymity to make their charges.  And, in the case of old allegations, many of these victims have the extra burden of having been blown off by the initial responses they received, as well as the desire of people who may not have had their best interests at heart to pressure them into silence (including other family members who don't want the unwanted limelight that having a sexual assault victim in the family can bring).

And I don't "write off" this victim.  Not at all.  That's a misrepresentation of what I've written.  

Now, tell me this:  Let's say that the accusation is made anonymously.  Let's say that the entire thing is aired, and Kavanaugh denies it.  (The character witnesses weren't there on the night this purportedly happened; everyone will know they can't exonerate Kavanaugh.)  He's not confirmed, and he's now got a black mark on his record that goes to not just his standing in his present position, but hie future employability, his social reputation, and his general good name, and the part about all of this that is criminal (or maybe the whole thing) is LATER determined to be a falsehood.  What then?  

What's the pathway for someone in that position to get their good name back?  Gary Dotson wants to know.  The Duke Lacrosse Players want to know.  The Scottboro Boys have all passed on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

This is a misrepresentation of what I've posted.  I do think that people opposing Kavanaugh seem to not care at all about the injustice that would occur if the allegation is false.  I'm sure that at least some here do, but it's hard to find an acknowledgment of this.  And there are others here who would  just view this as Karma catching up to him, and him getting what he deserved because they just know he's an HP.  And while having served on Ken Starr's staff is something of an indication that you've at least been an HP in the past, that's not the way our system ought to work.

Oh please. It is Crystal Clear from your post that you are all but convinced that this is a smear by the so-called pro-abortion Lobby and the Democrats to derail Cavanaugh over politics. The mere fact that you mouth nominal boilerplate about not being completely 110% convinced beyond all measure that the accusation is false is belied by literally everything you've posted up to this point. You are at least 98 plus percent certain this is a set up, or at least you will do everything short of a signed confession by Kavanaugh himself to disregard it because you desperately want his confirmation and Roe v Wade overturned

Your whispered profession that maybe there's something here compared to your bellowing how it's all surely a politic hatchet job by the Democrats and abortionists fools no one here as to how you truly believe , fuzzy,  with the possible exception of yourself.

[Badger]

Nevermind the fact that this man has been vetted for federal positions for roughly 20 years, including in the White House, and this has never once come up. He's also had mostly female clerks, none of which paint him as the kind of man who would commit such an act.

Jut like there were no public allegations against Roy Moore until he ran for Senate.

In both cases the alleged victims probably ignored/were not aware of the careers of their alleged abusers until they were tipped to ascend to a higher prominent office, at which point the pressure to speak out became unbearable.

Credible allegations should be investigated whether into Franken, Inouye, Thomas, Moore, Trump, Greitens or Conyers.

Exactly! Or Kavanaugh!

[Badger]

Buzzfeed News: Here’s How That Letter From 65 Women Supporting Brett Kavanaugh Came Together So Quickly

I suppose all these 65 women could be lying, this was really put together along time ago, and every single person contacted to help with this conspiracy agreed to it or stay silent.

Unlikely you say?  Sure, but what's the alternative?  All these people are connected somehow with some sort of modern technology that allows people to keep in contact and communicate quickly with each other?

The letter should not be totally dismissed, however I don't find it very probative in determining whether or not the assault occurred, assuming none of the women in question rashly at the party and have specific facts to offer disputing whether the incident occurred or not.

The mere fact that individuals knew him and didn't think he'd be the type to sexually assault someone doesn't particularly disprove that a particular incident, fueled by alcohol and adrenaline, might not have still occurred. Quite truthfully, before his hidden life was uncovered, it would have been very easy to find 65 female acquaintances vouching for Ted Bundy's Behavior because he was such a likeable and Charming guy. And no, before anyone asks, I am not remotely, even hyperbolically, comparing Justice Cavanaugh 2 Ted Bundy. I'm merely pointing out that it's a small minority of Those who commit a sexual assault, particularly if it is a one-time thing as thus far the evidence suggests, whom aren't normally decent acting family man and "good kids". I've seen it many many times.

The point is statements like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

are conspiracy theorizing absurdities.

I'm far from the only person who made the same observation here, and it's rather a rather rational assumption.However, I will acknowledge that now that you posted a thread indicates this list of affidavits may have been at least somewhat Grassroots originated, it's not as likely.

[Badger]

Even if there is just a 1% chance that Kavanaugh did it, in any sane world this would be enough to derail his nomination. We can't have a SCOTUS justice with even the whiff of suspicion of sexual assault.

The problem is that means all one has to do to stop a politically contentious nomination is to make an accusation.   The accusation needs to be substantiated in some way in order for it to justify derailing the nomination, or else the likely result is system failure in terms of Court appointments.

Of course. But the point is appropriate time should be allowed to review the accusation. But the Senate Judiciary Committee majority so far seems little inclined to slow things down a day from their mission.

[Badger]

Even if there is just a 1% chance that Kavanaugh did it, in any sane world this would be enough to derail his nomination. We can't have a SCOTUS justice with even the whiff of suspicion of sexual assault.

