Well, Now Brett Kavanaugh Can Face His Accuser

[OboeGal]

At this point, it certainly seems that the additional FBI investigation Dems are foaming at the mouth over would be pretty darn worthless if none of their previous 6 investigations into Kav’s background failed to turn up a single shred of this mass ‘rape culture’ he allegedly surrounded himself with.

What’s even more sick and twisted about this Swetnick statement - and those who rush to her defense - is that she appears to have attended these parties - where young girls were being raped - AS AN ADULT. She graduated in 1980, and claims to have attended these parties in 1981-82, so unless she graduated a few years early (possible), she admits to knowingly attending gang-rape parties as an adult while minor girls were being abused. Her admission disgusts me.

What’s not to ‘believe’ about her allegations ... every woman has the right to choose to have a fun night out after all.

Those who ignore this woman’s admission disgust me.

Once again, you're deflecting from what is pertinent here. Being a crappy person isn't a crime. Being a crappy person doesn't mean that her testimony isn't credible. It doesn't matter what her character is - what matters is, did she witness Kavanaugh participate in sexual assaults or not and, if she did, can she back those accusations up? Your political bias has you foaming at the mouth, trying to attack her credibility over and over. How about we let an impartial group trained to investigate do so, and let the facts either exonerate or impugn him?

 

[the_mother_thing]

@OboeGal I’m not deflecting squat. Swetnick’s own sworn statement - in HER words - is all the ‘proof’ I need. If she had additional details like "I alerted the authorities...", "I tried to persuade other girls not to attend", or "unbeknownst to me, oddly enough, these same rapists kept showing up at the same parties so I stopped going after the tenth time..." your ‘defense’ of her might hold a little water. She could have included 20 pages of additional details to explain her actions, or failure to act, but she ‘chose’ not to.

I hope to hell she hired Avenatti pro bono because he has done this woman no favors as his client.

 

[lovedogs]

Once again, you're deflecting from what is pertinent here. Being a crappy person isn't a crime. Being a crappy person doesn't mean that her testimony isn't credible. It doesn't matter what her character is - what matters is, did she witness Kavanaugh participate in sexual assaults or not and, if she did, can she back those accusations up? Your political bias has you foaming at the mouth, trying to attack her credibility over and over. How about we let an impartial group trained to investigate do so, and let the facts either exonerate or impugn him?

I think it's a natural defense mechanism to victim blame. It doesn't make it ok, but it's something many of us do without realizing it. My DH reminds me of this when I get mad over characters in a TV show getting scammed or robbed and get judgmental (e.g. "well what did you THINK would happen?!") I know I do it and am making a conscious effort to get better about it. But recognizing shortcomings and trying to do better/introspect is an important quality that some people appear to lack.

I honestly think that at this point there's no point arguing with people who don't understand.

 

[Matata]

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/failure-to-report-a-crime.html

 

[OboeGal]

@OboeGal I’m not deflecting squat. Swetnick’s own sworn statement - in HER words - is all the ‘proof’ I need. If she had additional details like "I alerted the authorities...", "I tried to persuade other girls not to attend", or "unbeknownst to me, oddly enough, these same rapists kept showing up at the same parties so I stopped going after the tenth time..." your ‘defense’ of her might hold a little water. She could have included 20 pages of additional details to explain her actions, or failure to act, but she ‘chose’ not to.

I hope to hell she hired Avenatti pro bono because he has done this woman no favors as his client.

Again - by pure logic - her sworn statement does not "prove" that she didn't try to do something about what she claims she saw, nor does it prove that she did. Based on FACTS as we know them at this point - which you have said many times is what you base your positions on - none of us have any idea whether or not she attempted to do anything about what she saw or not, and if she didn't, what her reasons were for not doing so. None of us have nearly enough information to conclude what her character is or whether or not she is a crappy person or whether or not she is credible. Why not let an impartial group trained to do investigation do just that? If you're so convinced that she never tried to do anything to stop what she saw, that she's a crappy person, that automatically her testimony is not credible, that Kavanaugh is not guilty of any of these allegations, than why not have the investigation? If the result is that he is innocent, he will be vindicated and confirmed, and his accusers will have to deal with the fallout.

 

[redwood66]

Once again, you're deflecting from what is pertinent here. Being a crappy person isn't a crime. Being a crappy person doesn't mean that her testimony isn't credible. It doesn't matter what her character is - what matters is, did she witness Kavanaugh participate in sexual assaults or not and, if she did, can she back those accusations up? Your political bias has you foaming at the mouth, trying to attack her credibility over and over. How about we let an impartial group trained to investigate do so, and let the facts either exonerate or impugn him?

