Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[TitanTiger 20,538]

4 minutes ago, jw 4 au said:

Stories you heard?  So you weren’t actually there?  Sixteen Candles is your only observed incidence?  Surely you know the stories you heard on Monday morning during third period French probably didn’t actually happen exactly as they were recalled?  Truth was always embellished by those party animals (not you). And that was only a few days later. Now think about 32 plus years later. And these accusers all recalled them the same exact week. Come on man, call a spade a spade and let’s move on. There is nothing to see here anymore. These last few accusations plus the plethora of support from actual witnesses and people who new BK should rule with any reasonable person. And to think, about half of America will think BK on the SCOTUS is marred by controversy.  Sad state of America.  ♠️ 

Look, don't patronize me and quit trying to build an argument by exaggerating an aspect of things I've said.

I know there was some bragging going on and not everything was true.  But I also know some the people involved and that the stories were not far off from the bragging in many cases.  I talked to some friends years later who I know aren't given to lying and they described the same kinds of scenes.  Sixteen Candles was just an example of the prevailing attitudes of the day.  You don't have to believe me, I don't really care.  I stand by everything I've said.

Good night.

[SaltyTiger 7,900]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

not just any ol' ho at a party.

 

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 Haven't not seen how drunk she really was I just figured she was a ho bag.

Are you saying these girls where "asking for it"

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I figure it was fairly widely known.  I don't think it registered that it was actually wrong for a lot of guys to have sex with a girl who was wasted but conscious.  A lot of people seemed to act like it was normal.  As I said before it wasn't normal for me.  I tended to think of sex as something I'd want to do with a girlfriend, not just any ol' ho at a party.

And that's part of the deal.  A girl in that situation was generally just seen as a slut.  She got herself into that by getting so drunk around all those guys.  She never said no.  She seemed like she was into it.  Yada yada yada.  

No I didn't report it.  I heard stories.  I wasn't there to see it.  And I probably had the same attitude as some others.  Having not seen how drunk she really was I just figured she was a ho bag.

Would you describe it as a “teenage rape ring”? These accusers paint a picture of a coordinated, intentional, per se consortium of high-achievement teenagers who deliberately planned and in fact did, rape and drug girls regularly.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Guys, it's been a long day and I'm going to bed.  See you on the flip side.

I’ve enjoyed chatting with you Titan!

[AUFAN78 3,943]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Given that it was only her and the two perps in the room, what corroboration could she give to satisfy you?

Good question. I'll try and watch tomorrow and form an opinion on testimony, but i think we can agree the testimony from the third perp would be beneficial. Although, I think he (the third perp) has has already denied the allegation and that denial would not likely change. 

We now have a few BK acquaintances that say they can believe the accusations and over one hundred who can't believe them. 

I don't know what to believe honestly. I do believe in innocence until proven guilty. 

Until tomorrow............

[TexasTiger 13,119]

6 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Good question. I'll try and watch tomorrow and form an opinion on testimony, but i think we can agree the testimony from the third perp would be beneficial. Although, I think he (the third perp) has has already denied the allegation and that denial would not likely change. 

We now have a few BK acquaintances that say they can believe the accusations and over one hundred who can't believe them. 

I don't know what to believe honestly. I do believe in innocence until proven guilty. 

Until tomorrow............

Put Mark Judge under oath. A media denial is meaningless. He’s hiding out. The Republicans should want to call him, right? Yet they don’t. Why not?

[jw 4 au 526]

21 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Look, don't patronize me and quit trying to build an argument by exaggerating an aspect of things I've said.

I know there was some bragging going on and not everything was true.  But I also know some the people involved and that the stories were not far off from the bragging in many cases.  I talked to some friends years later who I know aren't given to lying and they described the same kinds of scenes.  Sixteen Candles was just an example of the prevailing attitudes of the day.  You don't have to believe me, I don't really care.  I stand by everything I've said.

Good night.

