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

[Badger]

I have definitely not been convinced that he tried

Because....? She's lying? When he pinned her down on the bed against her will, covered her mouth, and started peeling off her clothes he only intended on going to second base and no further? Something else?

[Vosem]

Given that every witness Blasey Ford has named has said that no such thing ever happened, and that a party with that specific constellation of people never occurred, I am inclined to think that it probably didn't happen. It also seems like behavior that is uncharacteristic of Kavanaugh; typically accusations of this behavior are followed by floods, and it seems that Kavanaugh also drank frequently enough that we know how he behaved -- not like this.

Which isn't to say that Blasey Ford may not sincerely remember that it did; I actually don't think she's lying. Just that memory is unreliable after 30 years, especially if you never tell anyone for the first 25 of those and just stew on it yourself. There are lots of things I can remember telling people that I don't actually remember, and am pretty much just trusting past-me to have spoken honestly about, and I haven't even lived for 30 years yet.

[Person Man]

The most ironic thing about Trump and his senior Lieutenants (including Kavanaugh) is that  their main policies are supposed to encourage and coherse people to not act like them.

[J. J.]

--If Ford is lying, why would she ask the FBI to investigate her claims?  The FBI looked into Anita Hill's claims in 1991, so there is precedent for this.  Yet the White House refuses to ask the FBI to investigate (and they are they only ones who can order it).  Kavanaugh has not asked them to investigate.  What are they afraid of?

Why would you think that she was lying if her story is inaccurate?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I believe Dr. Ford.  Her actions certainly look more truthful, while the White House and Kavanaugh are acting like they have something to hide.

--It is in the record that back in 2012, Ford spoke about the alleged attack to her psychotherapist.  That was long before Brett Kavanaugh was anywhere on the radar for a Supreme Court nomination.

--Ford took a polygraph test and passed.  So far as I know, Kavanaugh has not submitted to a polygraph.

--If Ford is lying, why would she ask the FBI to investigate her claims?  The FBI looked into Anita Hill's claims in 1991, so there is precedent for this.  Yet the White House refuses to ask the FBI to investigate (and they are they only ones who can order it).  Kavanaugh has not asked them to investigate.  What are they afraid of?

--Speaking of Anita Hill, Ford is old enough to be familiar with the terrible treatment she received and educated enough to understand the same would happen to her.  Why would Ford deliberately put herself through that besides the stated reason -- she felt she had a duty to speak out?  She doesn't have a recorded history of political activism and by almost all accounts was afraid to come forward.  Given the death threats she is now receiving, her fears were well-founded. 

Dr. Ford is also aware that Anita Hill is an iconic figure in American History.  She has achieved prominence she never would have achieved without her testifying against Clarence Thomas.

Personally, I think we've over-awfulized Anita Hill's real treatment at least a bit.  It was not wrong to ask why the delay in reporting the issues with Thomas, but her answers have been accepted over time.  I would not want to go through what she went through, but to say that her life was ruined in a Maria Halpin-esque way is simply not the case. 

Dr. Ford has a potentially more compelling story to tell.  It should be told.  It should be questioned for veracity, but the bottom line here is whether or not Brett Kavanaugh held her down and groped her.  If she says that, it ought to be enough for a "No" on Kavanaugh.  What it means beyond that is another matter.

[Kodak]

It also seems like behavior that is uncharacteristic of Kavanaugh; typically accusations of this behavior are followed by floods, and it seems that Kavanaugh also drank frequently enough that we know how he behaved -- not like this.

May have spoken a little too soon there.

[BlueSwan]

First up, yes there have been incidences of obviously false accusations, but those accusations are mostly either fantastical stories of group rape by mentally disturbed women or accusations against former partners in a paternity dispute. Ford is very obviously NOT making a false accusation. It would make no sense for her to simply make up a story that had other named persons in that same room.At the very worst she has Kavanaugh mixed up with somebody else, but that seems very unlikely.

Second up, Scarlet is an extremist and the path suggested by him/her is not only legally troubling but also an offense to victims of rape. By equalling every possible sexual transgression with rape you trivialize the burdens of having suffered through actual rape. And yes, ACTUAL RAPE is very different from Al Franken touching your ass in a photo op.

Third, I agree that what you did as a teen should not haunt you for the rest of your life, but critically that is NOT Kavanaughs defense. If he had owned up to it, apologized to Ford, etc. I would be open to move on or at the very least would have understanding for the GOP forgiving his transgressions. But instead he is almost certainly lying about this, while in the process smearing Ford. Now THAT is not acceptable.