No, being a crappy person isn't a crime, but coming out 30+ years later about witnessing alleged multiple ones and doing nothing doesn't exactly make you a beacon for women in my book either.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Ahhh, now it’s "victim blaming" to not ‘believe’ a woman who chose to frequent gang rape parties right up until she became a victim. And no one sees how that little tidbit just might impact her credibility. Someone please just point me to the hidden ‘candid camera’ because I cannot believe what I am reading.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/failure-to-report-a-crime.html

Thank you, Matata. According to your link, several states have mandatory reporting for crimes against children, regardless of whether you are a professional or just average Jane/John Doe.

Maryland IS such a state (again, per your link).

 

[JPie]

Let me state this again: SHE KNEW GANG RAPE PARTIES WERE HAPPENING, AND SHE CHOSE TO KEEP GOING TO THEM. Lest I missed in her statement that someone held a gun to her head and forced her to keep going.

I think this is a fair point. It does seem odd that a woman would go to parties where women are routinely assaulted/raped, and her statement indicates that she was aware of the shady business going down.

Still, I think it's overly simplistic to deduce that she's an idiot at best and an accomplice at worst. That same judgement would apply to all the other men and women at those parties who were aware of the crimes being committed. Why didn't anyone try to stop it? Were they all just really bad people?

If we consider the time that these alleged incidents took place, in the early '80s, then I suspect that the attitude of many people in those days was, "boys will be boys." This was a time when date rape was just starting to enter public discourse, marital rape wasn't yet outlawed in all 50 states, and sexual harassment in the workplace was still being defined in court cases. In other words, attitudes toward sex crimes were more lackadaisical than they are today.

As to why any of the accusers didn't speak up sooner, I don't think any of us can answer for them, but I also don't think they should be dismissed as liars or vilified as criminals because of it.

 

[Matata]

Thank you, Matata. According to your link, several states have mandatory reporting for crimes against children, regardless of whether you are a professional or just average Jane/John Doe.

The same source of that link lists the age of majority in Maryland as 18 therefore mandatory reporting for any of kav's alleged victims who were 18 or older at the time does not apply.

 

[redwood66]

The same source of that link lists the age of majority in Maryland as 18 therefore mandatory reporting for any of kav's alleged victims who were 18 or older at the time does not apply.

Her report says it was 81-83 which puts her at 19 or 20 but Kavanaugh and the others under 18.

 

[the_mother_thing]

FYI - reports are coming out now that the allegation regarding the ‘boat rape’ is bogus. The person who reported it recanted the claim because he said he made a mistake (ETA - mistook Kav as the perp on the boat).

This same man is also alleged to have made threats against Chump.

Color me not shocked.

Next ...

 

[monarch64]

I think this is a fair point. It does seem odd that a woman would go to parties where women are routinely assaulted/raped, and her statement indicates that she was aware of the shady business going down.

Still, I think it's overly simplistic to deduce that she's an idiot at best and an accomplice at worst. That same judgement would apply to all the other men and women at those parties who were aware of the crimes being committed. Why didn't anyone try to stop it? Were they all just really bad people?

If we consider the time that these alleged incidents took place, in the early '80s, then I suspect that the attitude of many people in those days was, "boys will be boys." This was a time when date rape was just starting to enter public discourse, marital rape wasn't yet outlawed in all 50 states, and sexual harassment in the workplace was still being defined in court cases. In other words, attitudes toward sex crimes were more lackadaisical than they are today.

As to why any of the accusers didn't speak up sooner, I don't think any of us can answer for them, but I also don't think they should be dismissed as liars or vilified as criminals because of it.

Kids are idiots and they get swept up in pack mentality. If the cool thing to do was attend these parties, regardless of what was going on and whether the girls knew it or not, you better believe they were still attending the parties because being left out of the social scene was more impactful than seeing one of their friends getting a train pulled on them. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. No more so than any of the young men involved being complicit in THEIR not reporting it AND continuing to attend said "gang-rape parties." And no, apparently it didn't matter to the girls until it happened to one who didn't WANT it to happen. Guess what? She still gets to report it or bring it up today.

I sincerely hope no young folks are reading this thread and gleaning from it that if you do report sexual assault and/or rape you're in for a world of shit OR that if you choose not to report it you're a disgusting piece of shit.

I mean either way women can't win. Yuck.

 

[OboeGal]

Ahhh, now it’s "victim blaming" to not ‘believe’ a woman who chose to frequent gang rape parties right up until she became a victim. And no one sees how that little tidbit just might impact her credibility. Someone please just point me to the hidden ‘candid camera’ because I cannot believe what I am reading.



