Kavanaugh accused of sexually assaulting classmate in high school

[fhtagn]

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

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

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

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

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

I agree for criminal trials and what have you - we already have a standard, and in the end juries can decide if it's enough, but I think it would be wrong to apply that level of proof to something like a Senate confirmation for any office. This isn't affecting Kavanaugh's freedom, after all. If he is voted down, he just goes back to his other federal judgeship, which, quite frankly, is disturbing if this accusation is true.

As it stands now, he was already a flawed nominee who would have probably been a partisan justice (imo), but a possible rapist? Do Republicans really want to go down this path again? How many justices accused of sexual assault / attempted rape are they going to put on the Supreme Court?

The way I see it, they ought to start the process over with someone else if for no other reason than to maintain the public's faith in the USSC.

So all it takes is one accusation and it's done? That is setting a very dangerous precedent.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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

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

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

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

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

I agree for criminal trials and what have you - we already have a standard, and in the end juries can decide if it's enough, but I think it would be wrong to apply that level of proof to something like a Senate confirmation for any office. This isn't affecting Kavanaugh's freedom, after all. If he is voted down, he just goes back to his other federal judgeship, which, quite frankly, is disturbing if this accusation is true.

As it stands now, he was already a flawed nominee who would have probably been a partisan justice (imo), but a possible rapist? Do Republicans really want to go down this path again? How many justices accused of sexual assault / attempted rape are they going to put on the Supreme Court?

The way I see it, they ought to start the process over with someone else if for no other reason than to maintain the public's faith in the USSC.

So all it takes is one accusation and it's done? That is setting a very dangerous precedent.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with Fthagn, but I am.

[J. J.]

It's important not to misrepresent what was in the account. The account she gave never said she ran downstairs hysterical and locked herself in the bathroom, it says that made a few attempts to free herself from then me finally being able to get out of the room and then ran across the hall and locked herself in the bathroom. She then exited the bathroom and ran out of the house.

I remembered the steps.  According to her account, they were quite noisy and other people talked to them.  Will anyone back that up? 

Okay, how did she exit the house?   She was upstairs.  Did anyone see her?     

Was there anyone else upstairs who might have seen something. Did anyone try to use the bathroom and found it locked?

These would be useful questions to ask if we weren't talking about some drunk people 30 years ago.

If you want to raise the faulty memory, why couldn't it be Dr. Ford's faulty memory? 

We could go in the direction of a faulty memory, confusing Judge and Kavanaugh with someone else (which I have done with people I was in HS with).  Even before we get to that point, let's see if there is corroboration.   

[Greedo punched first]

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

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

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

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

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

I agree for criminal trials and what have you - we already have a standard, and in the end juries can decide if it's enough, but I think it would be wrong to apply that level of proof to something like a Senate confirmation for any office. This isn't affecting Kavanaugh's freedom, after all. If he is voted down, he just goes back to his other federal judgeship, which, quite frankly, is disturbing if this accusation is true.

As it stands now, he was already a flawed nominee who would have probably been a partisan justice (imo), but a possible rapist? Do Republicans really want to go down this path again? How many justices accused of sexual assault / attempted rape are they going to put on the Supreme Court?

The way I see it, they ought to start the process over with someone else if for no other reason than to maintain the public's faith in the USSC.

So all it takes is one accusation and it's done? That is setting a very dangerous precedent.

If it's determined he's innocent through an unbiased process, he will be fine (even if he's voted down or withdrawn) because he still has a career as a judge.

[Pericles]

It's important not to misrepresent what was in the account. The account she gave never said she ran downstairs hysterical and locked herself in the bathroom, it says that made a few attempts to free herself from then me finally being able to get out of the room and then ran across the hall and locked herself in the bathroom. She then exited the bathroom and ran out of the house.

I remembered the steps.  According to her account, they were quite noisy and other people talked to them.  Will anyone back that up? 

Okay, how did she exit the house?   She was upstairs.  Did anyone see her?     

Was there anyone else upstairs who might have seen something. Did anyone try to use the bathroom and found it locked?

These would be useful questions to ask if we weren't talking about some drunk people 30 years ago.

