Well, Now Brett Kavanaugh Can Face His Accuser

[Jambalaya]

Forgot to say that I'm strongly pro-immigration as well. I think rich countries should share, and I understand why people would enter the country illegally when their lives are so, so difficult in their own countries and immigrating legally is so hard. Not saying it's right to break the law, I'm saying I understand what drives them to it. I was born in this rich country - so, lucky ole' me - but I look at what people go through in some of their home countries and think...there but for the grace of....

The point is that just because I don't know who's telling the truth between Dr. Ford and BK, and just because I'm concerned about a man and his family being dragged through all this if he didn't do it, doesn't make me "on the other side of the fence," as Tekate assumed. I'm not going to toe the party line (which, if you're a Democrat, is to instantly believe that Dr. Ford has perfect recall and denounce BK without a second thought) if I think it's possible that a great unfairness is happening. I guess that makes me an independent with liberal views.

 

[soxfan]

Jesus. Can they be any more tone deaf?

 

[Calliecake]

Is this for real @soxfan ???

 

[soxfan]

Is this for real @soxfan ???

Yes. Check his twitter.

 

[Calliecake]

There are no words.

Doesn’t this party continually ask for decency?

 

[lovedogs]

Yes. Check his twitter.

I feel like my anger is infinite. I'm so furious. Also, I wanted to channel my fury into something both good and petty, and bought both the F trump and the F Kav lipsticks.

https://www.lipslut.com

 

[soxfan]

They literally can't stop tweeting.

 

[soxfan]

Who wants to alert them that Hillary is NOT the president???

 

[Calliecake]

I feel like my anger is infinite. I'm so furious. Also, I wanted to channel my fury into something both good and petty, and bought both the F trump and the F Kav lipsticks.

https://www.lipslut.com

You aren’t alone @lovedogs .

 

[redwood66]

Just FYI, this is why Collin's speech sounds unusual:

Spasmodic dysphonia, also known as laryngeal dystonia, is a disorder in which the muscles that generate a person's voice go into periods of spasm. This results in breaks or interruptions in the voice, often every few sentences, which can make a person difficult to understand.

Oh thank you for this information.

 

[AGBF]

I feel like my anger is infinite. I'm so furious. Also, I wanted to channel my fury into something both good and petty, and bought both the F trump and the F Kav lipsticks.

https://www.lipslut.com

Very creative, lovedogs. I am stuck in a rut. My anger was infinite, also. Worse than any day since Trump was elected, I think. Or maybe since the day when I heard he was separating children from their parents seeking asylum at our borders. So I did what I did on my other worst days: gave money to the ACLU. It brings no solace.

AGBF

 

[soxfan]

 

[soxfan]

 

[lovedogs]

Very creative, lovedogs. I am stuck in a rut. My anger was infinite, also. Worse than any day since Trump was elected, I think. Or maybe since the day when I heard he was separating children from their parents seeking asylum at our borders. So I did what I did on my other worst days: gave money to the ACLU. It brings no solace.

AGBF

Agreed. I haven't been this upset in a while. Our decision to donate to the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the free and open internet (that's more DH's thing) is the only good thing to come of any of this. ugh.

 

[cmd2014]

Tekate, I said "mob mentality" not "mob rule." I'm a liberal, strongly pro-choice and pro-marriage equality. I'm not very political and I don't have the background of political knowledge that others here have, so I can't answer your questions adequately. (FWIW, I think the claim that the Clintons had something to do with this is nonsense.) So my post was strictly about the unfairness of so many people being 110% convinced that BK did it with no proof, and my horror at the Middle-Ages-style bearpit that ensued. Whatever happened to the idea of a fair and thorough investigation? He has been tried by media and convicted in the court of public opinion and I think it's wrong that someone's life can be turned upside down this way and that a family can be put under this kind of stress without a fair, impartial investigation. What if he's telling the truth? How would you feel then? I'm not disputing that Dr. Ford was assaulted, but it was 36 years ago. It was dark, preppy boys are a dime a dozen - maybe she got the wrong guy?

It just seems wrong and unfair that a person's life can be shaken up to this degree on the basis of what can only be a he said/she said, this many years later. That's all. I'm talking fairness, not politics. I'm liberal but that doesn't stop me from being concerned about unfairness to people from other political stripes, unfairness that can carry major consequences and cause huge stress. My views are liberal - pro-choice, pro-marriage equality - but I am not ideologically driven. If I see someone being treated with what may well be abject unfairness, I'll voice my concerns whether they're a Democrat, a Republican, or a traffic cone.