I wasn’t trying to patronize you, I was simply being a little silly and trying to prove a point at the same time. The Sixteen Candles thing cracked me up, and i actually understand your explainations. I also think you have been a little level headed on this issue so far, at least trying to wait and see both sides of the issues.  

In my previous life, I was actually on the heavy partying side of things, and saw some crazy stuff back then too. But never gang rapes or anything even close. Yes, there were slutty girls, yes things happened behind closed doors mostly, and yes there were stores in school the following week, but never rape trains or hookers. Oddly enough, I was from the other side of DC in northern Virginia during the ‘80s. Never partied with Georgetown Prep though, we were lower class. And honestly, I can vaguely remember a lot of stuff, but certainly nothing credible at all. 

[AUDub 11,204]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Are you saying these girls where "asking for it"

Know this isn't directed at me.

Shamefully, I probably did at the time. Teenage Dub's views on such things probably weren't too far removed from a neanderthal's. 

My view of informed consent has changed in the last decade and a half. A lot. 

[TitanTiger 20,538]

7 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Are you saying these girls where "asking for it"

Back then?  That's probably what I thought and what a lot of people thought.  Some today still do.  I'm not among them.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

8 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Some reputable overwhelming corroboration?

I don't know about "overwhelming" or what would suffice to you.  But we do know from one of the affidavits filed yesterday that Mrs. Ford discussed this with a friend back in 2013.  Her friend testified Ford seems troubled and she asked about it and Ford told her she'd been having a hard time lately because of a sexual assault that happened many years ago when she was younger.  She describes a scene where two drunken guys trapped her in a room, then one of them almost raped her.  She said that guy was now a federal judge.  She managed to escape but it had impacted her life ever since.

Now she didn't name Kavanaugh in this discussion so that might make it fall short of overwhelming to you.  But I think it's important to note that this was almost three years before Antonin Scalia even died and three years before Trump was elected.  So derailing a Trump SCOTUS nominee wouldn't even be on the radar.  What are the odds that she would happen to tell that story in 2013 that happens to line up with the account she told her therapist in 2012 and that lines up with the account she gives now?  So if you maintain he didn't do it, we're left to believe that either this entire story is made up, not for political reasons but just to get attention and that now she's using it to take down BK, or that it's true but another judge out there is the perp and she's lying in saying it's BK.

To me, that lends credibility to her story.  It's a sworn affidavit given under penalty of perjury.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

Christine Ford's written testimony that will be given today:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/26/politics/ford-testimony/index.html

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't know about "overwhelming" or what would suffice to you.  But we do know from one of the affidavits filed yesterday that Mrs. Ford discussed this with a friend back in 2013.  Her friend testified Ford seems troubled and she asked about it and Ford told her she'd been having a hard time lately because of a sexual assault that happened many years ago when she was younger.  She describes a scene where two drunken guys trapped her in a room, then one of them almost raped her.  She said that guy was now a federal judge.  She managed to escape but it had impacted her life ever since.

Now she didn't name Kavanaugh in this discussion so that might make it fall short of overwhelming to you.  But I think it's important to note that this was almost three years before Antonin Scalia even died and three years before Trump was elected.  So derailing a Trump SCOTUS nominee wouldn't even be on the radar.  What are the odds that she would happen to tell that story in 2013 that happens to line up with the account she told her therapist in 2012 and that lines up with the account she gives now?  So if you maintain he didn't do it, we're left to believe that either this entire story is made up, not for political reasons but just to get attention and that now she's using it to take down BK, or that it's true but another judge out there is the perp and she's lying in saying it's BK.

To me, that lends credibility to her story.  It's a sworn affidavit given under penalty of perjury.

That does not lend credibility to the accusations towards BK at all. That doesn’t even get a person into the batter’s box. BK has hundreds of character witnesses, corroborating testimony supporting his denial of these acts, etc.If you really want to consider this affidavit fairly, then you must see how weak it is given that it is saturated with hearsay. Common sense goes a long way. I write affidavits myself, and hers is very weak. We are still left with no compelling evidence from Ford.

Kerryonn.....

