Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[TitanTiger 20,511]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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?

You said "suddenly remembered" and I corrected you.

And had you read the thread, you'd have seen a rather lengthy discussion on why sexual assault victims often choose not to come forward if they don't have to, and what sort of events may finally prompt them to end their silence.

 

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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

Of course.  But again, we aren't saying we know Kavanaugh did it.  We are saying, she's a credible person, her charges are serious, and they deserve to be looked into more rather than rushing to confirm him.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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

Again she's stated that isn't a non-negotiable.  The only thing that is non-negotiable is turning in her written testimony this morning and testifying in person on Monday.

[AUDub 11,184]

 

[CCTAU 3,345]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

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

If my conservatism is judged by any of you to be unfit, I'm OK with that . Some lie down and take it. Others choose to fight fire with fire. Trump is better at their game than they are. I guess that upsets the likes to some of you.  I applaud that. I would rather support that than the losing most self-righteous so called conservatives are willing to endure. 

As for this situation, there are loons on both sides of the game. The whelan loon came up with an alternate theory. A loony one, but not illegal to speculate. Stupid, yes.

The feigned outrage is laughable. You are OK with a sitting judge being accused out of thin air, by an anti-Trump left wing activist,  for something he supposedly did when he was 17, but think an alternate theory conspiracy to the fantasy is loony? I see both of them as fringe loons. And you guys only serve to feed the lunacy.

 

 

[AUDub 11,184]

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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

The extent of his participation so far.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

1 minute ago, CCTAU said:

As for this situation, there are loons on both sides of the game. The whelan loon came up with an alternate theory. A loony one, but not illegal to speculate. Stupid, yes.

No one here suggested it was illegal.  We did say it was unethical and that is correct.

 

1 minute ago, CCTAU said:

The feigned outrage is laughable. You are OK with a sitting judge being accused out of thin air, by an anti-Trump left wing activist,  for something he supposedly did when he was 17, but think an alternate theory conspiracy to the fantasy is loony? I see both of them as fringe loons. And you guys only serve to feed the lunacy.

The difference is, one was there and is stating something that happened to her.  Now you can disbelieve her if you wish, but she's ostensibly an eyewitness.  The other wasn't there, and we know for certain he pulled this out of his ass and accused a guy who hasn't even been suggested was even there at the time, just to try and win a SCOTUS battle.  You're not a dumb person.  Act like it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

23 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You said "suddenly remembered" and I corrected you.

You corrected me? She did “suddenly remember” it was BK. Nothing non-tenuous suggests otherwise.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The extent of his participation so far.

Mission accomplished then? *boom

[SaltyTiger 7,863]

45 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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."

I would think that submitting the truth is a very easy thing to do.   

[TitanTiger 20,511]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You corrected me? She did “suddenly remember” it was BK. Nothing non-tenuous suggests otherwise.

It's still an overreach on the wording.  It's clear that she didn't concoct this story of being sexually assaulted at a party at 15 years old "suddenly."  And at least according to her husband, she actually did name Kavanaugh during the session 6 years ago.  I realize it's "tenuous" as you say, but it's not as if she's said nothing all this time and just now is mentioning for the first time ever that she got assaulted.  I think the way you're characterizing it is too dismissive and flippant.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I would think that submitting the truth is a very easy thing to do.   

I don't recall her saying she was unwilling to submit her testimony.  She is objecting to their arbitrary and hurried timeline.  And I hardly think someone willing to submit to questioning by a bunch of politicians on worldwide television is shying away from scrutiny.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

The feigned outrage is laughable. You are OK with a sitting judge being accused out of thin air, by an anti-Trump left wing activist,  for something he supposedly did when he was 17, but think an alternate theory conspiracy to the fantasy is loony? I see both of them as fringe loons. And you guys only serve to feed the lunacy.

Yes. One would think it quite hard to fathom the timing of all of this as “coincidental.”  Unfortunately that’s not the case.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And at least according to her husband, she actually did name Kavanaugh during the session 6 years ago.  

Purely laughable. So now we are crediting hearsay? My goodness this entire ordeal wouldn’t last in a competent adversarial setting.

[CCTAU 3,345]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The difference is, one was there and is stating something that happened to her.  Now you can disbelieve her if you wish, but she's ostensibly an eyewitness.  The other wasn't there, and we know for certain he pulled this out of his ass and accused a guy who hasn't even been suggested was even there at the time, just to try and win a SCOTUS battle.  You're not a dumb person.  Act like it.

Interesting. An "eye witness" who can't recall very many details. If this had even been brought up back when it happened, nothing would have come of it with those types of details.  And today, even less. Parties usually have a few folks. Nobody remembers the party. NOBODY! It's as loony as the whelan guy!

 

FEED THE LUNACY!

[homersapien 11,450]

45 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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. 

Therapists don't personalize their notes as a matter of practice.

This was covered earlier in the thread.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yes. One would think it quite hard to fathom the timing of all of this as “coincidental.”  Unfortunately that’s not the case.

