Kavanaugh Accuser reveals her Identity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She seems very credible based on what is known now. Her letter, her taking a lie detector test, her therapy, even her understandable reluctance to reveal herself, all favor her credibility. I have no reason now to doubt her.

What, however, is missing is whether a single drunken and stupid incident from high school should derail someone 30 years later. What level of misbehavior from high school should deter someone as an adult?

Lets be clear. What Judge K did was and is wrong, but what he did does not compare, in frequency or time or severity, to the dozens of men being outed these days, starting with Donald, to Bill, to Senator K, to Weinstein, to Cosby, to Matt L, to Charlie R, Fox men, etc. The latter behavior was frequent, was later in life as adults, was in a work place, and involved verbal abuse in some cases. The latter very much reflects the character and views of those men. At this point, we have no evidence that Judge K has similar views or character flaws. We have a single incident from 30 years ago.

What about a former bully who mildly beat up a few kids in high school? What about that mean girl who terribly abused verbally a particular classmate in high school? We all know kids who have been on the short end of abuse by fellow classmates, some physical, some verbal, some both. Some in a single incident, some over months or years. What about the awkward high school kid (not me, of course) who tried but is turned away trying to kiss someone? What about the high school kid who purchased (illegally) alcohol at a NW DC liquor store on a few occasions in the 1990s (not me, of course)? I am confident no DC person on this forum did the latter. What about the classmate who "pressured" a fellow classmate to drink or take drugs during high school?

Where is the line? Fortunately, most schools today are better at stopping destructive behavior in all its forms, but should we apply today's improved standards to a single incident 30 years ago?

Kavanaugh had pretty firm opinions on 17 year olds and their "mistakes" vis a vis abortions. Maybe the same test should be applied to the 17 year old Kavanaugh.

+ 1 million.

I'm not sure there is an equivalency here. The mistakes of the 17 year olds you're referring to involved murders. If Kavanaugh did make this "mistake," nobody died. This woman has gone on to live a full life.

There is definitely an equivalency. Kavanaugh issued opinions on unwanted teenage pregnancies, while he himself nearly caused an unwanted teenage pregnancy.

Again, women who have had abortions actually committed murder. Done deal.

Again, giving it the ol' college try there but no, abortions are not murder under the law, a law which Kavanaugh must apply. The law doesn't care about your feelings.

due to the Supreme Court

[Anonymous]

This is a tawdry tale, and seems 100% politically motivated. If the story is 100% true, BK is guilty of sexual assault, and his nomination should be withdrawn. There is now so much nuance in the sexual-assault definition, from an unwanted kiss to a drunken, grinding hug, to outright rape, that the line cannot be reasonably drawn.

My guess is the accuser and accused and witness will be heard this week or next and the Committee will report to the full Senate either pro or con, and the full Senate will vote before the SC term begins Oct 1.

Several outcomes:

The story is 100% true and she is a credible witness with no political axe to grind, and the other witness backs up her story, and BK is not credible. Then his nomination will be pulled or go down on the Senate floor.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness is not supportive either way, but she is credible and apolitical. Then I still think he is defeated.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, but she is credible and apolitical. Then I think he is confirmed, but narrowly.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, it comes out that she and her lawyer are highly political, and some of the Feinstein machinations are exposed publicly. Then I think he is confirmed unanimously by the Republican majority, with some red-state Democratic support as well.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, she and her lawyer have a political axe to grind, and there are no contemporaneous witnesses from 35 years ago and no other women have come forward and BK’s female-letter support increases, there are inconsistencies in her story and overall recollection (along with her therapist’s story), then I think she may be perceived as a Cheryl Mangrum (Duke lacrosse farce) or “Jackie” (Rolling Stone hoax, Haven Monaghan) and she loses all credibility, and he is confirmed with over 60 votes.

It is so sad that we have come to this moment politically, with so much animosity on both sides. Recall that Justice Scalia was confirmed unanimously to the SC just 32 years ago (98-0!) before Ted Kennedy delivered his infamous Bork speech in 1987 that initiated the divisiveness. Consider also that this is a Trump nomination; if BK were Obama’s pick, he’d be swiftly confirmed.

A final irony is that BK is slightly right-of center, and Merrick Garland was slightly left-of-center and they agreed on a lot.

[Anonymous]

Could tide be turning? Republican startegist who was thrilled with Kavanaugh's nomination is asking him to withdraw in light of this accusation...

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-should-withdraw-his-nomination-good-supreme-court-country-ncna910221

When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, I was thrilled. The judge has a resume that makes him unquestionably qualified to sit on the highest court in the land.

Further, I have found the attacks on him made by Democrats until now to be unfounded or pure spectacle made by politicians engaging in theatrics simply because they knew there were cameras on.

The sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford are different: After reading them, I can no longer support Kavanaugh’s nomination and have concluded that for the good of the country, he must withdraw.

But the political shenanigans around Kavanaugh's nomination do not give us a pass to take Ford’s allegation of attempted sexual assault lightly.

This entire sad ordeal is reminiscent of a scene 27 years ago when Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. While Americans were split on whether or not to believe Hill that Thomas sexually harassed her and he was ultimately confirmed, the accusations follow Thomas to this day — and Ford’s allegations will follow Kavanaugh, too.

Were the Senate to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, a large portion of the American people would likely view him as illegitimate and challenge the validity of his appointment because of Ford’s accusations. Others, like me, would feel uncertain that his was a worthwhile appointment.

Such a situation is not healthy for our republic.

This guy is not a never-trumper. I am glad to see someone in GOP is putting country over party for at least one time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a tawdry tale, and seems 100% politically motivated. If the story is 100% true, BK is guilty of sexual assault, and his nomination should be withdrawn. There is now so much nuance in the sexual-assault definition, from an unwanted kiss to a drunken, grinding hug, to outright rape, that the line cannot be reasonably drawn.

My guess is the accuser and accused and witness will be heard this week or next and the Committee will report to the full Senate either pro or con, and the full Senate will vote before the SC term begins Oct 1.

Several outcomes:

The story is 100% true and she is a credible witness with no political axe to grind, and the other witness backs up her story, and BK is not credible. Then his nomination will be pulled or go down on the Senate floor.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness is not supportive either way, but she is credible and apolitical. Then I still think he is defeated.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, but she is credible and apolitical. Then I think he is confirmed, but narrowly.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, it comes out that she and her lawyer are highly political, and some of the Feinstein machinations are exposed publicly. Then I think he is confirmed unanimously by the Republican majority, with some red-state Democratic support as well.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, she and her lawyer have a political axe to grind, and there are no contemporaneous witnesses from 35 years ago and no other women have come forward and BK’s female-letter support increases, there are inconsistencies in her story and overall recollection (along with her therapist’s story), then I think she may be perceived as a Cheryl Mangrum (Duke lacrosse farce) or “Jackie” (Rolling Stone hoax, Haven Monaghan) and she loses all credibility, and he is confirmed with over 60 votes.

It is so sad that we have come to this moment politically, with so much animosity on both sides. Recall that Justice Scalia was confirmed unanimously to the SC just 32 years ago (98-0!) before Ted Kennedy delivered his infamous Bork speech in 1987 that initiated the divisiveness. Consider also that this is a Trump nomination; if BK were Obama’s pick, he’d be swiftly confirmed.

A final irony is that BK is slightly right-of center, and Merrick Garland was slightly left-of-center and they agreed on a lot.

Could not read past the bolded. All of what you described is sexual assault. Next.

[Anonymous]

Republicans are fools if they use "Anita Hill" tactics on this woman. If they do, it won't be a blue wave but a blue tsunami of women voting for Dems in every state!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A final irony is that BK is slightly right-of center, and Merrick Garland was slightly left-of-center and they agreed on a lot.

BK is "slightly right-of-center" ? You are absolutely kidding yourself. He's to the right of Gorsuch and Scalia. He's another Thomas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are fools if they use "Anita Hill" tactics on this woman. If they do, it won't be a blue wave but a blue tsunami of women voting for Dems in every state!

And you'd think they'd have learned from the Roy Moore scandal. An outright denial and attempt to smear the accuser, when that accuser(s) is credible, is the worse thing you can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a tawdry tale, and seems 100% politically motivated. If the story is 100% true, BK is guilty of sexual assault, and his nomination should be withdrawn. There is now so much nuance in the sexual-assault definition, from an unwanted kiss to a drunken, grinding hug, to outright rape, that the line cannot be reasonably drawn.

My guess is the accuser and accused and witness will be heard this week or next and the Committee will report to the full Senate either pro or con, and the full Senate will vote before the SC term begins Oct 1.

Several outcomes:

The story is 100% true and she is a credible witness with no political axe to grind, and the other witness backs up her story, and BK is not credible. Then his nomination will be pulled or go down on the Senate floor.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness is not supportive either way, but she is credible and apolitical. Then I still think he is defeated.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, but she is credible and apolitical. Then I think he is confirmed, but narrowly.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, it comes out that she and her lawyer are highly political, and some of the Feinstein machinations are exposed publicly. Then I think he is confirmed unanimously by the Republican majority, with some red-state Democratic support as well.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, she and her lawyer have a political axe to grind, and there are no contemporaneous witnesses from 35 years ago and no other women have come forward and BK’s female-letter support increases, there are inconsistencies in her story and overall recollection (along with her therapist’s story), then I think she may be perceived as a Cheryl Mangrum (Duke lacrosse farce) or “Jackie” (Rolling Stone hoax, Haven Monaghan) and she loses all credibility, and he is confirmed with over 60 votes.

