Kavanaugh Accuser reveals her Identity

[Anonymous]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-happens-to-brett-kavanaughs-nomination-now/

What other details come out? This is still a developing story, which makes predicting what Senate Republicans will do basically a fool’s game. For example, what will Kavanaugh say next? Are there other women with similar accusations? A second woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct would likely sink his nomination. Yes, Trump won the White House despite numerous accusations against him, but other political figures have faced consequences.

What do the Republicans controlling the nomination process do? Ultimately, only two people have the singular power to end Kavanaugh’s nomination: Mitch McConnell and Trump. McConnell could decline to take it to the Senate floor. Trump could withdraw it. And you could argue that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley should also be in that category. If Grassley indicated that he was uncomfortable with bringing Kavanaugh’s confirmation to a vote, I think that would push McConnell toward reconsidering it.

Grassley and the White House have already said they are standing behind Kavanaugh. But McConnell was dubious about the judge before Trump picked him, arguing privately that his long paper trail in the George W. Bush White House would prove problematic. McConnell is close to White House Counsel Don McGahn, a major figure in Trump’s judicial nomination strategy. Could McConnell get Trump to nominate someone else? Remember, the White House has likely already vetted other candidates.

What do the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly Sens. Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Jeff Flake of Arizona, do? The Senate Judiciary Committee has a 11-10 Republican majority. So one Republican refusing to back Kavanaugh would at least briefly stall the nomination. Flake and Sasse are regular Trump critics. The Arizona senator has already indicated that he is no longer comfortable backing Kavanaugh — at least for now — and wants a scheduled committee vote on Sept. 20 delayed. That is big. McConnell could still bring the nomination to the full Senate if it fails in the Judiciary Committee. But if Flake is a “no,” I think that might have a real impact on other potential swing senators in this process. Speaking of swing senators ….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McConnell is complaining that this was not brought up in a regular manner.

STFU McConnell, you didn't bring Garland up in a regular manner either.

McConnell is supporting the Grassley solution - conduct phone interviews outside of public light.

There is already a majority of the Committee and enough to kill the nomination that wants an open hearing.

I think McConnell knows this story is true and doesn't want an open hearing.

I will now expect this nomination be withdrawn. They should have done it before both Kavanaugh and Trump doubled down today. They will both look weak, and frankly, Kavanaugh likely should resign his DC Circuit Court seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has answered this question:
Why didn't Feinstein raise this with Kavanaugh when she met with him?

This was written by a playwright. Just like the opening session. Totally choreographed.

How in the world can Kavanaugh defend himself? No time. No place. No date--not even a year?

He knows he never did this. That is what he has said. What do you expect from him?

For those of you who say she should be believed........how would you feel if this were you, your husband, your son, your father?

Dems have set up a "no defense possible" situation.

Because the victim asked to remain anonymous. This has been explained a hundred times in this thread.

But when it was brought up at the 11th hour, she had still asked to remain anonymous. That didn't change from the day in July to the day it become known.

Brought up at the 11th hour? You mean like how the White House provided those 40,000 pages of documents from his time with the Bush Administration?

+1 How was it ok that the White House provided this documentation only the night before the hearings started so no one could read it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has answered this question:
Why didn't Feinstein raise this with Kavanaugh when she met with him?

This was written by a playwright. Just like the opening session. Totally choreographed.

How in the world can Kavanaugh defend himself? No time. No place. No date--not even a year?

He knows he never did this. That is what he has said. What do you expect from him?

For those of you who say she should be believed........how would you feel if this were you, your husband, your son, your father?

Dems have set up a "no defense possible" situation.

Because the victim asked to remain anonymous. This has been explained a hundred times in this thread.

not sufficient reason in this kind of situation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but better if we can maintain pressure on the several vulnerable Dem Senators in red districts to vote to confirm. After the election, that pressure goes away.

