Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[AUDub 11,147]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I think this discussion is being handled reasonably by all involved so far.  Anyone object to moving this to the regular politics forum to keep things going that way?

No objection. I'd rename it though. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

19 minutes ago, AUDub said:

No objection. I'd rename it though. 

Yeah, I would do that for sure.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

I think she wanted to set off a grenade before the committee vote. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I doubt it. 

Exactly this.  By waiting this long, it delays the process.  If she did it immediately, Rs could have moved on quickly from Kavanaugh and been towards another nomination by now.  It's actually a pretty shrewd political move, although pretty underhanded.  No better or worse than McConnell not giving Garland a vote.

[AUDub 11,147]

6 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Exactly this.  By waiting this long, it delays the process.  If she did it immediately, Rs could have moved on quickly from Kavanaugh and been towards another nomination by now.  It's actually a pretty shrewd political move, although pretty underhanded.  No better or worse than McConnell not giving Garland a vote. 

They still have time before the end of the term, if they can hurry and get another nominee up. It's what I would do.

[Barnacle 9,064]

9 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

That said, should what someone did while drunk at 17 be an automatic disqualifier from a role like SCOTUS 35 years later?  I'm not advocating, just asking.  And this isn't really about Kavanaugh per se - he's complicated this with his categorical denial so if he did it, he's now lying.

In my mind, if it's shown that he is lying, then yes that should disqualify him. 

As to the first question - let's say he admitted it at his first opportunity. Should he still be disqualified? I don't know. I'm not sure how to answer that question. I wonder if Kavanaugh respects the position enough that he would remove himself from consideration. I'm not saying that he should do that, but if true, this certainly taints him. 

[AU64 10,122]

24 minutes ago, Barnacle said:

In my mind, if it's shown that he is lying, then yes that should disqualify him. 

As to the first question - let's say he admitted it at his first opportunity. Should he still be disqualified? I don't know. I'm not sure how to answer that question. I wonder if Kavanaugh respects the position enough that he would remove himself from consideration. I'm not saying that he should do that, but if true, this certainly taints him. 

So how does one prove that he is lying? ....or how does one prove that the accuser is telling the truth about something that happened that long ago?     Maybe she told some one at the time....or wrote it in her diary?  

JMO but the burden of truth should be on her.

[Barnacle 9,064]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

So how does one prove that he is lying? ....or how does one prove that the accuser is telling the truth about something that happened that long ago?     Maybe she told some one at the time....or wrote it in her diary?  

JMO but the burden of truth should be on her.

A contemporaneous writing or statement would be very persuasive proof. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Kavanaugh is having a telecom with committee staffers as we speak. Dem staffers won't attend. Further proof to me the Dems don't want to know the truth, just screw Kavanaugh

Ford's attorney says she is willing to testify to the committee. She is crazy if she does because she can't prove anything and has lost too much memory of the incident she claims happened. She will only lose credibility. I'm surprised her attorney will let her. Where is Nola when we need him?

I think the committee should go ahead and vote Thursday as scheduled. All 10 Dems have said before Ford came out they would vote no so what difference does ANYTHING make to them.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, Barnacle said:

A contemporaneous writing or statement would be very persuasive proof. 

True but I  have a feeling there is no such document...her mother probably threw it away when she moved out of her home...

[Barnacle 9,064]

52 minutes ago, AU64 said:

True but I  have a feeling there is no such document...her mother probably threw it away when she moved out of her home...

Oh I'm sure we would have seen it by now. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Both Kavanaugh and Ford will testify under oath in an open hearingto the committee Monday. Should be interesting. My first two questions would be:

1. Has anyone paid you to come forward with your accusation after all this time?

2. Who is paying your attorney fees?

[AUDub 11,147]

36 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Both Kavanaugh and Ford will testify under oath in an open hearingto the committee Monday. Should be interesting. My first two questions would be:

1. Has anyone paid you to come forward with your accusation after all this time?

That’s an easy no. 

36 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

2. Who is paying your attorney fees?

Probably no one. 

These are not the gotcha questions you think they are. 

[AUDub 11,147]

3 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Kavanaugh is having a telecom with committee staffers as we speak. Dem staffers won't attend. Further proof to me the Dems don't want to know the truth, just screw Kavanaugh

Ford's attorney says she is willing to testify to the committee. She is crazy if she does because she can't prove anything and has lost too much memory of the incident she claims happened. She will only lose credibility. I'm surprised her attorney will let her. Where is Nola when we need him?

I think the committee should go ahead and vote Thursday as scheduled. All 10 Dems have said before Ford came out they would vote no so what difference does ANYTHING make to them.

The problem is you have Rs that are now waffling. If she performs well, if this is made to look like the Rs are attacking a victim, you’re up s*** creek with the public at that point. 

