Well, Now Brett Kavanaugh Can Face His Accuser

[Tekate]

Like I said Red, I don't think she took the lie detector test wily nily, I think someone told or advised her to. She sure does need to answer questions, but as the alleged victim she deserves a full investigation first, I don't think that is unfair to Kavanaugh, what's a few weeks, he will be confirmed most probably.

Truth is Red, I can't remember the month, I know the town it was in, I did not live in that town, my reasons for not bringing this up to police etc is because another person was involved who's marriage would be ruined (another girl) most probably, I never saw either guy again, I do remember their names, but in order to corroborate I would need my girlfriend, who was the most beautiful, cheerleader, academic leader in my class, couldn't do it then and wouldn't do it now, we are too old. What would my sons say? My parents are dead, but my aunt is alive as is my youngest brother, my nieces, nephew, SIL, Bro-in-laws.. it would be so traumatizing to everyone that it is not worth it to me. So I surely understand this woman's holding it back. It's just not worth the trauma for my own satisfaction of fairness, and forgiveness. I had hoped things had changed but the article in the Post showed me, nah.

Kavanaugh was drunk, she was less drunk, and Judge was drunk.. Do we let them off? I feel for her. I feel for him because he may have felt guilty all these years.

I did not mean it to be snarky and am sorry you took it that way.

She also needs to testify and asked questions along with the others. The details are needed for any investigation into her allegations. Would you bring such a charge not being able to remember these details if you were in the same position? Can you understand how someone standing on the outside sees the whole thing as a big picture? None of this would ever be to delegitimize your claim in my mind so please do not take it that way. I fully understand and empathize with women and children who have been sexually abused.

FWIW I thought Bill Clinton was a much better President than Obama. Even with his failings.

 

[Tekate]

What happened to your brother is shameful, glad it totally worked out for him.. I can say to you honestly, this is why a girl/woman often does not report a rape/attack because they become the attacked again, unfairly and falsely.

There are 3 sides to every story, his side/her side and right side. That is why we need investigation. Being judged in my young life just because I was lower middle class was enough for me to say nada, no one believes white trash

Hillary Clinton herself doesn't have trust in lie detector tests. She lost her faith in them after her client (who she knew was guilty), Thomas Alfred Taylor, passed a polygraph.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ewly-discovered-audio-tapes-article-1.1832009
I can’t help but to think she took the lie detector test so that if it came back positive she wouldn’t even bother come out with this, if negetive she would. Whether she was assaulted or not and whether it was by Kavanaugh or not.

I dob’t believe nor disbelieve either of them. It comes down to evidence, I need evidence before I believe an accuser. Men have died by suicide due to false accusations of rape, even after the court of law ruled them completely innocent or the accuser withdrew their accusations. In one instance the mother killed her self after her son did because she couldn’t live without him.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ersary-death-couldn-t-future-without-him.html
This is a touchy subject of he said she said. I can’t say I believe nor disbelieve either of them. I refuse to punish someone for something with zero evidence. The reason I side a tad bit more with Kavanaugh is because I DO NOT believe rapists or people with rapist tendencies do it only once. I just don’t. At least not without getting caught.

About 7 years ago, while visiting my mother, I walked outside, into a loud conversation between my brother and his girlfriend. Neither knew I was standing there while this was going on. I heard her threaten to tell everyone that he hit her. He said “I never hit you” and she acknowledged it right in front of me in a very condescending way (still not knowing I was there). I stood there shocked. I finally mustered some words aboit what I heard and they ended it right there. She is a Baptist preacher’s daughter who never got in trouble and did well in school, my brother was selling pot and wrecked two cars within the past two years at that point and skipped school often. I am sure everyone would have believed her over him. It was 7 years ago and I still get sick thinking of what she could have done to him.

I have been raped two times in my life so please don’t even try to say I don’t understand. I understand perfectly. I just know that women can falsely accuse and be believed more often than the man.

I am not here to argue, just state some facts that may help some realize they are too quick to judge and pick sides. Maybe walking into that conversation with my brother and his girlfriend left an impression but I am glad it did so I have experience on both sides.

