Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[AUDub 11,184]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Hell, I could accuse you of attempting to rape me. What will happen with future nominees? 

I think trying to say this is a ploy is stupid on its face. Why wouldn’t they have done it with Gorsuch? Hell, to McConnell or any of the other Rs tainting our collective unconscious? 

[Mikey 16,735]

Current status: She doesn't remember where this happened. She doesn't remember how she got home. She's not sure what year this took place. So how can she remember what, if anything, happened?

She won't testify before congress, probably because her lawyer has informed her that lying to congress is a federal crime.

Most incredible claim of all: She "didn't tell anybody". C'mon! I know something about 15 year old girls. She'll tell her friends everything from how she snagged her fingernail to how she got Johnny all hot and bothered under the bleachers Friday night. She'd have told her friends. If she can't produce them, she's lying.

[AUDub 11,184]

16 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Current status: She doesn't remember where this happened. She doesn't remember how she got home. She's not sure what year this took place. So how can she remember what, if anything, happened?

That’s not so unusual. I can narrow down the most traumatic moment of my life to about a week span, knew it took place in a hotel in East Lake, even though I can’t tell you which particular one to this day, but I can damn sure describe finer details of what that room looked like, smelled like, my bro’s girlfriend at the time freaking the **** out. It’s all kind of a blur, but some parts of it are as stark as if I was still there, 

(It was prying my dying little bros alcoholic ass out of a bed in some seedy motel to haul him to what ended up being his deathbed at UAB, BTW.)

16 minutes ago, Mikey said:

She won't testify before congress, probably because her lawyer has informed her that lying to congress is a federal crime.

She knows what their goal is. It would be stupid to appear on their terms. 

16 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Most incredible claim of all: She "didn't tell anybody". C'mon! I know something about 15 year old girls. She'll tell her friends everything from how she snagged her fingernail to how she got Johnny all hot and bothered under the bleachers Friday night. She'd have told her friends. If she can't produce them, she's lying.

Titan has debunked this bull**** multiple times already, so I’m not going to bother. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

6 hours ago, Mikey said:

Most incredible claim of all: She "didn't tell anybody". C'mon! I know something about 15 year old girls. She'll tell her friends everything from how she snagged her fingernail to how she got Johnny all hot and bothered under the bleachers Friday night. She'd have told her friends. If she can't produce them, she's lying.

This artificial lying test you've set up is bull****. You know nothing about victims of sexual assault (or at least have demonstrated zero real knowledge of them so far) and consistently try to extrapolate your barely adjacent personal experience and the fact that you "know something about 15-year old girls" into cockamamie theories that have relation to reality and contradict every expert in the field's opinion.  Stop it.

[Mikey 16,735]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Stop it.

So, you think a victim reporting an incident to authorities and gossiping about it with her girlfriends is the same thing? No, it isn't. It's two entirely different thought processes.

This alleged victim brought this out, herself, and the timing of her accusations doesn't just make her claim strain credibility, the timing makes her claim defy all believability. She opened this can of worms. The burden of proof is on her. If she won't testify and cannot produce witnesses to support her claim, she should be ignored or better yet, face criminal charges.

[AUDub 11,184]

26 minutes ago, Mikey said:

So, you think a victim reporting an incident to authorities and gossiping about it with her girlfriends is the same thing? No, it isn't. It's two entirely different thought processes.

It's not. For things like rape or sexual assault, it can take a long time and a lot of therapy before they can mentally admit it to themselves, much less their friends, acquaintances or the authorities.

26 minutes ago, Mikey said:

This alleged victim brought this out, herself, and the timing of her accusations doesn't just make her claim strain credibility, the timing makes her claim defy all believability. She opened this can of worms. The burden of proof is on her. If she won't testify

She's willing. The reason for the GOPs urgency couldn't be more transparent, though.

26 minutes ago, Mikey said:

and cannot produce witnesses to support her claim,

She named Mark Judge. The SJC won't subpoena him. There are probably 6-7 others that they could reasonably call to testify as well.

But they won't. They only want the two, because the goal is to destroy her, not find the truth.