If you want to raise the faulty memory, why couldn't it be Dr. Ford's faulty memory? 

We could go in the direction of a faulty memory, confusing Judge and Kavanaugh with someone else (which I have done with people I was in HS with).  Even before we get to that point, let's see if there is corroboration.   

Realistically a drunk teenager at a party 30 years ago would not remember. Someone who was nearly raped would remember.

[Virginiá]

So all it takes is one accusation and it's done? That is setting a very dangerous precedent.

I wouldn't personally be giving this too much thought if she hadn't gone to a therapist in 2012 and been backed up by her husband and that therapist, with notes, long before Kavanaugh was in the public eye. That isn't meaningless. It's also something that a fake, partisan accusation wouldn't be able to bring to the table either.

Also, for better or worse, this is playing out in the dirty world of politics. Careers have been ended over far less, and with the Supreme Court and the judiciary in general, how the public perceives it is important. The government, the judiciary, all of it depends on the belief and trust of the people. The Republican Party isn't doing this country or themselves a favor by waving this off.

[ag]

It's important not to misrepresent what was in the account. The account she gave never said she ran downstairs hysterical and locked herself in the bathroom, it says that made a few attempts to free herself from then me finally being able to get out of the room and then ran across the hall and locked herself in the bathroom. She then exited the bathroom and ran out of the house.

I remembered the steps.  According to her account, they were quite noisy and other people talked to them.  Will anyone back that up? 

Okay, how did she exit the house?   She was upstairs.  Did anyone see her?     

Was there anyone else upstairs who might have seen something. Did anyone try to use the bathroom and found it locked?

These would be useful questions to ask if we weren't talking about some drunk people 30 years ago.

If you want to raise the faulty memory, why couldn't it be Dr. Ford's faulty memory? 

We could go in the direction of a faulty memory, confusing Judge and Kavanaugh with someone else (which I have done with people I was in HS with).  Even before we get to that point, let's see if there is corroboration.   

Sure, you are absolutely right. But, of course, I hope you would agree that figuring that out would necessarily require time - to find possible witnesses, to get them to the Senate hearings, to properly cross-examine them, etc. There is no reason to rush. I mean, the Supreme Court has recently stayed a justice short for nearly a year, so, clearly, that is not a big problem.  Once the issue is satisfactorily resolved, the Senate would decide. And there will be no harm done if it happens, say, in February.

[Crumpets]

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

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

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

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

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

I agree for criminal trials and what have you - we already have a standard, and in the end juries can decide if it's enough, but I think it would be wrong to apply that level of proof to something like a Senate confirmation for any office. This isn't affecting Kavanaugh's freedom, after all. If he is voted down, he just goes back to his other federal judgeship, which, quite frankly, is disturbing if this accusation is true.

As it stands now, he was already a flawed nominee who would have probably been a partisan justice (imo), but a possible rapist? Do Republicans really want to go down this path again? How many justices accused of sexual assault / attempted rape are they going to put on the Supreme Court?

The way I see it, they ought to start the process over with someone else if for no other reason than to maintain the public's faith in the USSC.

So all it takes is one accusation and it's done? That is setting a very dangerous precedent.

Just to be clear though, "done" in this case means getting to be a federal judge and making upwards of $200,000 a year. This is all a question of whether he gets a promotion vs one of his fellow federal judges. Nothing more. I agree that setting the precedent that one accusation = automatically guilty of a crime is a terrible road to go down. That's not what's happening here. It is also a terrible precedent to say that one's personal "indiscretions" cannot ever be taken into account at all when deciding to give them supreme judicial power unless there has already been a full criminal trial in which they were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. One accusation can, has, and should be taken into account when trying to gauge one's qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. And I'd be saying the same thing if this were Justice Obama or Clinton being nominated.

[Pericles]

If Grassley and McConnell have their way they won't give the accusation "due process"(though that term is meaningless outside of the courtroom), they will ignore the accusations and ram Kavanaugh through, and then America will have a potential rapist overturning Roe v Wade and with an irrevocable hugely consequential lifetime seat on the Court. It is downright stupid not to pause after this and be very thorough in judging this, given the consequences it would be a mistake to give Kavanaugh the seat without at the very least 'extreme vetting'(which has so far been lacking from the GOP).