 

[redwood66]

Like I said Red, I don't think she took the lie detector test wily nily, I think someone told or advised her to. She sure does need to answer questions, but as the alleged victim she deserves a full investigation first, I don't think that is unfair to Kavanaugh, what's a few weeks, he will be confirmed most probably.

Truth is Red, I can't remember the month, I know the town it was in, I did not live in that town, my reasons for not bringing this up to police etc is because another person was involved who's marriage would be ruined (another girl) most probably, I never saw either guy again, I do remember their names, but in order to corroborate I would need my girlfriend, who was the most beautiful, cheerleader, academic leader in my class, couldn't do it then and wouldn't do it now, we are too old. What would my sons say? My parents are dead, but my aunt is alive as is my youngest brother, my nieces, nephew, SIL, Bro-in-laws.. it would be so traumatizing to everyone that it is not worth it to me. So I surely understand this woman's holding it back. It's just not worth the trauma for my own satisfaction of fairness, and forgiveness. I had hoped things had changed but the article in the Post showed me, nah.

Kavanaugh was drunk, she was less drunk, and Judge was drunk.. Do we let them off? I feel for her. I feel for him because he may have felt guilty all these years.

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.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I haven't read the last 2 pages and I don't want to.....

I need to say this. Ford is ASKING for an FBI investigation because she doesn't want a repeat of Anita Hill. Jenn, for all your "legal knowledge," you MUST know that the Senate Judiciary proceedings are NOT a court of law, right? You love courts. And juries. And all the lingo that goes along with it.

She wants the FBI to investigate this so they can gather some facts to counteract the "he said she said" bullshit circus that would take place on the Senate floor. Because she's smart. Because she believes in checks and balances. Because it's the RIGHT thing to do.

Mark Judge doesn't want to "get involved." Oh boo f-ing hoo. If the FBI investigates and finds credible evidence, he will have to talk.

To say that she is engaging in political theatrics is just dumb. Like really really dumb. She is doing Exactly. The. Right. Thing.

As I understand it, the Senate is constitutionally charged with ‘investigating’ this matter because it pertains to a nominee from the executive branch, and there is no federal crime. (Someone else with more constitutional/legal knowledge can chime in here to correct me if I’m wrong). The FBI could question Ford and others who she identifies, but all that information and any ‘evidence’ will simply go into a file and be forwarded to the WH and Senate for review; they don’t say “yes, it happened” or “no, it did not”. So unless there were evidence and/or witnesses with actual first-hand accounts who can say “yes, Brett told me he did this”, I don’t see how any of it will change anything. And that is sad if Ford is telling the truth.

Ford can’t go back in time and change her decision then to not report the crime, tell her parents, etc., but this exact situation is why I feel so strongly why it’s important - now - to report the crime. I understand that it will be hard, painful, emotional, and a host of other things to go through that process - I get it; and I get that even doing so may not change the outcome at that time, which is unfortunate. But this situation is precisely why it might be worth enduring that hell and reporting it. I don’t think anyone thought 36 years ago that Brett Kavanaugh was going to eventually be nominated to the Supreme Court, including himself; but in a case like this one, down the road, years later, it would have been a matter of record, the details would be available without calling into question Ford’s ability to recall them, and Kavanaugh would likely be removed from consideration for the position if he’d have even been nominated at all. And Ford would not be receiving the second round of victimization that she is today.

I get that - years ago - things were different, it was harder to report such crimes, much less be believe, and that it’s not perfect today, nor will it likely ever be. And one never knows what may happen down the road. But today - in this era - with as much awareness & focus as there is on such crimes, I think the tide is changing, victims are being ‘heard’, perpetrators are being punished, etc. So IMO, a much more constructive conversation around all of this would be: what CAN we do to make the system more fair & effective to victims without further victimizing them by virtue of ‘the process’ to help them feel safer in reporting such crimes?

Lashing out at people who have a different opinion about the facts of this case does nothing but further divide the ‘sides’.