I’m not sure if you watched the whole testimony. I did. She knew him growing up. They went to the same country club. She dated a friend of his younger brother. She knew who he was and who Mark Judge was well before the alleged assault occurred, and the two other boys who he hung out with (she named them by name and explained how she knew them). This was not identifying a stranger. This was knowing someone before and reporting what he did. Hard to get that mixed up. She was also very credible. I do a lot of work for victims services, and she was 100% believable. He on the other hand was not and clearly lied multiple times under oath. There is also evidence via text message exchanges that he and his team were rallying his friends before she went public to get stories straight and to discredit her and the other people who came forward. Innocent people don’t tend to do this.

Sadly, sexual assault rarely occurs with witnesses present. There is rarely any “proof.” Even physical evidence does not count as men typically claim that contact was consensual. It is always a he said/she said, and these things are judged on the credibility of the witnesses. She was credible. He lied often and about things that mattered. The only people talking about character assassination and the need to make this meet the standards of a criminal trial instead of a job interview were Republicans. The only people floating this bizarre and unsubstantiated mistaken identity theory were Republicans. Plus, the Republicans blocked a fair and thorough investigation by severely limiting the scope andlength of the investigation, and then claimed it found nothing. Had they not limited it, I’m sure we’d be talking about how he perjured himself at least about the drinking and other behavior documented in his year books and by people who knew him then. So if you were political and if you had been following this as it played out, you might have a very different perspective.

So fairness maybe suggests that we don’t call a credible professional and accomplished woman a liar when she has risked the safety of herself and her children to come forward. Fairness would require a critical analysis of the information presented by both sides in coming to conclusions. Fairness would not place a man’s reputation and desire for a job (because this was a job interview, *not* a criminal trial) above a woman’s safety and well-being or above other future women’s safety and well-being. And he was not dragged through this. He signed up for this because he wanted the job. He could have said no. She had reporters showing up at her work and st her home. She had her name dragged through the mud with fake news put out by Republicans. She had her family threatened. Does she not count in your mind too? Or is a man’s reputation more important than a woman’s? Maybe some of the people you are referring to took the time to pay attention and watch and came to reasonable conclusions....

 

[cmd2014]

And sadly, 10 women on my caseload in the past 2 weeks alone have decided not to go forward with their sexual assault cases. What is the point when no one believes a woman when she says she was raped? Even one as credible as Dr. Ford. Because we still value men more. Their lives (their reputations, their jobs, their families) are somehow more important in the minds of other people than the lives of the women they have derailed. Every single sexual assault victim I have worked with (men and women) has said to me that their biggest fear is that they won’t be believed. And guess what? If you’re a woman you won’t be. Not by anyone who really counts. This sham of a Supreme Court nomination has proved that on an international scale. And women will still stand up and blame them and shame them for this, saying that it is their fault if these men hurt other women if they don’t report. That not coming forward makes them a criminal. Even women who themselves admit that they didn’t report their own assaults. It makes me so angry. So I am sorry that I am here and that I’m angry (because as women, we’re not allowed to be angry either - it’s not justified the way men’s anger always is, it’s just hysterics). But I’m pissed off at the world right now. And I’m one of the lucky ones without a story to tell. I am so, so sorry for those of you who do.

 

[Jambalaya]

I think that the selection of a judge should have been put on hold while a thorough, independent investigation was carried out. There were many people who could have been interviewed, like Dr. Ford's and BK's friends.

My issue is that the committee hearing turned into a public bearpit. My point all along is that we don't know, so instead of condemning someone in the court of public opinion, a proper investigation should be carried out. I would reserve judgement until such an investigation is done. You really can't tell based on who "seemed" more credible. Maybe one is a better actor than the other. Who knows? I thought his indignation seemed believable, but she was also believable. There are holes in both their stories. He lied about drinking and her friend remembers no such party.

There should be an investigation.

CMD, it's terrible that your clients have decided not to go ahead. I hope they change their minds.

 

[Jambalaya]

I was totally, completely taken in by that Rolling Stone story, which was so credible that everyone was up in arms about it and no one questioned it, including me. So these days I prefer to reserve judgement until due diligence is done, which it hasn't been in this case.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Who wants to alert them that Hillary is NOT the president???

Yes she is...remember HRC won by 2 million votes?

 

[cmd2014]

I think that the selection of a judge should have been put on hold while a thorough, independent investigation was carried out. There were many people who could have been interviewed, like Dr. Ford's and BK's friends.