[fhtagn]

It's important not to misrepresent what was in the account. The account she gave never said she ran downstairs hysterical and locked herself in the bathroom, it says that made a few attempts to free herself from then me finally being able to get out of the room and then ran across the hall and locked herself in the bathroom. She then exited the bathroom and ran out of the house.

I remembered the steps.  According to her account, they were quite noisy and other people talked to them.  Will anyone back that up? 

Okay, how did she exit the house?   She was upstairs.  Did anyone see her?     

Was there anyone else upstairs who might have seen something. Did anyone try to use the bathroom and found it locked?

These would be useful questions to ask if we weren't talking about some drunk people 30 years ago.

So we just take an accuser at her word with no evidence or witnesses, label someone a rapist, and ruin their career?

I get the whole "victims should be believed", but if someone's life is going to be destroyed in this, there needs to be something from that time period to back it.

It is completely fair to ask these types of questions.

Isn't the Democrats' argument precisely that we -should- be asking these type of questions, and gathering evidence and testimony toward addressing them?

I already addressed my position on this earlier:

Now that there's an actual identity of the accuser, I have no issues with it being looked into, but it's pretty disgusting to see people immediately label him as a rapist when there's only an accusation.

That being said, I don't buy that Democrats genuinely think this should be investigated immediately because they care about the victim and her story. They see it as an opportunity to delay or even stop confirmation, especially when it comes to Dianne Feinstein, who sat on this information since July and chose to wait until now to bring this up.

[Pericles]

Even if Democrats are using this to stop Kavanaugh, that does not invalidate the accusation or mean Kavanaugh should be confirmed. Even if Democrats have the wrong motives, they are doing and saying the right thing(unlike the GOP).

[fhtagn]

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

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

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

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

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

I agree for criminal trials and what have you - we already have a standard, and in the end juries can decide if it's enough, but I think it would be wrong to apply that level of proof to something like a Senate confirmation for any office. This isn't affecting Kavanaugh's freedom, after all. If he is voted down, he just goes back to his other federal judgeship, which, quite frankly, is disturbing if this accusation is true.

As it stands now, he was already a flawed nominee who would have probably been a partisan justice (imo), but a possible rapist? Do Republicans really want to go down this path again? How many justices accused of sexual assault / attempted rape are they going to put on the Supreme Court?

The way I see it, they ought to start the process over with someone else if for no other reason than to maintain the public's faith in the USSC.

So all it takes is one accusation and it's done? That is setting a very dangerous precedent.

Just to be clear though, "done" in this case means getting to be a federal judge and making upwards of $200,000 a year. This is all a question of whether he gets a promotion vs one of his fellow federal judges. Nothing more. I agree that setting the precedent that one accusation = automatically guilty of a crime is a terrible road to go down. That's not what's happening here. It is also a terrible precedent to say that one's personal "indiscretions" cannot ever be taken into account at all when deciding to give them supreme judicial power unless there has already been a full criminal trial in which they were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. One accusation can, has, and should be taken into account when trying to gauge one's qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. And I'd be saying the same thing if this were Justice Obama or Clinton being nominated.

We are talking about denying someone a promotion that would not only be the highlight of their career, but a highlight of their life over a single accusation. So even if the accusation ends up being untrue, it's perfectly fair to deny someone their once chance of getting their dream job?

[J. J.]

It's important not to misrepresent what was in the account. The account she gave never said she ran downstairs hysterical and locked herself in the bathroom, it says that made a few attempts to free herself from then me finally being able to get out of the room and then ran across the hall and locked herself in the bathroom. She then exited the bathroom and ran out of the house.

I remembered the steps.  According to her account, they were quite noisy and other people talked to them.  Will anyone back that up? 

Okay, how did she exit the house?   She was upstairs.  Did anyone see her?     

Was there anyone else upstairs who might have seen something. Did anyone try to use the bathroom and found it locked?

These would be useful questions to ask if we weren't talking about some drunk people 30 years ago.

If you want to raise the faulty memory, why couldn't it be Dr. Ford's faulty memory? 

