Well, Now Brett Kavanaugh Can Face His Accuser

[Tekate]

This was not a court of law. This woman is pro military, so I cannot say she is unbiased. My attack occurred in 1966, I never saw the guy again, EVER. But I can see him clearly, I know his name, I will never forget it. That is my truth.

I understand that you have compassion for Kavanaugh, having been thru this I see and feel what she felt, the first time I was 14 just as she was, 1966, 53 years ago, I'm not senile and I'm not crazy. It would be this horrid guy's word against my word, I've gone thru all the reasons why I didn't tell, but it happened.

I wish I had some sympathy for Kavanaugh, but I can't muster it because he's so anti Democrat.

You have an absolute right to your thoughts as I have to mine, I am explaining why I believed her, but maybe you haven't experienced something as traumatic as this or maybe you are more open minded, I can also say I was more tolerant when I was younger (50s ) I see nothing good coming from either side as this continues to hurt America.

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

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

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

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

This extract is also relevant to how I feel:

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

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

 

[cmd2014]

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


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

You’re right. She dated the brother of one of his friends (or at least someone in his social circle). That was my mistake, not something in her testimony.

 

[the_mother_thing]

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

And the same can be said of Kav, whom Dems came out within minutes of being nominated and immediately dismissed before ANY of them (to our knowledge) knew there was a ‘Prof. Ford’.

 

[cmd2014]

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

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

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

My point is that a thorough investigation should be done.

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

The polygraph statement was debunked. The friend who it was alleged about, who is now an FBI agent, publicly came out and said it was a lie. So how credible is the rest of what this alleged ex-boyfriend said? The smear campaign and witch-hunt was not one sided. And while eyewitness testimony is well known to be unreliable for stranger perpetrated crime, it is not when the victim knows her attacker. Mistaken identity simply does not occur when the atttacker is previously known to the victim, no matter how often one side of this debate says it does. So again, by focusing only on him in the court of public opinion debate, you are ignoring her in this same debate. She has been put through a trial by right wing media (as have the other accusers who were not even interviewed btw as part of the investigation) that has been far uglier than anything he has been subjected to. As were the other accusers. For Dr. Ford, this was even to the extent that they had people put out fake photos claiming that they were her and accusing another man in her community of being her assailant (he will likely sue). The president of the United States publicly mocked her. Every right leaning news media made disparaging and ignorant remarks about her case (ignorant in that they never bothered to find anyone who knew what they were talking about in terms of trauma, anxiety disorders, and the sequelae of sexual assault to inform their opinions, which may have sounded good but were simply wrong). They were desperate to discredit her, any way possible. No real investigation was done because the end was predetermined.

Women in your country should be horrified. They are in mine.

But you are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. My consolation is that your country is very different from mine in regard to the status of women, and this has opened discussions here that I suspect will prove to move us even further from the US on that front. I’m just sorry that this debacle has hurt women everywhere by playing out their worst fears on international television. As for me, I will go back to doing what I can.

 

[Tekate]

I wasn't aware that McConnell refused to vet Kavanaugh?? what did I miss? You cannot equate vetting and refusing to SPEAK to a candidate as the same MT, you just can't. Who cares if the democrats were negative on Kavanaugh, I would have been too, he's politically far right and does not stand for the democratic party, the COURT is partisan it is no longer fair. I don't accept that vetting someone equals not vetting someone.

And the same can be said of Kav, whom Dems came out within minutes of being nominated and immediately dismissed before ANY of them (to our knowledge) knew there was a ‘Prof. Ford’.

 

[tkyasx78]

I saw that Kavanaugh was confirmed. 50 senators decided to let trump get a person - who would allow trump and people like him, to get away with anything - on the highest court in the country . It is a sad day for humanity as the people who are meant to be a check and balance for the executive branch, have neutered the remaining branch for the dictator they kowtow to.

I am disappointed beyond words. Not just for those brave victims who have had to endure the injustice and then the consequences of sexual assaults but my heart grieves for the loss of decency and ethics.

It is hard to express the sadness that comes when a morally devoid person is given free reign to appoint and empower the people who would support his worst desires and impulses. They have voted to effectively remove the last leg of accountability and allowed a liar to choose his corrupt supporters as judges so he and people like him can avoid the law and any moral code.

I hope Brett’s victims know, they were believed by those with ears to hear.

History has long taught that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Today we saw 50 senators who are determined to repeat this.

They are now going to watch as the man who openly and with venom mocks the disabled, ethnic minorities, women, and bullies any who dare to speak up do worse. They can know it is their doing when he becomes even more empowered and entrenched in his quest to debase our nation for personal gain.