The problem is that means all one has to do to stop a politically contentious nomination is to make an accusation.   The accusation needs to be substantiated in some way in order for it to justify derailing the nomination, or else the likely result is system failure in terms of Court appointments.

Of course. But the point is appropriate time should be allowed to review the accusation. But the Senate Judiciary Committee majority so far seems little inclined to slow things down a day from their mission.

Yeah. What I'm saying is that the accusation, for this purpose, should be considered as credible until proven otherwise. If Kavanaugh has proof that the accusation is not credible, then by all means he should go ahead and bring them up. But the burden of proof is on him.

I have to disagree. It's very difficult to prove a negative, that is that someone didn't do something.

While this isn't a trial with formal due process and allocated burdens of proof, it seems incumbent upon the proponents of this accusation to demonstrate it's truth, albeit not beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal trial.

[Badger]

Now the scumbags here and elsewhere in Trump’s universe can try to slut-shame her.

I have not yet read the rest of this thread past this post, and I'm only bracing myself for the level of denial, projection, whataboutism, and above all defending a professor who names names and, most importantly, describe the incident 6 years before Cavanaugh was nominated for the Supreme Court. Yeah, completely made up I'm sure.

[Badger]

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.

They could, and undoubtedly probably would, seek to do so during the lame duck session.

[Badger]

Also, are we seriously to the point now where we should judge public figures based on their behavior at drunk high school parties?

I hope we were always at that point. Sexual assault is unacceptable, no matter how long ago, no matter the age of the perp, and no matter who involved was drunk or wasn't.

While I understand your position is the the "feel good" one to take, there would be a severe dearth of individuals to serve in high-profile positions if their behavior as children was fair game.

17 year old boys are stupid, impulsive and don't understand the consequences of their actions.  We're not nominating a 17 year old boy to the Supreme Court.

It's... attempted rape! By someone seeking to be a Supreme Court Justice!

We're not talking about somebody who drank underage or beat a kid duck in high school who wants to be ambassador to Uganda or something.

Sigh. It's early in the thread, but how did I know even last week that if and when the accuser came forward one of the immediate things Republicans would flipped towards was oh, hey, boys will be boys, defense?

[Badger]

Kavanaugh will still be confirmed on a party-line vote, 51 to 49 (which is what I always suspected would be the outcome of his nomination).

While I have no reason to not believe Ms. Ford, the lack of evidence or corroborating testimony to support her allegations means that I do not think these allegations should be enough to sink Kavanaugh's nomination.

Also, are we seriously to the point now where we should judge public figures based on their behavior at drunk high school parties?

I heard some conservatives say this. But Kavanaugh isn't being accused of just fooling around. The accuser's uncorroborated testimony amounts to attempted rape.

FTFY.

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

Not? Sufficiently? Corroborated?? There are notes that this professor in a woman of high standing counselor several years ago. She called a crisis center about it last year before Kavanaugh was even nominated. This comes to the point of literally one of two options hey, guys. Either a, this college professor is downright delusional to the point of a psychotic break that she somehow 40 years later imagines and assault buy a high school classmate that she has shared it with Rape Crisis Center and a counselor even though it never ever occurred, which of course not. Either that or, B, he did it.

I ask anyone that can provide me an option C here. There is absolutely zero chance now that she did this over some political move that would somehow expose her to ridicule oh, death threats, and National s***-shaming by half the oh, and she raised her allegations as a matter of record years ago. So, who he is voting that she is is literally psychotic to the point of matching and salt from 4 years ago that never occurred, versus simply admitting, Jesus, this guy probably did it?

Suck it up and at least admit the ladder. Whether you want to try to argue whether or not a nasty attempted rape, and we're not talking about a 17 year old grabbing some girl's ass in the hallway, not that that's cool, but literally and attempted rape a woman's mouth with his hand from screaming, at 17 is still okay for us Supreme Court Justice because it's been 40 years ago. This undoubtedly where the Christians contrarians and cultists are all headed here, but at least let's kind of the crap saying this even probably didn't happen.

[Badger]

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

I believe thus far it's simply been a "categorical and complete denial", without any specificity.

[Badger]

They could, and undoubtedly probably would, seek to do so during the lame duck session.

While this isn't very likely, it needs to be pointed out that if Mike Espy wins (again, not very likely), he would take office immediately and not in January with all of the other new Senators, making it even harder for Republicans to get this done in December.

But he won't win, so there's that.

If anything, if the Kavanaugh nomination becomes known to rely in large measure on his election, that'll only hurt his already slim chances.

[Badger]

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.  

<APPLAUDS> Hear, hear!

[Badger]

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.

Plus also apparently a call to a crisis hotline last year?

[Badger]

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.

TBH, Collins is looking more and more that she has no way of winning in 2020, shes got no good options.

Yep. And as I've previously noted, I think she increasingly understands that.

Unfortunately, that makes her increasingly likely to take one for the team to help secure, with support from party insiders, some comfy post-retirement lobbying gig.