Woman accuses Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades ago

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes she has.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/brett-kavanaugh-testimony/index.html

This was CNN YESTERDAY. As is often the case they are wrong unless she has agreed to in the last hour. An invitation has been sent to her advisor/attorney but no response yet.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That is not the proper venue for such a thing and Stanford should have zero say in whether she goes forward with her testimony.  For the purposes of this confirmation, Congress is the proper venue.

She is an employee of Stanford so I assume they have every right to question her if they want to.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

This was CNN YESTERDAY. As is often the case they are wrong unless she has agreed to in the last hour. An invitation has been sent to her advisor/attorney but no response yet.

She has said she's willing to testify.  All sides are still sifting through exactly what the proposed hearing will look like and formulating what conditions they will appear under.  Hell, they can't even get the Democrats and Republicans to agree right now on whether the only other person alleged to be in the room, Mark Judge, will appear.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 minute ago, Proud Tiger said:

She is an employee of Stanford so I assume they have every right to question her if they want to.

Not on her personal life, no they do not.  And frankly, them stepping into this right now would more likely be seen as interference than anything else.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

She has said she's willing to testify.  All sides are still sifting through exactly what the proposed hearing will look like and formulating what conditions they will appear under.  Hell, they can't even get the Democrats and Republicans to agree right now on whether the only other person alleged to be in the room, Mark Judge, will appear.

I stand by my comment.....she hasn't yet agreed to appear before the judiciary Committee hearing Monday. Being "willing" and actually doing it are two different things and it's laughable and ridiculous to say otherwise (sorry couldn't resist but touche')

[HVAU 673]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

She is an employee of Stanford so I assume they have every right to question her if they want to.

So employees should be subject to interrogation by their employers when they are involved in a legal matter as an alleged victim?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

9 minutes ago, HVAU said:

So employees should be subject to interrogation by their employers when they are involved in a legal matter as an alleged victim?

Such an action servers zero purpose other than to create obstacles for the accuser that are unnecessary.

I'll also say that Stanford could likely find itself in the crosshairs of whistleblower laws if they inserted themselves into this situation.

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, Zeek said:

Understood, but I don't think the burden of proof disappears and it's unfortunate that we have reached a time where these things have to be questioned in the first place; though it may always have been this way. I don't put it past either party to set something like this up or pay to promote a narrative. Not saying this is the case with Kav's accuser but we live in an extremely monochrome world with every shade of gray and very little black and white.

There is no "burden of proof" requirement in this situation.  There is a severe cost to her, which she is certainly paying and will continue to pay.

[around4ever 4,139]

3 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

I stand by my comment.....she hasn't yet agreed to appear before the judiciary Committee hearing Monday. Being "willing" and actually doing it are two different things and it's laughable and ridiculous to say otherwise (sorry couldn't resist but touche')

It appears that she isn't making that decision.  The democrats will decide for her and right now they don't trust her to be convincing enough.  They need more time to train her on her answers. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

4 minutes ago, around4ever said:

It appears that she isn't making that decision.  The democrats will decide for her and right now they don't trust her to be convincing enough.  They need more time to train her on her answers. 

Link?  Preferably reputable and non-partisan?

[HVAU 673]

4 minutes ago, around4ever said:

It appears that she isn't making that decision.  The democrats will decide for her and right now they don't trust her to be convincing enough.  They need more time to train her on her answers. 

Do you have some information the confirm such?

[AUDub 11,158]

9 minutes ago, around4ever said:

It appears that she isn't making that decision.  The democrats will decide for her and right now they don't trust her to be convincing enough.  They need more time to train her on her answers. 

She's probably going through hell right now. **** you. 

[DKW 86 7,431]

This is going the way of the Thomas-Hill Debacle.

Confirmation almost over, suddenly some woman that no one has really heard from before in all the process suddenly appears and has basically un-supportable claims that no one has heard a thing about all the time he was in the public eye. 

I am not calling Hill or Blasey liars. I know several women that have been in similar situations and have indeed chosen to be silent and regretted it. I can understand the stress and the weight of coming forward. I really do. Whether it was against Clarence Thomas, WJC, Ted Kennedy, or whomever, the cycle is always the same. Call the women liars, slut-shame them, accuse them of partisanship etc. The list is endless. There is, however, one point to be made with Thomas and Kavanaugh. They have had literally dozens of women come forward voluntarily and vouch for their character. I believe the headcount supporting CT was 39 or so. Kavanaugh has had 65+ vouch for him. Both have Republican & Democrats, Feminists, Lawyers, successful women from all over the political spectrum stand up for them voluntarily. We saw just the opposite with WJC, Ted, Weinstein, Affleck, Franken, Lauer, Rose, Moonves, etc. As time wore on, the number of their accusers grew. I am not claiming to be clairvoyant, just pointing out an observation. 

I hope no one on this forum ever has to be called out for something they did as a TEENAGER. God forbid I ever get called out for my high schools years, all i could do is throw myself on the mercy of public opinion. I was first class immature back them. Freely admit it. My buddy at MSNBC is telling his audience that because Kavanaugh has applied to the Supreme Court that "getting drunk underage disqualifies him." I have seen Robin underage drunk and smoking dope while on the job when he was a disc jockey for a Christian radio station. 

