[Merged] Kavanaugh Hearing

[+and-then]

13 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Agreed. He isn’t getting seated. We won’t get a new SC judge till after the midterms. If the Dems do well, Trump probably won’t be selecting anyone. Pence will. 

ETA even if republicans keep power, the Dems will throw sexual accusations at who ever is selected. This mess will go on for a long time. 

Nah.  He gets confirmed and sworn in October.  The F guy is correct about ONE thing... those who vote for conviction will certainly be watching the polls for their constituencies.  The Dems might possibly retake House and Senate though I'll only believe the Senate flips when I actually SEE it happen.  But they'd still need a dozen or so R votes to convict and remove   I wonder if they really think Trump would go quietly and just disappear into the Twitter-sphere?  He could turn into the worst pain in the butt they could ever imagine.  The man could pack stadiums with citizens who are SICK of the DC shuffle.  It wouldn't be illegal and he has no shame in fomenting insurrection in what he sees as a worthy cause.  Dude might be more dangerous on the OUTSIDE.    

[+OverSword]

38 minutes ago, Wickian said:

Has he been confirmed?  As far as I know he hasn't yet.

I don't believe they will find a reason not to.  If all it takes is hearsay to derail this process then this process needs to go.  You have one persons word against another, so they will have to judge on Kavanaugh's character based on what they know about and have proof of how the man has led his life.  Since nothing but this has come up I assume he must live in a very honest and forthright manner.  There is no factual reason that any of us know of that should stop this appointment.

[Wickian]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

I don't believe they will find a reason not to.  If all it takes is hearsay to derail this process then this process needs to go.  You have one persons word against another, so they will have to judge on Kavanaugh's character based on what they know about and have proof of how the man has led his life.  Since nothing but this has come up I assume he must live in a very honest and forthright manner.  There is no factual reason that any of us know of that should stop this appointment.

I'm pretty sure they decided to delay the confirmation until next week to give the woman a chance to meet on Monday.  As far as I know she declined that at first, then her lawyer said she might be able to show up "sometime next week" if and only if they meet her demands.  I have no idea what those demands are, but they're probably unreasonable for a "he said she said" accusation about teenagers over 30 years ago and meant to stall even longer if she does even bother to show up next Friday(assuming the R's cave and delay the Monday proposition).

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, Wickian said:

I have no idea what those demands are, but they're probably unreasonable for a "he said she said" accusation about teenagers over 30 years ago and meant to stall even longer if she does even bother to show up next Friday(assuming the R's cave and delay the Monday proposition).

My guess is the demands have to do with decorum. Can't blame her for that, her testifying will be like blood in the water for some, we definitely have history to back that up.

[+OverSword]

17 minutes ago, Wickian said:

I'm pretty sure they decided to delay the confirmation until next week to give the woman a chance to meet on Monday.  As far as I know she declined that at first, then her lawyer said she might be able to show up "sometime next week" if and only if they meet her demands.  I have no idea what those demands are, but they're probably unreasonable for a "he said she said" accusation about teenagers over 30 years ago and meant to stall even longer if she does even bother to show up next Friday(assuming the R's cave and delay the Monday proposition).

 

9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

My guess is the demands have to do with decorum. Can't blame her for that, her testifying will be like blood in the water for some, we definitely have history to back that up.

I'm guessing she wants some type of police protection for a while.

[Wickian]

7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

My guess is the demands have to do with decorum. Can't blame her for that, her testifying will be like blood in the water for some, we definitely have history to back that up.

True, the sleazy way her letter was hidden and then brought to light at just the right moment has generated a lot of anger being directed her way, but there is so little substance and so many holes in her accusation that I personally don't think it's worth humoring her over and delaying the confirmation.  Let her have the Monday deadline and if she shows, great.  If not then move on to the vote immediately afterwards.

[Big Jim]

32 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

So basically your opinion still boils down to jabs at her character. Remember this isn't a criminal proceeding or investigation so a lot of what you said was moot. She isn't asking for or expecting justice at this point. She seems to have never conceived of justice for her in this matter as ever being possible or she likley would have gone to the police at the time the sexual assault allegedly happened. At this point, she is just trying to figure out if it is safe for her and her family to testify before the confirmation committee or so she claims. However, due process still applies, only for Senate confirmation hearings, hence the suggestion the FBI investigate like they have a history of in these sorts of cases. Remember this isn't the same as vetting or a criminal investigation. This is just to find out if there is any evidence or witnesses to correlate her claims, such as whether there was a party that evening, who was there, etc.

