Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[CCTAU 3,345]

34 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Were any of them significantly bigger and stronger physically than you and outweigh you by 40-50 lbs perhaps?  And did a couple of them ever gang up, force you into a room, and one of them pinned you to the bed and clamped a hand over your mouth while trying to take off your clothes?  And then did the other decide he was bored with just watching and wanted to make it a threesome and you were physically incapable of fending them off?

Wait. So now we are back to four people being in the room now? Her story really is hard to keep up with. I hope she takes the opportunity given to at least tell one of her stories.

If not, move on with the vote. Any sane person can see the agenda here.

[Mikey 16,734]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, not really.  But regardless, you weren't raped. (Repaired that for you)  You weren't even close to being raped unless you have more stories you haven't told us yet.  Your inappropriate advances aren't on the same level as what she's alleging.

I already addressed the level of my non-problems.

Now, where do we draw the line? How many years can someone go back and claim that Person X acted in an inappropriate manner when they were alone together? Should an accusation be enough to ruin someone's reputation and alter their employment opportunities? Is unsubstantiated accusation enough to cause a national uproar? The accuser should have to be made to put up or shut up. Those fearing for their daughters (yes, I have one, and granddaughters too) should be beating into their heads that they must report an incident at once or lose their credibility.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

8 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

Wait. So now we are back to four people being in the room now? Her story really is hard to keep up with. I hope she takes the opportunity given to at least tell one of her stories.

If not, move on with the vote. Any sane person can see the agenda here.

Where in that did you see me say anything about four people?

[AUDub 11,184]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Where in that did you see me say anything about four people?

You didn't. One would think you wouldn't have to explain that, what with the word "threesome" being in there. ?

13 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

Wait. So now we are back to four people being in the room now? Her story really is hard to keep up with. I hope she takes the opportunity given to at least tell one of her stories.

If not, move on with the vote. Any sane person can see the agenda here.

Her story has not changed. 

[CCTAU 3,345]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Where in that did you see me say anything about four people?

In your rambling it sounded like two held her down and then a third jumped in.

Even so, there has been no report of anything other than one person trying to feel her up and then another come in jumped on the bed. And nobody else even remembers anything, except her. And her stories don't seem to be very cohesive.

Once again, any sane person sees this for what it is, more political terrorism from the left. The Roy Moore attack plan that worked so well before. The problem for them is that Kavanaugh is no Moore.

[AUDub 11,184]

6 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

In your rambling it sounded like two held her down and then a third jumped in.

That or you need to bone up on the whole "reading" thing. 

6 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

Even so, there has been no report of anything other than one person trying to feel her up and then another come in jumped on the bed.

One person attempting to rape her, another present at the time. 

6 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

And nobody else even remembers anything, except her.

That's the case with a lot of rape/attempted rape cases. I mean, people hardly ever admit to this stuff. 

6 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

And her stories don't seem to be very cohesive.

Her story is pretty tight. What it lacks is corraboration. But it's only been three days. Let's see what else happens. 

6 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

Once again, any sane person sees this for what it is, more political terrorism from the left. The Roy Moore attack plan that worked so well before. The problem for them is that Kavanaugh is no Moore.

Don't think that's the case. Guess it's because I'm old enough to remember Neil Gorsuch sailing right through the process. 

[HVAU 673]

1 hour ago, CCTAU said:

Wait. So now we are back to four people being in the room now? Her story really is hard to keep up with. I hope she takes the opportunity given to at least tell one of her stories.

If not, move on with the vote. Any sane person can see the agenda here.

Where does this say anything about four people?

ETA:. Nevermind I missed some rebuttals.

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Roller coaster of emotions. First I believe it's a deplorable delay tactic. I hear Ford and feel sympathy, even give her some cred. Then she refuses to testify before committee. Back to believing it is delay tactic. What will tomorrow bring? 

[AUDub 11,184]

3 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Roller coaster of emotions. First I believe it's a deplorable delay tactic. I hear Ford and feel sympathy, even give her some cred. Then she refuses to testify before committee. Back to believing it is delay tactic. What will tomorrow bring? 

She's asking the FBI to look into it before she steps into the lion's den. That's not too much to ask, considering it took the FBI three days to look into Anita Hill. They could do that before the scheduled hearing if they wanted. 

But they don't. The purpose of the hearing is to discredit her, not to get to the bottom of this. Her attorneys know this. She, currently in hiding, by the way, knows this too. 

There's not as much urgency as a lot of folks seem to think. It's been three days. Give it time. 

