Well, Now Brett Kavanaugh Can Face His Accuser

[partgypsy]

Another thing that people are not talking about, is that binge and heavy drinking is really bad for the brain, as in causes permanent effects, particularly if done during adolescence. We can all agree, that everyone seems to agree that Kavanagh had a habit of getting really drunk. Not just once or twice, but throughout high school and college. This is not people smearing him but acquantinces and friends. Being a scotus involves making nuanced and sensitive decisions and is a lifetime appointment. I'm being entirely serious. I know alcohol is a legal drug, but it is a drug. Do we want someone who is a known past abuser of a drug to be a supreme court justice?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319417.php

Kavanaugh in a speech fondly recollecting those days, which appear to be formative to him, including drinking until 4 am, falling out of a bus, "what happens in the bus stays in the bus" and "piecing things together the other day"
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...-a-speech-about-binge-drinking-in-law-school/

 

[Dancing Fire]

Just the fact the republicans / Kavanaugh / Judge don’t want an FBI investigation or the fact Judge doesn’t want to be questioned under oath seems damning. Trump, McConnell, Hatch and Grassley speaking out against Dr. Ford while completely supporting Kavanaugh before even hearing from Dr. Ford is disturbing.

So it is not disturbing to you that all the Dems and PSer liberals saying Kavanaugh is guilty before we see/hear any proof?

 

[House Cat]

I haven’t read that anyone has said or believes that (that Ford or anyone ‘deserved’ to be assaulted); no one ‘deserves’ to be assaulted in any way, regardless of whether they are male or female, what they wear, etc. Attending a party where people get mind-blowing drunk does not mean someone should ‘expect’ to be assaulted.

That is not the same as/does not mean that certain environments/circumstances don’t introduce an elevated level of risk of something bad happening. That’s not an ‘excuse’ nor is it condoning that behavior; I just view the two separately (“expectations of” vs. “high risk”). For example, I have no expectation that going to a party should equate to my being assaulted. I expect I would go, have fun, socialize, etc.; however, when certain factors are introduced (alcohol, drugs, etc. ... things that tend to make people lose control of themselves, use poor judgment, make poor decisions, etc.), common sense dictates there is an elevated risk that something bad may happen. That could be an overdose resulting in someone’s death, someone leaving the party and driving drunk, and yes, an assault. None of these are things I choose to witness, be part of, nor be the victim of, so I choose not to attend such environments. For me, it’s a matter of minimizing risk, much like one might avoid unprotected sex, unhealthy behaviors like smoking, casinos if they have a gambling problem, etc. And that’s because I am only in control of MY behavior; not anyone else’s.

Others are free to choose differently; that’s their prerogative. That does not mean I think they should ‘expect’ to be or deserve to be assaulted.

We are trying to change the culture that you have just described. A movement is taking place Jenn. You are working against it to say that getting drunk or high at a party makes one vulnerable to rape. When boys think that girls believe this..then it certainly becomes true.

When boys believe that rape and assault are unacceptable no matter how stinking drunk or high they get and that they will go to f*cking prison if they do it...then rape culture dies.

So please, stop telling people that their actions will get them raped. Nothing they do puts them at risk for getting raped except for unknowingly being in the presence of a rapist.

And believe me...i know all about keeping myself safe in social situations. I’ve been groped and assaulted more times than I can tell you. it never had anything to do with my level of intoxication. It had to do with male entitlement. It finally stopped when I married a Marine.

 

[partgypsy]

No we are asking for an investigation before confirmation. Why is the senate confirmation committee so against FBI looking into this, who can do it impartially professionally, and have all the information, unlike us? Why rush this through? I can only think of one reason.

 

[Dancing Fire]

IOW if I don't like what you say you should shut up.

Red, unless you are a liberal otherwise you should shut up.

 

[Dancing Fire]

@Redwood, Comments you have made in the past and on here suggest women are to blame, without coming right out and saying so. As a few of us here have stated, this isn’t political to us.

You know the Dems are using Dr. Ford as a political pawn otherwise Feinstein would of look into this accusation a couple months ago.