Fourth, some people are acting as if it would be a terrible injustice to Kavanaugh if he was dismissed over this and it turns out to be false. This is not a criminal trial. It is not even a "career path" being ruined. We are talking about the nomination to one of the highest positions in the land. You don't have a claim to that. Any minor detail might derail your chances.

[Beet]

First up, yes there have been incidences of obviously false accusations, but those accusations are mostly either fantastical stories of group rape by mentally disturbed women or accusations against former partners in a paternity dispute.

The Michael Avenatti claims are pretty fantastical.

[Badger]

First up, yes there have been incidences of obviously false accusations, but those accusations are mostly either fantastical stories of group rape by mentally disturbed women or accusations against former partners in a paternity dispute.

The Michael Avenatti claims are pretty fantastical.

You're posting history for the last 3 months is pretty fantastical.

[TarHeelDem]

Of course he did.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

He is a Republican nominee for high office.

[Mister Mets]

My current guess is probably not. There hasn't been enough evidence that the event occurred, or that he's like this (the Avenatti claim is outrageous and the New Yorker piece is from the perspective of a woman who was very drunk decades ago and didn't actually see him do the thing she thinks he did.)

[SCNCmod]

I think he definitely sexually assaulted Ford (and think the incident at Yale is most likely true).

... But I don't think his goal was to rape Dr Ford- especially since Mark Judge was also in the room & I think he probably was a Virgin.... It would be too reckless at the point to claim this if not true- b/c it would almost beg any girl he had sex with to come forward.  But a Virgin could easily still be a sexually inexperienced belligerent drunk with a habit of gross disrespect towards women...especially when drunk & when trying to fit or live up to the image of his group of G-Town prep boyz. (Kav's carefully crafted comment regarding being a Virgin could very well be true... but has Zero bearing on the allegations- noone has described sex or even an intimate setting).

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

The party that is interested in proving this never happened controls how testimony goes and whether or not there's an investigation. So basically all they have to do is tell you it didn't happen and you believe them. Sweet.

[Dereich]

I don't think it happened, but I don't think she's lying. I assume she's filling in details from a traumatic experience that she didn't talk about for decades. Nobody else remembers what happened the way she did and its not like minors in a college party are in a good state of mind for perfect recall. I'm not really inclined to take her word as gospel with nothing else even sort of supporting it and nothing likely to emerge supporting it either.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't think it happened, but I don't think she's lying. I assume she's filling in details from a traumatic experience that she didn't talk about for decades. Nobody else remembers what happened the way she did and its not like minors in a college party are in a good state of mind for perfect recall. I'm not really inclined to take her word as gospel with nothing else even sort of supporting it and nothing likely to emerge supporting it either.

Those denials don’t really mean much unless they’re made under oath.

[Dereich]

I don't think it happened, but I don't think she's lying. I assume she's filling in details from a traumatic experience that she didn't talk about for decades. Nobody else remembers what happened the way she did and its not like minors in a college party are in a good state of mind for perfect recall. I'm not really inclined to take her word as gospel with nothing else even sort of supporting it and nothing likely to emerge supporting it either.

Those denials don’t really mean much unless they’re made under oath.

Why not? Doesn't the same thing people say about Ford apply to the deniers as well? What is the point of people making false public denials when it will subject them to public pressure and threats and, if they later recant, expose them as liars in front of the entire nation. Anyone making statements on this incident are going to be put through the wringer and will have to live with the results of what they say. Treating Ford and Ford alone as being able to make worthwhile statements outside the Senate makes no sense.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

I've seen enough to know that this guy's a perv.  There's something about that face I just don't trust.  It's a good old fashioned small town hunch.  Lock up your daughters!

[Slander and/or Libel]

I don't think it happened, but I don't think she's lying. I assume she's filling in details from a traumatic experience that she didn't talk about for decades. Nobody else remembers what happened the way she did and its not like minors in a college party are in a good state of mind for perfect recall. I'm not really inclined to take her word as gospel with nothing else even sort of supporting it and nothing likely to emerge supporting it either.

"I don't want to look callous so I'll say I "believe" her, but I'll edit what she's saying selectively so I don't have to actually hold anybody accountable who agrees with me politically."

[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.  