 

[the_mother_thing]

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.

THIS! Just because someone chooses not to divulge their ‘story’ on a public forum does not mean they do not have experiences upon which they base their opinions and perspective.

 

[AGBF]

When I read Charles Blow's Op.ed piece in "The New York Times" today I followed the comments readers wrote after it as usual. From one of those comments I learned that Charles Blow had been on a television show with Chris Cuomo and talked about an incident in which he was sexually attacked when he was a child. I found a couple of tapes of the show on YouTube. Neither worked perfectly for me. I hope that this one works. His account is very powerful.

https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/1042609742655324161

AGBF

 

[redwood66]

THIS! Just because someone chooses not to divulge their ‘story’ on a public forum does not mean they do not have experiences upon which they base their opinions and perspective.

No one should have to tell a story, or even have one, to validate their opinion for others on the internet.

 

[Calliecake]

@the mother thing , You go straight to a place that is purposely meant to hurt people in these discussions. Then you come back and mock people that you know have raw nerves and have been hurt. I don’t understand why and it is so unnecessary.

Every woman’s experience is different. No woman should be shamed or blamed for doing what she thinks is the right thing for her and no woman should be put down because they shared their experience with others. . It was hearing other women’s experience that made me realize I too was going to get thru the ordeal and live a good life. My hope is my experience can help another woman who is going thru this.

The world has changed very little in the past 30 years regarding sexual assault. Listening to the news and hearing the comments here is a reminder of this. I have no doubt Kavanagh will be confirmed. Women aren’t being heard. Trump and the republicans are saying there is no need for an investigation.

 

[partgypsy]

For those who said this 15 year old should have reported it, do you not realize all the reasons why both a girl and as a women she would not report this? I don't think it takes half a brain to hear what would be the outcome; she would be blamed for drinking, blamed for being there with these boys. She would not be believed. Who the h8ck would want to put themselves through something like this? She went to a therapist, to get through this privately. It was only when this guy, is being nominated to be supreme court judge, that it was worth it for her to tell her side.
To the people who both say she should have done everything perfectly out of one side of their mouth, and out of the other stating you don't believe her, to heck with you! You are exactly the reason why people do not come forward.

This is what I think they should do. Everyone undergoing a supreme court nomination goes through an FBI security check. There is new information. The FBI should do their investigation which means interviewing all parties involved, and also doing what they would do for any suspected criminal investigation, which is, can they determine timeline, whether the people where there at the same time, etc? any corroborating evidence? But they are not being allowed to. Nor are they forcing the "friend" to testify. This committee is not interested in finding out the truth. If I was Ford there is no way I would put myself in front of that all male committee, without an independent investigation. It's ridiculous to ask her of that. It has already been shown that Kavanagh has lied under oath.
And for those crying false rape claim, false claims are rare and the people who report them follow a number of predictable profiles. Ford does not fit any of those profiles. Do you believe her? I for one believe her.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/20...augh-assault-allegation-christine-blasey-ford

 

[cmd2014]

FYI she has since retracted that statement. From your same article:



I think her initial statement hurt Ford vs. helped, and that’s why she (King) took it down. Ford said she told no one of the incident until therapy years later, so how would people in her school (which was different than Kav’s) be talking about it days after it allegedly occurred? If Ford is telling the truth, I think King has discredited herself as a potential ‘witness’. If King is telling the truth, then that means Ford was not truthful in her statement that she told no one of the incident until therapy, and she is discredited. This is why I feel people should stick to the facts of what ‘is’.

Ford said that she didn’t tell anyone, and King didn’t say that Ford told her - only that she had heard about the incident. There were reportedly 2 other people at that party besides Ford, Judge, and Kavanaugh. One of them may have said something to someone and gossip spread. This is not inconceivable. There are multiple cases of this being documented, especially in this age group where something happens at a party, the victim doesn’t report (or can’t becasue she is too intoxicated to recall what happened to her), and the gossip mill goes crazy because someone else knew and told. Reteah Parsons is a famous case of this here. She killed herself btw when every system failed her. So no, things are not better now for victims now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons


So this alone does not reduce Ford’s credibility, much as you might wish it did. And King withdrawing comment doesn’t mean it’s not true - it may just mean that she’s tired of being harassed.

