USA Today Tweets Coach Kavanaugh should stay off basketball courts when kids are around. Link in comments.

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points41 points 7 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[+]Evdaddy -29 points-28 points-27 points 7 years ago* (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk 31 points32 points33 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

As someone who gets to talk to a lot of people with severe trauma, everything I have read about Blasey-Ford's story, and the video of her testimony is normal and consistent.

Your suggestion police would normally be involved is very wrong. Police are not normally involved with adult rape victims, even less so with sexual assaults, and very much less so with 15yo kids in a group of illegal drinkers while still at high school.

There are a lot of stupid kids at high school but even the stupidest of the stupid are seldom stupid enough to report a sexual assault. Authorities usually only get involved after her best friend couldn't keep her mouth shut and the story got out accidentally. But the school authorities can't force them to make a complaint to police and will often point out it may do more harm than good.

Ford's trauma was mainly from fear of being accidentally suffocated to death. Her memory of the incident is clear and seems complete. Losing the surrounding details is normal, and I have done it myself.

I have a minor suffocating trauma, possibly 36 years ago. I nearly suffocated myself in a mummy sleeping bag with a tiny air hole, I went off to sleep and lost the hole. I have only the memories tightly focused on suffocating and relief at being able to breathe.
Date: Between age 18 and 28, probably early 20s.
How did I escape? I presumably found the hole and took some breaths, but I don't recall.
Was I wearing thin gloves and overmittens? I remember being freezing cold but not if gloves were worn.

Season: It was a warm bag, so winter. Probably not in a house since it was so cold.
Mountain hut / tent / in the open under trees? I don't know.
Companion or alone? I think there was one companion, male?, near. But I didn't ask for help so maybe I was alone.
Day or night? I remember pitch black but maybe that was just inside the bag. Light would have made the hole obvious so presumably it was dark.

[–]Johnnyrottenatbirth 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

“Her memory of the incident is clear and seems complete.”

You are out of your mind. In none of the interviews did she have a remotely clear, never mind complete, account of her story.

I understand she was young, it was years ago and she may have been traumatized, but what are we supppsed to do? Just ignore the fact that she can’t corroborate anything and assume she has got it all right? You then destroy a mans career and life based on her foggy account of an incident that happened nearly 40 years ago.

Let’s start by giving each of them equal credibility and each of their statements equal weight:

Her: “He assaulted me!” Him: “No I didn’t!”

Under what circumstances do we give more weight to her statement than his? Because she’s female? Hardly seems equitable. Because she’s a sexual assault victim? Why does that make her statement more credible than his? Because she’s traumatized? That’s no reason to believe the statements she is now making are true or indeed are accurate. Because otherwise she wouldn’t be claiming he did it? You’re assuming her statement is true without proof solely because she made it. Because he’s lying? I don’t see any evidence of him being a liar. Because he denied it! Wouldn’t you deny something you say you did not do?

I think all the debate about whether he did it or whether she’s a liar has all been played out. Nothing you or I debate here will change the fact that she’s got nothing but vague, unclear, uncorroborated, uncertain statements about something that may or may not have happened. The only argument I’ve see put forward for taking her word over his is that “he’s a man and of course he’ll deny it” but not since the Second World War has it been sufficient to take an accuser’s word at face value without corroborating evidence. The only reason this has got as far as it has is due to the current wave against males, especially white males, in office. Reason, logic and thoughtfulness have taken a back seat to emotion, perceived unfairness and, in this case, politics.

Put yourself in the shoes of those supposed to make this decision: give us one piece of solid, unfettered evidence other than your stale, foggy, unclear accusation that it was him and we’ll veto his nomination. But unless you can give us something, anything, that’s not shrouded in uncertainty, I’m afraid her word can’t be taken as more credible than his. To do so assumes the truth of her statements just because she’s uttering them and that cannot be.

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Nobody thinks we are going to get proof either way.

What we have is an unprovable accusation, and Kav telling a string of lies and evasions surrounding it. That isn't proof of guilt and there are obvious other reasons he could lie about his drinking and sexual past.

