Brett Kavanaugh - A Discussion About the Sexual Abuse Allegations

1. 86

   crankaliciousposted 5 years ago

   So, Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of a sexual assault and the accuser has come forward. I'm pretty sure no conservative in these forums would even consider dismissing his nomination, but let's try and have a serious discussion about the allegation.
   
   1. Do you believe the accuser? She's come forward and identified herself.
   2. If you don't believe the accuser, why not?
   3. Even if you don't believe her, just take her word for it and let's assume Kavanaugh did what she said. Should it matter? After all, he was drunk. He was in high school. Who knows what happened and the circumstances. It was decades ago. There's not a shred of evidence that anything has happened like this since. He made some stupid mistake when he was in high school at a party where he was drunk. Women have come forward in droves to support him. So, should it even matter?
   
   I'm kind of serious about point number 3. When I was in 9th grade, I snapped a girl's bra in class. If I was being nominated for the Supreme Court, should that prevent my confirmation? That woman might come forward now and accuse me of harassing her - and rightly so. That was clearly harassment. I regret it and it shouldn't have happened.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that foolishness in high school, with no evidence of such behavior as an adult, should not wreck a career.  And, to be honest, I'd like to know the extent of her therapy. This will sound like a defence of Cavanaugh, which it isn't, but I have known women who submitted to hypnosis while in therapy who subsequently 'remembered' trauma. I knew for a fact one didn't happen. I've heard hypnotic therapy can cause false memories.
      
      This whole episode smacks of weirdness.  If she was attacked, why now? Why wait so long? It just doesn't add up.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Could we maybe not attack the potential victim? Who cares how long ago it was? The only question that matters is whether it is true or not.
         
         I was attacked 40+ years ago and have never mentioned it to anyone. If I suddenly saw that my attacker (if I could even recognize that person) was being nominated for the Supreme Court, I would certainly mention it. Why would she bring it up back then? It was her word against two others. She would lose in any court of law and any prosecutor would tell her he couldn't bring charges based on the evidence. She would have been attacked back then just like she is being attacked now.

         replyreport
   2. 88

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Oh hell Crankalicious, it's dinosaur time again.
      
      Are we really in an age where snapping a girl's bra strap is considered sexual harassment? My world says that is not sexual harassment. *(I know you just said harassment, but you know folks that even consider that perspective will see it as sexual harassment) Foolishly juvenile maybe, but not sexually harassing.
      
      I remember when that might equate to sling-shoting  your jock strap at someone. If that someone ducked would they be considered homophobic today?
      
      Now that I have illustrated my mindset ...
      
      I can't answer your first two questions. I don't know enough yet. But I will say the circumstances do not help her. This letter has been in Feinstein's hands since July 31. Why wait until now to make it public? Why not make it public when he was acknowledged to be on the 'short list' of potential nominees? With that reasoning, why didn't this woman come forward when he was appointed his first judgeship, was that not an important enough position to warrant protecting the people from? If Kavanaugh had been shot-down during the hearings would we still be hearing about this letter?
      
      I think rather than help her, the politicians she approached have hurt her.
      
      Since I am already in the mud, my thoughts match your choice #3. A juvenile stupid act that has no apparent corroborating incidents to indicate an inherent character flaw, and a life-record of acts and achievements that indicate an inherent good character.
      
      Our search for the perfect human must continue ...
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 86

         crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         If we imagine the shoe on the other foot, Democrats would argue (were it their nominee) that a lifetime of service and good behavior should not be erased by the single act of a drunk minor.
         
         If everyone was held to a standard that anything they did in high school is enough to prevent them from a SCOTUS appointment, we'd all be a in a lot of trouble.
         
         And GA, yes, it's harassment. In fact, it's misdemeanor assault. Under the law, you're not allowed to touch another person without his/her permission.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Well then Crankalicious, Although admittedly a matter of degrees, but regarding bra strap snapping in high school, if it's a misdemeanor assault to do it - it is a wussie law for wussies.
            