It is so sad that we have come to this moment politically, with so much animosity on both sides. Recall that Justice Scalia was confirmed unanimously to the SC just 32 years ago (98-0!) before Ted Kennedy delivered his infamous Bork speech in 1987 that initiated the divisiveness. Consider also that this is a Trump nomination; if BK were Obama’s pick, he’d be swiftly confirmed.

A final irony is that BK is slightly right-of center, and Merrick Garland was slightly left-of-center and they agreed on a lot.

I don't think it's politically motivated at all.

Had she been a conservative or he a liberal, I still think she would have come forward.

We don't want jerks on the Supreme Court. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a tawdry tale, and seems 100% politically motivated. If the story is 100% true, BK is guilty of sexual assault, and his nomination should be withdrawn. There is now so much nuance in the sexual-assault definition, from an unwanted kiss to a drunken, grinding hug, to outright rape, that the line cannot be reasonably drawn.

My guess is the accuser and accused and witness will be heard this week or next and the Committee will report to the full Senate either pro or con, and the full Senate will vote before the SC term begins Oct 1.

Several outcomes:

The story is 100% true and she is a credible witness with no political axe to grind, and the other witness backs up her story, and BK is not credible. Then his nomination will be pulled or go down on the Senate floor.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness is not supportive either way, but she is credible and apolitical. Then I still think he is defeated.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, but she is credible and apolitical. Then I think he is confirmed, but narrowly.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, it comes out that she and her lawyer are highly political, and some of the Feinstein machinations are exposed publicly. Then I think he is confirmed unanimously by the Republican majority, with some red-state Democratic support as well.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, she and her lawyer have a political axe to grind, and there are no contemporaneous witnesses from 35 years ago and no other women have come forward and BK’s female-letter support increases, there are inconsistencies in her story and overall recollection (along with her therapist’s story), then I think she may be perceived as a Cheryl Mangrum (Duke lacrosse farce) or “Jackie” (Rolling Stone hoax, Haven Monaghan) and she loses all credibility, and he is confirmed with over 60 votes.

It is so sad that we have come to this moment politically, with so much animosity on both sides. Recall that Justice Scalia was confirmed unanimously to the SC just 32 years ago (98-0!) before Ted Kennedy delivered his infamous Bork speech in 1987 that initiated the divisiveness. Consider also that this is a Trump nomination; if BK were Obama’s pick, he’d be swiftly confirmed.

A final irony is that BK is slightly right-of center, and Merrick Garland was slightly left-of-center and they agreed on a lot.

BK would never have been Obama's pick, because ideology aside, he has too many paper trail/sticking issues that would have been vetted out long before his nomination. That's even before these sexual assault allegations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could tide be turning? Republican startegist who was thrilled with Kavanaugh's nomination is asking him to withdraw in light of this accusation...

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-should-withdraw-his-nomination-good-supreme-court-country-ncna910221

When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, I was thrilled. The judge has a resume that makes him unquestionably qualified to sit on the highest court in the land.

Further, I have found the attacks on him made by Democrats until now to be unfounded or pure spectacle made by politicians engaging in theatrics simply because they knew there were cameras on.

The sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford are different: After reading them, I can no longer support Kavanaugh’s nomination and have concluded that for the good of the country, he must withdraw.

But the political shenanigans around Kavanaugh's nomination do not give us a pass to take Ford’s allegation of attempted sexual assault lightly.

This entire sad ordeal is reminiscent of a scene 27 years ago when Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. While Americans were split on whether or not to believe Hill that Thomas sexually harassed her and he was ultimately confirmed, the accusations follow Thomas to this day — and Ford’s allegations will follow Kavanaugh, too.

Were the Senate to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, a large portion of the American people would likely view him as illegitimate and challenge the validity of his appointment because of Ford’s accusations. Others, like me, would feel uncertain that his was a worthwhile appointment.

Such a situation is not healthy for our republic.

This guy is not a never-trumper. I am glad to see someone in GOP is putting country over party for at least one time!

Hmm, this plus Kelly Anne Conway saying the accuser "should be heard" strikes me as odd. Why would the Rs cave so easily on this? KellyAnne has always dismissed Trump's accusers. And even I as a very liberal woman don't think Kavanaugh should be withdrawn solely based on this woman's unsubstantiated claim. There's a lot I don't like about him but we can't have mere allegations precluding people from jobs or appointments.

Now if a number of women come out with similar ta;es, suggesting a pattern of behavior, that's another story....

[Anonymous]

If Kavanaugh does not get confirmed, there will never be another man appointed to the SC.

