Kavanaugh accused of sexually assaulting classmate in high school

[DrScholl]

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.

Considering that Republicans had a character letter drawn up for this occasion it seems highly unlikely that anything was fabricated. Normal people do not have letters like that drawn up.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

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

You've been one of the two worst partisans in this thread.

Lol no the facts is this letter amounts to nothing and if it did it would have been released in July .


Also by the way I opposed Franken’s ousting as well .

Being against franken's resignation does not help your credibility on matters of sexual assault.

And pretending every single accusation of sexual assault without proof is true doesn't help yours.

Victims tend to be telling the truth often enough that giving some benefit of the doubt is better than not. Especially when circumstantial evidence makes a pretty decent case for it. But keep strawmanning away.

Once again, opposition is very eager to grasp at whatever straws they can to ensure Kavanaugh isn't confirmed, even if it's a baseless accusation.

You can stop pretending you actually care about why he could be denied and the supposed "victim".

You're the one who's grasping at straws to pretend there's not even a shadow of a doubt that this is just some democratic fabrication. And FTR, I'm one of those people who wanted Franken gone from the get-go. It takes actual evidence for me to not believe allegations against democrats. It took me a while to accept that maybe Keith wasn't guilty, and I'd honestly vote for Cisneros's opponent if I lived in that district.

I already addressed this, but since you chose not to pay attention, I'll post it again:

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.

My opinion on how it should be handled has nothing to do with party affiliation. If the roles were reversed, my view on this still would not change.

That you would grasp at straws for it being a republican conspiracy just as much(which I'm not sure I buy) doesn't change anything.
I already addressed that post(it was literally the post that I first responded to). Not getting a promotion is hardly having ones career ruined BTW. You're ignoring all evidence that there is at the very very least enough to delay a confirmation vote.

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

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.

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

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.

[The DEI Hire]

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

You've been one of the two worst partisans in this thread.

Lol no the facts is this letter amounts to nothing and if it did it would have been released in July .


Also by the way I opposed Franken’s ousting as well .

Being against franken's resignation does not help your credibility on matters of sexual assault.

And pretending every single accusation of sexual assault without proof is true doesn't help yours.

Victims tend to be telling the truth often enough that giving some benefit of the doubt is better than not. Especially when circumstantial evidence makes a pretty decent case for it. But keep strawmanning away.

Once again, opposition is very eager to grasp at whatever straws they can to ensure Kavanaugh isn't confirmed, even if it's a baseless accusation.

You can stop pretending you actually care about why he could be denied and the supposed "victim".

You're the one who's grasping at straws to pretend there's not even a shadow of a doubt that this is just some democratic fabrication. And FTR, I'm one of those people who wanted Franken gone from the get-go. It takes actual evidence for me to not believe allegations against democrats. It took me a while to accept that maybe Keith wasn't guilty, and I'd honestly vote for Cisneros's opponent if I lived in that district.

I already addressed this, but since you chose not to pay attention, I'll post it again:

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.

My opinion on how it should be handled has nothing to do with party affiliation. If the roles were reversed, my view on this still would not change.

That you would grasp at straws for it being a republican conspiracy just as much(which I'm not sure I buy) doesn't change anything.
I already addressed that post(it was literally the post that I first responded to). Not getting a promotion is hardly having ones career ruined BTW. You're ignoring all evidence that there is at the very very least enough to delay a confirmation vote.

You didn't address that particular response. I suggest going back and rereading if you need a refresher.

And not getting a promotion because of a baseless accusation is absolutely ruining someone's career. But I get that you're not old enough to understand that.

There is no evidence that this accusation is true, it's just a letter from a person who wants to remain anonymous that wasn't revealed until it was politically convenient to do so. That's not evidence.

Like I said earlier, stop pretending you actually care about the story and the "victim". You just want to see Kavanaugh's confirmation denied. Plain and simple.

[Bea O'Problem]

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.

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.

I am very disappointed that you feel this way.

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.  

This isn't about abortion. It's about properly vetting Kavanaugh. What if he fails a polygraph test?