I fear that this group of “alternative fact” believers will not only continue to be the core of the Republican Party but will also be justification for a new president to do worse when a new one gains control. Today trump and his base still supported the “very fine” people who scream they will not be replaced as they marched forward to oppress anyone they don’t like and now trump is saying he wants to prosecute the women who have been victimized when they speak up.

The republicans now scream in an effort to justify their actions “ but Clinton ” or “ but democrats” .
They fill in the blank with what ever “ two wrongs make a right “ theory they are proposing at the time.
What is the plan when trump is gone and someone new is in power? I shudder to think what a new despot will be screaming when they have the back drop of a “but trump “ as an excuse.

I truly hope the 2018 and 2020 elections are enough to change this path we are on. It’s going to be a bumpy road if people don’t get out and vote.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I wasn't aware that McConnell refused to vet Kavanaugh?? what did I miss? You cannot equate vetting and refusing to SPEAK to a candidate as the same MT, you just can't. Who cares if the democrats were negative on Kavanaugh, I would have been too, he's politically far right and does not stand for the democratic party, the COURT is partisan it is no longer fair. I don't accept that vetting someone equals not vetting someone.

I didn’t say McConnell; I said Dems, many of which refused to meet with Kav as well.

“Who cares if democrats were negative on Kavanaugh? ... he doesn’t stand for the Democratic Party” ... but you want to cry foul on the republicans for partisanship? That’s laughable at best.

Dems really need to re-learn how to ‘lose with grace’.

 

[soxfan]

I didn’t say McConnell; I said Dems, many of which refused to meet with Kav as well.

“Who cares if democrats were negative on Kavanaugh? ... he doesn’t stand for the Democratic Party” ... but you want to cry foul on the republicans for partisanship? That’s laughable at best.

Dems really need to re-learn how to ‘lose with grace’.

This is a supreme court seat, not a baseball game.

 

[House Cat]

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

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

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

My point is that a thorough investigation should be done.

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

I am going to have a difficult time with my post because I am feeling a flood of emotions due to this subject. I am going to give you bullet points so that I can spit out what I need to say...

- to address your “we don’t know” “he said she said” comments... Dr. Ford’s testimony was very clear to most every assault victim who heard it. The reason it was so clear and believable to US is because of the fact that she described symptoms of trauma and hyper vigilance that were much like our own. Elements of her story sounded JUST LIKE OURS. After she spoke, there was no question in anyone’s mind WHO’S LIVED IT.

Please understand that there are millions of assault victims in our nation. One in four college students will be assaulted. One in every six women is a victim of attempted or completed rape.

-the holes in her memory are consistent with trauma. I’m actually getting sick of everyone on this forum who keep trying to refute her story because there are holes in her memory. To me...a person who’s been doing intensive trauma work for 13 years now, the fact that there are holes in her memory only proves that she has been traumatized. If she knew every detail of the event, that would show me she was lying her ass off. She remembers the important parts, that Brett tried to rape her and almost killed her in the process.

-there was a witness and he should have been pressed...hard.

-beyond all of that Kavanaugh’s behavior and lying under these circumstances proved him unfit for the job... I mean, let’s say Dr Ford was lying through her teeth and this was all a rouse, look at the terrible way this Yale graduate and federal judge, handled it. He’s garbage and now he’s sitting on our Supreme Court...installed to make sure Trump isn’t indicted.

Make no mistake, that’s the only reason Kavanaugh’s there. Which is more proof that our president will sacrifice anyone or anything for his own skin. Furthermore, the people in his base (and others who claim they aren’t in his base but really are) will jump right in and blindly defend him.

 

[AGBF]

This is a supreme court seat, not a baseball game.

Thank you, soxfan. If one extrapolated the reasoning of the_mother-thing it would be necessary for the Democrats to accept everything dished out by Trump. That would include the separation of nursing babies from their mothers' breasts in contravention of both US and international law because Trump did that. Just because we "lost".

No. It is wrong to accept injustice and illegality. After authoritarian régimes lose power, there are often war crimes tribunals. I am not alleging that Justice Kavanaugh committed war crimes, but the principle involved is the same: one does not stop fighting for justice simply because it has been denied by an unjust authoritarian régime.

AGBF

 

[the_mother_thing]

This is a supreme court seat, not a baseball game.

You’re right, it’s not a baseball game ... it was more like rapid dog fight. Dems don’t get to cry about injustice when - foaming at the mouth - they tried to break the chains of law & fairness right from the get-go.

And @AGBF spare me. The injustice in this case was Dems’ mishandling of Ford’s claims from the get-go, the failure of Dems to secure her privacy at HER request, and their rush the flip the garbage disposal switch on the fundamental belief that we are all innocent until proven guilty.

