Apparently, Judge Kavanaugh was quite the party animal before he sat in judgement of others. If various witnesses are to be believed, the good judge held at least one woman down, groped at her clothing, and covered her mouth as one of his party animal tricks. As he grew a little older, he apparently had a fondness for sticking his “junk” in women’s faces. complete with lots of witnesses.
Now I am the mother of sons and a daughter. I understand that “boys will be boys.” That might fly for the average job. However, Brett Kavanaugh isn’t applying for just any ordinary job. He is applying for one of the top government positions in terms of prestige–there are only 9 Supreme Court justices and each is appointed for life. Perhaps the boys and girls who grow up to apply for this esteemed job should have the wisdom and judical behavior not to act like a horse’s ass, regardless of political affiliation, while they are coming of age.
The bar should be raised high enough that those who sit on this particular bench don’t have this kind of skeleton rattling around in his or her closet. It just makes sense that there should be no more people confirmed who have a questionable history of inappropriate behavior.
Disclaimer:
****(and I would have done some serious ass-whupping if I found out any of the Moonhowler boys behaved this disrespectuflly)
Gotta tell you, Moon, this situation throws me for a loop. If BK did what is alleged, it’s over and should be. He’d be unfit on those grounds alone, and would have lied. And I think Prof. Ford is credible and something traumatic did happen to her. Tying those two together (that he’s responsible) is incredibly problematic. Her memory is imperfect, and possibly wrong in some particulars (like was he even present on that date?). A polygraph is pretty useless, too, inadmissible in court and can be gamed (they tell you more about people who think they’re telling the truth vs. establishing that they are). On the flip side, he’s got some unanswered questions around debt, drinking, which aren’t themselves damning but it’s a pattern of appetite control issues. And a Senate hearing is probably the worst place to bank on “fact” coming out, much less “truth.” It’s 90% for show. Evidentiary rules are materially different from a court of law, as are the types of questions. The FBI investigation is a red herring – the statute of limitations has passed, so there’s no criminal potential, and now that the accusation is out in the open, there’s no blackmail possible so national security isn’t an issue.
Not helping the process is naked partisanship on both sides, and a lack of intelligence in some cases. Feinstein isn’t stupid, but she’s dirty and withheld evidence (and has a history of leaking). Hirono explicitly politicized the judgment of truth. Grassley …. clearly not the brightest. Graham has said it doesn’t matter what comes out.
The damage no matter what happens will be profound.
I also wonder if Amy Coney Barrett will make D’s happier – Tim Kaine did vote for her. 2/3 odds that’s what’s coming.
Amy Barrett would not make me happy. Anyone who refers to Roe v Wade as “abortion on demand” really doesn’t get it. Tim Kaine is not a good filter, in my opinion.
I would like to see an atheist appointed to the Court–or at least a protestant. 6 Catholics and 3 Jews is not what America looks like.
I also don’t like this Kavanaugh situation. I didn’t want him in the first place. All this other business is just one big giant slippery political slope. I also think #MeToo is off the rails at this point. The movement has gone far too binary without any wiggle room for conversation.
MoonHowler,
I like her, not because I understand her jurisprudence, but because her nomination would be explosive. Her judicial track record is pretty short. That said, I don’t know how much more “explosive” our country can take.
#MeToo is off the rails, and in a way that’s detrimental to women in the long run. Accusation = guilt, and that’s wrong. It’s also applied overtly politically in many cases, though less so than in the past. And the lens on bawdy behavior is just thick. Not every woman who goes to a frat party is a victim, or even somehow unwillingly subjected to boorish behavior. I draw a bright line at non-consensual activity (it’s wrong, and if corroborated, disqualifying, full stop). Some women choose to participate in that, and for a variety of reasons. And there is a lot of that behavior at elite institutions.
On the flip side, the number of GOP types who aren’t open to even the possibility that BK is culpable is striking. There’s almost a feeling of “we’ll destroy this village to save it” that I don’t get.
The Protestants had their day. Now Gorscuh is not a practicing RC, either, nominally Episcopalian, which usually means an atheist or agnostic with nostalgia. Sotomayor is lapsed – by her own description – so has that tradition but not observation. Judaism is also not necessarily theistic. In many cases, it’s cultural and social, and not much beyond that.
Is it only Tuesday?
