Kavanaugh accused of sexually assaulting classmate in high school

[Del Tachi]

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?

[Del Tachi]

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.

[Del Tachi]

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.

[Del Tachi]

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?

The veracity of polygraph tests is highly suspect and Kavanaugh was retroactively indicated as the suspect (the 2012 notes do not name an accuser, it became Kavanaugh in 2018).

[Del Tachi]

We're not nominating a 17 year old boy to the Supreme Court.

Correct. We're nominating an attempted rapist.

Have you ever been raped, or do you know anyone who has ever been raped? Or do you know anyone who has been the victim of an attempted rape? I am guessing probably not, or else you would take this more seriously.

You really make yourself sound closed-minded and ignorant with these types of posts.  I am, in fact, closely related to a woman who was a victim of sexual violence to a much more severe degree than what is being described in the Kavanaugh allegations.  I don't appreciate you implying that I am unable or unwilling to sympathize with victims of sexual violence.  

Also, you're missing the broader point that these allegations should not be enough to sink Kavanaugh's nomination because 1) they are not sufficiently corroborated and 2) based on what we know, they sound more like a case of youthful indiscretion than part of a pattern of sexual violence that Kavanaugh has continued into his adult life.

[Del Tachi]

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.

This statement is disgusting. Many 17 year old boys are immature but that does not make them commit sexual assault.

Stop coming up with asinine excuses for sexual assault. Everyone knows by the time they're 17 that SEXUAL ASSAULT IS WRONG.

Everyone knows that sexual assault is wrong, I don't think there is any genuine disagreement on that question.  There is a question as to what the standard of behavior should be for a 17 year old child, and how the actions of a child should follow him into adulthood.

[Del Tachi]

Attempted rape is not a youthful indiscretion.

That's really a semantic argument, so there's plenty of room for genuine disagreement.  Kavanaugh was a youth when the alleged instance occurred, so in that regard what is alleged would very clearly be a youthful indiscretion.  The fact that this instance does not appear to be representative of a wider pattern of behavior that Kavanaugh has continued into adulthood further reinforces that it was a youthful indiscretion.

[Del Tachi]

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.

This statement is disgusting. Many 17 year old boys are immature but that does not make them commit sexual assault.

Stop coming up with asinine excuses for sexual assault. Everyone knows by the time they're 17 that SEXUAL ASSAULT IS WRONG.

Everyone knows that sexual assault is wrong, I don't think there is any genuine disagreement on that question.  There is a question as to what the standard of behavior should be for a 17 year old child, and how the actions of a child should follow him into adulthood.

Seriously?
He was 17 so it was ok to try and rape her?

No.  I believe that the allegations very clearly demonstrate bad and even criminal behavior.  However, its not fair to assess a 52 year old man's ability to be on SCOTUS based on his behavior as a high school student.  I think the idea that I am expressing here is readily accepted in most parts of our society.

[Del Tachi]

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.

This statement is disgusting. Many 17 year old boys are immature but that does not make them commit sexual assault.

Stop coming up with asinine excuses for sexual assault. Everyone knows by the time they're 17 that SEXUAL ASSAULT IS WRONG.

Everyone knows that sexual assault is wrong, I don't think there is any genuine disagreement on that question.  There is a question as to what the standard of behavior should be for a 17 year old child, and how the actions of a child should follow him into adulthood.

Seriously?
He was 17 so it was ok to try and rape her?

No.  I believe that the allegations very clearly demonstrate bad and even criminal behavior.  However, its not fair to assess a 52 year old man's ability to be on SCOTUS based on his behavior as a high school student.  I think the idea that I am expressing here is readily accepted in most parts of our society.

If it turns out that he lied about or failed to disclose this information to the FBI during his investigation, do you consider that disqualifying?  

If he lied, yes.  I'm not sure what information he would be under obligation to voluntarily disclose in this case, given that no criminal proceedings were ever initiated regarding the matter at hand.

[Del Tachi]

You are a bad person, Del Tachi.

Pssh, whatever.  These allegations are uncorroborated, as such Kavanaugh's nomination should be unaffected.  

Do you have an actual argument to make?  or just more leftist virtue-signaling?

[Del Tachi]

You are a bad person, Del Tachi.

Pssh, whatever.  These allegations are uncorroborated, as such Kavanaugh's nomination should be unaffected.  

Do you have an actual argument to make?  or just more leftist virtue-signaling?

So, being anti-sexual assault is now the leftie position?
Cool.

No.  Denying the accused due process, however, is.