My issue is that the committee hearing turned into a public bearpit. My point all along is that we don't know, so instead of condemning someone in the court of public opinion, a proper investigation should be carried out. I would reserve judgement until such an investigation is done. You really can't tell based on who "seemed" more credible. Maybe one is a better actor than the other. Who knows? I thought his indignation seemed believable, but she was also believable. There are holes in both their stories. He lied about drinking and her friend remembers no such party.

There should be an investigation.

CMD, it's terrible that your clients have decided not to go ahead. I hope they change their minds.

They won’t, nor can I in good conscience advise them to. And I won’t. They need to take care of themselves and screw trying to protect the world, because the world does not want protecting. Not if it means having to tolerate the discomfort of allowing for the possibility that privileged and powerful men might not be the pillars of society they are held up to be. Or that they may be embarrassed, or that their careers might be harmed.

And you haven’t reserved judgement. You’ve chosen to ignore the fact that one of them obviously and demonstrably lied (with overwhelming supporting evidence of this, including within his own calendars), while the other was forthcoming about what she knew, what she didn’t, the fact that her friends would not have known or remembered anything unusual about that party (or the party itself) because she did not tell them (so they would not be able to recall something they were never aware of in the first place), submitted to a polygraph, had corroborating therapy notes predating this debacle by 6 years, and whose husband has recalled that she named her attacker during that same therapy appointment. That her alleged rapists name wasn’t documented in those notes is not unusual. HIPPA discourages documenting information about anyone other than the patient in medical records as it’s not seen to be sufficiently relevant as to justify the breach of privacy to the non-patient.

Plus, I spend my professional life judging credibility. It’s not based on who “seems” more credible (so the question of who may be a good actor is not relevant). It’s about whose version of events is most consistent with what is known to be true and can be verified, and whose version does not contain misinformation about the things than can be verified. Those who are not honest about verifiable things cannot be considered reliable historians. Judge Kavanaugh lied under oath about verifiable things. He was evasive in his response to direct questions. He dodged and weaved and prevaricated and attacked the people asking the questions. He was clearly not holding up well under cross examination of their own examiner which is why they pulled her. He is therefore not a reliable historian or a credible person. Dr. Ford did not do any of these things. She answered questions forthrightly. All of them. She did not try to avoid answering. She said what she did not know. She may not have remembered certain things, but she did not say anything verifiably untrue. In addition, she had nothing to gain and only everything to lose by coming forward. He had everything to gain by denying and nothing to lose. You have to weigh these things. To do otherwise is to be deliberately blind to issues of relative credibility.

 

[Jambalaya]

I work nights so I do skim a lot of coverage as I get tired. I know there are two other sexual accusers of BK - a really great reason to do a proper investigation, you'd think - and that he lied under oath about the drinking. I also read that Dr. Ford's friend doesn't remember the party. Also, hasn't someone come forward and said that he witnessed Dr. Ford coaching someone in how to pass a polygraph test, when she told the hearing she'd never done that?

This is what I mean. It's a he said/she said. It seems that there are holes in both their stories - wasn't there stuff about her flying a lot, not afraid, and an ex-boyfriend came forward and said he helped her find a 500 sg ft apt in San Fran with one door at a time after the incident? I thought I read these things in the Times last week.

Look, she might well be telling the truth. Or she might misremember who the boy was. Or she might be lying,. Or he might be lying. Who on earth knows?

My point is that a thorough investigation should be done.

And of course she matters, too. I was focusing on him as the accused, because I don't like the court-of-public-opinion, trial-by-media thing. It's a witch-hunt, and there should have been an investigation instead of subjecting both of them and their families to that debacle.

 

[Jambalaya]

I don't like the headline of this piece - I don't see wy Dr. Ford isn't a poster child for women's rights - and I take issue with the idea of ANY accuser's sexual history being in the slightest bit relevant. However, the ideas expressed in this article about ideas of law and due process struck a chord with me:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ns-kavanaugh-ford-innocent-column/1488329002/

Extract: In fact, research confirms that one’s confidence in one's memory is actually a poor indicator of the reliability of memory.

The Elizabeth Smart case was in the news lately, and I remember that her sister said the attacker was wearing white and had a gun, but he was wearing black and had a knife.

This extract is also relevant to how I feel:

Extremism is the opposite of intellectual discourse. I can’t respect the absolutes that have been established in this debate: If you don't believe Ford, you don't believe victims; if you testify with apparent vulnerability, you speak only truth; if you believe in false allegations, you’re a misogynist...

....It does not matter who his parents are, where he went to school, what his successes have been, how much money he has, or the office for which he has been nominated. It’s despite these things that he is entitled to the same amount of due process and respect as anyone else.