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

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.

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.

I am very disappointed that you feel this way.

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.  

This isn't about abortion. It's about properly vetting Kavanaugh. What if he fails a polygraph test?

Then, the Senate can cast a more informed vote.  If they confirm Kavanaugh despite his failing a polygraph, there can be vengeance at the ballot box.  Indeed, if Trump fails to withdraw his nomination after the failed polygraph, there can be blowback for him as well.

Kavanaugh, if he did this, may never face justice.  That's the way these things go at times.  Having a polygraph in hand before voting on a SCOTUS lifetime appointment is better than voting him in, only to find afterward that the allegation was both credible and heinous.

[Bea O'Problem]

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.

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.

I am very disappointed that you feel this way.

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.  

This isn't about abortion. It's about properly vetting Kavanaugh. What if he fails a polygraph test?

Then, the Senate can cast a more informed vote.  If they confirm Kavanaugh despite his failing a polygraph, there can be vengeance at the ballot box.  Indeed, if Trump fails to withdraw his nomination after the failed polygraph, there can be blowback for him as well.

Kavanaugh, if he did this, may never face justice.  That's the way these things go at times.  Having a polygraph in hand before voting on a SCOTUS lifetime appointment is better than voting him in, only to find afterward that the allegation was both credible and heinous.

Would Senators dare to confirm him if he fails?

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

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.

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.

I am very disappointed that you feel this way.

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.  

This isn't about abortion. It's about properly vetting Kavanaugh. What if he fails a polygraph test?

Then, the Senate can cast a more informed vote.  If they confirm Kavanaugh despite his failing a polygraph, there can be vengeance at the ballot box.  Indeed, if Trump fails to withdraw his nomination after the failed polygraph, there can be blowback for him as well.

Kavanaugh, if he did this, may never face justice.  That's the way these things go at times.  Having a polygraph in hand before voting on a SCOTUS lifetime appointment is better than voting him in, only to find afterward that the allegation was both credible and heinous.

Would Senators dare to confirm him if he fails?

You might have a number of Senators who, like Kavanaugh, were prosecutors and used polygraphs in solving crimes, now come out and say, "They're not admissable in Court, yada, yada."  The real solution would be for Trump to get a new nominee.

[Frodo]

It's for the best that this allegation came out now (I would have preferred as soon as July when DiFi first got that letter), as opposed to after Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the bench.  If we were to get additional credible evidence that he did in fact sexually assault multiple victims, and he were already a Supreme Court justice when that evidence came out, the Republican Party will have hell to pay.  They already have a sexual predator in the White House -do they really want to be saddled with yet another, this time in the Supreme Court?  

They need to slow this down, and allow for more time for senators to investigate this nominee, and find out exactly why Mitch McConnell did not want him to be nominated in the first place.  Why are we rushing this?  

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

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.

This post is even more disappointing. I'm disappointed that you can sit fifteen feet away from someone who experienced something similar to what Kavanaugh's accuser alleges (or likely worse) and say things about Kavanaugh's accuser that you've said. You literally accused her of being a fraud sponsored by the Pro-Choice movement. How can you say something like that about someone you don't know anything about when, if they are in fact not lying, you know how serious the trauma is and how difficult it is to overcome?

I'm not trying to attack you. Unlike others you mention I respect you as a human being, although sometimes I think your priorities and ranking of values are (from my perspective) warped. I know you have a sense of decency and empathy. I'm not posting to dunk on you or to try to get you in a gotcha; I'm posting because I don't understand how someone as empathetic as yourself can say the things you've said.

[Bea O'Problem]

It's for the best that this allegation came out now (I would have preferred as soon as July when DiFi first got that letter), as opposed to after Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the bench.  If we were to get additional credible evidence that he did in fact sexually assault multiple victims, and he were already a Supreme Court justice when that evidence came out, the Republican Party will have hell to pay.  They already have a sexual predator in the White House -do they really want to be saddled with yet another, this time in the Supreme Court?  