[TitanTiger 20,538]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That does not lend credibility to the accusations towards BK at all. That doesn’t even get a person into the batter’s box. BK has hundreds of character witnesses, corroborating testimony supporting his denial of these acts, etc.If you really want to consider this affidavit fairly, then you must see how weak it is given that it is saturated with hearsay. Common sense goes a long way. I write affidavits myself, and hers is very weak. We are still left with no compelling evidence from Ford.

Kerryonn.....

So it is your contention that she made the whole assault story up?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

So it is your contention that she made the whole assault story up?

No. I don’t know if she was assaulted or not. But for purposes of specific accusations against BK, the affidavit can hardly be characterized as compelling or credible w/r/t the purpose of the hearing. This is only my opinion. I write affidavits, under oath, and present them to federal judges.... but I’m certainly not a “lawyer.” Take it as you will. 

Today will be very interesting.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

6 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

No. I don’t know if she was assaulted or not. But for purposes of specific accusations against BK, the affidavit can hardly be characterized as compelling or credible w/r/t the purpose of the hearing. This is only my opinion. I write affidavits, under oath, and present them to federal judges.... but I’m certainly not a “lawyer.” Take it as you will. 

Today will be very interesting.

I think the affidavit is compelling in light of what we already know such as the therapist's notes and the letter to Feinstein.  The account is remarkably consistent between things we know were from 6 years ago, things someone is willing to subject themselves to perjury over in the affidavit, and what she said in the letter, the WaPo interview and now her written testimony to be given today.

But also think of it this way.  If you believe the story of her sexual assault is a lie, you have to believe at least one of these things:

• You believe she's lying though her story is consistent with her therapist's notes from 2012 and the letter she sent to Sen. Feinstein...the layout of the house, two men shoving her into the room, escaping after one jumped on the bed and knocked her assailant off of her, locking herself in a bathroom across the hall.
• You have to disbelieve her friend's sworn testimony backing several of the same details.
• You have to marvel at how she said it was a federal judge 3 years ahead of time
• You have to believe she's made up this elaborate story in absence of any history of making false accusations, making up crazy stories, having an exemplary and respected professional life
• You believe this was an extremely long con that she planted the seeds for 3 years before she could even fathom it would be relevant, only to spring on it when the time was right.
• You think she's batshit crazy

 

If you believe the story is true but it's not Brett Kavanaugh (which sounds like a possible defense BK's side is floating)...

• You have to believe another federal judge attacked her but she (absent any proof) has been paid off to falsely accuse BK of another's actions
• You have to believe she would allow a person guilty of sexual assault to go unpunished only to pin it on an innocent man for purely political reasons, and laid the groundwork for it 3 years ahead of time.
• She's too stupid to remember the person who attacked her.

That is why the affidavit, taken with what else we know of this account, lends some more credibility to her story.  I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, smoking gun type thing.  Just that it helps her case.  It is some corroboration.  I think the above options are kind of a big leap.

[TexasTiger 13,119]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think the affidavit is compelling in light of what we already know such as the therapist's notes and the letter to Feinstein.  The account is remarkably consistent between things we know were from 6 years ago, things someone is willing to subject themselves to perjury over in the affidavit, and what she said in the letter, the WaPo interview and now her written testimony to be given today.

But also think of it this way.  If you believe the story of her sexual assault is a lie, you have to believe at least one of these things:

• You believe she's lying though her story is consistent with her therapist's notes from 2012 and the letter she sent to Sen. Feinstein...the layout of the house, two men shoving her into the room, escaping after one jumped on the bed and knocked her assailant off of her, locking herself in a bathroom across the hall.
• You have to disbelieve her friend's sworn testimony backing several of the same details.
• You have to marvel at how she said it was a federal judge 3 years ahead of time
• You have to believe she's made up this elaborate story in absence of any history of making false accusations, making up crazy stories, having an exemplary and respected professional life
• You believe this was an extremely long con that she planted the seeds for 3 years before she could even fathom it would be relevant, only to spring on it when the time was right.
• You think she's batshit crazy

 

If you believe the story is true but it's not Brett Kavanaugh (which sounds like a possible defense BK's side is floating)...

