Regardless of your opinion of Kavanaugh do you think he tried to rape Ford

[BlueSwan]

Voted "yes", but will add the caveat that he might very well not have attempted actual rape. But certainly sexual assault. I feel pretty confident that Ford is not a liar. At worst she got him mixed up with somebody else, but that seems unlikely. Seems far more likely that Kavanaugh was drunk and got carried away. Again, that doesn't mean that he attempted actual rape.

[Badger]

Voted "yes", but will add the caveat that he might very well not have attempted actual rape. But certainly sexual assault. I feel pretty confident that Ford is not a liar. At worst she got him mixed up with somebody else, but that seems unlikely. Seems far more likely that Kavanaugh was drunk and got carried away. Again, that doesn't mean that he attempted actual rape.

Very good summary except the last sentence. If his conduct was even close to what was described, his getting "carried away" was in fact, statutorily, attempted rape.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Innocent until proven guilty

Theres not even a preponderance of evidence so even if we are going by standards of a civil case he still would be not guilty.

[Badger]

Innocent until proven guilty

Theres not even a preponderance of evidence so even if we are going by standards of a civil case he still would be not guilty.

Strongly disagree.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Innocent until proven guilty

Theres not even a preponderance of evidence so even if we are going by standards of a civil case he still would be not guilty.

Strongly disagree.

No official testimony or no official investigation even has begun yet

If neither of those things happens within the next 2 weeks, this matter should be considered closed and the vote should happen.

[TJ in Oregon]

Lean No at this point, but open to evidence to the contrary. If Ford refuses to testify Monday, I'll have to assume the Kavanaugh didn't try to rape her and he should be confirmed. Normally more time should be given to investigate this, but I'm not the one who sat on the allegations until the last minute. Clearly we can't set up a system in which every SCOTUS nominee is accused of some crime 35 years ago at the last minute ('cause we're pretty obviously headed there).

[dead0man]

I still don't understand how anyone can know for certain one way or the other.

[Alabama_Indy10]

I still don't understand how anyone can know for certain one way or the other.

[Pericles]

Lean No at this point, but open to evidence to the contrary. If Ford refuses to testify Monday, I'll have to assume the Kavanaugh didn't try to rape her and he should be confirmed. Normally more time should be given to investigate this, but I'm not the one who sat on the allegations until the last minute. Clearly we can't set up a system in which every SCOTUS nominee is accused of some crime 35 years ago at the last minute ('cause we're pretty obviously headed there).

If Ford refuses to testify that doesn't mean she isn't telling the truth. She could be, but surely if she wanted to muddy Kavanaugh's name she would take the opportunity to testify? And she doesn't seem, from everything we've seen so far, like someone who's eager to smear Kavanaugh, she didn't want to go public originally(which is perfectly understandable given how she's being smeared and the Senate may just confirm an alleged rapist anyway) and may not want to allow Republican Senators to drag her through the mud like Anita Hill(especially if there's no investigation to back her up). If nothing changes from now, I don't think it would be appropriate to confirm Kavanaugh. While he couldn't be convicted in Court, this is not a criminal trial but a Senate confirmation for a hugely consequential seat on the Supreme Court. It's not like Kavanaugh is the only qualified person for the position. While in court you'd need 100% chance of him being guilty to convict, if he's confirmed and it's a 50% chance that he's an attempted rapist that's not good enough, it would be inappropriate to take that chance and stain the legitimacy of the Court even further. Furthermore, the whole 'eleventh hour' idea only is a thing because Republicans insisted on rushing the process to begin with, even before these accusations they tried to ram him through and not allow the Senate to wade through his hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and properly evaluate him. There's no requirement that he be confirmed before the midterms. It's jarring to see an alleged rapist being rammed through by the GOP which says any other course of action would be improper when they themselves denied a highly qualified judge any hearing, let alone a vote, and left a Supreme Court seat vacant for over a year. So if the Senate really wants to deliberate further, as they should, they would be perfectly able to do so. As of now though I'd say the chance of his guilt is high enough to alone mean he shouldn't be confirmed but not high enough that he would be criminally convicted. This opinion may change if the right thing is done and this allegation is investigated honestly and seriously-with the intent of finding the truth not the intent of aiding Kavanaugh's confirmation.