 

[Ellen]

And sadly, 10 women on my caseload in the past 2 weeks alone have decided not to go forward with their sexual assault cases. What is the point when no one believes a woman when she says she was raped? Even one as credible as Dr. Ford. Because we still value men more. Their lives (their reputations, their jobs, their families) are somehow more important in the minds of other people than the lives of the women they have derailed. Every single sexual assault victim I have worked with (men and women) has said to me that their biggest fear is that they won’t be believed. And guess what? If you’re a woman you won’t be. Not by anyone who really counts. This sham of a Supreme Court nomination has proved that on an international scale. And women will still stand up and blame them and shame them for this, saying that it is their fault if these men hurt other women if they don’t report. That not coming forward makes them a criminal. Even women who themselves admit that they didn’t report their own assaults. It makes me so angry. So I am sorry that I am here and that I’m angry (because as women, we’re not allowed to be angry either - it’s not justified the way men’s anger always is, it’s just hysterics). But I’m pissed off at the world right now. And I’m one of the lucky ones without a story to tell. I am so, so sorry for those of you who do.

This is what I was afraid of.

 

[Ellen]

I think that the selection of a judge should have been put on hold while a thorough, independent investigation was carried out. There were many people who could have been interviewed, like Dr. Ford's and BK's friends.

My issue is that the committee hearing turned into a public bearpit. My point all along is that we don't know, so instead of condemning someone in the court of public opinion, a proper investigation should be carried out. I would reserve judgement until such an investigation is done. You really can't tell based on who "seemed" more credible. Maybe one is a better actor than the other. Who knows? I thought his indignation seemed believable, but she was also believable. There are holes in both their stories. He lied about drinking and her friend remembers no such party.

There should be an investigation.

CMD, it's terrible that your clients have decided not to go ahead. I hope they change their minds.

Yes, there should have been a proper investigation. But there was only one objective here, get him on the bench. That was it. And so, no proper investigation was had, and there he sits. Voila, our government in action.

 

[Tekate]

She has lived with it for years and will continue to do so. Both families were put under huge stress. MANY people including me were undecided on him till the temper tantrum, I don't want someone on the surpreme court who is so partisan. Unfortunately as you know fairness went OUT the window with the disgusting, horrendous and totally unfair treatment of Judge Merrick Garland.. a man who was well suited for the supreme court, a good man, a fair man. The republicans treatment of this fine man was disgusting and unforgivable. So yes Jambalaya I understand your remark, unfortunately, republicans sling and whine when it's slung (is that a word??) back.. until we have a FIT and intelligent president again, this will continue. Thanks for your reply. I too will always voice my opinion, my beliefs because I too love this country, and believe everyone can rise above it.

Tekate, I said "mob mentality" not "mob rule." I'm a liberal, strongly pro-choice and pro-marriage equality. I'm not very political and I don't have the background of political knowledge that others here have, so I can't answer your questions adequately. (FWIW, I think the claim that the Clintons had something to do with this is nonsense.) So my post was strictly about the unfairness of so many people being 110% convinced that BK did it with no proof, and my horror at the Middle-Ages-style bearpit that ensued. Whatever happened to the idea of a fair and thorough investigation? He has been tried by media and convicted in the court of public opinion and I think it's wrong that someone's life can be turned upside down this way and that a family can be put under this kind of stress without a fair, impartial investigation. What if he's telling the truth? How would you feel then? I'm not disputing that Dr. Ford was assaulted, but it was 36 years ago. It was dark, preppy boys are a dime a dozen - maybe she got the wrong guy?

It just seems wrong and unfair that a person's life can be shaken up to this degree on the basis of what can only be a he said/she said, this many years later. That's all. I'm talking fairness, not politics. I'm liberal but that doesn't stop me from being concerned about unfairness to people from other political stripes, unfairness that can carry major consequences and cause huge stress. My views are liberal - pro-choice, pro-marriage equality - but I am not ideologically driven. If I see someone being treated with what may well be abject unfairness, I'll voice my concerns whether they're a Democrat, a Republican, or a traffic cone.

 

[Tekate]

It's inevitable.

This is what I was afraid of.

 

[Tekate]

I felt that way about Garland, the insult, the utter lack of disrespect, the arrogance, the downright meanness of their treatment of Garland was beyond, there are all kinds of truth and the truth is for Garland: they minimized him. So I understand. Garland never a word and recused himself from any Kavanaugh ethics complaints, now THAT is a man we want on the Supreme Court, not a screaming, frothing partisan.