Which jabs would those be?  All I've talked about is the overall believability of her claims and following proper procedure.  I've said nothing about the woman making the accusations.  If it's not a criminal investigation or proceeding then why is there a need to find evidence?  It's still referred to as a hearing and a lot of the same protocol applies.  Without facing the one she's accusing the letter might as well be anonymous.  Without testifying under oath it might as well be a page from a novel.  She is not the only one involved here.  Mr. Kavenaugh has rights too, as well as the Senators who are trying to make informed decisions.  Do you really want to live in a world where anyone can ruin your life with a letter to their Senator without anything to back it up?

[Setton]

5 hours ago, skliss said:

Maybe it's my age,  but 20 years ago an accusations of dumb, kid, antics would have been given a "Pffffffttttt...." and never allowed to reach a place where it could ruin someone's life and reputation. And that's with cooberation that it actually happened. Is it generational or is dirty fighting all one side has left? "If nothing else we can claim assault and fake enough outrage to get our way." I'm sorry, I would never want to win that way. No wonder #walkaway is picking up speed. 

Yes, it's generational. The current and upcoming generations take allegations of sexual assault as a serious matter to investigate, not something to be 'given a pffffft'. 

26 minutes ago, and then said:

Nah.  He gets confirmed and sworn in October.  The F guy is correct about ONE thing... those who vote for conviction will certainly be watching the polls for their constituencies.  The Dems might possibly retake House and Senate though I'll only believe the Senate flips when I actually SEE it happen.  But they'd still need a dozen or so R votes to convict and remove   I wonder if they really think Trump would go quietly and just disappear into the Twitter-sphere?  He could turn into the worst pain in the butt they could ever imagine.  The man could pack stadiums with citizens who are SICK of the DC shuffle.  It wouldn't be illegal and he has no shame in fomenting insurrection in what he sees as a worthy cause.  Dude might be more dangerous on the OUTSIDE.    

So now supporting mob rule over the legal principles your nation was founded on. 

Keeping it classy, as ever. 

[Princess Bride]

1 minute ago, Big Jim said:

Which jabs would those be?  All I've talked about is the overall believability of her claims and following proper procedure.  I've said nothing about the woman making the accusations.  If it's not a criminal investigation or proceeding then why is there a need to find evidence?  It's still referred to as a hearing and a lot of the same protocol applies.  Without facing the one she's accusing the letter might as well be anonymous.  Without testifying under oath it might as well be a page from a novel.  She is not the only one involved here.  Mr. Kavenaugh has rights too, as well as the Senators who are trying to make informed decisions.  Do you really want to live in a world where anyone can ruin your life with a letter to their Senator without anything to back it up?

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. This is a confirmation hearing, so different protocols apply however a need for evidence is very important. Never have I claimed she shouldn't testify, only that it probably won't matter in the end. However, you go ahead and twist my words and think how clever you are. It makes no difference to me.

[Big Jim]

3 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. This is a confirmation hearing, so different protocols apply however a need for evidence is very important. Never have I claimed she shouldn't testify, only that it probably won't matter in the end. However, you go ahead and twist my words and think how clever you are. It makes no difference to me.

You've charged me twice with attacking her character and can provide no examples and I'm being obtuse?

[Princess Bride]

35 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I don't believe they will find a reason not to.  If all it takes is hearsay to derail this process then this process needs to go.  You have one persons word against another, so they will have to judge on Kavanaugh's character based on what they know about and have proof of how the man has led his life.  Since nothing but this has come up I assume he must live in a very honest and forthright manner.  There is no factual reason that any of us know of that should stop this appointment.

There is no factual reason yet probably relates directly that she hasn't testified yet. If she doesn't testify then there never will be any factual reasons. Even then with no FBI investigation, it will still be her word against his. Don't you worry, I'm sure cold-blooded Kavanaugh will be confirmed as well even if they come up with scads of factual reasons running against confirmation like there was an abundance of with creepy Clarence Thomas' appointment, They just need to appear accommodating and give us all a good show.

[Princess Bride]

5 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

You've charged me twice with attacking her character and can provide no examples and I'm being obtuse?

Everyone else can read your prior comments. Why can't you?

I believe you wrote this and it's nothing but a personal attack against her.

Quote

I wouldn't be surprised if her claims of receiving death threats are as well documented and credible as her claims of being molested all those years ago.  It sounds like an attempt to dodge being caught in one lie by telling another.  All in all, this whole thing sounds like a poorly thought out plan to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation.  Like she figured one good jab in the form of a sexual assault claim would do the job and be a service to her party but she didn't expect to actually have to do more than that, such as prove it or testify.

 

I'll agree she should testify but shouldn't expect anyone to take her seriously, care, or give her any measure of justice. Re-read all you wrote and your gamer boy buddies have written on this very thread. Like I've already said, I'm pretty sure she doesn't expect justice at all. All she is asking for at this time is her safety since it's obvious there will be no FBI investigation. 