I agree with you about #MeToo. I believe that it is being trivialized by people who want attention and therefore women who have had problems, real problems, have those problems watered down. When I was 20 Colonel Sanders patted by butt, not only with his cane but also with his rather elderly paw. He made some comment…now…Did I feel sexually abused…well sort of in a stupid way but certainly not abused enough to cause a ruckus. I did what I thought was the prudent thing and stood away from him. At 20, I could run a lot faster than that old geezer.
My apologies to Gorscuh. I forgot about him. Truthfully, I wouldn’t care if they were all atheists.
As a parent of a daughter who is entering a very macho, very male professional world, I would be hard pressed not to strangle any men that behaved this way toward her.
I attended a college in which the party-prep school atmosphere was very much part of the scene. We had to pay $150/semester for “social” fees and the weekend would start off with Thursday Night Kegs. The drinking age was 18 for beer/wine and nobody was checked IDs at these parties.
There were some very heavy drinkers and partiers who nevertheless graduated to become successful doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. There were a couple of cases of sexual assault, but those people were identified and punished according to a detailed discipline policy that existed even then. Criminal behavior was reported to the police.
More importantly, it would have been highly unlikely that such behavior would have gone unreported if there were witnesses. Inebriated or not, there were very few men who would have tolerated such behavior in their presence.
So I find it extremely significant that none of the supposed witnesses back up the stories by these two females. Given the false allegations against the Duke Lacrosse Team and the UVa fraternity, these accusations should not be used as the basis for voting against Kavanaugh’s nomination unless there is additional corroboration.
Hi Kelly, was there a tiger involved in your past? ho ho ho!
I grew up in Charlottesville. Need I say more?
Unfortunately, there are opportunistic women who make false claims. This hurts the women who really have been subjected to sexual abuse. I just read that 2 out of 3 cases go unreported. I found a great deal of really borish behavior that truly was sex abuse, not necessarily rape but sex abuse because it was non-consensual. Unfortunately, women have been known to use forced sex as an excuse for their own behavior when either they got caught by parents, etc or when their own behavior wasn’t up to standards established by society or themselves. Hopefully these cases are few.
I will go out on a limb here and take a guess…I would say 90% of women have endured or been exposed to an unwanted sexual advance. Most of the time booze is involved. That is my own personal survey from knowing lots of women during my time on earth.
Solutions must start with parental training from both mothers and fathers. Girls must be told not to make false claims. I think the problem will persist as long as there is access to alcohol.
I have observed that stories tend to be embellished over time. My friends in the military and/or college have told stories that grew over the years and eventually bore little resemblance to what actually happened. They believe that they accurately describe what happened, but my recollection of the events was less dramatic.
Would those stories be hyperbolic if the person were under oath? I find a family member in my household does that. Creates his own narrative…
“If various witnesses are to be believed, the good judge held at least one woman down, groped at her clothing, and covered her mouth as one of his party animal tricks. As he grew a little older, he apparently had a fondness for sticking his “junk” in women’s faces. complete with lots of witnesses.”
What witnesses? To date, the witnesses named by Ford have all denied any knowledge of the incident, including her purported “best friend” of the time. The second accuser can’t name any witnesses either, but there are plenty who say they have no knowledge of the accusers claims.
Have you learned nothing from the “Jackie Coakley UVA gang-rape that never happened”? I recall this blog joined Rolling Stone, jumping in with a total lack of healthy skepticism, quickly condemning the accused. The problem with this, is we know know that the accuser lied. Her motive was she wanted to garner sympathy with someone for whom she had romantic feelings. She lied to her friends, repeatedly. She lied to the on-campus “sexual assault support” crowd. She lied to at least one journalist. It was only when her lies were examined with some healthy skepticism did her whole story collapse. And it did.
Does Ford have a motive to lie? Perhaps she was “almost raped” at a party in the early 1980’s. Beyond this, there is nothing to corroborate her story, and plenty to refute it. She told some close confidants and a therapist years after the fact. Jackie told her friends her lies for months and years, after the fact. I’m not saying Ford is lying. What I am asking is could she be mistaken? Could she be modifying a story to suite a political motive?
I understand why you have an instinctive, visceral hatred of this SCOTUS nominee. I would go so far as to speculate that no nominee that President Trump would put forward, would be acceptable to you. It comes down to your “die on the mat” issue, Roe V. Wade.
I am disappointed (but not surprised) that your would be so quick to suspend any logic in this matter.
“If witnesses are to be believed…” You believe them, otherwise, you wouldn’t have written this post.