I think "coincidental" is a weird term too.  I don't think anyone has suggested that she is bringing this up randomly and it just happened to be just as he's nominated for the SCOTUS.  In fact, I've argued something almost the opposite.  I've pointed out that experts will tell you it's completely normal for victims of rape and sexual assault to not say anything at the time to anyone and to go years or even decades keeping that silence. And that it's also not unusual for the ones who break their silence to finally do so because of a particular event or circumstance - such as the alleged perpetrator possibly being given a role of great power, responsibility and influence.   

So no, I don't think it's a coincidence at all.  She may be lying or delusional.  There's nothing in her past or professional life to suggest she's that kind of person, but it's possible.  But if she's telling the truth, it's precisely because he was said to be on the short list for a SCOTUS nomination and she felt at that point she had to come forward and tell what happened.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

4 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

Interesting. An "eye witness" who can't recall very many details.

What level of detail are you expecting to make it credible?  She remembers quite a few details, details about the home's layout, what vicinity of town it was in, people who were there, specific names of the the two guys she's accusing, and so on.  This is an odd critique to me.

 

4 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

If this had even been brought up back when it happened, nothing would have come of it with those types of details.  And today, even less. Parties usually have a few folks. Nobody remembers the party. NOBODY! It's as loony as the whelan guy!

That's not true.  The two perps don't remember it, or at least say they don't.  Two of the other people she named at the party have so far refused to comment.  That's not "NOBODY" remembers.

 

 

[homersapien 11,450]

23 minutes ago, CCTAU said:

If my conservatism is judged by any of you to be unfit, I'm OK with that . Some lie down and take it. Others choose to fight fire with fire. Trump is better at their game than they are. I guess that upsets the likes to some of you.  I applaud that. I would rather support that than the losing most self-righteous so called conservatives are willing to endure. 

As for this situation, there are loons on both sides of the game. The whelan loon came up with an alternate theory. A loony one, but not illegal to speculate. Stupid, yes.

The feigned outrage is laughable. You are OK with a sitting judge being accused out of thin air, by an anti-Trump left wing activist,  for something he supposedly did when he was 17, but think an alternate theory conspiracy to the fantasy is loony? I see both of them as fringe loons. And you guys only serve to feed the lunacy.

 

 

Irony.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Therapists don't personalize their notes as a matter of practice.

This was covered earlier in the thread.

They most certainly quote names that are essential to the record.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Purely laughable. So now we are crediting hearsay?

It's not laughable.  It may be hearsay, but nothing about it is "laughable."

 

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

My goodness this entire ordeal wouldn’t last in a competent adversarial setting.

Well the thing is, that's not what this is.  This isn't a court of law and he's not facing conviction and jail time.  It's a job interview.  

Sadly though, what you say is true of most cases of sexual assault.  Usually the only ones who witness it are the victim and the perpetrator.  Very few if any people who would do such a thing do it where anyone else could witness it.  And if all she has is her word against his, it wouldn't go very far in any sort of legal setting anyway.  That's especially true in the case where it's an attempted rape.  There's very little, if any, physical evidence.

[homersapien 11,450]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

They most certainly quote names that are essential to the record.

Wrong. It was a therapy session, not a deposition. 

Like I said, this was covered earlier.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well the thing is, that's not what this is.  This isn't a court of law and he's not facing conviction and jail time.  It's a job interview.

This is much more than a job interview, as you know. Job interviews do not require you to swear an oath. So, bad analogy. 

If we really want to get down to the bottom of this, the Senate is not the appropriate presence in the first place. After all, this is exactly what is happening - essentially eliciting testimony to litigate Ford's accusations to determine the fate of an Executive appointment to the highest court in the land. Maryland does not have a statute of limitations for felony sexual assault. If the case is strong enough, charges could be brought there today. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Wrong. It was a therapy session, not a deposition. 

Like I said, this was covered earlier.

Wrong. Link from "Psychology Today"

Intakes/legal issues: Early sessions tend to be heavy in history and description of the symptoms the client experiences. Therapists often jot down the significant dates, names of important people, and descriptions of symptoms.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

This is much more than a job interview, as you know. Job interviews do not require you to swear an oath. So, bad analogy. 

This one does.  It's just a more important job interview.  Analogy is just fine.

 

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If we really want to get down to the bottom of this, the Senate is not the appropriate presence in the first place. After all, this is exactly what is happening - essentially eliciting testimony to litigate Ford's accusations to determine the fate of an Executive appointment to the highest court in the land. Maryland does not have a statute of limitations for felony sexual assault. If the case is strong enough, charges could be brought there today. 

The case isn't strong enough to warrant conviction, but no one is seeking that.  It is an important enough accusation to look into it further when considering someone to such a powerful lifetime position.

[homersapien 11,450]

2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

This is much more than a job interview, as you know. Job interviews do not require you to swear an oath. So, bad analogy. 

If we really want to get down to the bottom of this, the Senate is not the appropriate presence in the first place. After all, this is exactly what is happening - essentially eliciting testimony to litigate Ford's accusations to determine the fate of an Executive appointment to the highest court in the land. Maryland does not have a statute of limitations for felony sexual assault. If the case is strong enough, charges could be brought there today. 

Oath or not, the standards of evidence and procedure are much more like a job interview than a criminal trial.  Making such an analogy is not justified.  Even by a law student.