They need to slow this down, and allow for more time for senators to investigate this nominee, and find out exactly why Mitch McConnell did not want him to be nominated in the first place.  Why are we rushing this?  

Not just on SCOTUS, but a second one on SCOTUS. Feinstein wanted to protect the alleged victim, who supposedly fears for her safety. If Heller and Gardner vote yes, which is likely; they will likely lose reelection. Gardner already has an extremely low approval rating.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's for the best that this allegation came out now (I would have preferred as soon as July when DiFi first got that letter), as opposed to after Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the bench.  If we were to get additional credible evidence that he did in fact sexually assault multiple victims, and he were already a Supreme Court justice when that evidence came out, the Republican Party will have hell to pay.  They already have a sexual predator in the White House -do they really want to be saddled with yet another, this time in the Supreme Court?  

They need to slow this down, and allow for more time for senators to investigate this nominee, and find out exactly why Mitch McConnell did not want him to be nominated in the first place.  Why are we rushing this?  

They want the confirm him before the Court starts its term on October 1, and especially before the November elections.  Everyone who watched the confirmation hearings and the fight over the disclosure of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents from Kavanaugh's time in the White House  can see why McConnell expected the confirmation could be a headache.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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.

[Torrain]

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.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

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

You've been one of the two worst partisans in this thread.

Lol no the facts is this letter amounts to nothing and if it did it would have been released in July .


Also by the way I opposed Franken’s ousting as well .

Being against franken's resignation does not help your credibility on matters of sexual assault.

And pretending every single accusation of sexual assault without proof is true doesn't help yours.

Victims tend to be telling the truth often enough that giving some benefit of the doubt is better than not. Especially when circumstantial evidence makes a pretty decent case for it. But keep strawmanning away.

Once again, opposition is very eager to grasp at whatever straws they can to ensure Kavanaugh isn't confirmed, even if it's a baseless accusation.

You can stop pretending you actually care about why he could be denied and the supposed "victim".

You're the one who's grasping at straws to pretend there's not even a shadow of a doubt that this is just some democratic fabrication. And FTR, I'm one of those people who wanted Franken gone from the get-go. It takes actual evidence for me to not believe allegations against democrats. It took me a while to accept that maybe Keith wasn't guilty, and I'd honestly vote for Cisneros's opponent if I lived in that district.

I already addressed this, but since you chose not to pay attention, I'll post it again:

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.

My opinion on how it should be handled has nothing to do with party affiliation. If the roles were reversed, my view on this still would not change.

That you would grasp at straws for it being a republican conspiracy just as much(which I'm not sure I buy) doesn't change anything.
I already addressed that post(it was literally the post that I first responded to). Not getting a promotion is hardly having ones career ruined BTW. You're ignoring all evidence that there is at the very very least enough to delay a confirmation vote.

You didn't address that particular response. I suggest going back and rereading if you need a refresher.

And not getting a promotion because of a baseless accusation is absolutely ruining someone's career. But I get that you're not old enough to understand that.

There is no evidence that this accusation is true, it's just a letter from a person who wants to remain anonymous that wasn't revealed until it was politically convenient to do so. That's not evidence.

Like I said earlier, stop pretending you actually care about the story and the "victim". You just want to see Kavanaugh's confirmation denied. Plain and simple.

The republicans happening to have 65 women from his high school days and begging trump not to pick kennedy's handpicked successor certainly raise suspicion. Feinstein sitting on it says more about her than about the accusation which was made (and not brought public) when kav was first accused. And I think the integrity the supreme court gets from not having a(nother) decently likely to be a rapist man is more important than him getting the promotion. (and no, his life isn't being ruined by having to stay in his still powerful position instead of getting to have the most powerful judgeship in the country)

Lots of others have explained why this isn't nothing, but you seem to be stubbornly intent on ignoring and dismissing that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about not throwing baseless accusations about motive that are likely projection?

[mvd10]

Innocent until proven guilty amirite Democrats? This very likely is a bullsh**t report and if Kavanaugh's nomination is blocked because of this (without any further investigation) this will create a very nasty precedent. What do we think the GOP will do when a male Democrat is nominated to something lmao?

