Well, Now Brett Kavanaugh Can Face His Accuser

[redwood66]

Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas both worked for the Federal government so an investigation by the FBI was appropriate. Anita Hill was caught lying on numerous occasions and had to change her testimony. Her credibility was in question. Which is not to say that things did not happen but lying does not help your situation.

 

[Matata]

@Matata case in point.

Aww red, I just don't see the issue. You did make that comment to her. If you made that "see me for who you are" comment to me, I'd take it in a negative way. I don't see how it can be perceived in any other way taking into account the dialog between the two of you. I see Elliott's post of that pic as saying that one is more comfortable being oneself when one is not out to impress. But I respect your feelings about it even if I don't understand them.

 

[the_mother_thing]

The mother thing your post has multiple factual inaccuracies. First of all Kavanagh denied it happened, before he knew who or what the allegations were. Second there is evidence that he has lied before for career advancement, when the facts are inconvenient. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimony-supreme-court.html

Second of all, his friend Judge, while denying or stating he doesn't remember it happening (not under oath, -he has refused to testify under oath) what he has previously said before in his memoirs IS consistent with Kavanagh doing something like this, in particular partying and drinking so hard that he is not in control of himself. So what little testimony we do have of Judge, does NOT paint a good picture of either Judge or of Kavanagh.

Third the statute of limitations or as you said SOL is not expired. Rape or sexual violence has no statute of limitations in Maryland. Now it is exceedingly remote he would be tried and convicted of something that happened 30 years ago (heck it is difficult enough even with a contemporary case in a he said, she said scenario) but factually no, the SOL of what he did has not expired and he could be tried for it.

Keep in mind as you read this, we are ALL dealing in assumptions here because none of us (that I’m aware of) has direct, factual knowledge of THIS case, so my opinions are based on what has been made public/available and how I perceive things.

On your first point: I don’t infer anything odd per se about Kav denying any sort of ‘sex crime’ before an accuser/facts were made public if he knows he’s never done anything of that sort. So his initial denial is not alarming to me for that reason. If someone accused me of having committed a crime in a hot air balloon, I can - without any further details - absolutely and truthfully deny it because I’ve never been in a hot air balloon.

On your second point about the ‘stolen memos’: Kavanaugh was pressed about this extensively in his hearing, and I recall specifically paying attention to his body language, facial expressions, etc., during that line of questioning because it did speak to honesty. He commented (paraphrasing here) that it was customary for staffers to share information even confidential in nature, so any marking on a document noting ‘confidential’ was not alarming to him as specifically identifying that the memos (or snippets of memos) were ‘stolen’. I’ve worked for the Federal government and even in private industry, and I’ve received documents marked ‘confidential’, and at no time did an alarm go off to me that they may have been ‘stolen.’ That’s just my take on it, and I may be forgetting something as I didn’t commit the entire hearing to memory.

On your third point about Judge’s memoirs. I haven’t read them, and I don’t plan to really unless there is something specifically calling out details pertaining to these allegations (not just that a bunch of teens drank beer in HS). My understanding though is that Kav is not specifically named in them; only a reference to a name that resembles his. Regardless, I wouldn’t assume someone is guilty of something as serious as this simply because they drank as a teen. I drank as a teen a few times as I’m sure a few on here have; that doesn’t make us all criminals, perpetrators of sex crimes, etc. That’s also not to say that people who do drink are not capable of doing something along those lines; I’m just saying that it does not mean it happened. Lastly, Judge isn’t alleged to have committed a crime here; Kav has. So if I seem to be ‘dismissing’ Judge to some extent, that is why.

On your fourth point re: the SOL. Everything I’ve read indicated any possible SOLs have expired; however, that may vary/depend on what specific charge, if a charge is made. But no MD sex crime definition that I’ve read seems to marry up with what Ford alleges occurred (in other words, I haven’t read a chargeable offense that aligns with Ford’s allegation of events, given the circumstances, their ages, etc.). Here’s what I read how the different crimes are defined: https://apps.rainn.org/policy/policy-crime-definitions.cfm?state=Maryland&group=3. You may read them and see something I didn’t. It could be that one of the now-repealed crimes/charges would have fit the allegations, but it has since been repealed.