26 minutes ago, Mikey said:

she should be ignored or better yet, face criminal charges.

That's insane. Think of the chilling effect that would have on victims of sexual assault.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

8 minutes ago, AUDub said:

It's not. For things like rape or sexual assault, it can take a long time and a lot of therapy before they can mentally admit it to themselves, much less their friends, acquaintances or the authorities.

She's willing. The reason for the GOPs urgency couldn't be more transparent, though.

She named Mark Judge. The SJC won't subpoena him. There are probably 6-7 others that they could reasonably call to testify as well.

But they won't. They only want the two, because the goal is to destroy her, not find the truth.

That's insane. Think of the chilling effect that would have on victims of sexual assault.

I was going to respond, but couldn't improve on this.  Thanks.

[AU64 10,122]

I don't like to facepalm but some of these explanations are such a stretch that it's hard to believe they are coming from the folks here....someone from Diane's office must have hacked the accounts to post such a wild bunch dreamed up excuses for her "inaction"......and still want to know why Senator DF did NOTHING....which tells me she did not find the claims credible.   Anti-Trumps will go to any length to toss mud on him or anyone even remotely associated with him.  And of course the incompetent FBI who did background searches more than once on the Judge.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I don't like to facepalm but some of these explanations are such a stretch that it's hard to believe they are coming from the folks here....someone from Diane's office must have hacked the accounts to post such a wild bunch dreamed up excuses for her "inaction"......and still want to know why Senator DF did NOTHING....which tells me she did not find the claims credible.   Anti-Trumps will go to any length to toss mud on him or anyone even remotely associated with him.  And of course the incompetent FBI who did background searches more than once on the Judge.

Except the explanations aren't stretches at all.  Have you ever had a real conversation with a sexual assault victim?  If you had, you would hear many of the same themes about accepting what actually happened.  It's not really different than any adults that have come out years later and talked about Catholic priests or, if you want a sports reference, Jerry Sandusky.  There's a lot of shame that goes into sexual assault largely because it is hard to prove unless a rape kit is done right on the spot.

As for why DF did nothing, that's been discussed.  It was a shrewd political move to further delay the confirmation process.  If Kavanaugh is pulled back, the GOP has to start all over again with another candidate who will likely not be confirmed by midterms.  Then, if the Dems win the Senate, they have a legitimate claim to hold off any confirmation until January as "the people have spoken".  It's the same claim that McConnell used for not giving Garland a vote.  It has nothing to do with DF not finding the info credible and everything to do with maximizing leverage.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

23 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I don't like to facepalm but some of these explanations are such a stretch that it's hard to believe they are coming from the folks here....someone from Diane's office must have hacked the accounts to post such a wild bunch dreamed up excuses for her "inaction"......and still want to know why Senator DF did NOTHING....which tells me she did not find the claims credible.   Anti-Trumps will go to any length to toss mud on him or anyone even remotely associated with him.  And of course the incompetent FBI who did background searches more than once on the Judge.

Give some examples of ones that are a stretch.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

And for the record, no one in this thread is defending Feinstein's handling of it.  So argue some other point because that one is a straw man being used to avoid staying on topic.  We all agree she handled this at best stupidly, and at worst like a calculated, conniving pol.

[AU64 10,122]

20 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except the explanations aren't stretches at all.  Have you ever had a real conversation with a sexual assault victim?  If you had, you would hear many of the same themes about accepting what actually happened.  It's not really different than any adults that have come out years later and talked about Catholic priests or, if you want a sports reference, Jerry Sandusky.  There's a lot of shame that goes into sexual assault largely because it is hard to prove unless a rape kit is done right on the spot.

As for why DF did nothing, that's been discussed.  It was a shrewd political move to further delay the confirmation process.  If Kavanaugh is pulled back, the GOP has to start all over again with another candidate who will likely not be confirmed by midterms.  Then, if the Dems win the Senate, they have a legitimate claim to hold off any confirmation until January as "the people have spoken".  It's the same claim that McConnell used for not giving Garland a vote.  It has nothing to do with DF not finding the info credible and everything to do with maximizing leverage.

