Kavanaugh accused of sexually assaulting classmate in high school

[Person Man]

They're going to shrug this off, aren't they? They're going to put a rapist on the Supreme Court and never look back?

Who isn't considered a rapist anymore? Al Franken? Bill Clinton? Donald Trump? None of these guys are rapists (Although a strong argument can be made about Clinton, but even that doesn't seem like it would hold up in court). Poor taste, poor judgement and mistakes should not crucify people for 30, 40, 50 years.

Enough is enough.

Here's Florida Statutes on False Imprisonment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not even taking into account any issue of Sexual Battery, which the circumstances suggest Kavanaugh attempted.

There's no middle ground in this allegation.  No room for misunderstanding.  Either Kavanaugh is lying or Professor Ford is lying, but there's no splitting the difference here.

The allegation isn't a situation where Kavanaugh allegedly groped a teenage female and got his hand slapped, or got told to F--- Off, after which he left, head between his legs.  Not at all.  This is an allegation of a drunken 17 year old who, disinhibited under the influence, falsely imprisoned a 17 year old girl and tried to have sex with her, while his buddy turned up the stereo and encouraged him.  That's the allegation, and that's criminal stuff.

Seriously. Its on thing just get drunk at a party and annoy women and their data who are bigger than you in High School. Its entirely different to trap them in a room and try to force your way on them in High School.

[UncleSam]

I take the allegation against Kavanaugh very seriously, but I'm also surprised to see the word "rapist" used. But maybe I'm out of date. Is what he did considered not just sexual assault, but rape?

I'm making *no* distinction about the seriousness of it. I am just asking about the terminology. 

There has been no accusation of rape made against judge Kavanaugh. The accusation is of sexual assault. The numerous hysterical posters continually memeing rape belittle the very term they use by using it so flagrantly and frequently in an obviously incorrect manner.

There isn’t even a political need to do so, either. Sexual assault is plenty of reason to dismiss a nomination - it’s not like rape would be a different political outcome. It’s just a buzzword used to virtue signal at this point.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

The vibe I'm getting here is: sexual assault/rape is only wrong (and victims only get the benefit of the doubt) if Democrats do it.

[Pericles]

It seems to me like Kavanaugh tried to rape her but the exact details of what occurred are unclear. What is clear is that sexual assault or rape it was bad and unacceptable.

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://twitter.com/AndrewRestuccia/status/1041835055075745795

[Brittain33]

https://twitter.com/AndrewRestuccia/status/1041835055075745795

Michael Cohen?

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The vibe I'm getting here is: sexual assault/rape is only wrong (and victims only get the benefit of the doubt) if Democrats do it.

This is a decent post. Bravo!

[Badger]

BREAKING:

https://twitter.com/npfandos/status/1041810240721879040?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7...

*Note that we have not received official confirmation of this from the Chairman.

Since Mark Judge was allegedly there and a witness, obviously he should testify under oath about whether he was indeed there and what, if anything, he witnessed.

This may be prejudging him, but based on reviewing his downright skeezy and creepy YouTube channel that others posted on Twitter, I wouldn't trust any Vindication of Cavanaugh from him a bit. The dude seems like a toxic combination of a 50 something year old bro and a me too moment waiting to happen.

[Badger]

I take the allegation against Kavanaugh very seriously, but I'm also surprised to see the word "rapist" used. But maybe I'm out of date. Is what he did considered not just sexual assault, but rape?

I'm making *no* distinction about the seriousness of it. I am just asking about the terminology. 

Depends on the offense elements in the particular jurisdiction. Under Ohio law, the fax if proven true would certainly warrant a charge of attempted rape.

[junior chįmp]

https://mobile.twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1041828810356867072

[Badger]

They're going to shrug this off, aren't they? They're going to put a rapist on the Supreme Court and never look back?

Who isn't considered a rapist anymore? Al Franken? Bill Clinton? Donald Trump? None of these guys are rapists (Although a strong argument can be made about Clinton, but even that doesn't seem like it would hold up in court). Poor taste, poor judgement and mistakes should not crucify people for 30, 40, 50 years.

Enough is enough.

Here's Florida Statutes on False Imprisonment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not even taking into account any issue of Sexual Battery, which the circumstances suggest Kavanaugh attempted.

There's no middle ground in this allegation.  No room for misunderstanding.  Either Kavanaugh is lying or Professor Ford is lying, but there's no splitting the difference here.