Plus, you seem to put a lot of weight on Judge not wanting to comment and/or allegedly saying it didn’t happen. One, he didn’t say it didn’t happen. He said he didn’t recall it happening:

“In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge — through his attorney Barbara Van Gelder — said he does not remember the incident described by Ford, and added that had no plans to speak about the matter publicly.”

From all accounts, he may very well have been drunk enough not to remember what happened. ETA: he has been *extremely* open after all about his alcoholism in adolescence, including his inability to stop drinking until the point of blackouts, and his use of recreational drugs. Why would we think it was any different here.

Two, he may just not want to be dragged into this. He could theoretically be considered a criminal accessory to the incident if what Ford says happened is true. ETA: I have read accounts of his participating, through egging Kavanaugh on. At the very least his moral character would be in question, which could ruin his career (he’s in the media, right?). He has skin in the game to deny, so I’m not sure how much weight his denial should be given.

And once again, there were reportedly two other people at the party who might have said something. ETA, or it would not be inconceivable for either Judge or Kavanaugh to have bragged about the event after the fact. These are things that an FBI investigation could reveal. I’m sure interviewing school mates from the time under oath might be revealing.

 

[Matata]

you seem so eager to ensure “women have a voice” yet so vehemently continue trying to shut down the voices of women with whom you disagree

This is the comeback you and red use all the time to attempt to shut down those who disagree with you. It is as tiresome as Benghazi and Hillary's emails. No one is trying to shut anyone down. All sides in this discussion are vehemently defending their position, some are doing so in the futile hope of changing minds or at least changing points of view. Some positions are more right than others despite how one may choose to define personal fact and truth.

 

[FL_Sol]

Saying Ford doesn't fit the profile is profiling. We all should know better than to do that whether it is the accuser or the accused.

 

[redwood66]

This is the comeback you and red use all the time to attempt to shut down those who disagree with you. It is as tiresome as Benghazi and Hillary's emails. No one is trying to shut anyone down. All sides in this discussion are vehemently defending their position, some are doing so in the futile hope of changing minds or at least changing points of view. Some positions are more right than others despite how one may choose to define personal fact and truth.

I don't attempt to do anything of the kind. But I will give my opinion on a situation whether you (collective) agree with me or not. If one has such an investment into being right that they feel a moral obligation to bully an opposing opinion then that is not a position I care to be associated with. Others can make up their own mind and I let them without recrimination.

If you attack me personally then you are fair game. Why do you believe you have the right or moral authority to see it as a duty to "change" someone's mind? That is hubris. You can surely provide an opinion that someone else can take as they will but not with an expectation that you will change someone's mind.

 

[Matata]

Saying Ford doesn't fit the profile is profiling.

This is a logical fallacy. The reference isn't about racial profiling or the use of illegal profiling to discriminate against a minority. It's about the use of accepted profiling tools used by professionals to assess and analyze a person's psychological and behavioral characteristics in order to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere or to assist in identifying a particular subgroup of people.

 

[the_mother_thing]

@cmd2014 I didn’t mean to infer that King said Ford told her; the article AGBF posted noted (paraphrasing) that King said people were talking about it at school in the days after it happened, which would indicate (if her statement is true) that Ford may have told someone. But I suppose it’s also possible that (assuming Ford’s allegations are true), Kav/Judge boasted to whomever else was at the party that Kav just assaulted Ford. I just haven’t read/heard about anyone coming forward alleging that myself, but yes it is possible.

Ford said she didn’t tell anyone. Kav denies the allegations. Judge denies (paraphrasing) his presence at the alleged party/incident. From what I can read/find, Kav’s & Judge’s statements (which I’m not saying are true/fact) appear ‘consistent’. Ford & King’s statements do not. I don’t think Judge would be a criminal accessory at this point (if Kav were found to be lying) because the SOL has expired, so it just seems to me that he just wants to be left out of it.

