Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[CCTAU 3,346]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Is is HIGHLY unethical to take that a step further and publicly name a person, including photos both from back then in high school and today, that you are suggesting actually tried to rape her.  And all of it based on nothing but trying to match her description of the attack to a floor plan of a house in the area.  Do you really not see the problem with that? 

Its called an alternate theory. I find it unethical to accuse a man of sexual assault 36 years ago with no proof and no witnesses. Has one person come out and said they remember? It was a party, surely someone else was there. This is nothing more than the same playbook used successfully against Moore. If this becomes the norm, no man will be safe from false accusations.   

[SaltyTiger 7,864]

29 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

It appears Kavanaugh was aware of this tact.

Why do you say that Brother Tex?

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

This is nothing more than a hail mary by the left.

Do you really believe that Nola?

[TitanTiger 20,511]

29 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

Its called an alternate theory. I find it unethical to accuse a man of sexual assault 36 years ago with no proof and no witnesses. Has one person come out and said they remember? It was a party, surely someone else was there. This is nothing more than the same playbook used successfully against Moore. If this becomes the norm, no man will be safe from false accusations.   

I hope one day in the not-too-distant future, they can identify the brain-eating parasite that has infected the minds of present-day conservatives and find a cure.  It's so sad to see the shell of itself that American conservatism has become in its all-consuming focus on winning at any cost.

That said, I'm not here for your question dodging.  Put aside your whataboutism that you think serves as a rebuttal.  Ed Whelan wasn't there.  He concocted a wild-ass theory based on little more than pieces of descriptions from Mrs. Ford's account and some research on floor plans in Zillow.  Then proceeded to take just that and tie it to some guy that no one in all of this has even suggested was there that night and did so, with photos and naming names on one of the biggest social media platforms on Earth. It's unethical and morally reprehensible.  Period.

As far as her accusing him without proof many years later, is it your suggestion that sexual assault victims who have no proof or witnesses (because most SAs are not done in plain sight of others) are being unethical if they speak up about the attack?  

[AUDub 11,184]

 

[AUDub 11,184]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I hope one day in the not-too-distant future, they can identify the brain-eating parasite that has infected the minds of present-day conservatives and find a cure.  It's so sad to see the shell of itself that American conservatism has become in its all-consuming focus on winning at any cost.

There is rot within the movement. Trump took advantage of that rot. 

[AUDub 11,184]

 

[AUDub 11,184]

Sounds like it’ll be a fair hearing /s

 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

 

They've dug in their heels so hard on this, I'll be a little surprised if they cave right now.  

[AUDub 11,184]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

They've dug in their heels so hard on this, I'll be a little surprised if they cave right now.  

Hey, as I said 15ish pages ago:

 

On 9/16/2018 at 7:31 PM, AUDub said:

This is very true, and I'm very willing to make that move. Conservatives would be smart to yank his nomination, given how toxic this is getting, and ram through someone even more conservative in the 45 days they have to work with.

What I think they'll do is drag this out and eventually fold. I think the suggestion above would be the better move for them.

 

[AUDub 11,184]

 

[homersapien 11,452]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

No, what happened last night was basically that some guy on Twitter that is apparently known in political circles but I'd never heard of, posted a thread of tweets where he attempts to identify the house in that neighborhood near the country club that fits the description of the floor plan Mrs. Ford describes in her account of the alleged sexual assault.  Then once he names a particular home, he identifies the owner of the house and a guy who was their son at the time, posts his name and photo, notes that he and Kavanaugh resemble each other and suggests Mrs. Ford mistook her attacker for Kavanaugh when it was really that guy.

On top of that, it doesn't appear to have been just the spontaneous sleuthing and observations of a random guy, but something that some Senate aides and others in the conservative political realm knew was coming and were telling people to be on the lookout for.  It comes off as a coordinated strategy and plan of attacking Mrs. Ford that some of the GOP senators were in on.

And that doesn't even begin to get into the ethical problems with a guy who is the President of the the Ethics and Public Policy Center identifying by name a person and suggesting that they tried to rape Mrs. Ford in a case of mistaken identity.  On what planet is it ever ethical to do something like that?

Is it any wonder why she requested an FBI investigation? 

[AUDub 11,184]

 

[homersapien 11,452]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

And if he was, it’s disqualifying, full stop. 

What was funny about this Nola?  Seriously.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

53 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Do you really believe that Nola?

Why are the attorneys conditioning Ford giving testimony under oath ONLY if BK testifies first, for any point other than being able to adapt her story accordingly? There’s a reason it doesn’t work like that in the real realm of justice. The accuser always goes first. Pure further validation of this absurdity.

The man was on the DC circuit for crying out loud. As soon as he gets called to SCOTUS, a woman just suddenly “remembers” the “traumatic incident” ? 

I don’t buy it. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

 

This whole thing reads like that "As the Plains Burn" conspiracy tale cooked up over at TigerDroppings and fomented on Bama boards by a couple of their supposed insiders a few years back during the Cam stuff.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What was funny about this Nola?  Seriously.

That so many of you are naive enough to buy into this “coincidence” and run with it.

I’m entertained. 

[homersapien 11,452]

1 hour ago, CCTAU said:

So far, I have only read about an attempted grope. But if you guys prefer to use the word rape on every response, I guess it gets a better response.