For your amusement, THE moment from the Clarence Thomas hearings, when he was being lectured by Biden, Kennedy, and Metzenbaum, three of the horniest drunken old coots in DC at the time. Metzenbaum, Biden, and Kennedy for once in their lives shut the hell up. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZURHD5BU1o8

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Ford is now simply reneging on her bold statement she is willing to testify. I feel sorry for her. She is now little more than a puppet for the desperate Dems IMHO as I implied in my OP Title which got changed.

This is an interesting tid bit with no bearing except an FYI that Kavanaugh's mother  prevented Ford's parents from losing their home.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/18/brett-kavanaughs-mother-is-judge-who-dismissed-foreclosure-action-against-accuser-fords-parents.html

[TexasTiger 12,964]

https://mobile.twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1042182664592281600/video/1

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

29 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I hope no one on this forum ever has to be called out for something they did as a TEENAGER. God forbid I ever get called out for my high schools years, all i could do is throw myself on the mercy of public opinion. I was first class immature back them. Freely admit it. My buddy at MSNBC is telling his audience that because Kavanaugh has applied to the Supreme Court that "getting drunk underage disqualifies him." I have seen Robin underage drunk and smoking dope while on the job when he was a disc jockey for a Christian radio station. 

There's a difference though between getting drunk/acting like an idiot and doing what he is accused of here.  If this is true, Kavanaugh would have been old enough at the time to know that rape is wrong.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  And we put teenagers on trial as adults all the time in this country for things like rape and murder.  You don't get a pass on something that severe.  If he just got drunk and had a DUI or something, then yeah, who cares.  But that's not the accusation being made.

[DKW 86 7,431]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

There's a difference though between getting drunk/acting like an idiot and doing what he is accused of here.  If this is true, Kavanaugh would have been old enough at the time to know that rape is wrong.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  And we put teenagers on trial as adults all the time in this country for things like rape and murder.  You don't get a pass on something that severe.  If he just got drunk and had a DUI or something, then yeah, who cares.  But that's not the accusation being made.

And there are problems even with what you say. Trump is a bedsore on rational human thought. He is a black hole of anti-intellectualism.Kavanaugh is eminently qualified and to be perfectly truthful is probably not as bad it could have been seeing Trump made the call. Trump making the call I am surprised it isnt Andrew Dice Clay, Kanye West, or maybe even Dr Roxo. 

The statute of limitations has long since expired.
Why did this woman with a PhD not come forward during all the other confirmation hearings K went thru? 
Will we even hear her testimony?

Could the pick have been better? Absolutely.
Would I have chosen him? No.
But it is what it is. If you want to control SCOTUS? WIN ELECTIONS. It is that simple. 

I am thankful that DJT didnt name some other clown, or reality star, etc. 

 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,820]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

There is a severe cost to her, which she is certainly paying and will continue to pay.

 

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

She's probably going through hell right now. **** you. 

I still have reasons to doubt the Dr.

[AUDub 11,158]

13 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

 

I still have reasons to doubt the Dr.

She’s left her home, probably for good reason, considering I’ve seen her dox dropped on Twitter. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

 One thing I've concluded in all this is.......in today's time, every mother should be terrified that anytime a girl/woman can claim sexual misconduct with no proof and ruin her son's life.

[SaltyTiger 7,820]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

She’s left her home, probably for good reason, considering I’ve seen her dox dropped on Twitter. 

Does not matter what she left. Has nothing to do with me doubting her. I assume she is a fairly smart person having a PHD. Feel confident there was a plan.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

32 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

And there are problems even with what you say. Trump is a bedsore on rational human thought. He is a black hole of anti-intellectualism.Kavanaugh is eminently qualified and to be perfectly truthful is probably not as bad it could have been seeing Trump made the call. Trump making the call I am surprised it isnt Andrew Dice Clay, Kanye West, or maybe even Dr Roxo. 

The statute of limitations has long since expired.
Why did this woman with a PhD not come forward during all the other confirmation hearings K went thru? 
Will we even hear her testimony?

Could the pick have been better? Absolutely.
Would I have chosen him? No.
But it is what it is. If you want to control SCOTUS? WIN ELECTIONS. It is that simple. 

I am thankful that DJT didnt name some other clown, or reality star, etc. 

 

 

Very little of this post has anything to do with what I said, which was about holding teenagers accountable for things like rape.

Who Trump does/doesn't pick is his prerogative.  But that's not the issue at hand.

[AUDub 11,158]

3 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

 One thing I've concluded in all this is.......in today's time, every mother should be terrified that anytime a girl/woman can claim sexual misconduct with no proof and ruin her son's life.

And I'm terrified that my girls, and I have four of them, may have some pig force themselves upon them and have no one believe them. Whatever.

[AUDub 11,158]

4 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Does not matter what she left. Has nothing to do with me doubting her. I assume she is a fairly smart person having a PHD. Feel confident there was a plan.

Then why bother quoting me there? 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

59 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

There's a difference though between getting drunk/acting like an idiot and doing what he is accused of here.  If this is true, Kavanaugh would have been old enough at the time to know that rape is wrong.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  And we put teenagers on trial as adults all the time in this country for things like rape and murder.  You don't get a pass on something that severe.  If he just got drunk and had a DUI or something, then yeah, who cares.  But that's not the accusation being made.

I agree in general but you have a lot of "ifs' here and that is the problem.