There are no witnesses. Those named so far have denied her claims. Does this count for anything?
There are witnesses. They just aren’t in that room under oath. This is not a trial on “Jackie.” I ate some crow over that one and yes I did buy in to it. What is it exactly that I am supposed to learn? Would it be never believe a woman? That isn’t going to happen.
Actually, I had something very similar happen to me (Dr. Ford’s case) You don’t tell in the first place because you are embarrassed. You generally are doing something your parents warned you about and told you not to do. No danger of the perp being put on the Supreme Court. He is on The Wall. I mercifully can’t remember his name. Oh I was college age, not the age of Dr. Ford at the time of her assault.
I felt she was very credible I might as well confess, I also believed every word out of Anita Hill’s mouth.
As for being opposed to Kavanaugh, you betcha. I would have voted NO long before Ms. Ford ever surfaced. Roe, the voyeuristic letter he sent to Ken Starr about questioning Clinton, his rather liberal expansion of the powers of the presidency, etc. I would have also deemed him unfit over the performance yesterday. He was disrespectful, combative, and his general temperament was not “Judgely” in my opinion.
Steve Thomas,
Jackie had huge psychological problems to start with. I would say she is atypical.
Julie Swetnik’s affidavit is pretty damning. Still not as specific an accusation required to sustain a criminal charge but (a) corroborates pattern, (b) puts lie to “I wasn’t a heavy drinker” BS, and (c) puts him in an a specific place where these things were happening. My take: toast.
Hardiman and Barrett gotta be sweating.
PS I recognize JS account has some issues with specificity and also begs the question of why someone would repeatedly participate in parties where these alleged activities were taking place.
That said, she’s making a sworn statement, has a security clearance which puts real skin in the game, and is in agreement with BK’s vaunted calendar.
Toast. I smell toast.
NorthofNokesville,
““In approximately 1982, I became the victim of one of these ‘gang’ or ‘train’ rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present,” Swetnick says in her statement. “During the incident, I was incapacitated without my consent and unable to fight off the boys raping me. I believe I was drugged using Quaaludes or something similar placed in what I was drinking.”
Yeah…isn’t sure of the year. Doesn’t claim that he actually did anything to her. Can’t provide any corroboration, witnesses, or name the people who actually assaulted her, but she is to be believed.So what if she has a security clearance? No one is going to prove that she’s lying, or making false statements. Nope. She’ll make them. She’ll say he was there. How can he prove that he wasn’t, when she can’t even specify when or where this alleged attack occurred?
I am absolutely disgusted by Democrats now. I am trying to think of a time when one of Obama’s nominees was treated like this, subjected to a Stalinesque show trial. The truth is, they weren’t.
I pray that the Judge stays in, and Red State Democrats facing reelection vote to confirm him. Then its on. Get ready. He was the most acceptable nominee the Democrats were going to see, and now they’ve made an enemy of him. That’s how they play. Time to play by their rules.
Steve Thomas,
Well, one of Obama’s nominees was denied a vote altogether. I recognize Harry Reid started this arms race, but McConnell and the GOP doubled down with Garland not even getting a vote. That’s gutless.
I’m curious to see how Swetnik’s testimony holds up. I’m getting the sense that some of it is falling apart. My personal opinion is that opportunistic / weakly supported testimony like this hurts people like Ford, who clearly underwent some kind of trauma. The New York Times has been unable to corroborate large chunks of Ramirez’s story and none of Swetnik’s.
Either way this goes, the well is poisoned.
Her story is burning up faster than a California forest. College girl attending Highschool house parties, and keeps going to them AFTER being “gang raped”? Made threats against an ex and his family after he broke up with her, and married someone else, prompting him to seek a restraining order?
Oh yeah…she’s credible…because she has a security clearance and signed a sworn statement. You know who else has signed sworn statements and has testified under oath, with the threat of perjury if he were to lie? “Judge K”. Why is his credibility attacked? Oh yeah…because he’s a college educated white male, and represents everything evil in the world.
My prediction is Ford will not come across as credible, and will actually come out looking LESS credible.
The other “accusers” will not change the outcome, because their claims are even less-credible and more bizarre than Ford’s: Judge K will be confirmed.
Ford will become a minor Democrat hero for a time, then will be put on a shelf and trotted out every so many years, just to keep some aura of dishonesty stuck to a SCOTUS Justice, just as the Democrats have done with Anita Hill.
Avanatti will move on to his next circus act.