[Pericles]

It's possible Blasey Ford's allegation is false, but it doesn't seem likely to be false or fit the profile of a false allegation(https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/9/18/17874504/kavanaugh-assault-allegation-christine-blasey-ford). It's not overly dramatized, if it was false why not just saw Kavanaugh outright raped her? Why add in the extra complexity of the attempted rape(which some people are shamefully dismissing as 'rough-housing'). Ford doesn't seem like a false accuser, and that she came forward so long after the event may actually make her story more likely to be true(though studies don't account for the complication of the alleged offender being about to receive a seat on the highest court in the land). False accusations are very rare, and so just statistically this accusation is unlikely to be false. Ford's reluctance to come forward, at least imo, makes her more credible, she's not eager to smear Kavanaugh or relitigate on a nationwide stage while being attacked by much of the country what seems to be a very traumatic event in her life. She's not trying to be sensational, after all if she was lying why would she ask Dianne Feinstein to keep her letter confidential? And the fact that she got therapy about this in 2012 adds further credibility, and that she told close friends(but not every random person she saw). I don't see this as a story concocted at the last minute to take down a Supreme Court nominee, it seems like she's genuinely trying to handle an emotionally difficult event and felt compelled to come forward once the letter leaked. The pro-Kavanaugh witnesses have an incentive to lie, they wouldn't want to admit their involvement in an attempted rape or sabotage Kavanaugh, while Ford seems credible. Maybe Kavanaugh ultimately didn't do it, but based on what the information available I have to say it's more likely he did do it, though not enough to convict him in court(but as I said before, enough that he shouldn't be given a seat on the Supreme Court as things stand).

[Cory]

I still don't understand how anyone can know for certain one way or the other.

[Beet]

I still don't understand how anyone can know for certain one way or the other.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think you should go by the preponderance of evidence required in this case(since its not a criminal case). At this moment it doesn't meet those standards since their has been no official testimony or no official investigation.

[twenty42]

I would bet every dollar I have that if the same thing was happening to a Hillary Clinton SCOTUS nominee, Atlas posters would be shouting "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!" at the top of their lungs.

[Pericles]

I would bet every dollar I have that if the same thing was happening to a Hillary Clinton SCOTUS nominee, Atlas posters would be shouting "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!" at the top of their lungs.

Ask Senator Al Franken if Democrats protect their own in these cases.

[twenty42]

I would bet every dollar I have that if the same thing was happening to a Hillary Clinton SCOTUS nominee, Atlas posters would be shouting "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!" at the top of their lungs.

Ask Senator Al Franken if Democrats protect their own in these cases.

There is a difference between actual pictorial evidence and a flimsy accusation. Dumb analogy.

[Pericles]

I would bet every dollar I have that if the same thing was happening to a Hillary Clinton SCOTUS nominee, Atlas posters would be shouting "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!" at the top of their lungs.

Ask Senator Al Franken if Democrats protect their own in these cases.

There is a difference between actual pictorial evidence and a flimsy accusation. Dumb analogy.

There was a tape of Trump saying he engaged in sexual assault just as there was evidence of Franken doing the same. Republicans chose to dismiss it and every single time they dismiss it, Democrats chose to do the right thing over partisanship.

[Gustaf]

Here we go again.

1. This is not a criminal trial. If I'm not mistaken the statute of limitations would have set in anyway. So it's obfuscation to try to hide behind the principles used by the state when handing out criminal sentences. As individuals we can form our opinions and figure out how we want to judge people (let's keep in mind that none of the Republicans in this thread took an "innocent until proven guilty" line on Hillary Clinton, for example).

2. No one can ever know anything for sure. That's also a red herring. We still have to make the best possible judgment calls we can on the issues we face

3. Given what we know both in general about these cases and the specifics about this case it is beyond reasonable doubt that she Believes this is what happened. Anyone claiming otherwise is a hack and I won't go over all the obvious reasons why because I doubt anyone who deluded themselves into thinking otherwise listens to reason anyway.

4. Given the story she told it also seems beyond reasonable doubt that it did happen the way she described and that he did it.

5. And the act itself is awful and has no excuses.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I have definitely not been convinced that he tried

[twenty42]

Here we go again.

1. This is not a criminal trial. If I'm not mistaken the statute of limitations would have set in anyway. So it's obfuscation to try to hide behind the principles used by the state when handing out criminal sentences. As individuals we can form our opinions and figure out how we want to judge people (let's keep in mind that none of the Republicans in this thread took an "innocent until proven guilty" line on Hillary Clinton, for example).

2. No one can ever know anything for sure. That's also a red herring. We still have to make the best possible judgment calls we can on the issues we face

3. Given what we know both in general about these cases and the specifics about this case it is beyond reasonable doubt that she Believes this is what happened. Anyone claiming otherwise is a hack and I won't go over all the obvious reasons why because I doubt anyone who deluded themselves into thinking otherwise listens to reason anyway.

4. Given the story she told it also seems beyond reasonable doubt that it did happen the way she described and that he did it.

5. And the act itself is awful and has no excuses.

Dude, she doesn’t even remember where or when it happened. As Fuzzy Bear stated, that isn’t even a preponderance of evidence, let alone beyond reasonable doubt.

As I said, you are going down a very slippery slope if you allow allegations to derail a career. And I truly hope it comes back to bite your party squarely in the ass one day.

[pbrower2a]

The only question that I would have is over identification.

Even after Ford's emphatic insistence she knew far too well whatshisnname some buddy of Kavanaugh suggested on Twitter was the "real" assailant, and is positive she couldn't and didn't misidentify either? Plus the fact that if we assume the assault occurred then Kavanaugh's blanket Sgt. Schultz-esque "I know NOTH-ING" denials--as opposed to "yeah, I was there, but it was whatshisface who grabbed her"--just don't ring true?