 

[redwood66]

Aww red, I just don't see the issue. You did make that comment to her. If you made that "see me for who you are" comment to me, I'd take it in a negative way. I don't see how it can be perceived in any other way taking into account the dialog between the two of you. I see Elliott's post of that pic as saying that one is more comfortable being oneself when one is not out to impress. But I respect your feelings about it even if I don't understand them.

I would not make any comment to her if she didn't hurl insults in the way she does. I always respond to her crap unfortunately. I should just put her on ignore but to me that is being hypocritical by not listening to those with whom I don't agree. I don't believe she is a terrible person at all, nor do I believe that about Callie, but I do believe they take advantage of the "environment" that is PS to be disrespectful to those with whom they disagree.

 

[cmd2014]

Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas both worked for the Federal government so an investigation by the FBI was appropriate. Anita Hill was caught lying on numerous occasions and had to change her testimony. Her credibility was in question. Which is not to say that things did not happen but lying does not help your situation.

I don’t recall anything about her having been caught lying - presumably it is illegal to do so and would have resulted in perjury charges and disciplinary action from the bar. I do recall watching her testimony where she was clearly uncomfortable discussing what Thomas did and said to her, and a circus of irrelevant questions designed to smear her credibility (because apparently if you can’t remember if a door was open or closed, you also can’t be trusted when you say that your boss was graphically describing the sex acts and physique of a woman in the pornos he liked to watch).

 

[soxfan]

Just in: Ford said she is willing to testify next week as long as the hearing is fair and her safety is assured.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Aww red, I just don't see the issue. You did make that comment to her. If you made that "see me for who you are" comment to me, I'd take it in a negative way. I don't see how it can be perceived in any other way taking into account the dialog between the two of you. I see Elliott's post of that pic as saying that one is more comfortable being oneself when one is not out to impress. But I respect your feelings about it even if I don't understand them.

It truly doesn't bug me. People who take themselves so seriously are comedy to me. I have a fulfilling creative job (because I'm a smart and talented person), a fabulous family, a handful of diehard friends (and nice email friendships with PSers too!), a meowy cat, a hot rocker boyfriend who worships me, a good head of hair and a nice life. Everything else is noise. I'm sorry if the confidence enrages anyone, but it's not going to change my stance on what rape culture, or racism, or sexism is and how abhorrent I find it.

My greatest hope is that Ford's testimony is given a fair listen, though it is extremely difficult to imagine much changing.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Just in: Ford said she is willing to testify next week as long as the hearing is fair and her safety is assured.

That is patriotism

 

[Matata]

I should just put her on ignore but to me that is being hypocritical by not listening to those with whom I don't agree.

Putting someone on ignore is not being hypocritical. The way a post is written is more important than the content because if a post is written in a way that is repugnant to us, we either won't hear what the poster is trying to say or we'll misconstrue the message. Do what you need to do in order to keep your experiences here pleasant or at least bearable.

 

[redwood66]

Just in: Ford said she is willing to testify next week as long as the hearing is fair and her safety is assured.

Good.

 

[redwood66]

Putting someone on ignore is not being hypocritical. The way a post is written is more important than the content because if a post is written in a way that is repugnant to us, we either won't hear what the poster is trying to say or we'll misconstrue the message. Do what you need to do in order to keep your experiences here pleasant or at least bearable.

Of course it is pleasurable to be here and I enjoy discussions with people. The other people have no affect on that or me.

 

[the_mother_thing]

It’s only inconsistent (Ford and King) if you assume Ford told King (or that she told someone who told King). It’s not inconsistent if you allow for the possibility of gossip stemming from another source. King has been clear that she heard gossip, and that she had no first hand knowledge from Ford.

Thinking critically, it might be helpful to ask: Who has the most reason to lie? Is it really Ford? I would say that it would be potentially hugely damaging to her professional reputation to disclose something like this this publicly (and open herself up to the scrutiny that she knew would ensue). It is also enourmously unsafe in the current climate for both herself and her family (as evidenced by the documented threats against her and her family). And yet she has come forward. This will not benefit her life or her career in any way. She personally has nothing to gain from lying. She has everything to gain by keeping quiet.

In contrast, Kavanaugh and Judge only stand to benefit from lying and have nothing to lose by denying and sticking to the denials.