 

[AUDub 11,184]

Roy Moore.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

She's asking the FBI to look into it before she steps into the lion's den. That's not too much to ask, considering it took the FBI three days to look into Anita Hill. They could do that before the scheduled hearing if they wanted. 

But they don't. The purpose of the hearing is to discredit her, not to get to the bottom of this. Her attorneys know this. She, currently in hiding, by the way, knows this too. 

There's not as much urgency as a lot of folks seem to think. It's been three days. Give it time. 

 

I think if the FBI could make a difference they would get involved. I don't think they could. If you disagree, tell me what you think they could do? Interview three people where two say it did not happen and one says it did? Do we need the FBI to tell us that?

I disagree the hearing is to discredit her. It is meant to hear her story. She alone can discredit herself. Several Rpubs on the fence have stated her decision not to appear is disappointing. I think they are saying the same thing. If the vote happens we'll see if correct. 

Urgency is a red herring at this point. Seems like another delay tactic.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

That's the case with a lot of rape/attempted rape cases. I mean, people hardly ever admit to this stuff. 

Her story is pretty tight. What it lacks is corraboration. But it's only been three days. Let's see what else happens. 

It's not just corroborating the rape part of the story, so far the people that have come forward(one of them who claims she's a friend of Ford)have all denied there was even a party like Ford has alleged.. And also none of them have corroborated Kavanaugh being a drinker in high school either.

[AUDub 11,184]

16 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I think if the FBI could make a difference they would get involved. I don't think they could. If you disagree, tell me what you think they could do? Interview three people where two say it did not happen and one says it did? Do we need the FBI to tell us that?

I mean, it’s the FBI. They would bring a lot of tools to an investigation of this alleged incident, including skilled agents with experience interviewing sex crime victims and reluctant witnesses.  And the bureau would be happy to investigate, but it can only do so if the White House asks.

Quote

I disagree the hearing is to discredit her. It is meant to hear her story.

Yeah, that’s bull****. Otherwise, there would be no rush without due diligence. 

Quote

She alone can discredit herself. Several Rpubs on the fence have stated her decision not to appear is disappointing. I think they are saying the same thing. If the vote happens we'll see if correct. 

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

She would do well to. She's about to go up against a highly sophisticated, very effective machine designed to destroy her credibility, not find the truth of the matter. The faster they can make her do it, and the fewer facts available, the harder it will be for her.

 

Quote

Urgency is a red herring at this point. Seems like another delay tactic.

If they’re dead set on him, sure. But there are plenty of others out there without this cloud hanging over them. Barrett, Kethledge and Hardiman, are, as far as I know, squeaky clean. Wouldn’t be hard to seat one of them in the time available. 

[AUDub 11,184]

17 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

It's not just corroborating the rape part of the story, so far the people that have come forward(one of them who claims she's a friend of Ford)have all denied there was even a party like Ford has alleged..

Link

17 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

And also none of them have corroborated Kavanaugh being a drinker in high school either.

Mark Judge has. 

[DKW 86 7,440]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

 

He's got a point.

This was basically the sentiment at work today. When I lead practice for Scholars Bowl..my kids got it. It has been a weird day.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I mean, it’s the FBI. They would bring a lot of tools to an investigation of this alleged incident, including skilled agents with experience interviewing sex crime victims and reluctant witnesses.  And the bureau would be happy to investigate, but it can only do so if the White House asks.

Yeah, that’s bull****. Otherwise, there would be no rush without due diligence. 

 

If they’re dead set on him, sure. But there are plenty of others out there without this cloud hanging over them. Barrett, Kethledge and Hardiman, are, as far as I know, squeaky clean. Wouldn’t be hard to seat one of them in the time available. 

On the FBI: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/19/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-probe-sex-assault/1358314002/

Sounds like another delay tactic. Many in the GOP have stated they want to hear her story, in person. BTW, these folks are on the fence on the matter. 

Is there a cloud? Maybe. Is it legit? You nor I know the answer. Let her and him come forward and clarify. No need to move forward with another candidate until doing so.

 

[AUDub 11,184]

15 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

On the FBI: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/19/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-probe-sex-assault/1358314002/

This is a fact finding probe. That they might not reach a conclusion shocks me not at all.

But, the more facts, the better. That's the point of an investigation here. Frame it as a background check for a job interview, not a criminal investigation. 

Quote

Sounds like another delay tactic. Many in the GOP have stated they want to hear her story, in person. BTW, these folks are on the fence on the matter. 

Don't be fooled. There would be no  extremely short term deadline otherwise. 

Quote

Is there a cloud? Maybe. Is it legit? You nor I know the answer. Let her and him come forward and clarify. No need to move forward with another candidate until doing so.