-----------

I'm starting to think there might be some truth to these allegations -Kavanaugh is certainly not acting like an innocent man would.  

[Dereich]

I don't think it happened, but I don't think she's lying. I assume she's filling in details from a traumatic experience that she didn't talk about for decades. Nobody else remembers what happened the way she did and its not like minors in a college party are in a good state of mind for perfect recall. I'm not really inclined to take her word as gospel with nothing else even sort of supporting it and nothing likely to emerge supporting it either.

"I don't want to look callous so I'll say I "believe" her, but I'll edit what she's saying selectively so I don't have to actually hold anybody accountable who agrees with me politically."

Going right to "I'm attempting to not look callous" is a disingenuous leap. There are plenty of reasons to believe she isn't lying but she is wrong. Putting aside the issues with both of these, the account she gave to her therapist and the lie detector test at least support the idea that she isn't lying. But it does not follow that because she says something happened, it did and exactly as she says it did.

There is nothing beyond Ford's word supporting these accusations. The accusations were already decades old when they were first mentioned to her husband and her therapist. The named witnesses have said that it didn't happen. Until a few days before the final vote was scheduled, there were no indicators or other history which would have supported the claim. To believe Ford is right, you must believe that everyone else who has been mentioned is either lying and/or wrong AND that Ford has a perfectly accurate memory of what happened. I don't. I'm frankly shocked at the number of people who do.

[Badger]

I don't think it happened, but I don't think she's lying. I assume she's filling in details from a traumatic experience that she didn't talk about for decades. Nobody else remembers what happened the way she did and its not like minors in a college party are in a good state of mind for perfect recall. I'm not really inclined to take her word as gospel with nothing else even sort of supporting it and nothing likely to emerge supporting it either.

"I don't want to look callous so I'll say I "believe" her, but I'll edit what she's saying selectively so I don't have to actually hold anybody accountable who agrees with me politically."

Going right to "I'm attempting to not look callous" is a disingenuous leap. There are plenty of reasons to believe she isn't lying but she is wrong.

Just so we're on the same page here, other than the IMHO rather fanciful notion that some other dude at the party other than Cavanaugh did it and she somehow mistook her attackers identity as cabinet, what other remotely plausible scenario is there where she is "wrong, but not lying" about being assaulted by Cavanaugh?

[Dereich]

I don't think it happened, but I don't think she's lying. I assume she's filling in details from a traumatic experience that she didn't talk about for decades. Nobody else remembers what happened the way she did and its not like minors in a college party are in a good state of mind for perfect recall. I'm not really inclined to take her word as gospel with nothing else even sort of supporting it and nothing likely to emerge supporting it either.

"I don't want to look callous so I'll say I "believe" her, but I'll edit what she's saying selectively so I don't have to actually hold anybody accountable who agrees with me politically."

Going right to "I'm attempting to not look callous" is a disingenuous leap. There are plenty of reasons to believe she isn't lying but she is wrong.

Just so we're on the same page here, other than the IMHO rather fanciful notion that some other dude at the party other than Cavanaugh did it and she somehow mistook her attackers identity as cabinet, what other remotely plausible scenario is there where she is "wrong, but not lying" about being assaulted by Cavanaugh?

What, exactly, makes that idea fanciful? I've had victims of traumatic crimes who have difficulty remembering details of crimes after 30 days, let alone 30 years. And even the victims who claim to remember what happened rarely have the details right after a few months. You're a former prosecutor; I'm sure you saw it all the time too. People's memories are not as good as they think they are. I do not think an unsupported 30+ year old claim is sufficient proof that something happened.

[Mister Mets]

I don't think it happened, but I don't think she's lying. I assume she's filling in details from a traumatic experience that she didn't talk about for decades. Nobody else remembers what happened the way she did and its not like minors in a college party are in a good state of mind for perfect recall. I'm not really inclined to take her word as gospel with nothing else even sort of supporting it and nothing likely to emerge supporting it either.

Those denials don’t really mean much unless they’re made under oath.

The statements Kavanaugh has made to the Senate carry criminal penalties if he's lying.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/even-without-new-hearing-kavanaugh-could-already-be-at-risk-of-charges-for-statements-on-allegations/

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Unless he did a more serious crime, it's not gonna show up on a juvenile record, I am in process of going through that now going to Law School. Kavanaugh does seem like a nice man, and didn't stoop to degree as Clarence Thomas. Nevertheless. Joni Ernst and Collins if confirmed will pay a price