We could go in the direction of a faulty memory, confusing Judge and Kavanaugh with someone else (which I have done with people I was in HS with).  Even before we get to that point, let's see if there is corroboration.   

Realistically a drunk teenager at a party 30 years ago would not remember. Someone who was nearly raped would remember.

You assume that they were all drunk (presumably excluding Ford); I don't.  The report might jog someone's memory.

I wouldn't personally be giving this too much thought if she hadn't gone to a therapist in 2012 and been backed up by her husband and that therapist, with notes, long before Kavanaugh was in the public eye. That isn't meaningless. It's also something that a fake, partisan accusation wouldn't be able to bring to the table either.

If we go solely by the therapist's notes, they don't match her current story; she said it was four individuals and didn't identify any of them.  It could have transcription error, which is what she's claiming.

I'm not willing to dismiss Ford's claims just because of that. 

[fhtagn]

Even if Democrats are using this to stop Kavanaugh, that does not invalidate the accusation or mean Kavanaugh should be confirmed. Even if Democrats have the wrong motives, they are doing and saying the right thing(unlike the GOP).

So Dianne Feinstein was doing the right thing by not mentioning the letter when she received it? And by going months without saying anything of it?

[Greedo punched first]

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

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

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

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

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

I agree for criminal trials and what have you - we already have a standard, and in the end juries can decide if it's enough, but I think it would be wrong to apply that level of proof to something like a Senate confirmation for any office. This isn't affecting Kavanaugh's freedom, after all. If he is voted down, he just goes back to his other federal judgeship, which, quite frankly, is disturbing if this accusation is true.

As it stands now, he was already a flawed nominee who would have probably been a partisan justice (imo), but a possible rapist? Do Republicans really want to go down this path again? How many justices accused of sexual assault / attempted rape are they going to put on the Supreme Court?

The way I see it, they ought to start the process over with someone else if for no other reason than to maintain the public's faith in the USSC.

So all it takes is one accusation and it's done? That is setting a very dangerous precedent.

Just to be clear though, "done" in this case means getting to be a federal judge and making upwards of $200,000 a year. This is all a question of whether he gets a promotion vs one of his fellow federal judges. Nothing more. I agree that setting the precedent that one accusation = automatically guilty of a crime is a terrible road to go down. That's not what's happening here. It is also a terrible precedent to say that one's personal "indiscretions" cannot ever be taken into account at all when deciding to give them supreme judicial power unless there has already been a full criminal trial in which they were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. One accusation can, has, and should be taken into account when trying to gauge one's qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. And I'd be saying the same thing if this were Justice Obama or Clinton being nominated.

We are talking about denying someone a promotion that would not only be the highlight of their career, but a highlight of their life over a single accusation. So even if the accusation ends up being untrue, it's perfectly fair to deny someone their once chance of getting their dream job?

It is fair to deny them their dream job if the people don't know the truth yet. If he's proven innocent, he still has a career as a wealthy federal judge with the privilege of living in Chevy Chase, Maryland. If he's in fact innocent, then he would deserve a sincere apology.

[Virginiá]

I mean, I don't know why Feinstein would sit on that. By all means, vote her out. I won't shed any tears

If we go solely by the therapist's notes, they don't match her current story; she said it was four individuals and didn't identify any of them.  It could have transcription error, which is what she's claiming.

I'm not willing to dismiss Ford's claims just because of that.  

Yes, I know about that. I'm more willing to believe it's an error than anything else, unless/until more info comes out.

My focus is on the very existence of this session and the topic of Kavanaugh long before this circus. It doesn't make sense to attended private sessions with her husband and a therapist to lie about some guy from high school, all presumably out of the blue with no major motive. A person would have to be sick in the head to do all of that.

[Pericles]

I highly doubt even a sober person would remember every detail, much less a detail that to them may well have been in the background and seemed unimportant, over 30 years later.

[fhtagn]

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

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

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

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

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

I agree for criminal trials and what have you - we already have a standard, and in the end juries can decide if it's enough, but I think it would be wrong to apply that level of proof to something like a Senate confirmation for any office. This isn't affecting Kavanaugh's freedom, after all. If he is voted down, he just goes back to his other federal judgeship, which, quite frankly, is disturbing if this accusation is true.