[SaltyTiger 7,789]

22 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The problem is you have Rs that are now waffling. If she performs well, if this is made to look like the Rs are attacking a victim, you’re up s*** creek with the public at that point. 

So in your mind the lady Dr. is a victim in "he said she said" after some 35, 36, 37 years. The entire thing smells like a rotting fish. I do not know that you are up whatever creek Ben. Do not think you do either. JMO

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

Both Kavanaugh and Ford will testify under oath in an open hearingto the committee Monday. Should be interesting. My first two questions would be:

1. Has anyone paid you to come forward with your accusation after all this time?

2. Who is paying your attorney fees?

I would add that an other early question would be:

If you didn't plan or want to come forward as Sen.. Feinstein claimed, why did you take a polygraph test in July and retain an attorney in August?

--

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

22 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

So in your mind the lady Dr. is a victim in "he said she said" after some 35, 36, 37 years. The entire thing smells like a rotting fish. I do not know that you are up whatever creek Ben. Do not think you do either. JMO

It doesn't seem to matter to some that a ton of people who have worked with Kavanaugh and even  dated him in HS and college are also coming forward in his support. They choose to believe  one woman with "no way to prove it" allegations is the right  one to ruin him.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

44 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

So in your mind the lady Dr. is a victim in "he said she said" after some 35, 36, 37 years. The entire thing smells like a rotting fish. I do not know that you are up whatever creek Ben. Do not think you do either. JMO

Well if it's true, yes, she's still a victim.  Just because a crime happened years ago doesn't mean people can't be traumatized from it for years.  I was held a gunpoint and laid down execution style on Halloween 13 years ago.  It changed my life, mannerisms, and made me a bit OCD about things that I previously never considered.  So yes, I'm still being victimized every day by that night.  There's not a statute of limitations on trauma.

[homersapien 11,362]

7 hours ago, AU64 said:

So how does one prove that he is lying? ....or how does one prove that the accuser is telling the truth about something that happened that long ago?     Maybe she told some one at the time....or wrote it in her diary?  

JMO but the burden of truth should be on her.

This is not a criminal trial.  The only "burden" she has being credible enough to sway a few votes.  And frankly, I suspect that's not really her motivation to begin with.

[homersapien 11,362]

6 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Kavanaugh is having a telecom with committee staffers as we speak. Dem staffers won't attend. Further proof to me the Dems don't want to know the truth, just screw Kavanaugh

Ford's attorney says she is willing to testify to the committee. She is crazy if she does because she can't prove anything and has lost too much memory of the incident she claims happened. She will only lose credibility. I'm surprised her attorney will let her. Where is Nola when we need him?

I think the committee should go ahead and vote Thursday as scheduled. All 10 Dems have said before Ford came out they would vote no so what difference does ANYTHING make to them.

Maybe they don't want to participate in an event outside the rules of order designed to benefit the nominee, and why should they?

And again, this is not a criminal trial.  She's certainly not on trial.

Where is Nola when we need him? 

 

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

It doesn't seem to matter to some that a ton of people who have worked with Kavanaugh and even  dated him in HS and college are also coming forward in his support. They choose to believe  one woman with "no way to prove it" allegations is the right  one to ruin him.

I think this absurd logic has already been demolished. 

Remember - Jeffry Dahmer?  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

10 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I would add that an other early question would be:

If you didn't plan or want to come forward as Sen.. Feinstein claimed, why did you take a polygraph test in July and retain an attorney in August?

--

I really don't think that's all that much of a gotcha question either.  A simple and reasonable answer would be, "Because while I didn't intend to be in the spotlight, I didn't want to be unprepared if the spotlight found me anyway.  And I took the polygraph on the suggestion of my attorney.  I have nothing to hide."

[AUDub 11,147]

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

10 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

So in your mind the lady Dr. is a victim in "he said she said" after some 35, 36, 37 years. The entire thing smells like a rotting fish. I do not know that you are up whatever creek Ben. Do not think you do either. JMO

Can we please stop using this hackneyed argument about how many years ago something horrible happened?  It's irrelevant.  It has been explained time and again why people choose not to say anything when a traumatic event like sexual assault happens, and then what sort of event might finally push them over the edge to speak up years or even decades later.  This is not hard.  

And also, while traumatic events affect every individual differently, it is completely normal for a situation like this to affect a person for years, decades, or even the rest of their life.  Nothing about the time frame makes it any more or any less credible or possible.

If you don't believe her for other reasons, fine.  But the "after all these years!" defense is ignorant.  Stop using it.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/17/metoo-spurred-christine-blasey-ford-to-open-up-about-alleged-attack-year-before-kavanaugh-nomination-friends-say/

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I'm probably alone but even if Ford's story is true, it shouldn't prevent the confirmation of a good man who has apparently spent over 30 years since the accusers date without a hitch on his behavior. I'm sure some of my HS girlfriends could say some bad things about me. I'm not what I ought to be but thank God I'm not what I used to be.