This is Kabuki theater. The Democrats get to say “well, we tried”, and the GOP gets to say “Look how low the Democrats will go to try to undo an election”. Both will just motivate their respective bases, in advance of the mid-terms.
My prediction for the mid-terms: The Democrats will take the House, but not by the margins they are predicting. The GOP will retain the Senate, and actually add 1-2 seats to their majority.
Prediction for 2019-2020: Holding half of the legislature, the Democrat base will be disappointed that they can’t advance anything substantial, and can only stymie the President in a limited fashion. They will become quite frustrated. Trump will be reelected in 2020, but the GOP will narrowly lose the Senate. Trump will focus on Foreign policy, and veto a bunch of domestic legislation, because the Democrats will put forth what its base wants, and this will be unacceptable to the GOP base. The country will remain culturally polarized.
I make these predictions because the American electorate and its political system are both cyclical and predictable. Both sides want “change” but only at the expense of the other side. Americans only understand the “zero sum game”. Our two-party system is designed to support it, and it will not change.
Steve Thomas,
“My prediction is Ford will not come across as credible, and will actually come out looking LESS credible.”
Curious if this still holds.
NorthofNokesville,
Yes. Been following the testimony. No minds have been changed. No bombshells. She’s made some claims, or provided some clarifying information, that will need to be verified or refuted if possible. This is where the credibility gap will be measured.
Now as far as this latest accusation, that Judge Kavanaugh was once present will someone else punched a kitten in the face….
I know I am a day late and a dollar short but Ford came across about as credible as anyone I have ever heard.
As for your predictions, you may very well be right about future elections. Nothing will surprise me after Trump.
Anita Hill wanted nothing more than to return anonymity. Then Mrs. Thomas called her a few years ago and opened up all the wounds.
Ouch. Well, I am absolutely disgusted by Republicans who support Trump.
As for Obama’s nominee–he never was even given a hearing. The Democrats aren’t going to forgive that one, nor should they.
Steve, I am not sure of the year with my incident either. I hear way too much victim blaming in your statement. Rape isn’t done in broad daylight as a rule.
No one, to my knowledge is trying to indict Kavanaugh. Think of this as a job interview, not a prison sentence. I dont think he should get the job with these allegations hanging over him. Then there is the part about that lying under oath.
Really? Have you not read or listened to the statements from Democrats in Congress to the press, issued on social media, and in fund-raising letters? No, they don’t want an indictment. They want nothing short of a crucifixion of this man’s character, on nothing more than the specious claims of someone who can’t recall anything except who she claims she thought was trying to rape her.
“Ouch. Well, I am absolutely disgusted by Republicans who support Trump.”
And I am absolutely disgusted by Democrats who have made a mockery of due process, and who will stop at nothing to try to undo an election. If they can’t get what they want, they are willing to burn everything to the ground.
Why do you use the analogy, “burn everything to the ground?” Are you saying that Ms. Ford is not credible and that she is somehow a puppet of the Democrats? I don’t feel that at all. I believed every word she said. Been there, done that.
I believe that the FBI should have been called in to check out all the allegations. I believe that Kavanaugh lied under oath. I also saw a smart ass who lacked the temperament to sit on the bench, in my opinion and a lot of other people’s opinions. If we want due process, then let’s let the FBI do its due diligence.
If that makes me guilty of burning down the place, so be it. Then there is Judge Garland who never even got a hearing. That isn’t Kavanaugh’s fault but it sure is Mitch McConnell’s.
I have not heard anyone say they wanted Kavanaugh indicted for his behavior. Who has said that?
Today is Friday and I still smell toast. Once a few people start getting questioned facing a perjury charge, the chickens will come home to roost.
I have, unfortunately, known a lot of little preppy A-hole boys with a sense of entitlement. That is what I see here also. I also grew up in preppy A-hole land.
I was impressed by how articulately and cogently Ford was able to present her case. Nevertheless, she did not reveal anything substantively new in her testimony. She was indeed adament that Kavanaugh attacked her.
But Kavanaugh was just as adamant that he did NOT attack her. Ford still could not fill in any of the details about when and where this took place. She did not know how she got to the party or how she got home. None of the witnesses backed up her story, including one of her friends. Kavanaugh had a calendar that showed no such party.
By any objective measure, the available facts do not support Ford’s claims.
