Kavanaugh Accuser reveals her Identity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It actually does. I can remember minor things in college where a guy was grabby and drunk - who cares? But that incident I remember, along with the one my freshman year in college where two townies tried to lock me in my dorm room. My friend Rusty heard through the walls and stopped it cold. When you are in danger, you remember. But then I wasn’t drunk both times, etc.

No it doesn't. That's just you. I had two incidents happen to me, one when I was a tween, and the other in college. I remember some things in great detail, including the people involved, probably because these were etched in my mind by fear. But there's a lot of stuff I don't remember: what happened around the event, the date or time, or what I said exactly to whom about them. For the earlier one I don't even remember the time of year or exactly what age I was.


The fact is that if you don't think anything can be done about what happened to you, you're not going to keep track of exact details so that you can write a memoir 30 years later in case your assailant becomes famous. On the contrary, you just pick up the pieces and move on and try to put the awful memories past you.

If you don't remember the details, and she doesn't remember the details, then crucifying someone on "the details are hazy" is BS. Everything else is subject to your hazy mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next Dem move - no public testimony because she’s distraught. Wait for it

Her attorney already said she would testify. Stop making things up.

+1. It’s Grassley and other Rs who want this taken care of with phone calls instead of public hearings.

Of course. Republicans don't want a credible woman talking about sexual assault right before midterms. Just draws further attention to how they've done nothing to reign in their groper-in-chief.

Bingo.

“The real problem — and a much more severe one — is that if credible accusations of sexual assault are disqualifying, then the fact that more than a dozen women have leveled credible accusations against Donald Trump disqualify him from the presidency.

Republicans have decided that Trump can’t be held accountable for anything — ranging from the alleged groping of Jill Hart, to creepy peeping at teenage beauty pageant contestants, to the numerous acts of grand and petty financial corruption that he continues to be involved with as president of the United States. And now the party is no longer in much of a position to hold anyone accountable for anything.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/17/17869978/kavanaugh-trump-sexual-assault

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It actually does. I can remember minor things in college where a guy was grabby and drunk - who cares? But that incident I remember, along with the one my freshman year in college where two townies tried to lock me in my dorm room. My friend Rusty heard through the walls and stopped it cold. When you are in danger, you remember. But then I wasn’t drunk both times, etc.

No it doesn't. That's just you. I had two incidents happen to me, one when I was a tween, and the other in college. I remember some things in great detail, including the people involved, probably because these were etched in my mind by fear. But there's a lot of stuff I don't remember: what happened around the event, the date or time, or what I said exactly to whom about them. For the earlier one I don't even remember the time of year or exactly what age I was.


The fact is that if you don't think anything can be done about what happened to you, you're not going to keep track of exact details so that you can write a memoir 30 years later in case your assailant becomes famous. On the contrary, you just pick up the pieces and move on and try to put the awful memories past you.

If you don't remember the details, and she doesn't remember the details, then crucifying someone on "the details are hazy" is BS. Everything else is subject to your hazy mind.

The key details are not hazy in Ford's account. And the fact that she has recounted this to her friends, husband, and therapist - all well before BK was nominated - further adds to the credibility. Her credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Next Dem move - no public testimony because she’s distraught. Wait for it

Her attorney already said she would testify. Stop making things up.

+1. It’s Grassley and other Rs who want this taken care of with phone calls instead of public hearings.

Of course. Republicans don't want a credible woman talking about sexual assault right before midterms. Just draws further attention to how they've done nothing to reign in their groper-in-chief.

Bingo.

“The real problem — and a much more severe one — is that if credible accusations of sexual assault are disqualifying, then the fact that more than a dozen women have leveled credible accusations against Donald Trump disqualify him from the presidency.

Republicans have decided that Trump can’t be held accountable for anything — ranging from the alleged groping of Jill Hart, to creepy peeping at teenage beauty pageant contestants, to the numerous acts of grand and petty financial corruption that he continues to be involved with as president of the United States. And now the party is no longer in much of a position to hold anyone accountable for anything.”
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/17/17869978/kavanaugh-trump-sexual-assault

+1 This is the GOP's day of reckoning. Family values party? Or party of "control over woman's bodies trumps all other aspects of women's safety."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She can’t even say what YEAR this allegedly took place in! Give me a break!

He is denying being at that party, even though she hasn't provided a date. I guess he was either black-out drunk or wasn't at ANY party.

[Anonymous]

I am praying that republicans do not withdraw the nomination and try to ram it through blaming Dr. Ford and trying to blame her of faulty memory during public hearing, move the confirmation to full senate voting...and then more victims come out making Kavanaugh withdraw.

Remember Dr. Johnny... GOP will never learn to accept mistake and Trump wants Kavanaugh in the bench to protect himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can’t even say what YEAR this allegedly took place in! Give me a break!

The point is, she may or may not be telling the truth. We don’t have time to figure it out. Kavanaugh is expendable and if there are other reliable conservatives who we can confirm more easily, then we absolutely need to do so. This is not the time for President Trump or Orrin Hatch to stick it to the MeToo movement. Who cares. Just move on. Even if there is a 90% chance that they will confirm Kavanaugh versus a 100% chance for the female judge from Indiana or another reliable conservative, we cannot take the risk. We are talking about the next 40 years of Supreme Court precedent. This is not the time for stubbornness!