Your post sounded as though you were on the other side and I replied Jambalaya, I am pro-immigration (especially for Maine). I am not concerned about a man being dragged thru the mud because his own party demeaned and minimized a very good man, by REFUSAL to interview or consider a very good candidate. I take sides. If the Federalist Society recommended Kavanaugh that was enough for me to not want him on the SC as the Federalist Society is a partisan organization. You are of course entitled to sympathy for Kavanaugh, I have none. As a victim of violence and attack by guys I can believe much of what she says because as it's happening sounds sights people become surreal and you just want to survive. Of course I believed her because she was compelling. I had more than one attack, and I'm way older than her. I can't remember the place in one, I can only remember a DARK ROOM, being hit, and crying... I can't tell where I was in my town that night, but I remember him. The other I know where it was, it was later though 10 years, and I remember my head being slammed into a steering wheel and crying.. both times I was drinking as were the perpetrators, people believed me the second times and I told people but I had a boyfriend and if it got back to him I wasn't sure he would be happy to hear I got into a car with a guy I barely knew to go on a beer run, the attacker seemed fine, blonde, blue eyes, several people knew him, just going to get beer, NOTHING HINTED said implied, I was 19. My boyfriend, whom I loved with my whole being, would be so angry, my parents, I FELT GUILTY, when I did nothing wrong, I was gonna help a guy carry some cases of beer, that is why I was along to help him.. I would never get into a car with anyone ever again I didn't now personally,I freak out in a uber or cab when alone. E. It changed me and made me scared and so ashamed. So I identified with Dr Ford and her demeanor cause I would have been the same, I never wanted to think about either situation again, but it doesn't go away.

Were they kids? yup, would it have stopped me from thinking he shouldn't be a candidate, no not at the beginning of his nomination. I have no proof of what happened to me, I guess I should have kept the ripped t shirt I was wearing, I still see it now, yellow and black stripes, ripped to shreds on one arm. Nope can't go there.

We shall see if Kavanaugh keeps his promise to Susan Collins and let's abortion stand, I can be fooled maybe he will, maybe he won't, but both parties have fault.

We all make decisions on past experience.

Forgot to say that I'm strongly pro-immigration as well. I think rich countries should share, and I understand why people would enter the country illegally when their lives are so, so difficult in their own countries and immigrating legally is so hard. Not saying it's right to break the law, I'm saying I understand what drives them to it. I was born in this rich country - so, lucky ole' me - but I look at what people go through in some of their home countries and think...there but for the grace of....

The point is that just because I don't know who's telling the truth between Dr. Ford and BK, and just because I'm concerned about a man and his family being dragged through all this if he didn't do it, doesn't make me "on the other side of the fence," as Tekate assumed. I'm not going to toe the party line (which, if you're a Democrat, is to instantly believe that Dr. Ford has perfect recall and denounce BK without a second thought) if I think it's possible that a great unfairness is happening. I guess that makes me an independent with liberal views.

 

[the_mother_thing]

She dated a friend of his younger brother.

Not sure if your summary of the situation was your understanding or was based on Ford’s testimony, but Kav has no siblings. Just a point of clarification.


It’s been stated that Kav "didn’t have a ‘right’" to a SCOTUS seat; this is true, and neither did Merrick Garland.

 

[Tekate]

No maybe not but Garland deserved wholeheartedly to be heard, his record was OPEN, there is no reason we know of that Garland didn't deserve the job, EXCEPT for republican hate.

Not sure if your summary of the situation was your understanding or was based on Ford’s testimony, but Kav has no siblings. Just a point of clarification.


It’s been stated that Kav "didn’t have a ‘right’" to a SCOTUS seat; this is true, and neither did Merrick Garland.

 

[Tekate]

I don't like the headline of this piece - I don't see wy Dr. Ford isn't a poster child for women's rights - and I take issue with the idea of ANY accuser's sexual history being in the slightest bit relevant. However, the ideas expressed in this article about ideas of law and due process struck a chord with me:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ns-kavanaugh-ford-innocent-column/1488329002/

Extract: In fact, research confirms that one’s confidence in one's memory is actually a poor indicator of the reliability of memory.

The Elizabeth Smart case was in the news lately, and I remember that her sister said the attacker was wearing white and had a gun, but he was wearing black and had a knife.

This extract is also relevant to how I feel:

Extremism is the opposite of intellectual discourse. I can’t respect the absolutes that have been established in this debate: If you don't believe Ford, you don't believe victims; if you testify with apparent vulnerability, you speak only truth; if you believe in false allegations, you’re a misogynist...

....It does not matter who his parents are, where he went to school, what his successes have been, how much money he has, or the office for which he has been nominated. It’s despite these things that he is entitled to the same amount of due process and respect as anyone else.