I'm sure he will be confirmed and go on to great glory, which you can gloat over for years to come. 

 

[Wickian]

9 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

I'll agree she should testify but shouldn't expect anyone to take her seriously, care, or give her any measure of justice. Re-read all you wrote and your gamer boy buddies have written on this very thread. Like I've already said, I'm pretty sure she doesn't expect justice at all. All she is asking for at this time is her safety since it's obvious there will be no FBI investigation. 

I'm sure he will be confirmed and go on to great glory, which you can gloat over for years to come. 

 

You can blame Feinstein for that.  Had she just released the letter when it was received, things could have been done openly with a less vitriolic backlash.

[skliss]

2 hours ago, Princess Bride said:

Would you believe her more if she testifies or are you just getting your jabs into her character? Would it really make a difference to you? Would you ease up on her if the FBI investigated like they did Anita Hill's claims and found evidence correlating her tale? Do you really care at all or are you just blowing smoke out your pipe? 

I don't know about him, but it would go a long way for me if she testified. Otherwise this sets a huge president, anyone can say anything about anyone. Can you imagine the chaos? But heres the flip side..if she testified and then we find out that she lied...she needs to spend real time in prison or make a huge restitution. Again...it's a slippery slope to take someone's unsubstantiated word  in a matter that could and would change the life of a man and his family.

[skliss]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

Yes, it's generational. The current and upcoming generations take allegations of sexual assault as a serious matter to investigate, not something to be 'given a pffffft'. 

So now supporting mob rule over the legal principles your nation was founded on. 

Keeping it classy, as ever. 

Except that even by her telling there was no sexual assault. From what she described I had to deal with more every day in the office I worked at when I was 19 and guess what....no ptsd.

[Farmer77]

52 minutes ago, skliss said:

From what she described I had to deal with more every day in the office I worked at when I was 19 and guess what....no ptsd.

PTSD doesnt really work like that. You cant juxtapose your situation with someone elses and proclaim " I'm fine why arent they"...science and whatnot

[bec99]

As a women I find this entire debacle personally embarrassing. I grew up in the 80’s and can believe an incident as described by  Professor Ford. My problem is there are so many details lacking that it just makes her claim less credible. Never mind all the political games being played. I can think of a few women in the past that had much more credible claims (Juanita Broderick). If the dems keep going down this road it will eventually bite them in their backend!

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

PTSD doesnt really work like that. You cant juxtapose your situation with someone elses and proclaim " I'm fine why arent they"...science and whatnot

Oh, you can do pretty much anything with this grand charade, no more information than has been given. Anyone that doesn't think this isn't pure politics is either partisan or naïve. Every step thus far is calculated and predictable. Every move the Republicans have made has been anticipated and given prepared responses. It's the perfect caper; there's no way to disprove or prove anything. The vagueness of her account, time, date, location is positively delicious. Who's going to come forward and admit to being culpable to contributing to the delinquency of a minor? Who wants their own lives and careers smeared and irreparably tainted by this sordid scandal? I'll hand it to the Democrats; they really did their homework, found the perfect foil, a minor incident to magnify way out of proportion and with a complicit mass media walking with them, lock step. Doesn't even matter if it's true or not--the play's the thing.

[Astra.]

I'm kinda 50/50 about all this...as I can't help but wonder if this woman had mentioned this to her parents, other close relatives or especially girlfriends at the time this alleged attack took place at this party (1982) ... as it would be rather difficult for a 15 yr old girl to keep this to herself without at least sharing it with somebody else who may be able to help by coming forward to verify her story.

Thing is it was decades ago, and I simply can't help wondering why bother coming forward with it now, whilst also fearing the backlash that she would cop. 

From what I have gathered she did mention this incident to her 'therapist' back in 2012, but did not mention the said perpetrators name at the time, although her husband knew of his name back then. So why not come forward in 2012 ?.. 

I'm not saying that this attack didn't occur or that she wasn't somewhat traumatised by the experience at the time...but gosh!...she still suffers from trauma nearly 40 years later ?... and the irony is she is a psychologist herself.

I don't know, as in this particular case it all sounds rather weird to me...hence being in two minds in whether this woman is truly genuine (still very traumatised) or her motivation is simply political as to ultimately ruin this mans life nearly 40 years later after this alleged event. 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Astra.

[Princess Bride]

1 hour ago, skliss said:

I don't know about him, but it would go a long way for me if she testified. Otherwise this sets a huge president, anyone can say anything about anyone. Can you imagine the chaos? But heres the flip side..if she testified and then we find out that she lied...she needs to spend real time in prison or make a huge restitution. Again...it's a slippery slope to take someone's unsubstantiated word  in a matter that could and would change the life of a man and his family.