The only grounds for supporting Ford’s story are because “A WOMAN MAKING SUCH CLAIMS MUST BE BELIEVED” or because her emotional, gut-wrenching presentation seemed credible. However, history is replete with examples of emotional, gut-wrenching stories presented credibly that turned out to be absolutely false.
In the end, people watching yesterday can find a reason to believe whatever they want to believe.
I found her presentation very credible. I found Kavanaugh’s temper tantrum unseemly. I found Lindsay Graham absurd and hysterical.
I am glad they are delaying the vote. The dust needs to settle. I would like to see the FBI interview M. Judge and Dr. Ford’s friend, under oath.
As for forgetting details. I couldn’t tell you a lot of things that happened in my case. I got the perp to take me home. How dumb was that. I was at the drive in.
Before anyone starts throwing stones at me for saying all women should be believed–that simply is not true. I have not believed some women I am very close to. I also am presently working on helping a man get released from prison after 31 years. He was convicted of a sex crime. Enough is enough. Perhaps when there are fair trials and how much money you or your family has don’t determine sentencing, I would be more trusting of the legal system.
Life is strange and sometimes you just have to go on your instincts. but Steve is right, I did believe the Jackie case at first…then some things started falling apart because I knew the terrain so well.
MoonHowler,
I think Ford was credible. She’s clearly suffered trauma, and clearly believes BK was a perpetrator.
I also think BK’s opening was extremely odd. Getting mad about a false accusation, sure. Going hyper-partisan, not so much.
Ford’s gaps in details are an issue. She doesn’t remember an exact date or even month. Her four “witnesses” can’t put her and BK in the same place at the same time – not contradicting her, but not corroborating. Includes her longtime friend, who knew both her and BK. Right now, the only event where there’s the possibility of corroboration one way or the other is the July 1 date where BK is drinking with a bunch of friends, including Judge.
If I’m the FBI, I hammer three things:
1. Is there any evidence supporting the July 1 party / drinking as the date of the incident? Judge was there, he needs to be nailed down on this.
2. Ford says Judge was there when the alleged incident happened. Again, Judge is key.
3. Did BK perjure himself during testimony?
#3 might even be out of scope given the WH’s instructions (not speculating, I simply don’ know). Ramirez and Swetnik don’t get attention at this point.
I see three possible outcomes:
1. Judge clears BK strongly (either saying BK was nowhere near this or saying I was there and it was another person). BK gets confirmed, narrowly.
2. Judge clears BK weakly (he was there in the room but that’s not what happened). BK is done.
3. Judge obfuscates or takes 5th. No clue what happens.
NorthofNokesville,
And I was wrong! … WaPo reporting Ramirez is being questioned.
Ramirez stuff seems like “shocked, shocked” to find gambling going on in here. Oh, a wild party at Yale in the 80’s. Imagine.
Still smelling toast.
ACB. It’s gonna happen.
NorthofNokesville,
Think you might need to get your “toast-smeller” calibrated, as it previously went off over the Swetnick allegations, which are falling apart faster than Tawana Brawley’s.
Ford and Ramirez are neck&neck in the race to see who is more Jackie Coakley in this witch-hunt.
Surprised that no one on here could even remotely consider Ford’s motives might possibly be that she’s seeking payback for Kavanaugh’s mother’s role as judge in the home foreclosure case that involved her parents, and her childhood home. Nope, can’t do that. Judge K is a white male-privileged frat-boy who had everything handed to him, so he must have done something to Ford. He “fits the profile” of the “Republican strawman” that the left wants to heap all American sins upon.
So if Kavanuagh gets confirmed, as I strongly suspect he will, what will you do then? Impeachment? First you have to take the House, and the Senate. The former having a realistic chance, but the latter? Not gonna happen, so impeachment is out.
Here’s what the Left will do: Continue to scream like banshees, thinking that will change anything, until another target presents itself. Then when the enemy you’ve made on SCOTUS has a chance to vote on a case which will overturn Roe V. Wade, demand that Judge K put his personal biases aside, and follow the constitution, as you read it.
When the allegations against Anthony Weiner came out, my left-of-center friends here (yes, I do have left-of-center friends) were quick to call this a right-wing conspiracy. I believed that there was something to it, and said so here. Turns out I was right. Got me a dinner and a night of pleasant conversation with two ladies out of that.
When Jackie Coakley’s story was spectacularly made public in Rolling Stone, those left-of-center folks here were quick to condemn all white males, painting the younger ones in college as nothing but rapists and predators. I wrote that I thought this was a Duke-lacrosse type story, and predicted it would proven false. Again, my suspicions proved correct.