            I will repeat an anecdote that illustrates my thinking;
            
            The show - Family Fued
            The contestants: a twenty, (or thirty)-something white female and a  twenty, (or thirty)-something black  male.
            Face-off - first to answer gets to play
            Question:
            "We asked 100 people; What would you do if someone insulted you?"
            
            Black male buzzes in: His answer: Call the authorities!
            
            That's where we are. Call the cops if someone insults you. Yep, your law is a wussie law.
            
            Cute note: The female's response; "Slap their face!"
            
            Bra-snapping a misdemeanor assault - Geesh! I'm moving to the mountains before I get jailed for telling someone they're an idiot.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 86

               crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Telling somebody something is one thing. Touching them is another. I'm not saying it's something that's prosecuted a lot, but if somebody wants to press charges, they can.
               
               I had to sit in court and serve as foreman for a case where one guy touched another guy. Just touched him. They were rivals in a love triangle and the one guy pressed charges. No assault. Nobody was hurt. Just touched the guy. Not even a push.
               
               Just saying. You can't legally touch another person without their permission.

               replyreport
      2. 86

         crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I agree that Feinstein should have submitted that letter the second she got it, though perhaps she spent some time investigating its veracity? Senator Feinstein was going to get attacked no matter when she submitted it, so best to make sure it was real.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Feinstein's always been a total fake and a flake ........we'll leave it there !

            replyreport
   3. 88

      RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Why wasn't this brought up during the hearing, when it could actually be vetted?  This is a delay tactic; one which hilariously was brought into the light by a US Senator that had a legitimate Chinese Spy working for her for decades.  I'm sorry, but it's just too convenient of timing.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I'm less interested in the timing than in whether it is true or not. But if it is true, does it matter?
         
         I don't like the guy and I don't want him to become the next justice, but I'm not sure something you did while drunk, at a party, in high school, should be enough to disqualify you, as heinous as the act might be. I can confidently say that no matter how drunk I might have been at any time in my life, I always knew what boundaries not to cross. Pinning a girl down on a bed and trying to take her clothes off is not something I ever would have done under any circumstance and not something I would think any decent person would ever do. However, minors in high school do a lot of stupid things while drunk.
         
         To some degree, you could compare this episode to the Aziz Ansari episode (which happened when he was an adult). Many guys fumble around near lines they shouldn't cross.
         
         And just to be clear - no woman should have to endure any man's bad behavior when it comes to their bodies. Doing anything to another person without that person's consent is a crime.

         replyreport
   4. 82

      Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      If the allegation is true, then I don't believe pinning a girl to a bed, groping her, trying to remove her clothing, and covering her mouth when she tries to scream, can reasonably be described merely as "some stupid mistake".
      
      You're right, snapping a girls bra is wrong too, which is why you're regretful it happened. I don't think it's equivalent to the allegation against Kavanaugh though.
      
      And while I think Democrats are definitely trying to get as much political mileage as possible out of the situation, I don't think it would be fair to treat this woman's alleged experience (and the associated personal feelings that may go with it) differently because of that.
      
      This woman deserves to be heard, and has a right for her allegations of a criminal action against her to be investigated (has there been a criminal complaint?) If there is a case to answer to, then the process followed should be the same as it would be for anyone else, regardless of the political implications it might have.
      
      The possibility of a Supreme Court judge being confirmed while having a criminal allegation of sexual assault outstanding is astonishing though.
      
      If someone was hiring for a position of great trust and responsibility, and they found out an applicant had an allegation of sexual assault outstanding against them. I think it's reasonable and sensible for the employer to (at the very least) wait to see the outcome of any investigation into the matter before proceeding with an offer of employment.
      
      Why would we apply a lesser standard to a Supreme Court judge?

      replyreport
      1. 96

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         And when she cannot prove her allegations, what then?  A massive slander suit considering the lies cost Kavanaugh a seat on SCOTUS, with awards being paid under the table my the Democratic party or a go-fund-me page for all Trump haters to contribute to?
         
         How do you "investigate" without witnesses, without evidence, with not a single thing but one person's word against another's?  What kind of "investigation" do you suggest - simply assign guilt because Trump is involved at some far-away point?