I think I said in my comment (that you replied to) that it’s possible Kav/Judge could have boasted about the act, and that’s where the possible ‘gossip’ King claims to have heard came from. There’s no telling at this point. But as I’m typing this, Nina Totenberg (NPR) is on the news, and just said she interviewed King last night, and that King told her that she (King) wasn’t saying Kav assaulted Ford; rather, that “she (King) remembers hearing something about a party that had something bad happen.” And that’s what she was referring to in her original FB post that she has since rescinded. She didn’t say that the “something” was a sexual assault. Heck, that could have been anything ... an overdose, an accident/injury, anything.

Looking at just the scenario you lay out (who stands to lose the most by lying), I would partially agree. But at the end of the day, that’s not how people are determined to be innocent or guilty in this country; rather, it’s based on evidence and witnesses, both of which seem to be quite lacking in this particular case.

 

[AGBF]

There are a few people with whom I may disagree on this topic, but we have had what I view as respectful exchanges ... without the veiled personal attacks and attempts at unsolicited psychoanalysis, which I’m pretty sure is not only unprofessional but certainly unethical.

You said to me:

"No, I don’t want women to be like men - in the military or otherwise; not sure where you get that."

So I told you. Very politely and in academic terms. In the same posting that you said you thought I hated men and it was sad.

Now you want to bring me up on ethics charges? You are ridiculous. I would thoroughly enjoy any professional organization: medical, legal, psycholological, or one of zookeepers seeing our exchange of postings and doing anything but laugh derisively at the ides of two women arguing on a jewelry forum in a thread about Brett Kavanaugh and then having one get huffy.

You often say nonsensical things here, but you do provide comic relief, Jenn. Report me to someone. Anyone. I am sure someone will take my licenses.

AGBF

 

[MollyMalone]

Judge denies (paraphrasing) his presence at the alleged party/incident.

As a FYI: Mark Judge has formally stated:

"I have no memory of the alleged incident. Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school, but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never say Brett act in the manner described by Dr. Ford.
I have no more information to offer the Committee, and I do not wish to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford's letter."​

Here's the PDF of the letter that Mark Judge's lawyer sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee relaying the statement:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-09-18 Judge to Grassley, Feinstein (Kavanaugh Nomination).pdf

The attorney hired by fellow Georgetown Prep alumnus Patrick J. Smyth, reportedly relayed the following statement from his client to the Committee:

"I am issuing this statement today to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh."
"Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women. To safeguard my own privacy and anonymity, I respectfully request that the Committee accept this statement in response to any inquiry the Committee may have."​

I'm not seeing a PDF of the letter sent by Smyth's attorney, but the foregoing quotes appear in a number of articles posted on the 'net by a wide cross-section of the political spectrum.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@MollyMalone I did say I was paraphrasing.

You said to me:

"No, I don’t want women to be like men - in the military or otherwise; not sure where you get that."

So I told you. Very politely and in academic terms. In the same posting that you said you thought I hated men and it was sad.

Now you want to bring me up on ethics charges? You are ridiculous. I would thoroughly enjoy any professional organization: medical, legal, psycholological, or one of zookeepers seeing our exchange of postings and doing anything but laugh derisively at the ides of two women arguing on a jewelry forum in a thread about Brett Kavanaugh and then having one get huffy.

You often say nonsensical things here, but you do provide comic relief, Jenn. Report me to someone. Anyone. I am sure someone will take my licenses.

AGBF

Talk about comic relief! Where in the world do you derive me wanting to level charges against you? I think you need to re-read what you quoted.

I am certainly within my right to ascertain someone’s behavior is unprofessional and unethical. YOU are making up the nonsense here about anyone reporting anything, as I said nothing of the sort.

Time to step away from the keyboard, Deb. FTR, I found your assumptions laughable at best, and I still do because they’re about as far fetched as my mind can comprehend.

 

[Tekate]

I agree, if it can't be proven, he's in. But as you said above, he's tainted no matter. Like Clarence Thomas, although other women did corroborate Professor Hill's information.

My Dad would have said to me Red.. your fault, you were with guys who could buy booze. (altho I was buzzed but never got really drunk because I was chicken!)