I have no idea what she experienced but I see no reason to trust her to be accurate with her claims at this convenient time.    Those abuse situations that you guy mentioned were ongoing events....and this event, if it even happened was a one time thing and like some with sisters, daughters and grand daughters, I've never seen a girl who would not have shared this with a friend at the time it happened.    JMO.  

She's not even claiming an assault as best I can tell....but something 30+ years ago, among teens that was likely not even a crime....and the FBI is supposed to "investigate" this non crime?.   And meanwhile,  he is supposed to put his life on hold while she tries to remember where it happened and if it was even him?  

But, she asked to be heard....and was offered the chance to be heard …..and now apparently has turned it down knowing she would be under oath....and thus maybe not so sure she has her story correct.  I can't blame her in that case....she could answer questions according to her "memory" which might be end up being  totally inaccurate and could  be held accountable.    

 I take it that she is an honorable person and JMO but is looking for the FBI to give her cover for whatever she says.   If we want the FBI involved, maybe it should start by interviewing her as part of the background check.    And considering that lying or misleading the FBI is a Federal crime as Martha Stewart and some others found out and she would need to be careful about sharing her recollections with them.  . 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

8 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I have no idea what she experienced but I see no reason to trust her to be accurate with her claims at this convenient time.    Those abuse situations that you guy mentioned were ongoing events....and this event, if it even happened was a one time thing and like some with sisters, daughters and grand daughters, I've never seen a girl who would not have shared this with a friend at the time it happened.    JMO.  

Not all of the Catholic priest situations were ongoing.  Some were one-time situations where the child or teen was molested and then stopped doing whatever gave the priest easy access to them (such as being an altar boy).  Yet they said nothing for years after.

 

Quote

She's not even claiming an assault as best I can tell....but something 30+ years ago, among teens that was likely not even a crime....and the FBI is supposed to "investigate" this non crime?.   And meanwhile,  he is supposed to put his life on hold while she tries to remember where it happened and if it was even him?  

What are you talking about?  Her description is that of an attempted rape, which is sexual assault by definition.  Forced into a bedroom, pinned down on a bed unable to move or get the guy off, he's trying to take off her clothes and when she screams he clamps his hand over her mouth.  Then his friend tries to join in on the assault and in his drunkenness ends up knocking them off the bed and the first guy off of her, giving her a chance to escape.

How in your mind is that not an assault?  How in your mind would that not be a crime?

 

Quote

But, she asked to be heard....and was offered the chance to be heard …..and now apparently has turned it down knowing she would be under oath....and thus maybe not so sure she has her story correct.  I can't blame her in that case....she could answer questions according to her "memory" which might be end up being  totally inaccurate and could  be held accountable.    

Too early to make such proclamations.  Both sides are negotiating and using leverage.  There is nothing wrong with her having certain requirements as to how this will be handled so she's not subjected to a one-sided ambush or kangaroo court.

 

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

10 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I have no idea what she experienced but I see no reason to trust her to be accurate with her claims at this convenient time.    Those abuse situations that you guy mentioned were ongoing events....and this event, if it even happened was a one time thing and like some with sisters, daughters and grand daughters, I've never seen a girl who would not have shared this with a friend at the time it happened.    JMO.  

She's not even claiming an assault as best I can tell....but something 30+ years ago, among teens that was likely not even a crime....and the FBI is supposed to "investigate" this non crime?.   And meanwhile,  he is supposed to put his life on hold while she tries to remember where it happened and if it was even him?  

But, she asked to be heard....and was offered the chance to be heard …..and now apparently has turned it down knowing she would be under oath....and thus maybe not so sure she has her story correct.  I can't blame her in that case....she could answer questions according to her "memory" which might be end up being  totally inaccurate and could  be held accountable.    

 I take it that she is an honorable person and JMO but is looking for the FBI to give her cover for whatever she says.   If we want the FBI involved, maybe it should start by interviewing her as part of the background check.    And considering that lying or misleading the FBI is a Federal crime as Martha Stewart and some others found out and she would need to be careful about sharing her recollections with them.  . 