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Don Wposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            If law enforcement make the determination that there is insufficient evidence to charge, or even insufficient information investigate fully, then so be it.
            
            But you can't simply shrug it off as if it's nothing. As I said, the same process should be followed as it would be for anyone else.

            replyreport
   5. 85

      Sychophantasticposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Women who were promiscuous in high school end up regretting those decisions and some of them convince themselves that because they were sluts that it was the guy's fault. I suspect Professor Ford suffers from this. She was probably sexually active in high school, came on to these boys, and then was surprised when they responded. Horny high school boys, as everyone knows, cannot control themselves.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Feinstein's Hail Mary envelope puts the whole #Me too into the spin about politics only , Woman , like other groups ,need to think about why they're being exploited by the democratic party .
   
   Join the club ?

   replyreport
3. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   So , I was assaulted and now I'm going to wait 35 years to raise the red flag?...........sure , works every time for "justice ".

   replyreport
   1. 86

      crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Do you think attempting to rape somebody in high school is disqualifying for a Supreme Court justice?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         A few points  , there is no way to prove or disprove the allegation ,   they were both minors at the time , 35 years is too long to legitimately accuse ,  Feinstein had this "letter " all through the confirmation hearings - what's her intent ?   This woman didn't want to be exposed and now does ?
         
         As usual a trial by media against the right BY the left ?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            That's not the question. Can you answer the question?
            
            And the fact you feel the need to attack the victim says a lot more about you than it does about her. She's a credible person, so it's possible that it's true. I can certainly say that I can't remember a single party I was at in college or in high school, but had I done something like that, as a man, I probably wouldn't remember it. However, I can imagine a woman would remember it for the rest of her life. It happens to lots of women, all the time, and they have the right to come forward whenever they want.

            replyreport
4. 88

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   What a statement that is ... on our society. I would never have made it to the jury - the prosecutor would have quickly heard my opinion of that law. I could not have been unbiased.
   
   Think about the obvious comparison: "Mom! Johnny's touching me!" vs. "Judge! He touched me!"
   
   Geesh, I better get working on that mountain cabin.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 86

      crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      We didn't really know the details of the case until the trial started. I can tell you that just about everyone on the jury didn't want to render a verdict because they were mad at everyone.
      
      It's less a statement about our society than it is about these particular people and the lawyers, who decided to bring this case to court and waste everyone's time. Because that's what it was - a waste of time.
      
      I can just tell you what the law is now - if you touch somebody without consent, you can find yourself in court.

      replyreport
5. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Anita Hill comes to mind , at least that was believable in a timely sense and I believed her .  This one speaks too loudly of an old virtually unprovable allegation in itself becoming a convenient  guilty "trial by media"  verdict , and why ?   Because of Kavanaugh's last [non]answer to the question of abortions.    "If we can't get the judge WE want  , let's create a media trial  to stall the judgeship" .

   replyreport
   1. 86

      crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Still not answering the question: is attempted rape disqualifying for a Supreme Court justice?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         The answer , learn your facts ,  Is he accused of attempted rape , tried , judged , convicted in a court of law ?   You fell easily for a political "Feinstein stunt" , doesn't mean that we all have to .
         
         Feinstein had this letter for SIX weeks before dropping it in front of the TV camera's !  Enough said.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Being convicted of a crime doesn't seem to matter to Senator Susan Collins, she called for Senator Franken's resignation after his alleged groping incident which is a far lesser crime and which of course now makes it impossible for her to vote in favor of 'beattie eyes' Brett, the alleged attempted rapist:
            
            When I was his age a never even thought of forcefully assaulting another woman by cupping my hand over her mouth while I tried to sexually assault her and if he did this which a polygraph says he did, we'd have to assume it wasn't the only incident:
            
            This guy should absolutely be in a courtroom right NOW, not to adjudicate  legal actions God forbid, but to stand trial as a defendant for this alleged despicable crime:
            
            Looks like the 'fix' is in for beattie eyes Brett:
            
            "Susan Collins Called For Al Franken To Resign But Won’t Rule Out Voting For Kavanaugh"
            
            https://www.politicususa.com/2018/09/16 … naugh.html

            replyreport
         2. 86

            crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Ed, you seem to be deflecting and it's telling. Perhaps you don't think attempted rape is disqualifying? Perhaps you don't even think it's a crime. Drunk boys are going to do what drunk boys are going to do, after all.
            