And no need to rush his confirmation either. Worst case scenario here, we put a would be (attempted) rapist on the court. A short delay isn't too much to ask for a lifetime appointment. 

[AUDub 11,184]

21 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

This was basically the sentiment at work today. When I lead practice for Scholars Bowl..my kids got it. It has been a weird day.

I wish the deterrent effect was a more effective phenomenon. In the heat of the moment (for lack of a better term), no one expects to be caught. 

[AUDub 11,184]

Linking again, just because it's the most infuriating thing I've read today. 

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

15 minutes ago, AUDub said:

This is a fact finding probe. That they might not reach a conclusion shocks me not at all.

But, the more facts, the better. That's the point of an investigation here. Frame it as a background check for a job interview, not a criminal investigation. 

Don't be fooled. There would be no  extremely short term deadline otherwise. 

And no need to rush his confirmation either. Worst case scenario here, we put a would be (attempted) rapist on the court. A short delay isn't too much to ask for a lifetime appointment. 

Look, come forward and testify. If you are credible then involve the FBI. Trump even hinted at the possibility.

Not testifying is fishy. IIWII.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

@AUDub

Samantha Guerry was the friend of Ford on CNN that didn't corroborate the drinking. She didn't speak about the party and or deny it. My bad on confusing the two. But she didn't corroborate the drinking part of the story.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1809/19/wolf.02.html

Quote

ACOSTA: Do you know Brett Kavanaugh at all? 

GUERRY: I did. He was an acquaintance of mine in high school. 

ACOSTA: And did he have this reputation for excessive drinking at that time? 

GUERRY: I can't really speak for that because he wasn't directly -- 

ACOSTA: What about what Dr. Ford is alleging? Have you - was this the first time you heard anything like that with respect to judge Kavanaugh? 
 

GUERRY: Absolutely. It's not the first time I had heard anything like that, in terms of the community of women that I know, and not regarding him, but --. 
 

[13:45:11] ACOSTA: Those sorts of things went on. 

GUERRY: You know, one of the things that's been surprising to me as I have got involved in this in the last couple of days is how many women of my class have come forward to me in this last few days and said I had similar experiences in high school. And this hits me very deeply and I -- 

ACOSTA: Not with Brett Kavanaugh, but with other boys? 

GUERRY: Not with Brett Kavanaugh but with other boys in our community. And we all feel that if we were in her shoes, we would want to be taken seriously as well. 

 

It was Mark Judge, who you named that didn't corroborate the party and doesn't remember a party like Ford has alleged.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-18 Judge to Grassley, Feinstein (Kavanaugh Nomination).pdf

Quote

“In fact, I have no memory of this alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford’s letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Ford describes.”

 

[AUDub 11,184]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Look, come forward and testify. If you are credible then involve the FBI. Trump even hinted at the possibility.

Not testifying is fishy. IIWII.

We both know that won't be the case, otherwise this proposed testimony would be much more comprehensive. With only her an Kavanaugh, they're looking to dismiss it, full stop. She's a speed bump to them. Nothing more.

The investigation is not a huge burden. Like I said, they could have it done Monday before her testimony if they wanted. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Feinstein now refusing to turn over Ford's letter her to the Judiciary Committee. I think she knows now she is getting blemished as much as  anyone in all this. She has become the face of the Dem resistance, the purpose of which is obvious to any open minded person.

At this point in time the Dems are in a box. If Kavanaugh provided absolute proof of his innocence not one Dem would vote for him.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

6 minutes ago, AUDub said:

We both know that won't be the case, otherwise this proposed testimony would be much more comprehensive. With only her an Kavanaugh, they're looking to dismiss it, full stop. She's a speed bump to them. Nothing more.

The investigation is not a huge burden. Like I said, they could have it done Monday before her testimony if they wanted. 

I can think of at least three GOP members who disagree with that sentiment. They are definitely on the fence.

Her testimony is no huge burden either. She initially stated she wanted to testify. Do it.

[AUDub 11,184]

23 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I can think of at least three GOP members who disagree with that sentiment. They are definitely on the fence.

And I'm cynical enough to know that's bull****. It's all about saving face right now. Otherwise, a wait for a brief investigation wouldn't be a deal breaker. 

Quote

Her testimony is no huge burden either. She initially stated she wanted to testify. Do it.

Yes. It is. She's in ******* hiding right now. A little time to be sure it's done in a fair manner is a small ask. The Rs still have time. Even if Kavanaugh is withdrawn, they can still ram through a candidate with conservative cred every bit as good as his with less baggage.