[Anonymous]

I am sure there are more than a few Republicans among the hundreds of Holton alumni who reportedly have signed a letter supporting the accuser.

[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!

I was groped viciously in my crotch by a man in a crowded space sometime in the 90’s. Horrible. Was too shocked to even yell out at the time and never told anyone or did anything about it. I remember exactly how it happened, the space it happened in, and my feeling of shock and dismay, but I couldn’t tell you the exact year or even month or many other details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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....

How many credible accounts of attempted rape are sufficient before you think the accuser should be heard before a man is appointed to the Sup Ct for the rest of his life?

+1, I understand how multiple independent accusations can lend credibility to one another, but if there's a chance he did this (and her account seems credible), why should he even get the chance to be a SCOTUS justice?

I’m with you PP, but I think there are a lot of people who will refuse to fully believe one accuser until several more come forward. I am hoping that if there are other women out there, that they will bravely and quickly come forward.

No, I think you can believe one accuser without needing more accusers. But the number goes to whether it is truly a character issues or something less. With BK, we have no evidence now that he is a regular abuser of women. He is not Bill, Weinstein, Cosby, C Rose, Matt L, Senator K. Here, we have one incident in high school, and we do not know what really happened. No rape took place, no cloths were taken off. Maybe, it was attempted assault, but we do not know what really happened in that room. Something happened, at least in her eyes, given the apparent trauma she has experienced. That is very unfortunate. But she does not recall many of the details, like where or when. BK was apparently very drunk.

[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?

My point exactly. The Dems have all the time in the world, and have every incentive to draw this out. The Republicans do not, because we need to confirm a Justice by November, in case the House shifts. That’s why I advocate dumping Brett and moving on to the next safer choice.

Why do you need to confirm a Justice so fast? Why can’t you wait 14 months like last time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My point exactly. The Dems have all the time in the world, and have every incentive to draw this out. The Republicans do not, because we need to confirm a Justice by November, in case the House shifts. That’s why I advocate dumping Brett and moving on to the next safer choice.

Why do you need to confirm a Justice so fast? Why can’t you wait 14 months like last time?

Because Republicans act fast when it suits their purposes. Just like they rammed through a tax plan without waiting for it to be reviewed for budgetary implications and now the deficit is soaring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My point exactly. The Dems have all the time in the world, and have every incentive to draw this out. The Republicans do not, because we need to confirm a Justice by November, in case the House shifts. That’s why I advocate dumping Brett and moving on to the next safer choice.

Why do you need to confirm a Justice so fast? Why can’t you wait 14 months like last time?

Because we have the votes now and can do it, that’s why. If the Dems had control of the Senate, like the Republicans did when Garland was nominated, they could and likely would stall, just like the Republicans did back then. But alas, they do not, and so cannot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surely there are more victims. Speak up, ladies.

Abusive men never have just one victim, and then suddenly turn into decent people.

So, the bully in high school never grows out of being a bully. And that mean girl at the local Catholic never grows up. BS. At this point, we have no evidence that the alleged incident reflects on BK's character. Others, such as Bill and Donald, cant say the same.

[Anonymous]

There's nothing like the comeuppance experienced when the holier-than-thou conservative gets caught with his pants down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McConnell is complaining that this was not brought up in a regular manner.

STFU McConnell, you didn't bring Garland up in a regular manner either.

McConnell is supporting the Grassley solution - conduct phone interviews outside of public light.

There is already a majority of the Committee and enough to kill the nomination that wants an open hearing.

I think McConnell knows this story is true and doesn't want an open hearing.

I will now expect this nomination be withdrawn. They should have done it before both Kavanaugh and Trump doubled down today. They will both look weak, and frankly, Kavanaugh likely should resign his DC Circuit Court seat.

They are allegations, not facts. It’s not at all clear that you know the difference.

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1041774502613528576

Holy shit. @MaeveReston, national political reporter for CNN, links Kavanaugh's alleged sexual assault to "the party culture of DC."