 

[cmd2014]

If that's the case then neither environment is relevant.

Except that Kavanaugh has already lied about his past behaviour if the news reports about his yearbooks and friend’s recollections of his behaviour re: drinking and partying are to be believed. He has loudly and repeatedly denied drinking and partying; his yearbooks and people who knew him then say otherwise. Therefore the records are relevant. To his credibility.

Ford has not yet said *anything* about herself or her past, other than saying that she was assaulted. So her environment would seem to be much less relevant.

His records seem to prove that he has not been honest under oath or in TV interviews. Hers so far says...what exactly?

And they’re not even about her as far as I can tell. So girls drank in 1982. So girls had sex. So what? I’m not even sure how that’s relevant.

 

[cmd2014]

And can I just say how dumb he’s being by denying things that are so easily verifiable? Not sound legal judgement there. His lawyer would tell him to shut up.

Especially about things that don’t matter. No one would have blinked if he said “yeah, I had a good time in my youth. I drank too much. I went to parties. But like every other college kid, I grew out of it.”

Does anyone really want someone so lacking in common sense to lead the country in its legal decision making?

 

[the_mother_thing]

It is entirely possible to give empathy to a woman who has been raped before anything has happened in a court room.

Empathy, yes. But unless you were there to know without a doubt exactly what happened and by whom, judgement (which is different from empathy) should be reserved. You can empathize with someone and support them without passing judgement on someone else.

Another thing that people are not talking about, is that binge and heavy drinking is really bad for the brain, as in causes permanent effects, particularly if done during adolescence. We can all agree, that everyone seems to agree that Kavanagh had a habit of getting really drunk. Not just once or twice, but throughout high school and college. This is not people smearing him but acquantinces and friends. Being a scotus involves making nuanced and sensitive decisions and is a lifetime appointment. I'm being entirely serious. I know alcohol is a legal drug, but it is a drug. Do we want someone who is a known past abuser of a drug to be a supreme court justice?

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319417.php

“Previous studies have also shown that, during cognitive tasks, individuals who binge drink perform significantly worse. For example, spatial working memory and executive function have both been found to suffer.”

Is brain damage isolated only to ‘perps’. Is it proven that Kav was a chronic “heavy/binge drinker”? I know there’s a lot self-published about Judge doing so, but hadn’t read “everyone agreeing to Kav getting really drunk”. He stated last night that he has never had so much to drink where he has lost control of himself or failed to recall the events during which he had been drinking, and we can only take him at his word without evidence.

What about Ford? Is it possible she was also heavy/binge drinking in high school to the point she fails to recall events during which she had been drinking? Is it possible any drinking she may have done in her youth affected her ability to recall details later in life?

If you assert the question of him, and assert he may not have all of his ‘mental faculties’ as a result, it’s only fair to ask and assert the same of her, IF you are being fair.

We are trying to change the culture that you have just described. A movement is taking place Jenn. You are working against it to say that getting drunk or high at a party makes one vulnerable to rape. When boys think that girls believe this..then it certainly becomes true.

When boys believe that rape and assault are unacceptable no matter how stinking drunk or high they get and that they will go to f*cking prison if they do it...then rape culture dies.

So please, stop telling people that their actions will get them raped. Nothing they do puts them at risk for getting raped except for unknowingly being in the presence of a rapist.

And believe me...i know all about keeping myself safe in social situations. I’ve been groped and assaulted more times than I can tell you. it never had anything to do with my level of intoxication. It had to do with male entitlement. It finally stopped when I married a Marine.

I didn’t specify who might be ‘out of control’ while intoxicated. Alcohol can affect an assaulter’s judgement, memory, etc., as much as it can affect the victim’s. It doesn’t discriminate.

Secondly, I get if you or others want to be part of a movement; that’s your prerogative. Some people find comfort in that, and that’s fine. But - sincerely, with no offense intended - I don’t personally need a ‘movement’ to impose what I feel is common sense (not a “culture”) on my life choices. I am accountable for my choices & actions; and I hold others accountable for theirs; I don’t blame ‘culture’.