Thank you, Matata. According to your link, several states have mandatory reporting for crimes against children, regardless of whether you are a professional or just average Jane/John Doe.
I w
Maryland IS such a state (again, per your link).

If, in the state in which these parties took place, it was at that point in time a crime to not report witnessing such incidents and she did not do so, then, in fact, she is a criminal and I was incorrect. Matata, do you know if that law was in place at the time of these parties, or if the current law is retroactive to that time period?

However, we still do not know whether she did or did not report what she saw. Perhaps she didn't, and is in violation of the laws of that state. We don't have that information yet. Even if she didn't - even if she is in the eyes of the law a criminal - that doesn't mean her testimony isn't credible. As I stated before, it's common as part of a plea deal for criminals to testify against others. It doesn't change the need for an investigation into her allegations, as well as the others, to see what crimes have been committed and who committed them. If it was criminal and deplorable to not report witnessing such a thing, isn't it also deplorable to not investigate these allegations now that they've come out? To not seek to achieve the same end - the attainment of truth and justice? If these events did occur, somebody committed them. Shouldn't an investigation be conducted to reveal the perpetrators, as well as any who witnessed and did not attempt to do something about them? If Kavanaugh is not a perpetrator, let the investigation show that. If she committed a crime in not reporting, let the investigation show that and let her face the consequences. If the allegations are false, let the investigation show that and the accusers face the consequences. If the events really happened, let the investigation reveal the perpetrators, whether including Kavanaugh or not, and let them face the consequences, depending on the statutes of limitations.

 

[JPie]

I mean either way women can't win. Yuck.

Amen to that. How much progress have we really made since the '80s? I mean, the Brock Turner case is fairly recent and the idiot judge gave him a slap on the wrist out of concern for the impact that a longer jail sentence would have.

Even when a woman agrees to take her case to court, she can't seem to win.

 

[Matata]

Matata, do you know if that law was in place at the time of these parties, or if the current law is retroactive to that time period?

I did not delve that deeply into it. Just wanted to provide some facts about law and responsibility to try to defuse escalating animosity.

 

[monarch64]

@OboeGal probably also need to take into account underage drinking laws at that time. If legal age was 21...well, then...

 

[telephone89]

Amen to that. How much progress have we really made since the '80s? I mean, the Brock Turner case is fairly recent and the idiot judge gave him a slap on the wrist out of concern for the impact that a longer jail sentence would have.

Even when a woman agrees to take her case to court, she can't seem to win.

I read a really eloquent quote the other day, and I cant find it so I will butcher it from my memory.

Something like:
When a woman comes forward with rape allegations form long ago, she's told "get over it", its in the past. When a woman comes forward with rape allegations from yesterday, she's told "don't ruin his future". So there she stands, in between his past and his future, feeling like her entire life is shit.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@OboeGal probably also need to take into account underage drinking laws at that time. If legal age was 21...well, then...

In Maryland, was 18 until 1982, when it was raised to 21 with grandfathering provisions.

 

[Matata]

In Maryland, was 18 until 1982, when it was raised to 21 with grandfathering provisions.

That's different than what this says:
Before July 1973, the age a person reached majority (or became emancipated) in Maryland was 21. As of July 1973, the law lowered the age of majority to 18. It is very likely that the number of minors seeking emancipation who are capable of living on their own has been significantly reduced.
Maryland Minor Consent Laws
https://www.jhsph.edu/...and.../Maryland_Minor_Consent_Laws_10.26.12.docx

 

[the_mother_thing]

That's different than what this says:
Before July 1973, the age a person reached majority (or became emancipated) in Maryland was 21. As of July 1973, the law lowered the age of majority to 18. It is very likely that the number of minors seeking emancipation who are capable of living on their own has been significantly reduced.
Maryland Minor Consent Laws
https://www.jhsph.edu/...and.../Maryland_Minor_Consent_Laws_10.26.12.docx

That’s a dead link (second one) when I click it. Nonetheless, she asked about drinking age, not emancipation. I don’t believe the two are the same, but am open to correction if I am mistaken.

Here’s what I read:

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Maryland

 

[Matata]

OOps, never mind @the_mother_thing. I misread your post above as being about age of majority not underage drinking. Anywho, since the age of majority in Maryland has been 18 since 1973, it appears that Swetnick had a duty to report although it's possible that she didn't know that.

 

[VapidLapid]

If all the women who were silenced by fear, by the wall of male silence, and the conspiracy of denials, and corroborating lies that are emblematic of the culture of male privilege, if all these women are complicit, by the intimidation and disbelief they will face in reporting the crimes that were committed against them, and their friends, then aren't the women who raised the young men who perpetrated these atrocities, who perpetuated the male power structure of the world, who washed their clothes, and tended their wounded adolescent egos of these young men, aren't these women who did the mother thing, and raised their sons to fear god when they are caught, if they can't lie their way out of it, aren't these women as complicit in these rapes as the young men themselves, and the victims they would throw under the bus not to have to question the god given rightness of their privileged world, aren't these women as guilty as their sons, if not more?