            I'm not saying he's guilty or even if it's credible. I'm saying it's good to know what the baseline is for a SCOTUS appointee. If you think it's all good no matter what may have happened in his past, then there's really no point arguing these other little details.
            
            She was probably drunk too anyway. She had it coming.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Last I heard she says she has no clear recollection of the incident.
               
               What does this say about our current climate?

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I think if she can't find somebody to corroborate some part of her story, there's not much to do. I suppose she could testify and we'll see how believable her story is and how she's so sure it was Kavanaugh. I imagine if somebody attempted to rape you, you'd probably remember his name, wouldn't you? Whereas Kavanaugh, who probably regarded it as innocent play, would never remember the event.
                  
                  And frankly, i don't know how anybody could remember anything from 35 years ago that occurred in high school during what was probably one of many parties.
                  
                  And once again, the Democrats had the opportunity with Clarence Thomas to stand up for what is right. Instead they attacked Anita Hill, so their time for moral righteousness has long passed.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Abundance of corroborating evidence:
                     
                     "Brett Kavanaugh’s Accuser Offers Corroborating Data Including A Lie Detector Test"
                     
                     https://hillreporter.com/brett-kavanaug … ector-7306

                     replyreport
      2. 96

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Isn't the question actually "Should unsupported allegations of attempted rape disqualify a SCOTUS justice"?  That is what is being discussed - an unsupported, unproven claim being sufficient to ruin another persons life for political gain by Democrats?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Not really, because if the answer to my question is no, it's not disqualifying, then there's no point to have a discussion.
            
            And I wouldn't say the allegations are unsupported. Also, Kavanaugh has perjured himself once already in regard to the stolen information used during the Bush administration to vet judicial nominees. So his credibility is suspect.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Where's Brett's lie detector test results ?? I'm betting the public will never see them:just like we still haven't seen all the documents pertaining his past due to republicans non-interest in providing them in a timely manner: What else is in his past?
               
               "Brett Kavanaugh’s Accuser Offers Corroborating Data Including A Lie Detector Test"
               
               https://hillreporter.com/brett-kavanaug … ector-7306

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm willing to bet Kavanaugh would pass a lie detector test on this incident because he either has no memory of it or remembers it differently. I very much doubt that a drunk, high school boy in 1982 would have thought pinning a girl to a bed was anything more than playing around. There are a lot of possibilities here, one of which is that they thought they'd play around or frighten her a bit (because they were drunk idiots) and never had any intention of going any farther. When drunk high school males get together, they do an amazing amount of stupid stuff they would never do on their own.
                  
                  Does this excuse that behavior? Certainly not. Just saying that, if true, his intention and memory may be very different. Again, not an excuse.
                  
                  Again, what's more amazing is how so few people are willing to step up and say that attempted rape is a disqualifying event for a SCOTUS nominee.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Crank , That's because ,unlike most of you think , "attempted rape" needs to be first investigated , charged , tried and convicted doesn't it ?
                     
                     Or are you suggesting another trial by CNN ?

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        You're not making any sense. I actually think this is a very hard thing to prove and is a tough subject in general.
                        
                        But the unwillingness to even commit to the notion that attempted rape is disqualifying for ANY SCOTUS nominee, Dem or Rep, is alarming.
                        
                        Since we already have evidence that Kavanaugh perjured himself in front of the Senate, shouldn't we be inclined to believe his accuser? We already know he's not going to tell the truth.