Lastly, there’s really only ONE way ‘boys’ will - as you suggest - believe rape and assault under any circumstance will result in them going to prison if they do it ... and that is to report the crime, hold those responsible accountable for their actions, and put them in jail ... when it happens, when there is available evidence.

 

[partgypsy]

Sure Mother thing, what you suggest is completely fool proof (lol). Do you know how many rape kits have been collected and never even been processed?
I definitely know what I will advise my daughters to do if the unspeakable happens. But I am not optimistic.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kennedy_Smith

 

[the_mother_thing]

@partgypsy I didn’t say it was ‘fool proof’. But people don’t usually go to jail unless they are charged, prosecuted and found guilty, at least not where I live. That was HC’s comment - to drive that point home to ‘end rape culture’.

 

[House Cat]

Empathy, yes. But unless you were there to know without a doubt exactly what happened and by whom, judgement (which is different from empathy) should be reserved. You can empathize with someone and support them without passing judgement on someone else.



“Previous studies have also shown that, during cognitive tasks, individuals who binge drink perform significantly worse. For example, spatial working memory and executive function have both been found to suffer.”

Is brain damage isolated only to ‘perps’. Is it proven that Kav was a chronic “heavy/binge drinker”? I know there’s a lot self-published about Judge doing so, but hadn’t read “everyone agreeing to Kav getting really drunk”. He stated last night that he has never had so much to drink where he has lost control of himself or failed to recall the events during which he had been drinking, and we can only take him at his word without evidence.

What about Ford? Is it possible she was also heavy/binge drinking in high school to the point she fails to recall events during which she had been drinking? Is it possible any drinking she may have done in her youth affected her ability to recall details later in life?

If you assert the question of him, and assert he may not have all of his ‘mental faculties’ as a result, it’s only fair to ask and assert the same of her, IF you are being fair.



I didn’t specify who might be ‘out of control’ while intoxicated. Alcohol can affect an assaulter’s judgement, memory, etc., as much as it can affect the victim’s. It doesn’t discriminate.

Secondly, I get if you or others want to be part of a movement; that’s your prerogative. Some people find comfort in that, and that’s fine. But - sincerely, with no offense intended - I don’t personally need a ‘movement’ to impose what I feel is common sense (not a “culture”) on my life choices. I am accountable for my choices & actions; and I hold others accountable for theirs; I don’t blame ‘culture’.

Lastly, there’s really only ONE way ‘boys’ will - as you suggest - believe rape and assault under any circumstance will result in them going to prison if they do it ... and that is to report the crime, hold those responsible accountable for their actions, and put them in jail ... when it happens, when there is available evidence.

You keep saying men will be held responsible for their actions if women will come forward but the statistics already show that very few rapists are actually being held accountable. Isn’t it 6 in 315? Are you willing to say that 309 women lied about being raped or is this system you keep falling back on again and again actually failing women?

 

[cmd2014]

What about Ford? Is it possible she was also heavy/binge drinking in high school to the point she fails to recall events during which she had been drinking? Is it possible any drinking she may have done in her youth affected her ability to recall details later in life?

Doubtful. She did manage to get two Masters Degrees and a Ph.D. after all. Plus, alcohol related dementia only affects the ability to form and consolidate new memories (this is true of all dementias really). Remote memory remains remarkably well preserved right up until the very end.

Lastly, there’s really only ONE way ‘boys’ will - as you suggest - believe rape and assault under any circumstance will result in them going to prison if they do it ... and that is to report the crime, hold those responsible accountable for their actions, and put them in jail ... when it happens, when there is available evidence.