As it stands now, he was already a flawed nominee who would have probably been a partisan justice (imo), but a possible rapist? Do Republicans really want to go down this path again? How many justices accused of sexual assault / attempted rape are they going to put on the Supreme Court?

The way I see it, they ought to start the process over with someone else if for no other reason than to maintain the public's faith in the USSC.

So all it takes is one accusation and it's done? That is setting a very dangerous precedent.

Just to be clear though, "done" in this case means getting to be a federal judge and making upwards of $200,000 a year. This is all a question of whether he gets a promotion vs one of his fellow federal judges. Nothing more. I agree that setting the precedent that one accusation = automatically guilty of a crime is a terrible road to go down. That's not what's happening here. It is also a terrible precedent to say that one's personal "indiscretions" cannot ever be taken into account at all when deciding to give them supreme judicial power unless there has already been a full criminal trial in which they were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. One accusation can, has, and should be taken into account when trying to gauge one's qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. And I'd be saying the same thing if this were Justice Obama or Clinton being nominated.

We are talking about denying someone a promotion that would not only be the highlight of their career, but a highlight of their life over a single accusation. So even if the accusation ends up being untrue, it's perfectly fair to deny someone their once chance of getting their dream job?

It is fair to deny them their dream job if the people don't know the truth yet. If he's proven innocent, he still has a career as a wealthy federal judge with the privilege of living in Chevy Chase, Maryland. If he's in fact innocent, then he would deserve a sincere apology.

And if that is the case, a sincere apology does not fix the fact that he was denied his dream job over a false accusation, and his reputation for quite some time would have been ruined. It doesn't matter what his current position and financial status is.

[Pericles]

Even if Kavanaugh is unfairly denied, boo boo privileges person didn't get an even greater advantage and seat on the Supreme Court. He's fine with his current career. But if he is confirmed with a cloud of suspicion on him the institution of the Supreme Court and its already weak legitimacy will come under severe threat, and it will be hugely consequential for millions if Americans. Besides, when he accepted the nomination he knew he'd cone under attack. So the whole Brett Kavanaugh as the victim argument isn't convincing.

[Virginiá]

Honestly, this thread has gone better than I thought it would earlier today.

We did it Atlas. We did it.

[AtorBoltox]

Let's clear something up. Ford asked Feinstein to keep the letter confidential as she had no intention of coming forward publicly. Feinstein forwarded it to the FBI, who gave it to the White House who provided it to the senate judiciary committe. All this would be apparent if one had actually read the Washington Post article which many blue avatars clearly have not done. Feinstein has done nothing wrong

[Sestak]

Honestly, this thread has gone better than I thought it would earlier today.

We did it Atlas. We did it.

Don’t jinx it.

[Kodak]

Let's clear something up. Ford asked Feinstein to keep the letter confidential as she had no intention of coming forward publicly. Feinstein forwarded it to the FBI, who gave it to the White House who provided it to the senate judiciary committe. All this would be apparent if one had actually read the Washington Post article which many blue avatars clearly have not done. Feinstein has done nothing wrong

[Greedo punched first]

Let's clear something up. Ford asked Feinstein to keep the letter confidential as she had no intention of coming forward publicly. Feinstein forwarded it to the FBI, who gave it to the White House who provided it to the senate judiciary committe. All this would be apparent if one had actually read the Washington Post article which many blue avatars clearly have not done. Feinstein has done nothing wrong

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Let's clear something up. Ford asked Feinstein to keep the letter confidential as she had no intention of coming forward publicly. Feinstein forwarded it to the FBI, who gave it to the White House who provided it to the senate judiciary committe. All this would be apparent if one had actually read the Washington Post article which many blue avatars clearly have not done. Feinstein has done nothing wrong

Except you left out the fact that Feinstein sat on it for more than a month before giving it to the FBI, believing Dems would tank Kavanaugh on legal issues alone without any trouble.

*No part of this post or any other post should be construed as me trying to bring down Feinstein, she continues to have my full support in her race against DeLeon.