• You have to believe another federal judge attacked her but she (absent any proof) has been paid off to falsely accuse BK of another's actions
• You have to believe she would allow a person guilty of sexual assault to go unpunished only to pin it on an innocent man for purely political reasons, and laid the groundwork for it 3 years ahead of time.
• She's too stupid to remember the person who attacked her.

That is why the affidavit, taken with what else we know of this account, lends some more credibility to her story.  I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, smoking gun type thing.  Just that it helps her case.  It is some corroboration.  I think the above options are kind of a big leap.

The sad reality is that most Republicans don’t care if it’s true or not.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think the affidavit is compelling in light of what we already know such as the therapist's notes and the letter to Feinstein.  The account is remarkably consistent between things we know were from 6 years ago, things someone is willing to subject themselves to perjury over in the affidavit, and what she said in the letter, the WaPo interview and now her written testimony to be given today.

But also think of it this way.  If you believe the story of her sexual assault is a lie, you have to believe at least one of these things:

• You believe she's lying though her story is consistent with her therapist's notes from 2012 and the letter she sent to Sen. Feinstein...the layout of the house, two men shoving her into the room, escaping after one jumped on the bed and knocked her assailant off of her, locking herself in a bathroom across the hall.
• You have to disbelieve her friend's sworn testimony backing several of the same details.
• You have to marvel at how she said it was a federal judge 3 years ahead of time
• You have to believe she's made up this elaborate story in absence of any history of making false accusations, making up crazy stories, having an exemplary and respected professional life
• You believe this was an extremely long con that she planted the seeds for 3 years before she could even fathom it would be relevant, only to spring on it when the time was right.
• You think she's batshit crazy

 

If you believe the story is true but it's not Brett Kavanaugh (which sounds like a possible defense BK's side is floating)...

• You have to believe another federal judge attacked her but she (absent any proof) has been paid off to falsely accuse BK of another's actions
• You have to believe she would allow a person guilty of sexual assault to go unpunished only to pin it on an innocent man for purely political reasons, and laid the groundwork for it 3 years ahead of time.
• She's too stupid to remember the person who attacked her.

That is why the affidavit, taken with what else we know of this account, lends some more credibility to her story.  I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, smoking gun type thing.  Just that it helps her case.  It is some corroboration.  I think the above options are kind of a big leap.

In my opinion, that’s an incorrect way to look at this, even if alternative. In fact, that’s not the contemplations of adjudication in matters such as these. I mean, how would your analysis look from the other end - BKs sworn testimony? 

In these circumstances, you aren’t required to believe those other things by default, nor are they imputed to you. Imagine if that’s how things worked in hearings. In short we’re concerned with determining whether or not there’s credible evidence to the viability of her claims against BK, period. Everything beyond that is disputed-collateral.

Again, all we care about is whether or not she can substantiate her accusations against BK. That’s the role of the senate this morning. Nothing more and nothing less.

Also, a determination against a party who files a sworn affidavit does not mean the party committed perjury.

EDIT: I over looked last sentence. Sorry

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

The sad reality is that most Republicans don’t care if it’s true or not.

Now that’s patently hypocritical. It was a Democrat who sat on this for two months. Do better, Tex 

[TitanTiger 20,538]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

In my opinion, that’s an incorrect way to look at this, even if alternative. In fact, that’s not the contemplations of adjudication in matters such as these. I mean, how would your analysis look from the other end - BKs sworn testimony? 

In these circumstances, you aren’t required to believe those other things by default, nor are they imputed to you. Imagine if that’s how things worked in hearings. In short we’re concerned with determining whether or not there’s credible evidence to the viability of her claims against BK, period. Everything beyond that is disputed-collateral.

Again, all we care about is whether or not she can substantiate her accusations against BK. That’s the role of the senate this morning. Nothing more and nothing less.