If anyone wonders why victims are suddenly now more worried about coming forward, how the hell can you be surprised after seeing how Ford was revictimized by her own party for political gain on the national stage? I know that’s a tough fact to swallow, but you can do it if you are honest with yourself.

And this "presumption of innocence is not due for a job interview" nonsense is a dangerous, slippery slope that Dems really oughta think about before they push that approach as some sort of new norm.

 

[soxfan]

You’re right, it’s not a baseball game ... it was more like rapid dog fight. Dems don’t get to cry about injustice when - foaming at the mouth - they tried to break the chains of law & fairness right from the get-go.

And @AGBF spare me. The injustice in this case was Dems’ mishandling of Ford’s claims from the get-go, the failure of Dems to secure her privacy at HER request, and their rush the flip the garbage disposal switch on the fundamental belief that we are all innocent until proven guilty.

If anyone wonders why victims are suddenly now more worried about coming forward, how the hell can you be surprised after seeing how Ford was revictimized by her own party for political gain on the national stage? I know that’s a tough fact to swallow, but you can do it if you are honest with yourself.

And this "presumption of innocence is not due for a job interview" nonsense is a dangerous, slippery slope that Dems really oughta think about before they push that approach as some sort of new norm.

 

[the_mother_thing]

How very constructive ... but at the end of the day, a silly meme doesn’t change the fact that Kav is now a S.C. Justice, and Trump is still your President.

 

[jaaron]

I wholeheartedly agree, and I know you were responding to @redwood66 but I want to address this, with all sincere & due respect to ‘all sides’.

One cannot have a civil, respectful discussion about sensitive topics such as this without first giving due respect to the beliefs and positions of others. I don’t mean agreeing with or subscribing to others’ beliefs or positions; rather, simply and civilly respecting the fact that they hold those beliefs/positions sincerely and in good faith, and not as a means to be evil, hateful, biased, mysoginistic, xenophobic, sexist, racist, or whatever other label one might toss around in society. IF you do that, then personal attacks and allegations of party bias should be kept at bay ... by a reasonable person ... and a discussion leading toward solutions vs. attacks can begin.

Here, however, as appears to also be the case with the rampant protests going on in DC at the moment (as well as in other cities in this country), many don’t have respect for others beliefs, and they are not interested in having a civil, respectful discussion because neither is possible when you insist on shouting in someone’s face and physically assaulting them in an effort to shove your views down their throat to the point they must swallow them in order to breathe.

There is nothing civil nor respectful about what I see happening, and as I’ve said before - if you don’t demonstrate respect for others, you should be under no illusions that you are due any ... regardless of your gender, age, ethnicity, orientation, personal life experiences, etc., whether on the steps of the Supreme Court, in the hallways of the Senate building, or on a jewelry forum.

You’re right, it’s not a baseball game ... it was more like rapid dog fight. Dems don’t get to cry about injustice when - foaming at the mouth - they tried to break the chains of law & fairness right from the get-go.

I guess it's probably a tough mental challenge for you to remember your cry for civility a few pages back. Oh, right, sorry - your definition of civility is people with different points of view from yours shutting up and going home and allowing the revolting crime family currently in charge of the country to rape and pillage the citizens and the environment to their hearts' content. If some people make it clear to elected representatives that they want to be listened to, by exercising their right to free speech and assembly, heavens... the shocking incivility.

But now, a genuine question: How do you feel about the fact that this president, who is the self-styled king of incivility, literally and provably lies almost every single day? Does it bother you?

 

[redwood66]

If this was just a job interview where the presumption of innocence does not apply, then Merrick Garland not getting one should be no big deal. Employers decline to interview people all the time.

 

[jaaron]

I didn’t say McConnell; I said Dems, many of which refused to meet with Kav as well.

“Who cares if democrats were negative on Kavanaugh? ... he doesn’t stand for the Democratic Party” ... but you want to cry foul on the republicans for partisanship? That’s laughable at best.

Dems really need to re-learn how to ‘lose with grace’.

Why?

 

[soxfan]

I guess it's probably a tough mental challenge for you to remember your cry for civility a few pages back. Oh, right, sorry - your definition of civility is people with different points of view from yours shutting up and going home and allowing the revolting crime family currently in charge of the country to rape and pillage the citizens and the environment to their hearts' content. If some people make it clear to elected representatives that they want to be listened to, by exercising their right to free speech and assembly, heavens... the shocking incivility.

But now, a genuine question: How do you feel about the fact that this president, who is the self-styled king of incivility, literally and provably lies almost every single day? Does it bother you?

Nope. It doesn't bother her in the least.

 

[jaaron]

If this was just a job interview where the presumption of innocence does not apply, then Merrick Garland not getting one should be no big deal. Employers decline to interview people all the time.