I wish this was actually true. Until police, prosecutors, judges, and juries are willing to believe victims, charges, trials, and convictions will not occur. And until friends, family, acquaintances of all involved parties step up and stop protecting the perpetrators while blaming and defaming the victims, this will not be true. Until we stop using “oh, he was always such a nice man to me” as our benchmark for whether someone is capable of sexual assault, this will not be true. Until the mindset of those Republican women interviewed about Kavanaugh posted earlier (you know the one...the ”what teenaged boy HASN'T tried to rape someone?” one), this will not be true. Until we worry more about the victim and less about a “bright young man’s future,” this will not be true. Until we stop suggesting that whether or not a woman drank, or had sex, or liked the man at some point is at all relevant to whether she consented to be sexually assaulted by him, this will not be true. So reporting is one thing, having people believe you and do anything about it is another thing altogether.

 

[Calliecake]

Only 6 out every 1000 rapists go to prison. Only 310 women come forward out of every 1,000 rapes. Out of those 310 only 6 end in a conviction. Women would rather remain silent then put themselves thru what they see our justice system put women thru who decide to come forward. Rape culture is alive and well in our country. Our system is broken.

No one ever takes into account how tramatized a women is after being raped. Having a rape kit performed is awful. Anyone who has been thru this will tell you they understand why a women would choose to stay silent.

 

[AGBF]

Excerpted from:

"Lisa Murkowski Delivers Message: Take Kavanaugh Accusations Seriously" a news article in today's on-line edition of "The New York Times".

"WASHINGTON — Republican Party leaders may be insisting that they will install Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, but Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is offering a blunt warning of her own: Do not prejudge sexual assault allegations against the nominee that will be aired at an extraordinary public hearing on Thursday.

'We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,' Ms. Murkowski, a key swing Republican vote, said in an extended interview in the Capitol Monday night. 'It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.'

One of two Republican women in the Senate who supports abortion rights — Susan Collins of Maine is the other — Ms. Murkowski was always expected to be a critical vote in Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation process. But she is making clear that, beyond matters of abortion, she is deeply troubled by Christine Blasey Ford’s story of a sexual assault by Judge Kavanaugh when she was 15 and he was 17.

In the interview, Ms. Murkowski emphasized how invested she is in assessing Dr. Blasey’s story. Her view that an 'arbitrary timeline' should not scuttle a potential hearing helped nudge Republicans toward reaching an agreement with the accuser’s lawyers last weekend. She canceled a meeting of the Senate committee she leads on Thursday to ensure her schedule was clear. And although she is not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she will be watching.

(snip)

As senators prepare to face contradictory testimony from Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey, with little hope of independent corroboration, Ms. Murkowski is emerging as a critical voice....

(snip)

As new accusations surface, their ultimate decisions are looking ever more difficult. Late Monday night, a freshman roommate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale, James Roche, released a statement in support of another accuser, Deborah Ramirez, who told The New Yorker that a drunken Judge Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her their freshman year and maneuvered to have her touch his genitals.

'Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time,' Mr. Roche wrote, adding, 'he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk.'”

 

[partgypsy]

the mother thing, are you serious about Kavanagh not sure if he really drank that much? I don't have time to look up everything, Both women who have accused him stated he was heavily drunk at the time.
But heck, why not see what he himself says, and his friends and roommates say?

His HS yearbook that I'm assume he wrote: Keg City treasurer "100 kegs or bust" . In Judge's book Judge writes their senior year their quest "was to chronicle "the 100-keg quest and everything that happened on the way."
In judge's memoir he describes "that by March of his senior year, the keg count was "into the mid-eighties."
In "Wasted," Judge also describes an exchange with a young woman at a party when talk arose of a friend who puked in a car.
"Do you know Bart O'Kavanaugh?"
"Yeah. He's around here somewhere."
"I heard he puked in someone's car the other night."
"Yeah. He passed out on his way back from a party."

when in college he joins both a Fraternity DKE and a secret society. Yes everyone in Fraternities drink, but DKE was notorious for its behavior. Same thing for the secret society "Truth and Courage". both known for heavy drinking and sexist behavior (trying to prey on drunk women). Hard to believe he would join TWO organizations like that given their reputations if he was not into drinking.