I understand what you are saying because it is very possible my father would have gone to jail for murder or at least an egregious assault had I said anything. Not worth it to me or the affect on my family. And I don't regret my decision one iota. Many of us have stories and do not tell them so I get a tad pissy when people say others have no empathy just because they have a different opinion on a situation. You (collective) don't know someone else's life.

If it cannot be proved then he has to be let off as there is no other option.

 

[redwood66]

I agree, if it can't be proven, he's in. But as you said above, he's tainted no matter. Like Clarence Thomas, although other women did corroborate Professor Hill's information.

My Dad would have said to me Red.. your fault, you were with guys who could buy booze. (altho I was buzzed but never got really drunk because I was chicken!)

Had I been older mine might have said the same thing but alas preteen is hopefully too young for someone to make such a claim.

I appreciate you.

 

[Matata]

It is time for pie.

 

[AGBF]

Talk about comic relief! Where in the world do you derive me wanting to level charges against you? I think you need to re-read what you quoted.

I am certainly within my right to ascertain someone’s behavior is unprofessional and unethical. YOU are making up the nonsense here about anyone reporting anything, as I said nothing of the sort.

Time to step away from the keyboard, Deb. FTR, I found your assumptions laughable at best, and I still do because they’re about as far fetched as my mind can comprehend.

Carrying your ludicrous charge that voicing my opinion here is "unprofessional and unethical" to its logical conclusion, that I could be called up on charges, is called irony, Jenn.

No need to take my keyboard. You just need to reread things if you have trouble reading for comprehension.

Deb

 

[redwood66]

It is time for pie.

What is with the pie? I like pie but is it a secret I don't know about? I have seen this before but did not know the reference. Is there a thread I need to read?

 

[Matata]

What is with the pie? I like pie but is it a secret I don't know about?

Remember long long ago when discussions became over-heated, we started trying to deflect the animosity with something silly. Can't remember who started the pie thing -- Aljdewey, Mara?

 

[Matata]

@redwood66 -- oops forgot you weren't here then.

 

[redwood66]

Remember long long ago when discussions became over-heated, we started trying to deflect the animosity with something silly. Can't remember who started the pie thing -- Aljdewey, Mara?

Oh ok. Vaguely heard of it but wasn't sure that it was intended for that reason.

 

[AGBF]

What is with the pie? I like pie but is it a secret I don't know about? I have seen this before but did not know the reference.

It is a call for peace, red. Matata posted at the same time I did, so I didn't see it until after my last answer to Jenn. Many of us oldtimers have a lot of photos of different kinds of pie on our computers that we have saved up from the contentious threads in which we have been involved on Pricescope. I have some delicious ones myself.

Deb

 

[redwood66]

It is a call for peace, red. Matata posted at the same time I did, so I didn't see it until after my last answer to Jenn. Many of us oldtimers have a lot of photos of different kinds of pie on our computers that we have saved up from the contentious threads in which we have been involved on Pricescope. I have some delicious ones myself.

Deb

Well I love pie and would welcome it at this point.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Carrying your ludicrous charge that voicing my opinion here is "unprofessional and unethical" to its logical conclusion, that I could be called up on charges, is called irony, Jenn.

No need to take my keyboard. You just need to reread things if you have trouble reading for comprehension.

Deb

Did I name you or even quote you in my post regarding ‘unethical behavior’?

No.

That’s not irony; that’s you twisting my observation of another’s behavior into some sort of action against you that not only was not stated, but it was not inferred in the least.
Seriously, take a break ... take a walk ... take a smoke break ... whatever. But quit putting words into my posts; I’m quite capable of speaking for myself.

 

[soxfan]

What is with the pie? I like pie but is it a secret I don't know about? I have seen this before but did not know the reference. Is there a thread I need to read?

You and me both, Red. I have no idea either!

 

[AGBF]

Lemon pie was always a favorite in old threads.

 

[Matata]

Did I name you or even quote you in my post regarding ‘unethical behavior’?

No.

That’s not irony; that’s you twisting my observation of another’s behavior into some sort of action against you that not only was not stated, but it was not inferred in the least.

I call bull$hit. You are masterful at manipulation through language. Own it. It ain't all bad. And have a piece of pie

 

[Matata]

Lemon pie was always a favorite in old threads.

Ha! Only to those with no appreciation of the tart tangy titillating taste of LIME pie. Humph.