Kavanaugh Accuser reveals her Identity

[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 If the story is 100% true, BK is guilty of sexual assault, and his nomination should be withdrawn.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:What next Trumpsters? Defending bad men makes you despicable, more and more each day. Are you going to say it was her fault next?

Woopsie daisy. You just admitted Democrats are despicable. Have you forgotten Juanita Broderick already?

You mean the same Juanita Broderick who Trump regurgitated in 2016?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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

As has been stated, please read through the very real experiences of people on this thread alone to see that her inability to recall specific dates doesn't mean much. She recalled the general time of life, when she was around 15 years old.

The year and possibly the season of the year--not the date--should not be elusive.

Have you been sexually assaulted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man. She is very credible.

Have you ever known or been a high school girl? Here's a little secret: a story like this would have been shared contemporaneously. NOT saved for years. Had she been raped, she might not have shared, but this is the kind of story a girl would share. Hiding in the bathroom, etc.

She doesn't remember what year it was?
She doesn't remember how she left the house?

If it had happened and was that traumatic, she would have remembered.

Have you ever been sexually assaulted? How do you know how a person does or does not behave, or what they would or would not remember?

NP. Yes. And I remember every detail +40 years later.

So you do remember the year, etc?

Of course!

[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.

More recent Justices were confirmed with similar one-sided votes. The problem is that the GOP refused to hear many judicial appointments from Obama literally getting to the point where the justice system was halting due to lack of judges. Harry Reid wen nuclear and McConnel quadrupled down.

You want to restore order? First, nominate Garland immediately, right now, second, restore the 60 vote "normal order" to the Senate including the blue slip process and 3rd, get the dark money out of politics and particularly out of federal judicial appointments.

The GOP has manipulated our third branch of government with impunity and it is disgraceful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

As has been stated, please read through the very real experiences of people on this thread alone to see that her inability to recall specific dates doesn't mean much. She recalled the general time of life, when she was around 15 years old.

The year and possibly the season of the year--not the date--should not be elusive.

Have you been sexually assaulted?

I had an incident when I was about 14 with two older boys who were joking around, but then seemed to be trying to coerce me to have sex with them. At one point, one tried pushing me back on the couch. They later kicked me out of their car since I didn't have sex with them and I had to walk home--a long way from my neighborhood. (I'd actually forgotten this last detail about walking home until now.) I remember having to walk past my mom in the kitchen with a poker face, as if nothing had happened, despite being really upset, and then going in my room and just lying on my bed.

Never told anyone about this at the time. It was not as severe as what this woman is claiming happened with Kavanaugh, but still humiliating.

While I remember some details of the event, I don't remember the month or season. I just know I was a freshman or sophomore.

Bottom line, I think it's totally possible to remember some details of sexual harassment or assault clearly, while forgetting others, like the general time of year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man. She is very credible.

Have you ever known or been a high school girl? Here's a little secret: a story like this would have been shared contemporaneously. NOT saved for years. Had she been raped, she might not have shared, but this is the kind of story a girl would share. Hiding in the bathroom, etc.

She doesn't remember what year it was?
She doesn't remember how she left the house?

If it had happened and was that traumatic, she would have remembered.

Have you ever been sexually assaulted? How do you know how a person does or does not behave, or what they would or would not remember?

NP. Yes. And I remember every detail +40 years later.

So you do remember the year, etc?

Of course!

That's good, doesn't discount the experiences of those who don't remember with such specificity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

As has been stated, please read through the very real experiences of people on this thread alone to see that her inability to recall specific dates doesn't mean much. She recalled the general time of life, when she was around 15 years old.

Bull. As a victim myself, I remember it all. Around 15 years old doesn’t cut it. Unless she was drunk

[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.

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

I beg to differ. The cure for an unwanted kiss, or even an attempted kiss, used to be a hard slap across the face. The nuance has emerged since women became much more sexually active (pre-marriage) than they were formally because they had so much more to lose, pre-Roe and pre-Pill. Clearly what BK is accused of constitutes unwanted sexual assault, but I would argue even many women have experienced something similar, and it many not have traumatized many as much as the current accuser. Men stil generally pursue women in the vast majority of cases, but the signals from the pursued are markedly different than they were 50-60 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

As has been stated, please read through the very real experiences of people on this thread alone to see that her inability to recall specific dates doesn't mean much. She recalled the general time of life, when she was around 15 years old.

The year and possibly the season of the year--not the date--should not be elusive.

Have you been sexually assaulted?

I had an incident when I was about 14 with two older boys who were joking around, but then seemed to be trying to coerce me to have sex with them. At one point, one tried pushing me back on the couch. They later kicked me out of their car since I didn't have sex with them and I had to walk home--a long way from my neighborhood. (I'd actually forgotten this last detail about walking home until now.) I remember having to walk past my mom in the kitchen with a poker face, as if nothing had happened, despite being really upset, and then going in my room and just lying on my bed.

Never told anyone about this at the time. It was not as severe as what this woman is claiming happened with Kavanaugh, but still humiliating.

While I remember some details of the event, I don't remember the month or season. I just know I was a freshman or sophomore.

Bottom line, I think it's totally possible to remember some details of sexual harassment or assault clearly, while forgetting others, like the general time of year.

Agree. Something similar to Ford's accusation happened to me, and I remember the year and know what semester it was, but not what month or whose place I was at. A date can lend more credibility, but not knowing a date or even month doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's evidenced by many people's experiences.

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/NBCPolitics/status/1041751731598700544

Sen. Hatch says Kavanaugh is “honest” and “straightforward,” and he thinks woman who has brought accusation is “mixed up.”

Aide for Sen. Hatch says Hatch had just gotten off phone with Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh denied to him that he was at the high school-era party in question

.

Who is surprised that the white old GOP leader seems to be calling the woman accuser crazy!

[Anonymous]

Heck of a character witness, Kavanaugh has

https://www.washingtonian.com/2018/09/17/mark-judge-michael-judge-brett-kavanaugh-memoir/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

As has been stated, please read through the very real experiences of people on this thread alone to see that her inability to recall specific dates doesn't mean much. She recalled the general time of life, when she was around 15 years old.

Bull. As a victim myself, I remember it all. Around 15 years old doesn’t cut it. Unless she was drunk

Good for you, but your experience doesn't mean that others' will be exactly the same, nor will others' reactions/responses be exactly the same. It doesn't mean those experiences didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 Mitch McConnell warned that Kavanaugh would be the toughest of the short list to confirm. Karma is a b****.