[Del Tachi]

I'll offer a caveat to those here who have misunderstood my position.  Does Kavanaugh's age at the time of allegations matter?  Well, "matter" to what?  Does it matter when determining whether or not attempted rape or sexual assault is bad?  Of course not.  Does it matter when deciding whether or not the allegations should disqualify Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court?  I would say yes, and I think most people (once they get past their emotional, knee-jerk reactions to the allegations) would agree with me.

[Del Tachi]

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

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

[Del Tachi]

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

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

CBF allegations are robustly holding up to increased scrutiny.

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

[Del Tachi]

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

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

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

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

[Del Tachi]

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

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

CBF allegations are robustly holding up to increased scrutiny.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Del Tachi]

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

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

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

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

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

This is the only way I can describe that idea:

BK wasn't named in 2012.  He was retroactively named in 2018. 

I can't make a judgment as to what is likely and/or probable to have happened because I do not know the specific personalities or circumstances involved.  However, if Martha Kavanaugh is the judge who foreclosed on Ford's parents' home then that very clearly could inject additional bias to Ford's motives.  Given no evidence to corroborate Ford's testimony, that's an angle that cannot be discounted. 

[Del Tachi]

If Ford doesn't testify then there's no way Kavanaugh isn't confirmed.

[Del Tachi]

Its telling to see Dr. Ford punting now that the heat has been turned up.

The FBI does not "review" matters not part of an ongoing criminal investigation.  Even so, the FBI has already reviewed Kavanaugh's file (which included Ford's letter) and made a recommendation to the committee.  This request from Ford is an attempt to move the ball into the FBI's court, knowing full well that they will not conduct the type of investigation she is asking for (before that's not SOP for the FBI at all).  This gives her a way to get out of testifying before the committee, which is what she's wanted ever since these allegations became public.

Even so, Ford has still been invited to testify before the committee on Monday.  The FBI can't conduct an "investigation" in a week and Grassley won't delay the hearing any longer.  Without Ford on record there are essentially no accusations for him to respond to, and this whole rouse has been for nothing.  Kavanaugh will be confirmed 51-49 just like he always was going to be.

[Del Tachi]

Its telling to see Dr. Ford punting now that the heat has been turned up.

The FBI does not "review" matters not part of an ongoing criminal investigation.  Even so, the FBI has already reviewed Kavanaugh's file (which included Ford's letter) and made a recommendation to the committee.  This request from Ford is an attempt to move the ball into the FBI's court, knowing full well that they will not conduct the type of investigation she is asking for (before that's not SOP for the FBI at all).  This gives her a way to get out of testifying before the committee, which is what she's wanted ever since these allegations became public.

Even so, Ford has still been invited to testify before the committee on Monday.  The FBI can't conduct an "investigation" in a week and Grassley won't delay the hearing any longer.  Without Ford on record there are essentially no accusations for him to respond to, and this whole rouse has been for nothing.  Kavanaugh will be confirmed 51-49 just like he always was going to be.

And if he is confirmed, Hello Majority Leader Schumer. Of course, Kavanaugh probably will vote to overturn the election results on some bogus fraud suit filed by Right to Life or NRA or something, so you never know what could happen under this Republican Party.

I don't see how this course of events really bolsters Ford's story or Democrats' chances.  If anything, her refusal to testify will be popularly interpreted as being that she probably made the whole thing up to begin with anyway (liars have a penchant for backtracking once they get too deep in, after all).

[Del Tachi]

Its telling to see Dr. Ford punting now that the heat has been turned up.

The FBI does not "review" matters not part of an ongoing criminal investigation.  Even so, the FBI has already reviewed Kavanaugh's file (which included Ford's letter) and made a recommendation to the committee.  This request from Ford is an attempt to move the ball into the FBI's court, knowing full well that they will not conduct the type of investigation she is asking for (before that's not SOP for the FBI at all).  This gives her a way to get out of testifying before the committee, which is what she's wanted ever since these allegations became public.

Even so, Ford has still been invited to testify before the committee on Monday.  The FBI can't conduct an "investigation" in a week and Grassley won't delay the hearing any longer.  Without Ford on record there are essentially no accusations for him to respond to, and this whole rouse has been for nothing.  Kavanaugh will be confirmed 51-49 just like he always was going to be.

After death threats removed her from her home, which I'm sure she expected, why on Earth would she want not to testify. 

If she wants to testify, why threaten not to unless the FBI breaks SOP and reviews the facts in a matter not under criminal investigation?  Her attorney knows full-well what the FBI's response will be. 

The right thing for Ford to do is testify before the committee on Monday so that her story can be heard and can go on record.