Why not? The Thursday deadline is totally artificial. McConnell held Saclia's seat for more than a year. What is a few days to make sure they get it right here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can’t even say what YEAR this allegedly took place in! Give me a break!

The point is, she may or may not be telling the truth. We don’t have time to figure it out. Kavanaugh is expendable and if there are other reliable conservatives who we can confirm more easily, then we absolutely need to do so. This is not the time for President Trump or Orrin Hatch to stick it to the MeToo movement. Who cares. Just move on. Even if there is a 90% chance that they will confirm Kavanaugh versus a 100% chance for the female judge from Indiana or another reliable conservative, we cannot take the risk. We are talking about the next 40 years of Supreme Court precedent. This is not the time for stubbornness!

Why not? The Thursday deadline is totally artificial. McConnell held Saclia's seat for more than a year. What is a few days to make sure they get it right here?

PP is worried that democracy will occur and that her party will no longer be in control come midterms! Must steal that Supreme Court seat at all costs!

[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

Spoken as only one who has never been a victim could speak. It happens to boys too, by the way. Happened to me when I was 5 or so. I remember the person and what he did, but I would never be able to tell you what month, day or year it was with any sort of precision. My parents were stoical about it, except when they blamed me for putting myself in that position. All too many people want to blame the victims in cases like this.

My initial reaction on hearing about the Kavanaugh allegations was skeptical, and I am a liberal Democrat. On hearing more details though and her willingness to testify against him in the face of what will surely be a very hostile crowd of white male Republicans, I find the woman accusing him very credible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can’t even say what YEAR this allegedly took place in! Give me a break!

He is denying being at that party, even though she hasn't provided a date. I guess he was either black-out drunk or wasn't at ANY party.

No not possible I did this. I never went to any parties! No sir! even though my yearbook brags about my use of kegs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can’t even say what YEAR this allegedly took place in! Give me a break!

He is denying being at that party, even though she hasn't provided a date. I guess he was either black-out drunk or wasn't at ANY party.

No not possible I did this. I never went to any parties! No sir! even though my yearbook brags about my use of kegs.

And a speech of his at Yale as an alum was regaling the audience with drunk stories.

[Anonymous]

The White House has not authorized the FBI to research this case.

What are they trying to hide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can’t even say what YEAR this allegedly took place in! Give me a break!

The point is, she may or may not be telling the truth. We don’t have time to figure it out. Kavanaugh is expendable and if there are other reliable conservatives who we can confirm more easily, then we absolutely need to do so. This is not the time for President Trump or Orrin Hatch to stick it to the MeToo movement. Who cares. Just move on. Even if there is a 90% chance that they will confirm Kavanaugh versus a 100% chance for the female judge from Indiana or another reliable conservative, we cannot take the risk. We are talking about the next 40 years of Supreme Court precedent. This is not the time for stubbornness!

Why not? The Thursday deadline is totally artificial. McConnell held Saclia's seat for more than a year. What is a few days to make sure they get it right here?

They are approaching a critical timing issue. If they don't nominate a NEW justice in the next week or two they won't be able to confirm them by the end of the year.

They have about two weeks and then they're rolling the dice on midterms. If they stick by Kavanaugh only to be looking at a guy with 10 metoo accusations and weeks of trials in a month they're going to be totally stuck with him. And likely unable to confirm him. The more time that passes, the more women get some cajones and the more testimony Blasey gives the harder its going to be to confirm.

So really they have two choices. Ram this through in the next 10 days come hell or high water or pull him right now and have Trump nominate someone new and clean as a whistle tomorrow morning that they can confirm by the end of the year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can’t even say what YEAR this allegedly took place in! Give me a break!

He is denying being at that party, even though she hasn't provided a date. I guess he was either black-out drunk or wasn't at ANY party.

No not possible I did this. I never went to any parties! No sir! even though my yearbook brags about my use of kegs.

That was Bart O'Kavanaugh. Someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She can’t even say what YEAR this allegedly took place in! Give me a break!

The point is, she may or may not be telling the truth. We don’t have time to figure it out. Kavanaugh is expendable and if there are other reliable conservatives who we can confirm more easily, then we absolutely need to do so. This is not the time for President Trump or Orrin Hatch to stick it to the MeToo movement. Who cares. Just move on. Even if there is a 90% chance that they will confirm Kavanaugh versus a 100% chance for the female judge from Indiana or another reliable conservative, we cannot take the risk. We are talking about the next 40 years of Supreme Court precedent. This is not the time for stubbornness!

Why not? The Thursday deadline is totally artificial. McConnell held Saclia's seat for more than a year. What is a few days to make sure they get it right here?

They are approaching a critical timing issue. If they don't nominate a NEW justice in the next week or two they won't be able to confirm them by the end of the year.

They have about two weeks and then they're rolling the dice on midterms. If they stick by Kavanaugh only to be looking at a guy with 10 metoo accusations and weeks of trials in a month they're going to be totally stuck with him. And likely unable to confirm him. The more time that passes, the more women get some cajones and the more testimony Blasey gives the harder its going to be to confirm.

So really they have two choices. Ram this through in the next 10 days come hell or high water or pull him right now and have Trump nominate someone new and clean as a whistle tomorrow morning that they can confirm by the end of the year.

McConnell could still get someone confirmed in the lame duck Senate session. There's no law against it. Senators are senators until their terms expire.