Kavanaugh accused of sexually assaulting classmate in high school

[Torrain]

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.

...

Reducing emotional responses to a binary seems like a bad-faith oversimplification of human response. Trauma produces unique reactions in different people.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Dems are so desperate to keep this man out of the Supreme Court, it is completely within the realm of possibility this was made up as a sick attempt to block him. A sexual assault story doesn't even have to be true, the fact that an accusation was made immediately turns someone into a villain to the public, especially in the times we are in now.

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.

But sure, let's just pretend one anonymous claim with no proof immediately makes someone a rapist and their career should be ruined because of it.

The Democrats have totally lost their minds as well and this proves it .


I hope the GOP holds on to the Senate

[Reaganfan]

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.

...

Reducing emotional responses to a binary seems like a bad-faith oversimplification of human response. Trauma produces unique reactions in different people.

I suppose you're right. It's just aggravating.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

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

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.

...

...

There probably are statutes of limitations for the kind of act described.

Unfortunately, there's no statute of limitations on trauma symptoms from an act like the one alleged for people that are victimized in that manner.   

[pbrower2a]

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.

Yes, this is an appropriate thing to investigate, just as would a far lesser an offense as shoplifting or DUI.  It is not enough that the President nominate someone who barely meets the statutory requirements (legally I would, and I have no legal education except for a college course in business law); it is a reasonable expectation that one (1) have legal qualifications, (2) not have opinions already repudiated by prior decisions of the US Supreme Court unless one states that one will not rule in favor of such opinions, and (3) have appropriate character.

Scrutiny of all three is necessary so that the President can get someone appointed and confirmed with all reasonable haste. That does not mean a crony or a stooge.

The anonymous accusation is not enough. There might not be proof.  It might be enough not so much for testimony of the alleged victim to be marginally credible... but there is a detail: a friend of his at the time apparently turned up the volume of a stereo so that he could have music drown out her screams. I would like to know who that friend is and whether he can state under oath that he did nothing of the sort.

A basic assumption about a Supreme Court justice is that the person respects the heritage of jurisprudence.  Should he not recognize stare decisis* as a basic tenet of the heritage of law necessary for preventing anarchy (including executive despotism) in the practice of law, then he should not be confirmed irrespective of the content of his beliefs or his personal character. 


*Legal precedents are to be honored irrespective of the desire of a judge or any other political figure, including the Chief executive.   

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

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.

[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.

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

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.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

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.

What's your point exactly? "We did it once, so might as well do it again"? But yeah, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will actually be proof that there's been zero progress in American society since 1991.

[ponderosa peen 🌲]

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.

What's your point exactly? "We did it once, so might as well do it again"? But yeah, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will actually be proof that there's been zero progress in American society since 1991.

My point was that most of the people who are making this decision don't care about sexual assault, just like they didn't for Clarence Thomas. You can rail against Kavanaugh all you want (and obviously I'm not a Kavanaugh supporter -- he seems like a typical Fed Society bootlicker with the added HP bonus of having worked for Starr AND GWB) but it's not going to change a thing. This is a raw power move, Senate Republicans have power, and they don't care about relinquishing it even if that comes at the cost of putting a person who possibly tried to rape someone on the bench.

[Chief Justice PiT]

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.

     Everyone in public life has at least a 1% chance of being culpable in serious criminal wrongdoing, considering how much stuff doesn't come to light and how easy it is to sweep things under the rug when you have money and power. It is completely unreasonable to derail a nominee for something that they almost certainly did not do, per the odds you give (I have no idea if Kavanaugh actually committed the act he is being accused of).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

[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.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

How does one proceed in reviewing an accusation without an identified accuser?

[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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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.

Someone said you assaulted them but you don't know who it is or when or where the supposed assault took place - and the burden of proof is on you to prove them wrong?   
Have we put the NKVD in charge here?

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

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.

What's your point exactly? "We did it once, so might as well do it again"? But yeah, if Kavanaugh gets confirmed it will actually be proof that there's been zero progress in American society since 1991.

My point was that most of the people who are making this decision don't care about sexual assault, just like they didn't for Clarence Thomas. You can rail against Kavanaugh all you want (and obviously I'm not a Kavanaugh supporter -- he seems like a typical Fed Society bootlicker with the added HP bonus of having worked for Starr AND GWB) but it's not going to change a thing. This is a raw power move, Senate Republicans have power, and they don't care about relinquishing it even if that comes at the cost of putting a person who possibly tried to rape someone on the bench.

I care very much about sexual assault, about healing and well-being for the victims.  I care very much about establishing an environment where persons believe that sexual assualt is taken seriously and not tolerated; that perception is vital to a safe society.

I also care very much about the principle of the presumption of innocence and the right of people to confront their accusers.  While these are principles applied at a criminal trial, if these principles do not apply in other arenas of life (especially one's workplace), one's property, liberty, and even their life become at risk unjustly.  There would be no reason for someone wishing me (or you, for that matter) ill to cause my entire life (or your entire life, for that matter) to be put on hold (at best) while an accusation made anonymously about unspecified facts is "investigated".  Everyone would be subject to spontaneous "investigation" without even the standard of probable cause being met.

There are two (2) important principles in conflict here.  How do we balance these principles?  I have trouble believing that these principles are properly balanced if one can be made subject to investigation, where everything is dropped, on allegations where the victim is anonymous and everything else is extremely non-specific.

I could care less about the political motives on both sides.  Much of the storm and fury from Democrats is not real outrage, but manipulation of public opinion to bring about a delay that will (with the aid of a favorable November election), defeat this nominee.  Much of the storm and fury from Republicans is about how this crap could come up to put their political objectives regarding the SCOTUS in jeopardy.  I'll bet a goodly number of Republicans believe Kavanaugh is guilty of something seamy, and curse Trump for not vetting him more thoroughly; that, too, is beside the point.  This crap is all about political questions.

If the accuser is truly a victim, she deserves justice (whatever that may mean).  What EVERYONE deserves, however, is to not be placed under investigation for a vague investigation where the accuser is anonymous.  If THAT were to stand, what controversial public figure could not be so destroyed by a completely contrived allegation in the future?  That's a fair question.  What, exactly, are we opening the door to here?

[Bidenworth2020]

There have been no actual accusations yet

so I'm sure you'd agree we should investigate before we vote on his lifetime appointment to such a serious and significant role

Like I was suspecting, this is a desperate delay tactic. Daddy Brett will be on the court by the end of the month and there's nothing you can do about it. Let the Handmaids Tale commence!

I’m no Kavanaugh fan but trying to Roy Moore him isn’t going to stop anything.

I dont necessarily agree with this, but Feinstein easily could have leaked this if she wanted and investigation.

[ChelseaT]

If the document had actual corroborated accusations in anyway , Feinstein would not have sat on it , the fact that she waited all this time indicates it’s more of a smear job than anything else.

This. It's an embarrassment to actual survivors of sexual assault.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

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.

Someone said you assaulted them but you don't know who it is or when or where the supposed assault took place - and the burden of proof is on you to prove them wrong?   
Have we put the NKVD in charge here?

You're not violating someone's basic right by denying them a seat on the SCOTUS. It's not something Kavanaugh is entitled to - it's something he deserves if and only if he can convince the public that he is of unimpeachable moral character.

[Gass3268]

The victim has now spoke up to tell her story. She has also passed polygrah test.

Source

[|˶˙ᵕ˙ )ﾉﾞ]

 Brett's accuser speaks out: She names the other kids in the room and releases notes from her therapy sessions:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Frodo]

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