Someone is clearly lying. That’s what I was getting at, and I think that is the one fact here that everyone can agree on. I don’t know if we’ll ever find out who it is, though.

 

[JPie]

This is the comeback you and red use all the time to attempt to shut down those who disagree with you.

This reminds me of an essay I read yesterday about The Economist's invitation to Steve Bannon to speak at the Open Future Festival. While it's not an essay about Kavanaugh, one of the points the author makes seems relevant to the discussion at hand.

Focusing the conversation on the ethics of disseminating speech rather than the actual content of that speech is hugely useful for the far right for three reasons. Firstly, it allows them to paint themselves as the wronged party — the martyrs and victims. Secondly, it stops people from talking about the actual wronged parties, the real lives at risk. And thirdly, of course, it’s an enormous diversion tactic, a shout of “Fire!” in the crowded theatre of politics.

 

[partgypsy]

Not my words, but from a Republican who feels Kavanagh's nomination should be withdrawn:

"The larger issue is about the protecting the legitimacy of the Court. We are about to enter an era in which the majority of the Republican side of the court was nominated by presidents who (initially) lost the popular vote. We are already in an era in which Gorsuch's seat probably wouldn't have been available in normal times. To add a justice nominated by a president who lost the popular vote AND who is under federal investigation when that justice has outlier views on executive power AND when there is a credible accusation of attempted rape against him AND he has provided perjury-adjacent testimony is just a bridge too far. I don't understand how you can deny being at a party when you have no idea when or where the party was. That is suspicious unless Kavanaugh NEVER attended a high school party at which he consumed alcohol. At the very least Dr. Ford should provide a list of people she recalls being at said party and those people should be interviewed under oath prior to a confirmation vote. I do not think this is too much to require before a lifetime appointment is doled out. That process wouldn't take longer than a week or two.

The legitimacy of the court has never really been called into question during my lifetime. I'm afraid if women's rights are chipped away (read: re-defined under the Constitution), it will not go over well to have Thomas and Kavanaugh leading the way. I believe we need to reset and regroup. Kavanaugh's nomination should be pulled. I don't think Democrats will be excited about who comes next, but that's a different story for a different day. Just my $.02."

 

[FL_Sol]

This is a logical fallacy. The reference isn't about racial profiling or the use of illegal profiling to discriminate against a minority. It's about the use of accepted profiling tools used by professionals to assess and analyze a person's psychological and behavioral characteristics in order to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere or to assist in identifying a particular subgroup of people.

Right, because it never goes outside the "norm".
Sure.

 

[Matata]

If one has such an investment into being right that they feel a moral obligation to bully an opposing opinion then that is not a position I care to be associated with.

If one has such an investment into being right that they feel a moral obligation to bully an opposing opinion then that is not a position I care to be associated with.

Well ya kinda did it right there. Is everyone who vehemently defends their position a bully? That makes us all bullies at one time or another. And why the harsh judgment about those who you deem have in investment in being right? Why don't you see them as stubbornly sticking with their position which is what you do and what I do when something is important to us?

I'm not picking on you particularly. I'm always puzzled at how some posters are perceived over others. There are a few in this thread who cut to the chase, don't mince words, don't sugarcoat. I'm guessing you perceive some of them as bullies (Elliott, Callie, probably me, among others) while you seem ok with Jenn's style which is same as the others I've mentioned. Is it because you share her position on things? See what I mean, it's all about perspective.

 

[redwood66]

Well ya kinda did it right there. Is everyone who vehemently defends their position a bully? That makes us all bullies at one time or another. And why the harsh judgment about those who you deem have in investment in being right? Why don't you see them as stubbornly sticking with their position which is what you do and what I do when something is important to us?

I'm not picking on you particularly. I'm always puzzled at how some posters are perceived over others. There are a few in this thread who cut to the chase, don't mince words, don't sugarcoat. I'm guessing you perceive some of them as bullies (Elliott, Callie, probably me, among others) while you seem ok with Jenn's style which is same as the others I've mentioned. Is it because you share her position on things? See what I mean, it's all about perspective.