Anyway, apparently Kavanaugh is well-known for the diversity of his clerks. More than half of his clerks have been women and a quarter have been minorities. Such a progressive and tolerant man!

[Take your vitamins and say your prayers, Brother!]

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.

This post is even more disappointing. I'm disappointed that you can sit fifteen feet away from someone who experienced something similar to what Kavanaugh's accuser alleges (or likely worse) and say things about Kavanaugh's accuser that you've said. You literally accused her of being a fraud sponsored by the Pro-Choice movement. How can you say something like that about someone you don't know anything about when, if they are in fact not lying, you know how serious the trauma is and how difficult it is to overcome?

I'm not trying to attack you. Unlike others you mention I respect you as a human being, although sometimes I think your priorities and ranking of values are (from my perspective) warped. I know you have a sense of decency and empathy. I'm not posting to dunk on you or to try to get you in a gotcha; I'm posting because I don't understand how someone as empathetic as yourself can say the things you've said.

I see both sides of this issue because Gary Dotson happened:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/il/gary-dotson.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2008-05-21-0805200662-story.html

The Scottsboro Boys also happened:

https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/scottsboro-boys

The Duke Lacrosse Case happened:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/16/fantastic-lies-10-appalling-moments-from-the-duke-lacrosse-case/

I can, very much, empathize with a sexual assault victim whose perpetrator has gone unpunished.  Who, for various and sundry reasons, has been pressured into silence.  Who has not been believed.  

But I can also empathize with those who have been falsely accused, and even convicted.  Who are still viewed by perpetrators after they are exonerated, or after their accusers are rightly discredited.  

I'm not a Kavanaugh Fan, btw.  He'll be great on Roe v. Wade and horrible on Citizens United.   To just believe an anonymous victim and torpedo not just a nomination, but a man's reputation (which is, indeed, the work of a lifetime) is a potential wrong that cannot be undone.  One reason Roy Moore's name is mud (actually, mud would be an upgrade these days) is because his accusers did come forth and are not anonymous.  This nomination presents a clash of two (2) vital principles; the rightful desires of a stated victim for justice vs. the right to not be punished for mere accusations.  I believe that my proposed solution balances these conflicting principles as much as can be done in this particular situation.  Life has shown me, time and again, that we do not live in a perfect world, and I am a Grateful Recovering Utopian.

[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.

[Torrain]

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. 

[Abolish ICE]

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.

- Polygraphs are inadmissible in court for a reason.  A polygraph test isn’t a compromise; it’s useless at best.  

- It’s one thing to say that you’d need more evidence and/or details before believing this accusation enough to oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination.  However, you’re seemingly starting with the presumption that the pro-choice movement would invent a false rape accusation and that Eshoo, Feinstein, and their respective staffs would all go along with it.  I’ve gone out of my way to defend you when I feel like you’re getting unfair criticism, but what you’re suggesting in the quoted post is pretty horrible, unsupported by anything even remotely resembling evidence, and is a great example of the sort of reactions that can make victims afraid no one will believe them if they come forward.  You’re better than this and regardless of whether it turns out to be true, there’s no evidence right now to suggest this claim was fabricated.

[7,052,770]

Thanks for the citation on the Duke lacrosse case. I'm sure no of us had ever heard of it before.

[IndustrialJustice]

More than half of his clerks have been women and a quarter have been minorities. Such a progressive and tolerant man!

And yet Kavanaugh almost uniformly rules against female and minority rights as a judge whenever they're at issue in a case. I'm sure he's extremely friendly to the fortunate few elite legal students who share his class interests and join his employ, but no, he's a deeply bigoted man.

[Alabama_Indy10]

More than half of his clerks have been women and a quarter have been minorities. Such a progressive and tolerant man!

And yet Kavanaugh almost uniformly rules against female and minority rights as a judge whenever they're at issue in a case. I'm sure he's extremely friendly to the fortunate few elite legal students who share his class interests and join his employ, but no, he's a deeply bigoted man.

Lol

[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!