[Anonymous]

very convenient for her not to remember when it happened--makes it almost impossible for Kavanaugh to prove he didn't do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a tawdry tale, and seems 100% politically motivated. If the story is 100% true, BK is guilty of sexual assault, and his nomination should be withdrawn. There is now so much nuance in the sexual-assault definition, from an unwanted kiss to a drunken, grinding hug, to outright rape, that the line cannot be reasonably drawn.

My guess is the accuser and accused and witness will be heard this week or next and the Committee will report to the full Senate either pro or con, and the full Senate will vote before the SC term begins Oct 1.

Several outcomes:

The story is 100% true and she is a credible witness with no political axe to grind, and the other witness backs up her story, and BK is not credible. Then his nomination will be pulled or go down on the Senate floor.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness is not supportive either way, but she is credible and apolitical. Then I still think he is defeated.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, but she is credible and apolitical. Then I think he is confirmed, but narrowly.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, it comes out that she and her lawyer are highly political, and some of the Feinstein machinations are exposed publicly. Then I think he is confirmed unanimously by the Republican majority, with some red-state Democratic support as well.

The story is “he-said, she-said,” the witness supports BK’s story, she and her lawyer have a political axe to grind, and there are no contemporaneous witnesses from 35 years ago and no other women have come forward and BK’s female-letter support increases, there are inconsistencies in her story and overall recollection (along with her therapist’s story), then I think she may be perceived as a Cheryl Mangrum (Duke lacrosse farce) or “Jackie” (Rolling Stone hoax, Haven Monaghan) and she loses all credibility, and he is confirmed with over 60 votes.

It is so sad that we have come to this moment politically, with so much animosity on both sides. Recall that Justice Scalia was confirmed unanimously to the SC just 32 years ago (98-0!) before Ted Kennedy delivered his infamous Bork speech in 1987 that initiated the divisiveness. Consider also that this is a Trump nomination; if BK were Obama’s pick, he’d be swiftly confirmed.

A final irony is that BK is slightly right-of center, and Merrick Garland was slightly left-of-center and they agreed on a lot.

BK would never have been Obama's pick, because ideology aside, he has too many paper trail/sticking issues that would have been vetted out long before his nomination. That's even before these sexual assault allegations.

We all know why Kavanaugh got the nomination. There were plenty of Republican judges who were reliable anti-Roe. Not as many who seemed ready to block attempts to bring Trump to justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could tide be turning? Republican startegist who was thrilled with Kavanaugh's nomination is asking him to withdraw in light of this accusation...

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-should-withdraw-his-nomination-good-supreme-court-country-ncna910221

When President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, I was thrilled. The judge has a resume that makes him unquestionably qualified to sit on the highest court in the land.

Further, I have found the attacks on him made by Democrats until now to be unfounded or pure spectacle made by politicians engaging in theatrics simply because they knew there were cameras on.

The sexual assault allegations by Christine Blasey Ford are different: After reading them, I can no longer support Kavanaugh’s nomination and have concluded that for the good of the country, he must withdraw.

But the political shenanigans around Kavanaugh's nomination do not give us a pass to take Ford’s allegation of attempted sexual assault lightly.

This entire sad ordeal is reminiscent of a scene 27 years ago when Clarence Thomas was accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill. While Americans were split on whether or not to believe Hill that Thomas sexually harassed her and he was ultimately confirmed, the accusations follow Thomas to this day — and Ford’s allegations will follow Kavanaugh, too.

Were the Senate to confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, a large portion of the American people would likely view him as illegitimate and challenge the validity of his appointment because of Ford’s accusations. Others, like me, would feel uncertain that his was a worthwhile appointment.

Such a situation is not healthy for our republic.

This guy is not a never-trumper. I am glad to see someone in GOP is putting country over party for at least one time!

Hmm, this plus Kelly Anne Conway saying the accuser "should be heard" strikes me as odd. Why would the Rs cave so easily on this? KellyAnne has always dismissed Trump's accusers. And even I as a very liberal woman don't think Kavanaugh should be withdrawn solely based on this woman's unsubstantiated claim. There's a lot I don't like about him but we can't have mere allegations precluding people from jobs or appointments.

Now if a number of women come out with similar ta;es, suggesting a pattern of behavior, that's another story....

Do you think she is lying? If she cannot be substantiated and yet if you believe she is telling the truth, Kavanaugh is not owed a SC judgeship by the country. He is not being charged with attempted rape, but should not be elevated to the highest judge position with this information. If I were interviewing a candidate for a mere software developer position and I get a letter from a woman like this, who would risk publicly testifying the ordeal, I would reject the candidate in a heartbeat. Why do we rush Kavanaugh's appointment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Kavanaugh does not get confirmed, there will never be another man appointed to the SC.

Well, there have been 113 of them and only four women.