That's why I keep saying the FBI needs to investigate. They've done this sort of investigation before and are good at it.

I have some questions though, why should she go to prison? Supposedly less than 1% of men that actually rape go to prison. Most men that commit sexual assaults never have to face charges. The ones that do usually only get a slap on the wrist such as a year or less in jail, credit for any time served, and maybe probation. They normally don't have to pay restitution or do community service. So once again why should she have to pay so heavy if some men decide she lied to them? Why are women that are victims of sex crimes treated so harshly and the penalties for committing those crimes against them generally so light? How would anyone actually prove she lied without an FBI investigation? Mind you, she brought this up many times over the years to her husband and six years ago to her therapist, which indicates her truthfulness, imo. So why is this man and his family so much more important than every woman in America? It's not just the women in America on the line, it's America it's self that rests in the balance. 

All these suggested threats against her "for lying" by Republicans all over the internet right now are obviously going to be intimidating and have a chilling effect on her ability to cooperate. It must be very frightening for her.

Opinion: Lying to Congress — Harm, But No Foul

McConnell let Cabinet nominees get away with it

https://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/mitch-mcconnell-congress-lying

You're right, she won't if they decide she lied.

However, the penalty for lying to the feds is 5 years in prison on the rare occasion they pursue such charges, That is the actual legally enumerated punishment for perjury to a Senate committee. 

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2017/03/what-are-the-penalties-for-lying-to-congress.html

This is what the consequences could b for persecuting women that speak out about rape that some may want silenced.

https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story

I have more articles like those but I don't think anyone here really wants to read them. 

I'm pretty sure some of the people right on this thread want it that way to boot.

 

[Princess Bride]

2 hours ago, skliss said:

Except that even by her telling there was no sexual assault. From what she described I had to deal with more every day in the office I worked at when I was 19 and guess what....no ptsd.

Actually what she described was a sexual assault. There are lots of legal sexual assaults that fall short of completed rape. 

He held her down, felt her all over, tried to remove her clothes, and covered her mouth so she couldn't scream or breath. That is a sexual assault and would be terrifying.

[+OverSword]

3 hours ago, Princess Bride said:

There is no factual reason yet probably relates directly that she hasn't testified yet. If she doesn't testify then there never will be any factual reasons. Even then with no FBI investigation, it will still be her word against his. Don't you worry, I'm sure cold-blooded Kavanaugh will be confirmed as well even if they come up with scads of factual reasons running against confirmation like there was an abundance of with creepy Clarence Thomas' appointment, They just need to appear accommodating and give us all a good show.

Her testimony is not factual information. It’s a statement that can’t be confirmed by evidence or third party testimony. Don’t you think it strange that at 15 years old we have a rapist and from then on a model citizen? Common sense should tell us that doesn’t happen in real life.

[Princess Bride]

2 hours ago, skliss said:

Except that even by her telling there was no sexual assault. From what she described I had to deal with more every day in the office I worked at when I was 19 and guess what....no ptsd.

Sexual harassment wasn't okay either.

[Princess Bride]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Her testimony is not factual information. It’s a statement that can’t be confirmed by evidence or third party testimony. Don’t you think it strange that at 15 years old we have a rapist and from then on a model citizen? Common sense should tell us that doesn’t happen in real life.

Actually, testifying under oath is how legal factuality is determined.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Testify+under+oath

Since people seem to not want to believe this woman with a Ph. freaking D., that's why I keep saying the FBI needs to investigate.

Also, there is plenty they are hiding about him. Rumor has it he's a drunk and far from a model citizen. There are rumors he has a gambling problem and miraculously hundreds of thousands of dollars of his debt vanished literally overnight when he got this nomination. There are also allegations of rape against some of his classmate character references coming out also, which sound eerily similar to her account thus far.

Remember, at this point what they say about her is just as true as what they say about him. 

[Astra.]

5 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

Since people seem to not want to believe this woman with a Ph. freaking D., that's why I keep saying the FBI needs to investigate.

So if this woman had a much lesser paying job, would you still be as passionate as to take her side as what you've been doing here ?What does her career have to do with anything ?

5 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

Also, there is plenty they are hiding about him. Rumor has it he's a drunk and far from a model citizen. There are rumors he has a gambling problem and miraculously hundreds of thousands of dollars of his debt vanished literally overnight when he got this nomination.

And that's it...rumour is just rumour. 

5 minutes ago, Princess Bride said:

There are also allegations of rape against some of his classmate character references coming out also, which sound eerily similar to her account thus far. 

Do you have a sound and trustworthy link for this.