I edited above. I don't care to discuss with the people that operate in such a manner. It is absolutely disrespectful which is a waste of my time on people who make personal insults.

I can agree with a position without necessarily agreeing with the delivery. The like button doesn't differentiate. Why are you and others so concerned with who "likes" what? Maybe we shouldn't have it like Kenny said long ago.

 

[partgypsy]

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 on the record 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.

 

[Matata]

Why do you believe you have the right or moral authority to see it as a duty to "change" someone's mind?

Because Jesus said so? I never said I had that right. I asked why you thought those who vehemently defend a different opinion than yours were attempting to change people's minds rather than simply defending their positions in a way that annoys you.

 

[redwood66]

Because Jesus said so? I never said I had that right. I asked why you thought those who vehemently defend a different opinion than yours were attempting to change people's minds rather than simply defending their positions in a way that annoys you.

I object to personal insults like I said above. If one can't have a discussion without them then I have no desire to engage with them further.

 

[the_mother_thing]

This is the comeback you and red use all the time to attempt to shut down those who disagree with you. It is as tiresome as Benghazi and Hillary's emails. No one is trying to shut anyone down. All sides in this discussion are vehemently defending their position, some are doing so in the futile hope of changing minds or at least changing points of view. Some positions are more right than others despite how one may choose to define personal fact and truth.

Whoa Nelly ... I am not trying to shut down anyone and I don’t see Red trying to, either. I’ve stated that I am merely sharing an opposing viewpoint on THIS case in response to people who have asked why some just wouldn’t immediately believe Ford’s allegations and specifically why. Some posters don’t seem to like those responses, but that doesn’t make them any less valid or worthy of discussion. I don’t tell them they are wrong, their feelings are invalid, unworthy, whatever.

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.

 

[soxfan]

 

[cmd2014]

@cmd2014 I didn’t mean to infer that King said Ford told her; the article AGBF posted noted (paraphrasing) that King said people were talking about it at school in the days after it happened, which would indicate (if her statement is true) that Ford may have told someone. But I suppose it’s also possible that (assuming Ford’s allegations are true), Kav/Judge boasted to whomever else was at the party that Kav just assaulted Ford. I just haven’t read/heard about anyone coming forward alleging that myself, but yes it is possible.

Ford said she didn’t tell anyone. Kav denies the allegations. Judge denies (paraphrasing) his presence at the alleged party/incident. From what I can read/find, Kav’s & Judge’s statements (which I’m not saying are true/fact) appear ‘consistent’. Ford & King’s statements do not. I don’t think Judge would be a criminal accessory at this point (if Kav were found to be lying) because the SOL has expired, so it just seems to me that he just wants to be left out of it.

Someone is clearly lying. That’s what I was getting at, and I think that is the one fact here that everyone can agree on. I don’t know if we’ll ever find out who it is, though.

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.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Funny aside, but whenever anyone loftily announces that they "see me for who I am" this comes to mind and I laugh and laugh!

 

[redwood66]

Then let's have them both be interviewed and a decision be made based on evidence that exists. That is the only thing that can happen now that is fair to all sides.

 

[redwood66]

Funny aside, but whenever anyone loftily announces that they "see me for who I am" this comes to mind...

@Matata case in point.

 

[cmd2014]

Then let's have them both be interviewed and a decision be made based on evidence that exists. That is the only thing that can happen now that is fair to all sides.

What evidence? She says he tried to rape me. He says, I was never at that party. (Kindof like how Anita Hill said Clarence Thomas incessantly talked about pornography and graphically described sex acts from those films to her, while simultaneously asking her out, despite being in a position of significant power over her, and Clarence Thomas said that she was a crazy liar and that these events never occurred, and the entire male Senate panel chose to believe him due to lack of evidence.’)

At least an FBI investigation could potentially find corroboratation of either account. It’s why we have police investigations before going to trial after all...