                        replyreport
                  2. 67

                     JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     I partially agree crankalicious, if Brett was inebriated as some press reports say, sure, he might pass a lie detector test because he was impaired, but then again maybe not, but he needs to be tested and thereafter pass the test to be on par with his accusers credibility:
                     
                     I believe beattie eyes Brett was 17 years old at the time which means he could probably be tried as an adult and if his attorney ever used the defense of ignorance in an American court of law, he'll presumably be convicted in a minute:
                     
                     When you're 17 years old you certainly understand that doing the following dastardly deeds are bad, unlawful and perhaps even evil: The acts of cupping a woman's mouth with your hand with explicit intent to stop her screams, pinning her down on a bed and proceeding to violently tear at her clothes:
                     
                     This is called either attempted rape or rape and a supreme court nominee who is even at the point of being questioned about an atrocious crime such as this is immediately disqualified in a normal rational world:

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Lie detectors are not reliable enough to be used as evidence ,  they can and have been "beaten "  so where is the proof ? Whether he takes it or decides not to and guess what Mr. Earthshine , he won't !
                        
                        One more pure obstruction issue down the democrats big , BIG drain ?

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           JAKE Earthshineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           If what you say is true, they are easily beaten which is a ridiculously false statement, then beattie eyes Brett should take a lie detector test immediately:

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              You make no sense.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 Makes perfect sense if you put it into perspective. Far left ideologues always result to personal insults when they don't have an argument (which is pretty much all the time, if you've paid attention to the posts.) Beady eyed Brett. No argument of substance and not even spelled correctly, but insult their looks. They think that actually clinches their argument.
                                 
                                 Sad. Ineffective. But it lets them feel smug.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 86

                                    crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                    The sort of statement that you've achieved some kind of insight into a group of people because they always do something, particular when it's a partisan accusation, is just a waste of time. Left ideologues don't always make those kind of statements. People who don't have great rhetorical skills do. I've seen the same thing on the right.
                                    
                                    That said, there's no need to insult Kavanaugh. However, he did perjure himself in front of the Senate, so one might question his credibility. Also, he made a statement about three years ago that "what happens at his high school stays at his high school" seemingly insinuating that a lot of questionable stuff happened there. In light of this accusation, it seemed creepy.
                                    
                                    As for the accuser, I don't see any reason to question her credibility.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 59

                                       Live to Learnposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                       I agree. Certain types of idealogues are not indicative of a larger group of people. Thankfully. That tiny group is what I was referring to. An incredibly tiny,tiny group.

                                       report
                           2. 0

                              Ed Fisherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              Beadie eyes ! Mr. Earthshine .

                              replyreport
                  3. 0

                     Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes, attempted rape is enough to keep a nominee off the bench.  There you go, I said it and I mean it.

                     replyreport
6. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Who says his accuser has accused in anything but an ideological  agenda to stop his confirmation , She apparently knows he's been in the federal circuit for decades  why now ?  Why 35 years later ?
   Who says this letter is anything but a Feinstein invention , a lie , she has that history ?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Hxprofposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It might be strictly an ideological agenda.  The why now question has been answered by many, but really, I don't get it either - why 35 years later?  Yeah, I get it that women are often beat up by society when they come forward, but choosing to take the beating 35 years later when there's even LESS chance of being taken seriously is foolish.  And to boot, she doesn't remember much about what happened.  If she's sincere, it was just a lousy decision to come forward now.  A Feinstein invention?  Well, that's quite a job if she's arranged this entire fabrication.

      replyreport
7. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   Feinstein ," I can't guarantee that everything in this letter is truthful "
   Feinstein , nothing you've ever said is truthful !
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 86

      crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      OMG, really? Do a little research. That quote came off a fake, satirical news site. But that's your basis for thinking Feinstein is an idiot? Hmmm, irony.
      
      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gunman-gambit/

      replyreport
8. 0

   Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago

   I know that  it's fake ,  Feinstein needs no help at all to prove her senseless decisionmaking and ideological brainwashing . It's been proven for forty years or more , another career democrat worthy of your votes .

   replyreport
   1. 86

      crankaliciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The very definition of fake news, but you're perpetuating it as truth. You actually just hurt your own point because you can't rely on actual quotes, you have to turn to fake quotes. So, you're slandering Feinstein while claiming she's a liar. Nice job.

      replyreport