Brett gave a speech! detailing his fond memories of binge drinking, including falling out of a bus, "what happens on the bus stays on the bus", and with a friend trying to "piece together the other night" as well as trying to help a fellow student who was so drunk he fell and smashed a table, not home or to get checked out, but to get more drinks!
https://www.motherjones.com/politic...-a-speech-about-binge-drinking-in-law-school/

His own roommates describes that while he was "reserved" while sober, he often became "incoherently drunk" and became belligerent when drunk https://www.businessinsider.com/bre...e-ramirez-sexual-misconduct-allegation-2018-9

 

[the_mother_thing]

You keep saying men will be held responsible for their actions if women will come forward but the statistics already show that very few rapists are actually being held accountable. Isn’t it 6 in 315? Are you willing to say that 309 women lied about being raped or is this system you keep falling back on again and again actually failing women?

First off, stop with the generalizations already. Boys/men ARE also victims of sexual assault and rape. Continuing to limit your argument to only ‘women as victims’ is false.

Second, I did not say all perps will be held responsible. I’m saying that NO perps can be held responsible IAW the law if no one reports it. Of course, in this environment, many seem perfectly happy taking justice into their own hands in the media instead. (Ironic when they complain about others who ‘take justice into their own hands’ in other forms, but that’s a topic for a different thread).

 

[redwood66]

At this point if it weren't such a political circus and unfair to Brett Kavanaugh, I would say set him aside and nominate Amy Coney Barrett like he should have done in the first place.

 

[the_mother_thing]

At this point if it weren't such a political circus and unfair to Brett Kavanaugh, I would say set him aside and nominate Amy Coney Barrett like he should have done in the first place.

IF Kav is innocent, I pray that they don’t set his nomination aside. The impact of doing so would legitimize the actions of this circus’ freak show, which IMO has far worse impacts on our society than who gets on the Supreme Court because it essentially renders our justice system obsolete.

 

[AGBF]

At this point if it weren't such a political circus and unfair to Brett Kavanaugh, I would say set him aside and nominate Amy Coney Barrett like he should have done in the first place.

We disagree that it would be unfair to Brett Kavanaugh to be set aside in favor of her now since I think he is a horrible candidate way outside of the mainstream anyway. The allegations against him have only shown that he grew up in an élite environment where everyone drank a ton and women were denigrated. (See his yearbook and the woman he put down.) He went on to demand pretty, feminine law clerks because that is his right as a man. And he has been accused of worse. Outcome on that still pending.

What I am against is having Dr. Ford NOT be given a fair hearing. I think it would be a lot more fair if she were to be taken seriously-that means Republicans not saying they will vote for Kavanaugh before hearing her-and then make a decision.

AGBF

 

[the_mother_thing]

I think it would be a lot more fair if she were to be taken seriously-that means Republicans not saying they will vote for Kavanaugh before hearing her-and then make a decision.

AGBF

That’d be reasonable IF Dems didn’t come out from the get-go and say that they would vote ‘No’ on Kav before they even knew his middle name, much less anything about him. You don’t get to ‘set a standard’ and then balk when others play by your new set of rules. That makes you a hypocrite.

 

[AGBF]

That’d be reasonable IF Dems didn’t come out from the get-go and say that they would vote ‘No’ on Kav before they even knew his middle name, much less anything about him. You don’t get to ‘set a standard’ and then balk when others play by your new set of rules. That makes you a hypocrite.

Not a hypocrite. I'd vote no for reasons other than believing he attempted rape. I'd vote "no" because of his positions on executive power and other matters. Try reading what I write.

AGBF

 

[cmd2014]

1165 women from Dr. Ford’s school who were a few years behind her have written in support of her.

https://www.standwithblaseyford.com/

Her own classmates from 1984 did too:

https://www.standwithblaseyford.com/class-of-1984

 

[lovedogs]

Not a hypocrite. I'd vote no for reasons other than believing he attempted rape. I'd vote "no" because of his positions on executive power and other matters. Try reading what I write.

AGBF

THIS. I already didn't want him appointed for reasons I've outlined previously. This just makes it worse.