Also, a determination against a party who files a sworn affidavit does not mean the party committed perjury.

I think you're still looking at this incorrectly - as something more akin to a criminal trial, which has much different standards of evidence.  What you have here is an extreme version of a job interview.  They don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt" kind of proof to decide not to grant him the job any more than your employer has to have that level of evidence if he gets info that casts doubts on your character and behavior before he hires you.  They have to make a very difficult decision about giving someone a lifetime appointment to a body that has incredible power, influence and responsibility.  Being confirmed for this position is not a civil right, it is a privilege. If after hearing both of their responses to questions, along with whatever else they have about him at their disposal they aren't comfortable signing their name to granting him this slot, they don't have to and they aren't being unreasonable in doing so.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I think you're still looking at this incorrectly - as something more akin to a criminal trial, which has much different standards of evidence.  What you have here is an extreme version of a job interview.  They don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt" kind of proof to decide not to grant him the job any more than your employer has to have that level of evidence if he gets info that casts doubts on your character and behavior before he hires you.  They have to make a very difficult decision about giving someone a lifetime appointment to a body that has incredible power, influence and responsibility.  Being confirmed for this position is not a civil right, it is a privilege. If after hearing both of their responses to questions, along with whatever else they have about him at their disposal they aren't comfortable signing their name to granting him this slot, they don't have to and they aren't being unreasonable in doing so.

I disagree. Of course I’m not looking at this as a technical criminal proceeding, but you cannot possibly maintain that this hearing isn’t earmarked with the facets of a judicial proceeding, as are all senate hearings of this nature. I think it more closely resembles “preponderance of the evidence” if anything. That’s the civil benchmark. Further, our legal thresholds are suppose to be a direct resemblance of societal expectations of proof. Thus, casting such a consideration aside is ill-founded.

[AUDub 11,204]

 

[AU64 10,122]

People lie to congress all the time...Comey, Brennan and others and when is the last time that anyone was actually prosecuted for perjury over what was said in a legislative committee.?        If that law were held to strict account, most of that committee would have been tried for that crime long before now, although I guess their excuse would be that they were not under oath and don't have to tell the truth if not giving sworn testimony...... 

[TitanTiger 20,538]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I disagree. Of course I’m not looking at this as a technical criminal proceeding, but you cannot possibly maintain that this hearing isn’t earmarked with the facets of a judicial proceeding, as are all senate hearings of this nature. I think it more closely resembles “preponderance of the evidence” if anything. That’s the civil benchmark. Further, our legal thresholds are suppose to be a direct resemblance of societal expectations of proof. Thus, casting such a consideration aside is ill-founded.

It's a mega job interview with a few trappings of a civil court proceeding.  But unlike a civil court where you have certain rights that cannot be abrogated without evidence, he doesn't have a "right" to this job.  He has to convince at least 51 senators that he has the requisite experience, knowledge, temperament, legal understanding, and character to be given one of the highest positions of responsibility and power in this country.  If she is able to convince enough of them that she's not likely to be lying or mistaken on this, that's it and he has zero recourse.

[TexasTiger 13,119]

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Now that’s patently hypocritical. It was a Democrat who sat on this for two months. Do better, Tex 

Even assuming what you say is fair, and I don’t, it’s irrelevant to my point. Open your eyes and ears. The Republican leadership just wants a win on this. If you can’t see this you can’t see.

[TitanTiger 20,538]

10 minutes ago, AU64 said:

People lie to congress all the time...Comey, Brennan and others and when is the last time that anyone was actually prosecuted for perjury over what was said in a legislative committee.?        If that law were held to strict account, most of that committee would have been tried for that crime long before now, although I guess their excuse would be that they were not under oath and don't have to tell the truth if not giving sworn testimony...... 

So this whole past week or so people here have suggested she'd duck out of testifying under oath before Congress.  But now that she's doing so, it's no biggie because no one gets prosecuted so she has no worries about lying?  That's awfully convenient.  "Heads I win, tails you lose."