 

But to the question above, does this not happen in court rooms all over the country on a daily basis? Is it not possible that someone else was involved? Is it not possible a victim was so inebriated, they just don't remember and attribute everything to maybe someone they talked to or saw earlier? I'm not saying this is the case, but its not unethical to suggest a case of mistaken identity.

Holding a woman down while trying to undress her while holding your hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming qualifies as attempted rape in my world. 

[homersapien 11,452]

13 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Perhaps BK was not. You know exactly what this all about. Go ahead and pretend

Perhaps not.  Please note the qualifiers in Dub's post - if.

And please tell us outright "what this was all about".

[TitanTiger 20,511]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Why are the attorneys conditioning Ford giving testimony under oath ONLY if BK testifies first, for any point other than being able to adapt her story accordingly? There’s a reason it doesn’t work like that in the real realm of justice. The accuser always goes first. Pure further validation of this absurdity.

After the call concluded, Katz sent to the participants on the call a letter re-stating their position, according to a copy of the letter obtained by NBC News. Katz wrote that she wanted "to be clear" about their position. "The only issue I said was a deal breaker was that Dr. Ford cannot appear at a hearing on Monday for the reasons I described." Katz adds that Ford can't meet Grassley's demand that she submit written testimony by 10 a.m. Friday, calling it a "non-starter."

They are negotiating terms of the hearing.  This isn't a regular court of law.  She's asking for certain things, not "conditioning" her testimony on anything except that she can't appear on Monday or submit her written testimony on Friday by 10am.  

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The man was on the DC circuit for crying out loud. As soon as he gets called to SCOTUS, a woman just suddenly “remembers” the “traumatic incident” ? 

I don’t buy it. 

She didn't "suddenly" remember it.  We at least know from her therapist's notes that she brought up an attempted rape/sexual assault back in high school 6 years ago during counseling with her husband present, partly because the repercussions from that incident were affecting her marriage and sex life all these years later.  And she didn't wait until he was selected as the nominee to say something, she reached out to the Post when she saw he was just on the short list for the nomination but hadn't even been named.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That so many of you are naive enough to buy into this “coincidence” and run with it.

I’m entertained. 

The thing that "so many of us" have been maintaining the entire time is that her accusations are serious, there is nothing to suggest she's the kind to make something like this up, and that we shouldn't rush to confirm and instead have both of them testify and perhaps have the FBI take a deeper look at it before we confer a lifetime, unelected appointment to the most powerful court in the land on someone. That is perfectly reasonable.

 

[homersapien 11,452]

17 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That so many of you are naive enough to buy into this “coincidence” and run with it.

I’m entertained. 

What does that have to do with the substance of Dub's post? 

I don't think you are keeping up with the discussion.  Here is what Dub was referring to:

Ed Whelan, a former clerk to the late justice Antonin Scalia and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, pointed to floor plans, online photographs and other information to suggest a location for the house party in suburban Maryland that Ford described. He also named and posted photographs of the classmate he suggested could be responsible.

Ford dismissed Whelan’s theory in a statement late Thursday: “I knew them both, and socialized with” the other classmate, Ford said, adding that she had once visited him in the hospital. “There is zero chance that I would confuse them.”

Republicans on Capitol Hill and White House officials immediately sought to distance themselves from Whelan’s claims and said they were not aware of his plans to identify the former classmate, now a middle school teacher, who could not be reached for comment and did not answer the door at his house Thursday night.

Whelan did not respond to requests for comment. He had told people around him that he had spent several days putting together the theory and thought it was more convincing than her story, according to two friends who had talked to him.

On Friday morning, Whelan said he had made an “inexcusable mistake” by identifying Kavanaugh’s classmate.

“I made an appalling and inexcusable mistake of judgment in posting the tweet thread in a way that identified Kavanaugh’s Georgetown Prep classmate,” he said on Twitter. “I take full responsibility for that mistake, and I deeply apologize for it. I realize that does not undo the mistake.”

Whelan has been involved in helping to advise Kavanaugh’s confirmation effort and is close friends with both Kavanaugh and Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society who has been helping to spearhead the nomination. Kavanaugh and Whelan also worked together in the Bush administration.

Kavanaugh and his allies have been privately discussing a defense that would not question whether an incident involving Ford happened, but instead would raise doubts that the attacker was Kavanaugh, according to a person familiar with the discussions. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/gop-vows-to-move-ahead-with-kavanaugh-vote-if-his-accuser-doesnt-testify-monday/2018/09/20/a7132ee8-bcf5-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?__twitter_impression=true

 

If Kavanaugh had prior knowledge of Whelan's strategy, it's disqualifying and stating so is not laughable.

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't think you are keeping up with the discussion.

He's already admitted that he hasn't read the thread.  TL;DR

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

her therapist's notes

The same notes that don't mention Kavanaugh? Does anything other than unverifiable and merky evidence point to him? If she knew it was him, why the hell wasn't any of this brought up during his tenure on the Second highest Court in the land?

Surely you can see the various issues with all of this. And the fact that Feinstein sat on it. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

They are negotiating terms of the hearing.  This isn't a regular court of law.  She's asking for certain things, not "conditioning" her testimony on anything except that she can't appear on Monday or submit her written testimony on Friday by 10am.  

BK will have to go first, of course under the guise of anything other than the obvious. 

[homersapien 11,452]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

He's already admitted that he hasn't read the thread.  TL;DR

He's obviously here to just fling poo.