Titan answered most of this so I'm just going to add, you have conflicting statements here in bold.  If she's honorable, then you should trust her claims to be accurate.

 

[AUDub 11,184]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Too early to make such proclamations.  Both sides are negotiating and using leverage.  There is nothing wrong with her having certain requirements as to how this will be handled so she's not subjected to a one-sided ambush or kangaroo court.

 

[AU64 10,122]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What are you talking about?  Her description is that of an attempted rape, which is sexual assault by definition.  Forced into a bedroom, pinned down on a bed unable to move or get the guy off, he's trying to take off her clothes and when she screams he clamps his hand over her mouth.  Then his friend tries to join in on the assault and in his drunkenness ends up knocking them off the bed and the first guy off of her, giving her a chance to escape.

How in your mind is that not an assault?  How in your mind would that not be a crime?

Guess I don't believe the details of this story.....and that nobody knew about it afterward....   until 35 years later and I don't think she is claiming that she just remembered this is she?   

[Barnacle 9,064]

3 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Guess I don't believe the details of this story.....and that nobody knew about it afterward....   until 35 years later and I don't think she is claiming that she just remembered this is she?   

What about the story itself is unbelievable to you?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

4 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Guess I don't believe the details of this story.....and that nobody knew about it afterward....   until 35 years later

But experts tell us time and again that it's not uncommon for victims to not tell people at the time, especially when there isn't any real physical evidence or witnesses (such as with an attempted rape).  Why do you trust your take on how victims should behave and reveal their assaults over those who have counseled victims and/or studied victims of sexual assault for years or even decades?

 

4 minutes ago, AU64 said:

and I don't think she is claiming that she just remembered this is she?   

No.  She is not claiming that she "suddenly" remembered.  She's claiming that she's been dealing with the ramifications of that night ever since, to the point where her and her husband eventually had to go to a therapist together because it was affecting their marriage (and I presume, their sex life).  And we have the therapist's notes from their session several years back that have been released, backing up her story of a sexual assault as she's not describing, back in high school to corroborate.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Wonder why Feinstein won't even give the committee Ford's letter to her if the Dems are demanding more info. Maybe she now realizes how shaky the accusation is.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

6 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Wonder why Feinstein won't even give the committee Ford's letter to her if the Dems are demanding more info. Maybe she now realizes how shaky the accusation is.

Wonder why you have fallen into this pattern the last several posts of everything you say sounding like an accusation or implying some conspiracy?  Can you not just discuss it in an even handed manner?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Wonder why you have fallen into this pattern the last several posts of everything you say sounding like an accusation or implying some conspiracy?  Can you not just discuss it in an even handed manner?

I thought it was an very reasonable "question". Why not just give your opinion as is usually done in a discussion? I haven't intended to imply a conspiracy unless  the  last minute turd in the punchbowl is named Conspiracy.

[AUDub 11,184]

The text of the letter. 

Senator Dianne Feinstein 

 

 

 

Dear Senator Feinstein;

 

I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.

 

Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. He conducted these acts with the assistance of [REDACTED].

 

Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.

 

The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.

 

Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

 

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with [REDACTED], who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

 

From across the room a very drunken [REDACTED] said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from "go for it" to "stop."

 

At one point when [REDACTED] jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.

 

I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see [REDACTED] once at the [REDACTED] where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.

 

I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information . It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

 

I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently [REDACTED] and will be in [REDACTED].

 

In confidence, [REDACTED].

[TitanTiger 20,511]

So Grassley is bitching about not having the unredacted letter when the only redactions are the name of the other guy in the room with them, whom we all now know was Mark Judge?  Good grief.  Stop preening and throwing up false roadblocks to doing your damn job.

[homersapien 11,447]

20 hours ago, WDavE said:

I seem to remember the same type accusations when Clarence Thomas was nominated.  Maybe its not really the diverse background that you and your fellow party members are seeking.

It wasn't an "accusation".  And I don't understand the last sentence. What are you trying to infer?

[homersapien 11,447]

15 hours 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? 

Since when is timing so critical? 

What a (hypocritical) red herring.