 

[OreoRosies86]

I had a very interesting discussion today about why, when men came forward after being abused by priests 30 to 40 years ago, NO ONE questioned their stories.

 

[OboeGal]

I had a very interesting discussion today about why, when men came forward after being abused by priests 30 to 40 years ago, NO ONE questioned their stories.

Exactly.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I think this is a fair point. It does seem odd that a woman would go to parties where women are routinely assaulted/raped, and her statement indicates that she was aware of the shady business going down.

Still, I think it's overly simplistic to deduce that she's an idiot at best and an accomplice at worst. That same judgement would apply to all the other men and women at those parties who were aware of the crimes being committed. Why didn't anyone try to stop it? Were they all just really bad people?

If we consider the time that these alleged incidents took place, in the early '80s, then I suspect that the attitude of many people in those days was, "boys will be boys." This was a time when date rape was just starting to enter public discourse, marital rape wasn't yet outlawed in all 50 states, and sexual harassment in the workplace was still being defined in court cases. In other words, attitudes toward sex crimes were more lackadaisical than they are today.

As to why any of the accusers didn't speak up sooner, I don't think any of us can answer for them, but I also don't think they should be dismissed as liars or vilified as criminals because of it.

And I would concede that your bolded statement is also correct. Attitudes, tolerances, etc. for 30+ years ago (even 5 years ago) were vastly different than they are today (please don’t read that to mean I think these crimes were ‘acceptable’ then; I’m don’t). That’s part of the challenge with these types of cases, along with what was legal then may not be legal today, and/or vice versa. It’s VERY complicated. And NONE of our individual analysis & back-and-forth bantering will help solve matters unless we can collectively - as people (not victims, men or women) - come up with strategies that make the process for reporting & investigating such crimes compassionate to victims and fair to all in accordance with the constitutional rights.

No one can repair & erase the past, but I do believe there can be a process created by which victims can confidentially report crimes, evidence confidentially & compassionately gathered, and the accused tried fairly. But it definitely won’t happen when some people remain close-minded to all sides of the ‘debate’ except their own, and it surely won’t happen running around demanding every man have his pecker cut off for breathing. And it definitely won’t happen with the yahoos in DC having pissing contests for the sake of votes.

 

[monarch64]

If all the women who were silenced by fear, by the wall of male silence, and the conspiracy of denials, and corroborating lies that are emblematic of the culture of male privilege, if all these women are complicit, by the intimidation and disbelief they will face in reporting the crimes that were committed against them, and their friends, then aren't the women who raised the young men who perpetrated these atrocities, who perpetuated the male power structure of the world, who washed their clothes, and tended their wounded adolescent egos of these young men, aren't these women who did the mother thing, and raised their sons to fear god when they are caught, if they can't lie their way out of it, aren't these women as complicit in these rapes as the young men themselves, and the victims they would throw under the bus not to have to question the god given rightness of their privileged world, aren't these women as guilty as their sons, if not more?

That's certainly an interesting way to think of it. Going deeper, though, one could also reason that women who perpetuate the "male power structure of the world" are also doing so to survive, many times subconsciously.

 

[monarch64]

Exactly.

Yup. And I doubt if anyone scolded them for wearing those cute little button downs and trousers to church, or those choir robes that made their genitals so easily accessible. And I bet they were never told "you should've known better than to get yourself into a situation like that, especially when you knew it was happening to your friends, too."

 

[OreoRosies86]

Yup. And I doubt if anyone scolded them for wearing those cute little button downs and trousers to church, or those choir robes that made their genitals so easily accessible. And I bet they were never told "you should've known better than to get yourself into a situation like that, especially when you knew it was happening to your friends, too."

"Well why would you keep going to church into your teens and adulthood EVERY WEEK if you knew these crimes were being committed?"

 

[the_mother_thing]

"Well why would you keep going to church into your teens and adulthood EVERY WEEK if you knew these crimes were being committed?"

Everyone didn’t know, but Swetnick did. Maybe ask her, since she has first-hand experience and all (going to events where she knows gang rapes are happening).

 

[monarch64]

"Well why would you keep going to church into your teens and adulthood EVERY WEEK if you knew these crimes were being committed?"

'Cause you hoped that shit wouldn't be happening to YOU. Until it DID, and you should've kept quiet because you already knew it might happen plus you never reported it happening to anyone else!