It is, however, a 'norm' that a president's nominee gets a hearing

 

[redwood66]

It is, however, a 'norm' that a president's nominee gets a hearing

So is it now also a norm that the process become a shitshow circus rather than a deliberating review of facts in a respectful manner worthy of the Senate?

 

[soxfan]

So is it now also a norm that the process become a shitshow circus rather than a deliberating review of facts in a respectful manner worthy of the Senate?

Again...

 

[the_mother_thing]

I guess it's probably a tough mental challenge for you to remember your cry for civility a few pages back. Oh, right, sorry - your definition of civility is people with different points of view from yours shutting up and going home and allowing the revolting crime family currently in charge of the country to rape and pillage the citizens and the environment to their hearts' content. If some people make it clear to elected representatives that they want to be listened to, by exercising their right to free speech and assembly, heavens... the shocking incivility.

But now, a genuine question: How do you feel about the fact that this president, who is the self-styled king of incivility, literally and provably lies almost every single day? Does it bother you?

I didn’t depart from civility. The rest of your post is just sewage not worth responding to.

 

[soxfan]

 

[AGBF]

Why?

My theory is that if they do, there will be no opposition to the authoritarian régime currently in power and operating outside the law. Actually I prefer your wording. If they do "the revolting crime family currently in charge of the country" will be free "to rape and pillage the citizens and the environment to their hearts' content" without opposition. You have a way with words, jaaron!

AGBF

 

[jaaron]

So is it now also a norm that the process become a shitshow circus rather than a deliberating review of facts in a respectful manner worthy of the Senate?

Look, this nomination was a shit show from day one. The Federalist Society, which I personally think is awful, but that's neither here nor there, has a list of names of judges longer than my arm who have no odd-looking financial background, didn't work on hot-button issues on unpopular/potentially illegal policies in a White House and didn't have close relations with judges who are known sex predators. All of their recommended candidates are interested in reversing Roe v Wade, allowing big business to destroy the environment and making sure people have no coverage for pre-existing conditions. They could have picked any one of them, but Trump insisted on Kavanaugh because he's the only one who has spoken out on his belief that presidents are above the law (a nifty reversal from his Ken Starr days, of course). He was warned that Kavanaugh might be a difficult confirmation and they acted in bad faith from the day they refused to release his documents.

Any one of those other candidates (with the exception of Amy Coney Barrett, who is reported to possibly have some issues that would have come out) would have been confirmed in much the same way Neil Gorsuch was.

 

[redwood66]

Look, this nomination was a shit show from day one. The Federalist Society, which I personally think is awful, but that's neither here nor there, has a list of names of judges longer than my arm who have no odd-looking financial background, didn't work on hot-button issues on unpopular/potentially illegal policies in a White House and didn't have close relations with judges who are known sex predators. All of their recommended candidates are interested in reversing Roe v Wade, allowing big business to destroy the environment and making sure people have no coverage for pre-existing conditions. They could have picked any one of them, but Trump insisted on Kavanaugh because he's the only one who has spoken out on his belief that presidents are above the law (a nifty reversal from his Ken Starr days, of course). He was warned that Kavanaugh might be a difficult confirmation and they acted in bad faith from the day they refused to release his documents.

Any one of those other candidates (with the exception of Amy Coney Barrett, who is reported to possibly have some issues that would have come out) would have been confirmed in much the same way Neil Gorsuch was.

And I don't believe your last paragraph for one second after watching the last two months.

 

[jaaron]

I didn’t depart from civility. The rest of your post is just sewage not worth responding to.

Lol

 

[jaaron]

And I don't believe your last paragraph for one second.

Then why didn't it happen with Gorsuch? If they were just looking to turn a nomination into a shitshow, they could have found a way. The fact is that lots of them and us disagree with his policy positions, but he was an otherwise good and respectable candidate

 

[redwood66]

Then why didn't it happen with Gorsuch?

Because it was Scalia's seat and the dems had some kind of decorum. This is the swing vote Kennedy's seat and this is all about abortion.

It surely isn't about sexual abuse/crime.

 

[jaaron]

Because it was Scalia's seat and the dems had some kind of decorum. This is the swing vote Kennedy's seat and this is all about abortion.

It surely isn't about sexual abuse/crime.

Well since at least one Rep senator (Collins) voted for based partially on the fact that Kavanaugh assured her he considered Roe 'settled law', that argument doesn't really hold water. She's based a large part of her career on being pro-choice.

Did you think Franken should step down? I'm not sure how the allegations against Kavanaugh are significantly different in terms of provability.

 

[the_mother_thing]

Did you think Franken should step down? I'm not sure how the allegations against Kavanaugh are significantly different in terms of provability.

Well, for starters ...