This week's FBI investigation will give a more clarity but participation is entirely voluntary - no subpoena, no oath, no search warrants. If the govt wanted the truth, that would not be how to get it. Kav will be shown to be more of a liar, and the govt will lose more votes at the midterms for confirming him anyway.

There are other people to kill Roe vs Wade, but he is the only candidate on record who thinks a sitting president should be immune from criminal prosecution.

Next month's SCOTUS docket is Gamble vs US. No 17-646. This is what the rush is about. They need him seated for October to rule on that specific case.

At stake is the "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy. If the SC overrules it, people given presidential pardons for federal crimes cannot be tried for that crime at the state level. Trump can pardon the lot of them and they have nothing to fear from state's attorneys.
It applies to him too. Trump needs Kav to save his own ass and his crew from jail.

[–]Johnnyrottenatbirth 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

You speak about the SC as if his is the only vote that counts. I don’t believe the current court is so closely split that a decision in any particular case or matter couldn’t be made without him.

And what proof do you have for his lying? Show me evidence. Show me other situations where he’s been proven a liar. Anything.

Furthermore, show me evidence she should be given more credibility than he. The only thing she has that lends any weight is that you can’t prove a negative. But that’s just giving weight to the argument that “she’s a woman; why would she lie about this?!”

She’s (and by “she” I really mean the lawyers, publicists, politicians and agents all acting for her) using that as a sword knowing his reputation will be in tatters - defend yourself against sexual assault allegations and look like you’re a guilty man denying or stay silent and people will assume you’re guilty. Ask for evidence and proof and be accused of victim shaming.

You may have watched the interviews. You saw Kavanaugh lying; I saw a man riddled with anger at false allegations that are destroying his credibility to do the job he’s done without reproach for years. I saw her lying; you say she’s just traumatized and we shouldn’t question her. That’s bullshit. Without proof of either truth this is a stalemate and Kavanaugh should be permitted to proceed with the appointment. Unproven allegations should be given the value that was proven - here, that is, none.

I agree that the FBI investigation is unlikely to turn up anything valuable though, but let’s give them a chance.

[–]antilopes -2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The three right wing justices in the SC can not give Trump the decision he needs. He needs Kav too, to get his crew and possibly himself out of jail. None of the other applicants are on record as being on his side for this one.

Same for the criminal prosecution of a sitting president, Kav is the only one on record as wanting to protect him.

I can't believe Trump would try to ram through such a compromised candidate if it were not for those two very personal issues for him. Judges need to have the respect of the people.

Fact check:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html

Long article including Kav lying about his involvement in the torture program.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/27/what-brett-kavanaugh-really-learned-in-high-school-make-the-rules-break-the-rules-and-prosper/

[+]Evdaddy -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about.

If someone says "A crime has been committed against me", my response is "I'm so sorry. What, when, where, and who?". When she comes back with "assault", over thirty years ago, at a location she can't remember, against a current celebrity and "others" she can't recall, then every rational part of my brain asks "Wait, what about witnesses and evidence?", to which there are none...

No rational person would believe such a story.

I have PTSD. The events that caused it will haunt me forever. I struggled to complete a 2 year education, I may never marry, and I will spend the rest of my life on medication and seeking therapy for what transpired. Yet I'm expected to believe a 15 year old was gang-raped, never disclosed it to anyone until a therapist in 2012, successfully married, completed a doctorate, and she struggles to remember the details of the event?

I call bullshit.

But please, humor me o dancing fool, how was her life ruined? You never quantified that. You just leapt to the conclusion of his guilt, and the supposed justice of character assassination as petty revenge.

Furthermore, if you don't report a crime to the police after it's occurred, you are empowering the criminal to get away with it and effectively assisting them in any further crimes them commit. If you don't go to the police after you've been raped, you're a fucking moron who helped your rapist escape. Period.

The culture, largely contrived by women, of failing to report crimes to the police is a blight upon society and should be stamped out.

Honestly, with comments as brain dead as yours, it's no wonder there's an international movement against people like you.

[+]Evdaddy -9 points-8 points-7 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clockw0rk 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

YOU ARE VICTIM BLAMING

Where? I dare you to highlight it, because I never did such a thing.

YOU are part of the problem and why this shit keeps happening.