Serious questions, pbrower, as you're one of the few skeptics here whom I suspect is rational.

That is the only question that I can have. After 35 years could she identify her assailant? The deed sounds like rape or attempted rape. The problem is that it is an apparent rape by a complete stranger. Today such a rape done recently is often easy to get a conviction on because of rape-test kits that can link semen to a perpetrator. Those kits were not available 35 years ago.

35 years ago the case would have had some derogatory stereotypes based on race. It was common knowledge then among white people that black women were 'loose' and 'wanted it', and that she knew that and was unwilling to face the usual defense of rapists -- attack the victim as 'loose'. What was she doing at a party full of white young men who could be expected to 'sow their wild oats'?

Identification is the weakest element of a criminal prosecution. It is also personally decisive and dramatic. Findings of wrongful conviction heavily involve someone who can be shown after the fact to have wrongly identified an offender. To that end, DNA evidence (not available 35 years ago) is far more definitive. I say this as someone with poor facial recognition (it goes with Asperger's syndrome) that has often proved a social embarrassment.  

So she is correct about the attack... the only question is of whether she identified the assailant adequately. I have no cause to believe that she deserved what happened. No white man has the right to assume that a black woman that he barely knows is willing simply because she is black (an extremely racist rationale then as now). As a practical matter, there had better be some intimacy before any couple fornicates... and it had better be a genuine couple. Is there a willingness to raise a child together in the event that contraception fails?

I would have been wary of any sexual contact with any female that I barely knew... do you have shared interests and values? A 17-year-old, apparently drunk, Brett Kavanaugh could not have known. It is true that as a 17-year-old he was still a juvenile, and he was not fully developed morally. (Sure, I would have been wary of having sex with a black female when I was 17 years old because even then I recognized that I probably had little in common unless I learned otherwise.

I would let the question boil down to the fellow who turned up the music to drown out her screams. Such makes him an accomplice if such are the facts. He can identify the assailant that he better knows than that the victim knows. Maybe an attempted rape by a juvenile would have been sealed as a conviction back then, and there surely is a statute of limitations.

But we must remember the one thing that can completely discredit Bret Kavanaugh as a jurist: perjury. Perjury is one of the most offensive deeds possible in a court of law, and for a judge it shows utter contempt for the legal process. One can still have credibility if one is simply wrong -- but not if one shows reckless disregard for the truth or deliberate deceit in a legal matter.

The sex drive is strong, but the revulsion against sexual assault must be even stronger for a man... and for a jurist, needful credibility requires factual integrity. There is the possible accomplice who better knew Bret Kavanaugh back then. He knew if Bret Kavanaugh assaulted someone sexually. We need to hear his story first. Let us protect reasonable doubt until we know otherwise.

Let us also remember that there are potentially other grounds for rejecting him as a justice. Most basic is his belief that stare decisis (legal precedents are not to be set aside for political reasons or out of sympathy for a plaintiff or defendant) does not apply in judging the deeds of the President, which would itself be a dangerous practice should America end up with a grossly-immoral left-wing demagogue as President. This is not only about Donald Trump; this is about an American version of Fidel Castro who might somehow get elected by winning the 'right votes' in a time of economic distress.  Should stare decisis break down, then legal anarchy and despotism become possible.  This, and not a sexual assault, is the essence of whether Bret Kavanaugh is a suitable person to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I'll parrot the "we have no way of knowing for sure" (at least not right now) tripe because it's true, even if probably being abused/used in bad faith by some.

Keeping the fact that we have no way of knowing right now, if I was forced to chose a side, I would chose Ford's.
1) The proportion of rape accusations that are demonstrably false is very small (certainly <10%, some studies claim <5%),
2) Her accusations carry none of the hallmark features of prior false rape accusations and
3) I know people from Georgetown Prep and hypersexualized, entitled teenager who doesn't recognize physical boundaries absolutely fits the profile of many students there (I have third third/fourth-hand accounts from a couple of people who knew both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and said that while these accusations would never stick to Gorsuch, somehow they just fit in with Kavanaugh -- but of course this information is distant enough from the source that I can't really take it seriously).

Of course, none of those three incriminate Kavanaugh only. Whether or not you sincerely believe Kavanaugh did it, or believe that the act was committed by someone else and that Kavanaugh is being misidentified, is going to get filtered through a partisan lens 95% of the time. My partisan viewpoint tells me that Kavanaugh did it, and I'm willing to admit that.

[Person Man]

I think he honestly believes he didn't but he did.

[Frodo]

I have no idea what happened or what to think -which is why there should be a full FBI and congressional investigation of her allegation as she requested (and Senate Republicans have denied).

I'm sure Brett Kavanaugh doesn't want this hanging over him when he is eventually confirmed, so he -more than anyone- should also be pushing for a full investigation that could very well clear his name.    

[Meclazine for Israel]

Drunk teenage sex.

Until proven otherwise.