My gut tells me that Ford is lying about Kavanaugh. She has a good reason to lie (avenging her parents), and her story is crumbling under scrutiny. Ramirez? Her story is even less-credible. Swetnick? The woman has some serious issues, if her former employer and long-time ex are to be believed.
All the Left has done was awakened a sleeping GOP at absolutely the worst possible time, destroying any chance at taking the Senate, and maybe the House too. All this to try and stop the most moderate nominee on Trump’s list.
Steve, I stopped reading. I will have to go back. Frankly, I have never thought of sexual assault as a Democratic or a Republican issue. It is, at its most basic, refusal to recognize and respect the boundaries of another person.
Why do you assume that the women involved, especially Ford, are lying or who have ulterior motives>? I now would have to assume if I had something dreadful to talk to someone about, you would think I was lying.
Jackie has nothing to do with any of this. As a person who initially supported Jackie, I didn’t assume that the perps were black or white. I don’t believe I knew her race even. I do know the setting and the behavior of some of the population she was telling her story from. I had no reason to doubt her at first, until a couple things started getting sketchy.
Do people falsely accuse others of sexual assault? Sure they do. I am going to say this though–false accusations happen a lot less frequently than do unreported sexual assault cases by a landslide. I consider myself a left of center one of your friends. I don’t think I propped up Anthony Weiner. I thought his wife should have kicked him to the curb so I hope I am not included in that count.
So where do we go with this, Steve? Do we not believe any of the women ever? Do we insist on seeing bruising and injuries? What is the benchmark to make you and others believe that an assault has taken place? I know you are a caring individual with high moral standards. I know you are a good husband and a very protective father. That’s why I find it incredible that we are having this conversation. I expect a privileged lout like Donald Trump to say these things. I don’t expect you to.
My gut tells me that every word out of Ford’s mouth was true. I could have almost answered for her in some parts of her testimony. Perhaps if the FBI had been allowed to do a full investigation and questioned those who were present we would have more definitive results.
Let’s put it this way, I certainly wouldn’t jail Brett Kavanaugh over her allegations. I also wouldn’t put him on the Supreme Court. However, his own behavior was such that if she didn’t convince us he was not judicial material, his own behavior did.
MoonHowler,
“So where do we go with this, Steve? Do we not believe any of the women ever?”
We accept the possibility that the assault happened. We investigate. We remain open to the possibility that the accuser is lying, because accusers do lie. We remain open to the possibility that the accuser is telling the truth, because we know that sexual assaults can and do happen. When the facts and evidence support the accused, we support them. When the facts and evidence support the accuser, we support them. We try not to let our personal experiences, biases and prejudices dominate our thinking. Skepticism is healthy.
I think Ford is lying. I believe this because she’s been caught in a couple of lies, and if reports are to be believed, some of them border on perjury. I am sad for this woman, as I believe she is being used as “fire and forget” weapon by a Democrat leadership who will stop at nothing to undo 2016.
I also believe that this is doing more harm than good to #metoo. Every demonstrably false allegation sets the cause back. Cosby? Wienstein? Real victims of real predators will hesitate to come forward, because people like Dr. Ford were used as political pawns. Avenatti? How is this guy still allowed to practice law? He’s not helping your cause with his “sworn credible statements” garbage. He’s going to get his clients prosecuted.
As far as the Judge’s outrage at the accusations, how would you expect an innocent man to react?
I would expect an innocent man to act like an adult. I thought his behavior was deplorable. If a woman had acted like that, we know what would have been said.
Where your argument falls flat is your apparent unwillingness for a full investigation. All attempted rape cases generally end up being a he said/she said. That is the nature of attempted rape. It isn’t usually done in the median strip for all to see.
I found her story to be very credible. I have not heard the other women. They have not stepped forward. People forget. I can’t remember the name of the marine who assaulted me. He was a date. I can’t remember a lot about that night. I also haven’t let it define my life. No, I have no proof it happened. None whatsoever.
Now the White House has cut off interviewing people who want to step forward. Typical. It’s what I would expect out of a sexual offender like the person in the White House. Protecting their own kind.
Steve, one more thing about colleges being full of rapists and predators–colleges are full of young men who drink to access and who are attempting to gain sexual experience. They are also full of young women who also drink to access. Some of them make real bad choices. Some don’t live to tell about it. Some just make bad choices that can be life-altering. It’s just not that cut and dry. Alcohol, drugs and peer pressure all play a huge factor in this kind of aggressive behavior.