Absolutely not. I report crimes to the police, for one thing.

Quantify how it hurt it life? That isn't possible

Absolute horseshit. You can easily quantify the damages of any real crime. There's literally fields of study about the damage that is done by criminals against their victims.

She did explain all the questions you asked in the hearing the other day,

Bullshit. Link me evidence you hysterical liar.

you somehow believe HE is the victim here

I never said anything of the sort. I could give two shits about who is accused, I care about evidence and reason.

Now provide some, or fuck off back to your emotional cry cave of making up utter nonsense.

[–]Star_Sabre 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Johnnyrottenatbirth 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You’re assuming she’s a victim of Kavanaugh. You’re assuming the truth of her statements without corroboration. You’re assuming that alcohol, nearly 40 years and trauma have not clouded her memory and made her confuse him for someone else. You’re also assuming he’s lying without any evidence of such behaviors outside of these accusations. That’s called “an unfounded accusation”. So we demand proof. That’s how this society works. To take her at her word, without more, is assuming his guilt based on his gender. Give us one solid piece of decent evidence. It doesn’t even have to be a witness, but something. Without it, you’re assuming his guilt solely because he’s a man. You’re assuming he’s lying solely he’s a man. You’re doubting his veracity solely because he’s denying the accusations in a sexual assault case. In other words, she’s accusing him of a crime against a woman by a man. Because of her status as a woman, she must be telling the truth. If it didn’t happen, she wouldn’t have accused him. He’s denying the accusations. Because of his status as a man, he is telling a lie. You’re asking us to vilify this guy solely because he’s a male being accused of a crime against a female.

By using the traumatized victim card, she is hoping the media and sympathizers like you will overlook the lack of corroboration and not bother asking for evidence because it seems unkind. To ask for evidence makes the defense look like victim blamers. That’s not what’s happening and I don’t think anyone at these hearings has blamed her but we do require something more than someone’s word that something might have happened before we essentially end a man’s life. This principle underpins everything our society has been built on and to overlook this basic tenet of civilization solely because of a person’s gender has implications beyond this matter. A person’s gender should not be the basis upon which we assign guilt. We’ve done that in ages past and look how well that turned out for us.

Thes accusations are not an isolated matter where the consequences of believing that he did this are limited only to him and her. These accusations are so foundational that to simply assume their truth without proper inquiry is untenable. You wouldn’t take anyone else’s word at face value without more so why do it here? Believing that Dr Ford is generally a truthful person is one thing but believing her in such a serious matter without proof or corroboration, when to do so has such implications, is unjust.

Swap the roles here and pretend for a moment she’s being nominated and he claims she seriously assaulted and beat him 40 years ago at a party when he was 15 and she 17. He remembers being hurt by someone, bloody, stunned and upset but didn’t want to tell anyone because he was embarrassed and ashamed that he’d been beaten up by a girl. So he hid it. He walked him from the party alone and in shame. But it traumatized him, he never told anyone in the intervening years but he’s coming out now because he doesn’t think someone that could do that should be allowed on the SC. Our first response would be to ask for evidence, witnesses, pictures of the bruises, the bloody nose, the cuts, ask why he didn’t tell anyone at the time, and ask why he took 40 years to come forward. But to do so in the incident case is victim blaming? That’s sexist and if the roles were reversed you’d not think twice about dismissing his accusations because he didn’t have proof.

[–]Kyle_Fischer 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Johnnyrottenatbirth 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

It is hardly as simple as “sorry, no!” It may have escaped your notice but there's an all out public enquiry into the accusations. The FBI are now investigating. The Senate Judiciary Committee are giving this some pretty close scrutiny.

Our argument isn’t that she’s lying - no one has adjudicated that either way - but that an otherwise credible man with an unblemished record other than these, as yet uncorroborated, allegations is being ruined before the truth of her claims has been found.

We’re also not saying that he’s innocent or beyond reproach or that this couldn’t have happened, but we are asking that he not be hung, drawn and quartered until his guilt is established one way or another so his career, family and social life aren’t indelible tainted with a black mark if it comes out he’s been wrongfully accused.