The allegation isn't a situation where Kavanaugh allegedly groped a teenage female and got his hand slapped, or got told to F--- Off, after which he left, head between his legs.  Not at all.  This is an allegation of a drunken 17 year old who, disinhibited under the influence, falsely imprisoned a 17 year old girl and tried to have sex with her, while his buddy turned up the stereo and encouraged him.  That's the allegation, and that's criminal stuff.

Thank you!

[Florida Man for Crime]

There has been no accusation of rape made against judge Kavanaugh.

Correct. The accusation is of attempted rape. That is an important difference as compared to rape. However, it is more serious than most sexual assaults.

[Badger]

The vibe I'm getting here is: sexual assault/rape is only wrong (and victims only get the benefit of the doubt) if Democrats do it.

This is a decent post. Bravo!

Who are you and what have you done with hofoid?

Seriously though, credit where credit is due.

[Sestak]

https://mobile.twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1041828810356867072

I think this confirms: no rescindment coming.

Unless Kavanaugh has been arguing with Trump for 9 hours.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Under Maryland State law, he could still be prosecuted for (attempted) rape and sent to jail if state officials would be willing to prosecute him, because there is no statue of limitations for (attempted) rape in Maryland. I already sent a letter to Brian Frosh asking him to launch a prosecution, and have been trying to get other people to send similar letters.

Kavanaugh is clearly guilty, and would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case got to the courtroom.

[Florida Man for Crime]

Re: the accusation of attempted rape:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kavanaugh-accuser-willing-to-testify-her-lawyer-says/2018/09/17/21db2860-ba6c-11e8-9812-a389be6690af_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Under Maryland State law, he could still be prosecuted for (attempted) rape and sent to jail if state officials would be willing to prosecute him, because there is no statue of limitations for (attempted) rape in Maryland. I already sent a letter to Brian Frosh asking him to launch a prosecution, and have been trying to get other people to do the same.

Kavanaugh is clearly guilty, and would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case got to the courtroom.

That's a pretty bad take. I'm confident enough in his guilt to oppose his confirmation on that basis alone, but this is a decades old case with very little evidence. No reasonable jury would convict.

[7,052,770]

Are people seriously believing the "foreclosure revenge" theory? Wouldn't bank officials be a much more likely target in such a scenario, not a judge's son who had nothing to do with the case? The theory just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[junior chįmp]

https://mobile.twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1041828810356867072

I think this confirms: no rescindment coming.

Unless Kavanaugh has been arguing with Trump for 9 hours.

Lol of course not. The GOP doesnt care even if the rape accusations are true

[Sestak]

Are people seriously believing the "foreclosure revenge" theory? Wouldn't bank officials be a much more likely target in such a scenario, not a judge's son who had nothing to do with the case? The theory just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Are people seriously believing the "foreclosure revenge" theory? Wouldn't bank officials be a much more likely target in such a scenario, not a judge's son who had nothing to do with the case? The theory just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

About that scenario...

https://twitter.com/stevenportnoy/status/1041783867290644480

This is right up there with some right-wing shills using Rate My Professor reviews to claim that the accuser is unstable.  However, they were using reviews for the wrong person (Christine A. Ford rather than Christine B. Ford).  Whether this was deliberate or just stupidity is an open question; I can't tell with that group any longer.

[adrac]

https://twitter.com/sannewman/status/1041709681989836801

Here's some more perspective on the accusations' likely veracity.

[Badger]

https://mobile.twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1041828810356867072

I think this confirms: no rescindment coming.

Unless Kavanaugh has been arguing with Trump for 9 hours.

What on Earth are Republicans in Washington thinking? Do they really want to have a respected psychologist and Professor detail sexual assault by their guy, while the fossilized old f**** on that panel demonstrate just how in q to societal Norms of the 1940s they are in their interrogation of her, and then proceeded to cram the guy threw on a party-line vote anyway? If there's anything that could save hike camp would be her being able to say I changed and the fact that a lot of North Dakota conservative North Dakota  with God as my witness women don't like the idea of another f****** rapist being crammed down their throat, if you will excuse the analogy.

Is this really not worth yanking sexual battery Brett from consideration, and quickly submitting some Federalist Society look-alike who will quickly be passed, even in a lame duck session, bye Party Line plus a few blue dogs vote?

I guess this is Trump's idea. It would explain a lot. It reflects badly on him, you see. So he'll take it to the Grave.

[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.

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?

Nobody has a God-given right to their dream job, no matter how eminently qualified they may be. Just ask Merrick Garland - and nobody accused him of any sort of impropriety.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ugh, I can't believe this is going to drag for another full week (at least). Just pull the f**king plug already. Do the right (and smart) thing.