If it hasn’t happened to you or your friends, then maybe its just something you can’t imagine. Seriously though, this discussion goes much further than a supreme court nomination.
I also understand that Brett Kavanaugh might have gone on and made a decent man out of himself. In fact, I expect he had. His adult colleagues seem to like and respect him. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t have some difficulty reaching that adulthood. I expect his wife was probably a turning point in his life. However, as I watched him be disrespectful to senators, in particularly to Sen. Klobuchar, I saw a flippant, arrogant man who was 3 beers away from being a real mean drunk. That behavior is lurking just under his veneer.
MoonHowler,
Again with the stereotyping, profiling, and baseless accusations against this nominee.
Moon, I don’t need to be lectured about how alcohol and testosterone can combine negatively. Do you forget that I was once an 18 year old United States Marine? I didn’t grow up in a monastery. I came of age during the same time period as Judge K, but I was from the blue-collar side of town, and so were the girls I socialized with. I knew the guys who got drunk and were a-holes, got drunk and hooked-up with a girl they regretted being with, for whatever reason. I knew girls who had a single beer and couldn’t remember their own names, or perhaps went a bit farther with a guy than they might have sober.
I also know that this type of behavior and lack of judgement doesn’t just go away after college. Adults do this as well.
What I know is “rape” and “sexual assault”, as horrendous as they are, are the exception, not the rule.
Do you know where the term “Scapegoat” comes from? The ancient Hebrews practiced this tradition. Get a goat. Lay all of your sins upon that goat. Cast the goat into the desert to die. Walk around feeling absolved and empowered.
I’ve read nothing but scapegoating here, with no proof to support the accusations leveled at your chosen goat.
Steve Thomas,
Steve, even though you were once an 18 year old boy, do you know what it’s like to be victimized by one? I actually don’t. My assaulter was more like 23 and I was 19 or so. But all that doesn’t . Of course all males aren’t abusers. But some are or were before they grew up. Some might call them sexual predators. I don’t think we can make sweeping generalizations.
I saw a man in Kavanaugh who was 3 beers from being a real mean drunk. Now that is something I know a little about. Could I be wrong, of course. but I know in my gut I am not.
I also believe in be redemption. Would you believe that I am trying to get someone out of prison for something similar? Sometimes people grow up, sober up, and want to to be productive members of
Society.
Sometimes people don’t get fair trials, especially if they don’t have access to decent lawyers. But that’s another story for another day. I suppose I find the irony of a grown man crying because he can’t get the job he wants vs a grown man spending decades behind bars and taking it like a man.
No, I don’t believe every woman but I listen.
North, interesting. I don’t disagree with you. I do think he will be confirmed, but not because he deserves to be confirmed. Once again, I find the Good Old Boys club totally despicable. Just some of the stupid things out of some of their mouths send most women into a tail spin.
MoonHowler,
I was wrong …. genuinely surprised (as of Friday, and really as of Monday it was a done deal) but still overall surprised. Amid all the hot takes, I’m surprised Avenatti (sp) hasn’t taken more heat for introducing what turned out to be an obvious fake and casting doubt on the whole bevy of accusations.
Important note for Blue team: Collins was apparently turned off by the stridence / personal nature of many of the protests. Partly a generational and temperamental thing. She’s not alone. Also, the clamoring about how bad the bicameral system is, and that Trump didn’t win the popular vote, won’t win the middle. It sounds whiny, and treasonous. And Clinton appointed two SCOTUS justices after getting much less of the popular vote – RBG and Breyer.
Important note for Red team: you got the swing vote flipped. It will probably boost your turnout. It was also boost turnout and some suburban moderate vote turning blue. Time to review your candidate slate, folks. And to run on taxes, jobs, new NAFTA and leave social issues to simmer down.
There was some good analysis there, North.
Avenatti is probably a flash in the pan. Perhaps he got big for his britches and got careless. On the other hand, I don’t know his person. The only two I paid any attention to were Ford and Kavanaugh for real.
I am not surprised that Kavanaugh got confirmed. Not at all. I just looked at who owned the power.
Collins–I actually think someone got to her. Expect to see a new highway go through Maine. It’s one thing to vote, its another thing to do it so exuberantly. I am keeping myself from making a crude remark about her at the moment.