 

[Calliecake]

@the_mother_thing and @redwood66 , Kavanaugh goes on television and basically paints a completely different picture of himself than what his college roommate stated he witnessed. The person who was in the room with Kavanaugh and Ford when the alleged assault took place, does not want to testify under oath. The woman who is in a television commercial for Kavanaugh has withdrew her support of him as are many of the 65 women who sighted a letter in support of his character. Kavanaugh and Republican do not want an FBI investigation. What will it take before you think Maybe We Need An FBI Investigation?

I can only imagine your outrage if President Obama had picked this guy.

 

[Matata]

That’d be reasonable IF Dems didn’t come out from the get-go and say that they would vote ‘No’ on Kav before they even knew his middle name, much less anything about him. You don’t get to ‘set a standard’ and then balk when others play by your new set of rules. That makes you a hypocrite.

Nope. Remember the reps set the bar low with Merrick Garland when McConnell obstructed Obama's opportunity and when the reps obstructed or attempted to obstruct anything Obama did and immortalized their obstruction by being proudly quoted about it in the media.

The tit for tat game between the parties that reached a crescendo with the Garland debacle is obscene and basically makes any movement forward on any issue unlikely. Kindergartners can find a reasonable solution to their disagreements more intelligently and coherently than our current leadership.

BUT, that isn't even the top issue. The top issue is that SCOTUS nomination/confirmation process needs to change. Deep FBI background checks for top 3-5 candidates first followed by confidential in-depth interviews followed by "I told the truth and the whole truth" written statement followed by public hearings. If someone comes forward with an accusation of a crime committed by the nominee after all that, that particular nominee goes on hold until an investigation is completed. The Judiciary Committee should be free to decide if another nominee moves into the top spot to begin confirmation process or whether the committee will wait until the conclusion of the investigation. I don't think the committee would be obligated to wait for the conclusion of an investigation in this scenario before deciding to proceed with another candidate. This is an even more generous scenario than what happens with ethical business hiring practices today.

 

[partgypsy]

Trump playbook, deny and push back. From Woodward's book:

'Trump gave some private advice to a friend who had acknowledged some bad behavior toward women. Real power is fear. It’s all about strength. Never show weakness. You’ve always got to be strong. Don’t be bullied. There is no choice.

“You’ve got to deny, deny, deny and push back on these women,” he said. “If you admit to anything and any culpability, then you’re dead. That was a big mistake you made. You didn’t come out guns blazing and just challenge them. You showed weakness. You’ve got to be strong. You’ve got to be aggressive. You’ve got to push back hard. You’ve got to deny anything that’s said about you. Never admit.”'

 

[Dancing Fire]

At this point if it weren't such a political circus and unfair to Brett Kavanaugh, I would say set him aside and nominate Amy Coney Barrett like he should have done in the first place.

Yeah, But knowing the Dems they'll try to come up with something negative about her too. The Dems are trying to delay this nomination till the next Dem. Prez. takes office.

 

[MollyMalone]

I that I WISH a POTUS under investigation shouldn't be allowed to nominate someone to SCOTUS because of the high likelihood that SCOTUS might hear parts of the case related to presidential pardon powers, subpoenas, etc. Obviously I recognize that's how now it is right now, but my point is that I wish it were true, because I think trump has reasons to nominate ppl who are likely to be favorable to his positions.

The search functions (Search; clicking on a PSer's Threads or Message tally in their avatar box) are really wonky today & I need to go pack for a trip, so am not taking the time to again read thru all the hundreds of posts on this thread. But it's not a post of yours that I (and I think, @redwood66 and @the_mother_thing ) was responding to

Off to Cape Cod for a week -- where I'm going "off the grid" so that I am not seeing-hearing anything about current events & can feel like I'm really having a vacation getaway !

 

[the_mother_thing]

@AGBF Our justice system IS ‘at risk’ if the basic fundamentals of ‘due process’ are not afforded someone accused of serious accusations such as these in lieu of a media and political smear campaign before there is ANY evidence the accused is actually guilty because that can/will ruin someone’s entire life before they are ever afforded the right to an actual, fair trial.

Just another dangerous precedent Dems are setting ...