[–]Evdaddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Johnnyrottenatbirth 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Evdaddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]coisbott 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kyle_Fischer 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but they would surely discuss almost accidentally getting killed by two drunk teenagers when the only other female at the party who was a good friend noticed she was no longer at the party. And as for her being brave, I call bs. If this actually occurred, then Ford was a coward. According to her she was one of two girls and the other girl was her good friend. They got to a party with four drunk boys, and she leaves after she almost gets killed and raped (according to her) and leaves her good friend to fend for herself? None of that adds up. And her friend would have corroborated this if it were true.

On the flip side, a few things about Kavanaugh made me raise my eyebrow. Every innocent man who I’ve defended against a false accuser holds ill will against the liar. They always ask, “so what happens the them?” When asked if he would take a poly, he said, “Sure.” But he added that they were not admissible. Every innocent guy I represented said they would take a poly if offered. The ones who I think might be guilty talk about why they might fail or say they are unreliable. Finally, boofed, Devil’s Triangle, and Renate Alumnis are exactly what everyone knows they are, I.e. sexual, but none of them means he is a predator.

[–]Sasha_ 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Johnnyrottenatbirth 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]oldbkenobi -14 points-13 points-12 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]rektHav0k 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]oldbkenobi -15 points-14 points-13 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]rektHav0k 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Haha okay, racist. Because let’s pretend that the man who nominated him didn’t proclaim five men guilty of murder before any investigation or trial with a full page newspaper ad.

You both can be racist. You don't get a pass just because he is.

Due process, which so many men who support the current president believe in selectively at best, is for criminal trials. Kavanaugh is facing a job interview, one which he ranted like an unhinged lunatic during.

Due process is also a measure by which the government is held to in its dealings with civilians. Due process is the standard by which we measure truth. As such, accusations are not equal to convictions and the man is, at best, of dubious character. That being said, there's no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part. Only the testimony of women who have something to gain, ideologically. I found both, her testimony and his to be wanting. Despite that, this man may lose appointment to one of the most prominent positions in the land based on the words of a woman he knew some 30 years ago. That is abhorrent. Flake did the right thing by asking for a week to conduct the investigation, but at this point, it's unlikely to produce anything credible. That means the man should be appointed. I don't like that, as I found his testimony sketchy, but it's not about what I like. It's about evidence.

And the fact that this testimony was withheld until every other means of attacking his character failed is sketchy AF. This should have been brought to the table at the beginning or not at all, because now it simply looks like a partisan attack. That damages it's credibility. Had it been brought earlier, it may have been possible to vet him without all the drama. It may even have led to a no vote. Republicans have to vote him in now, as anything else would look like capitulation. The only way for him to lose the nomination is for the FBI investigation to reveal REAL evidence of wrongdoing. But that kind of evidence comes with charges, and I'm not sure that's going to happen. It could, but it's unlikely.

[–]Johnnyrottenatbirth 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]oldbkenobi1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Or they could just nominate someone who actually has the temperament to be a justice? I’m not sure why that’s such a crazy idea these days.

[–]Johnnyrottenatbirth 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Evdaddy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Evdaddy -6 points-5 points-4 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hating women and being cynical towards rape victims is absolutely a right wing phenomenon, he's right in that.

that seems... slightly biased lol. I thought the right just wanted traditional family values (something I don't personally agree with for other reasons) and the nuclear family... if that's hating women then lol.

Why're you so convinced it's false?

because there isn't any evidence that would be admisable to convict him of the crime... if there was then I wouldn't like him... like what happened with bill cosby. Once there was enough evidence I didn't defend him anymore. Innocent until guilty.

Did you watch the hearing because she seems FAR more credible than Kavanaugh who lied repeatedly.

citation... and your feelings to her honesty (like if she cried etc) aren't relevant to the facts... there isn't enough evidence to prove it one way or the other and according to sane laws that means that it is dismissed. We can't lock up people without evidence or a fair trial. if we could then it would be insanity.

[–]Evdaddy 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]confusedsnake 39 points40 points41 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]karatdem 19 points20 points21 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]T_1246 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rektHav0k 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zomrhino 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thrway_1000 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]emptyshed69 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]antilopes -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Burntskullcandy -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]zomrhino 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments