Kavanaugh vote postponed. Judiciary Committee hearing on Sexual Assault complain Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

So in your mind, women (and men) who defend the accuser’s right to be heard and not summarily dismissed and/or savaged and discredited equates to people who are jealous and hate men?

Okie dokie.

NOPE. Not what I said. I'm saying that I don't think the accused should be "savaged and discredited" either. And, yes, there have been a lot of DCUM posts on Kavanaugh threads that describe men--and Kavanaugh, in particular-- in an incredibly vile and negative way.

This may be news to you, but putting aside the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh has consistently treated women as second class citizens in his opinions. Most women don’t appreciate that. Shocking, I know.

PP here. A person's reputation, which can vary depending on the political, religious, cultural, etc. perspective of others, shouldn't be the determining factor re turning an accusation into a conviction by public opinion.

Your comprehension isn’t very good. My point was that women speak harshly of him, independent of these allegations, because he treats them as second class citizens in his judicial opinions. He was very unpopular irrespective of these allegations.

What are you talking about, "second class citizens"? Examples and links, please?
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys. The hyperbole on this thread is absurd. He isn't being "convicted," "indicted," or "stoned to death." At most, he's just not getting a particularly prestigious job. Spare your tears.

Wrong. He is now an "attempted rapist" in the eyes of many - those of you who refuse to understand that this is a "he said / she said" situation. He is "guilty" in the court of public opinion, with absolutely no evidence and no trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys. The hyperbole on this thread is absurd. He isn't being "convicted," "indicted," or "stoned to death." At most, he's just not getting a particularly prestigious job. Spare your tears.

At most, his reputation is deliberately being destroyed, and his wife is being humiliated in the process, because liberals don't want him to have a job.

In addition, Democrats are making double-damn sure that Trump has a really hard time finding ANY Supreme Court nominee unless THEY pre-approve, because those candidates will know that liberal Democrats will make stuff up to trash them and destroy them.

Your little word tantrum is cute.

I agree. PP must be aware of Neil Gorsuch, and of other appellate-level candidates without massive credit card debts and/or assault accusations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

So in your mind, women (and men) who defend the accuser’s right to be heard and not summarily dismissed and/or savaged and discredited equates to people who are jealous and hate men?

Okie dokie.

NOPE. Not what I said. I'm saying that I don't think the accused should be "savaged and discredited" either. And, yes, there have been a lot of DCUM posts on Kavanaugh threads that describe men--and Kavanaugh, in particular-- in an incredibly vile and negative way.

This may be news to you, but putting aside the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh has consistently treated women as second class citizens in his opinions. Most women don’t appreciate that. Shocking, I know.

PP here. A person's reputation, which can vary depending on the political, religious, cultural, etc. perspective of others, shouldn't be the determining factor re turning an accusation into a conviction by public opinion.

He is not getting convicted of anything. His suitability for a lifetime appointment to one of the most important jobs in the country is being determined. Character and perception counts. But even if he is found unworthy, he still has his current prestigious lifetime appointment and his girls' basketball team. Not a bad consolation prize for what could have been a life-changing mistake for him.

So you think he's innocent? No, you don't. You've convicted him of being guilty and not worthy of the appointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means the republicans are very confident about Kavanaugh't denial.

They may know the woman is lying.

Or that the public pressure/GOP-Dem pressure behind closed doors is more than it seems.

Or that they don't give a shit and know that no matter what comes out in any hearing, Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

I don't think that's right. If that was the case they would have pushed through the vote. This took them by surprise. I think some combination of Sasse, Corker, Flake, Murkowski and Collins threatened defection without a hearing and all red state Democrats said no yes without a hearing.

They're counting on her not being credible because this is really stupid if they have any intention of confirming K. A public testimony of this assault will only make it more difficult to confirm him. Watching a woman publicly verbally describe an assault will be worse than reading it.

I think they picked Monday because they think that's enough time to dig up dirt but honestly the Republicans are stupid. If they wanted to seal this up before midterms they should have either forced a vote this week or cut K loose and go for another nominee.

Republicans CAN’T cut K loose. Trump nominated him. Only Trump can pull the nomination. And TRump always, always, always, always fights back no matter what. They have to vote him down (pissed Trump base) or vote him forward (pissed women). It is lose-lose. Mitch McTurtle didn’t want K to begin with. Right now, he would do anything in his power to make him go away.

I think that there are quite a few R Senators who hope more women come forward and this nomination becomes untenable. Because they are cowards and don’t want to have to vote.

PP, you do not even have the most basic idea how government works. No one can make Trump withdraw Kavanaugh, but no one can make the Senate give him a vote.

McConnell wants, more than anything, to keep the Senate in Republican hands. If he senses that confirming Kavanaugh in the face of these allegations will turn off voters, he will simply not schedule a vote.

Without a vote, Kavanaugh would withdraw himself in order to regain some semblance of normal life.

Kavanaugh will never again have any semblance of a normal life; nor will his family. This allegation - whether true or false - has instantly turned him into a pariah.

Many high profile types recently ousted by MeToo allegations are slowly creeping back into the spotlight. Even if Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed, he will likely retain his current position, feel a little local heat, then be back to normal.

Sorry, but if this accusation is false, he will never again be "back to normal." I imagine his daughters are already being mocked and bullied, by having a "rapist" as a dad - as I'm sure many parents in this area are telling their kids. He's a marked man. At this point, doesn't matter if he did it or not - most of you have already decided he's guilty. It's sickening.

She has presented a pretty convincing narrative which includes naming people present who were actually his friends at the time. Plus, no one would make up a rape story and add an extra witness, who is friends with the alleged assailant, to the room.

I’m sorry you are having difficulty accepting this, but people are believing him to be guilty because that is what the known facts support.

Did she name someone other than Mark Judge as having been there? It's not so much that I'm having "difficulty" believing this; it's much more that NONE of us knows the truth and an otherwise innocent man has no way of defending himself. The accusation is out there and you believe it. In your mind, he's guilty. I truly hope nothing similar ever happens to your loved ones.

According to the Washington Post articles, she identified two other boys who were at the party, but not in the room.

So what? Let's say I wanted to tell people that Joe from my high school attempted to rape me. I could easily identify two of Joe's friends and claim they were there. That doesn't mean it's a truthful statement.

Did you tell a licensed physician about it a decade ago? Did you take a polygraph?

Aside from her and her lawyer's word, do you have proof of this?

Do you really think these things don’t exist? Because if that’s your position, you’re just a crazy partisan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

MRA! MRA! MAGA!

How many victims will it take for you to believe, pp?

PP here. I"m female and not a Trump supporter; but I think it's wrong to accuse, condemn, and "convict" anyone of crimes as serious as attempted rape and suffocation (i.e., murder) based on one person's uncorroborated accusation after 30+ years.

Her accusation is corroborated. There are notes from her therapist on 2012, not to mention the polygraph. She also has a successful and very credible professional and personal track record. But it takes 50 women to corroborate accusations against one man, right?

No, it's not. All you say above is stuff her lawyer claimed. You have no idea if she took a polygraph, let alone passed it. You have no idea if there are notes. You are being TOLD those things, but you have not SEEN PROOF of those things.

Pretty sure that the WP reporter was given proof of all of this. It’s called fact-checking, something you may be unfamiliar with because it isn’t practiced by Fox or Breitbart.

Like NYT fact-checked the story about Nikki Hayley and the drapes? That kind of fact-checking?

She did receive the $50,000 drapes, did she not? The State department spokesman claimed that the purchase wasn’t put in the proper context, not that the transaction did not occur. I don’t think any “proof” was offered by the State Department either. Perhaps you should get on that too.

She didn't ORDER THEM. That's why the NYT had to state that, but by then, the story was out and idiots like you believe it was Hayley. That's what the NYT wanted you to believe in the first place. That's the goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys. The hyperbole on this thread is absurd. He isn't being "convicted," "indicted," or "stoned to death." At most, he's just not getting a particularly prestigious job. Spare your tears.

At most, his reputation is deliberately being destroyed, and his wife is being humiliated in the process, because liberals don't want him to have a job.

In addition, Democrats are making double-damn sure that Trump has a really hard time finding ANY Supreme Court nominee unless THEY pre-approve, because those candidates will know that liberal Democrats will make stuff up to trash them and destroy them.

Your little word tantrum is cute.

I agree. PP must be aware of Neil Gorsuch, and of other appellate-level candidates without massive credit card debts and/or assault accusations.

Roberts and Alito say hi.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means the republicans are very confident about Kavanaugh't denial.

They may know the woman is lying.

Or that the public pressure/GOP-Dem pressure behind closed doors is more than it seems.

Or that they don't give a shit and know that no matter what comes out in any hearing, Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

I don't think that's right. If that was the case they would have pushed through the vote. This took them by surprise. I think some combination of Sasse, Corker, Flake, Murkowski and Collins threatened defection without a hearing and all red state Democrats said no yes without a hearing.

They're counting on her not being credible because this is really stupid if they have any intention of confirming K. A public testimony of this assault will only make it more difficult to confirm him. Watching a woman publicly verbally describe an assault will be worse than reading it.

I think they picked Monday because they think that's enough time to dig up dirt but honestly the Republicans are stupid. If they wanted to seal this up before midterms they should have either forced a vote this week or cut K loose and go for another nominee.

Republicans CAN’T cut K loose. Trump nominated him. Only Trump can pull the nomination. And TRump always, always, always, always fights back no matter what. They have to vote him down (pissed Trump base) or vote him forward (pissed women). It is lose-lose. Mitch McTurtle didn’t want K to begin with. Right now, he would do anything in his power to make him go away.

I think that there are quite a few R Senators who hope more women come forward and this nomination becomes untenable. Because they are cowards and don’t want to have to vote.

PP, you do not even have the most basic idea how government works. No one can make Trump withdraw Kavanaugh, but no one can make the Senate give him a vote.

McConnell wants, more than anything, to keep the Senate in Republican hands. If he senses that confirming Kavanaugh in the face of these allegations will turn off voters, he will simply not schedule a vote.

Without a vote, Kavanaugh would withdraw himself in order to regain some semblance of normal life.

Kavanaugh will never again have any semblance of a normal life; nor will his family. This allegation - whether true or false - has instantly turned him into a pariah.

Many high profile types recently ousted by MeToo allegations are slowly creeping back into the spotlight. Even if Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed, he will likely retain his current position, feel a little local heat, then be back to normal.

Sorry, but if this accusation is false, he will never again be "back to normal." I imagine his daughters are already being mocked and bullied, by having a "rapist" as a dad - as I'm sure many parents in this area are telling their kids. He's a marked man. At this point, doesn't matter if he did it or not - most of you have already decided he's guilty. It's sickening.

She has presented a pretty convincing narrative which includes naming people present who were actually his friends at the time. Plus, no one would make up a rape story and add an extra witness, who is friends with the alleged assailant, to the room.

I’m sorry you are having difficulty accepting this, but people are believing him to be guilty because that is what the known facts support.

Did she name someone other than Mark Judge as having been there? It's not so much that I'm having "difficulty" believing this; it's much more that NONE of us knows the truth and an otherwise innocent man has no way of defending himself. The accusation is out there and you believe it. In your mind, he's guilty. I truly hope nothing similar ever happens to your loved ones.

According to the Washington Post articles, she identified two other boys who were at the party, but not in the room.

So what? Let's say I wanted to tell people that Joe from my high school attempted to rape me. I could easily identify two of Joe's friends and claim they were there. That doesn't mean it's a truthful statement.

Did you tell a licensed physician about it a decade ago? Did you take a polygraph?

Aside from her and her lawyer's word, do you have proof of this?

Do you really think these things don’t exist? Because if that’s your position, you’re just a crazy partisan.

I don't know if they exist. I want to see proof that they exist and I would like to see her take another polygraph administered by a neutral party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys. The hyperbole on this thread is absurd. He isn't being "convicted," "indicted," or "stoned to death." At most, he's just not getting a particularly prestigious job. Spare your tears.

Wrong. He is now an "attempted rapist" in the eyes of many - those of you who refuse to understand that this is a "he said / she said" situation. He is "guilty" in the court of public opinion, with absolutely no evidence and no trial.

Are you assuming most Americans believe Dr. Ford, since he is “guilty?” And do you also believe most people are wrong, but you are uniquely right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means the republicans are very confident about Kavanaugh't denial.

They may know the woman is lying.

Or they’re hoping against hope no more victims emerge.

There’s already chatter about additional people.

Links? Sources? Didn't think so.

There certainly have been many rumors today. Wait and see. Quite a few posters here yesterday were insisting Professor Ford would not go public.

To bad she didn't go public years ago, when there could have been a full investigation, either implicating him or clearing his name.

Indeed, well too bad people slander and drag accusers through the mud, slut shame them, ask about what they were wearing and whether they were drinking, suggest they had it coming or deserved it, suggest they encouraged it, suggest they just wanted sex and then changed their minds afterward, to name a few. Once that changes maybe more will come forward at the time of their attacks.

Well, certainly, victims - or alleged victims - would be more believable if they would report assault immediately rather than waiting decades and expecting to be believed without any corroborating evidence. I've been teaching my daughter that if she is ever assaulted, she *must* report it immediately if we hope to get justice. Waiting only makes it that much less credible within the justice system. Sorry you don't like hearing the truth.

Are you also teaching her that you will be sympathetic to her attacker and concerned about the repercussions of any reporting on him. Because, as you point out, it may just ruin the poor boy’s reputation.

See, there's this thing that goes hand-in-hand with timely reporting of assault. It's called proof. You know, a way of verifiying that an incident actually occurred. It's something that could be very useful if women would just avail themselves of it instead of keeping it to themselves for decades and then deciding to unburden themselves.

Not sure what proof you think existed then that doesn’t now. Sexual assault allegations are almost always he said/she said cases which is why so many women are reluctant to bring them. They know there are people like you predisposed to believing the male.

I'm not at all "predisposed to believing the male". But I sure as hell would need more to go on than simply a 35 year old memory from one person, before I'd be willing to condemn anyone as guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

MRA! MRA! MAGA!

How many victims will it take for you to believe, pp?

PP here. I"m female and not a Trump supporter; but I think it's wrong to accuse, condemn, and "convict" anyone of crimes as serious as attempted rape and suffocation (i.e., murder) based on one person's uncorroborated accusation after 30+ years.

Her accusation is corroborated. There are notes from her therapist on 2012, not to mention the polygraph. She also has a successful and very credible professional and personal track record. But it takes 50 women to corroborate accusations against one man, right?

No, it's not. All you say above is stuff her lawyer claimed. You have no idea if she took a polygraph, let alone passed it. You have no idea if there are notes. You are being TOLD those things, but you have not SEEN PROOF of those things.

Pretty sure that the WP reporter was given proof of all of this. It’s called fact-checking, something you may be unfamiliar with because it isn’t practiced by Fox or Breitbart.

Like NYT fact-checked the story about Nikki Hayley and the drapes? That kind of fact-checking?

She did receive the $50,000 drapes, did she not? The State department spokesman claimed that the purchase wasn’t put in the proper context, not that the transaction did not occur. I don’t think any “proof” was offered by the State Department either. Perhaps you should get on that too.

She didn't ORDER THEM. That's why the NYT had to state that, but by then, the story was out and idiots like you believe it was Hayley. That's what the NYT wanted you to believe in the first place. That's the goal.

Given that there is a criminal probe started of some Trump administration official every few weeks ( today FEMA), it is easy to understand how this might have been misconstrued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) misogyny is alive and well in this country and B) victims of sexual assault are incredibly brave to speak out against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this woman and attempted to discredit her is really gross.

OR

Reading through some of these posts and reminded that A) feelings of jealousy and hatred of men are alive and well by many on this thread and B) victims of sexual assault accusations (not convictions) are incredibly brave to try to defend themselves against their attackers. The way some of the PPs have attacked this man (Kavanaugh) and attempted to discredit and convict him via one woman's accusations of attempted rape and suffocation after 30+ years is really gross.

MRA! MRA! MAGA!

How many victims will it take for you to believe, pp?

PP here. I"m female and not a Trump supporter; but I think it's wrong to accuse, condemn, and "convict" anyone of crimes as serious as attempted rape and suffocation (i.e., murder) based on one person's uncorroborated accusation after 30+ years.

Her accusation is corroborated. There are notes from her therapist on 2012, not to mention the polygraph. She also has a successful and very credible professional and personal track record. But it takes 50 women to corroborate accusations against one man, right?

No, it's not. All you say above is stuff her lawyer claimed. You have no idea if she took a polygraph, let alone passed it. You have no idea if there are notes. You are being TOLD those things, but you have not SEEN PROOF of those things.

Pretty sure that the WP reporter was given proof of all of this. It’s called fact-checking, something you may be unfamiliar with because it isn’t practiced by Fox or Breitbart.

Like NYT fact-checked the story about Nikki Hayley and the drapes? That kind of fact-checking?

+1
And let's not forget Rolling Stone's stellar job fact-checking the UVA non-story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means the republicans are very confident about Kavanaugh't denial.

They may know the woman is lying.

Or that the public pressure/GOP-Dem pressure behind closed doors is more than it seems.

Or that they don't give a shit and know that no matter what comes out in any hearing, Kavanaugh will be confirmed.

I don't think that's right. If that was the case they would have pushed through the vote. This took them by surprise. I think some combination of Sasse, Corker, Flake, Murkowski and Collins threatened defection without a hearing and all red state Democrats said no yes without a hearing.

They're counting on her not being credible because this is really stupid if they have any intention of confirming K. A public testimony of this assault will only make it more difficult to confirm him. Watching a woman publicly verbally describe an assault will be worse than reading it.

I think they picked Monday because they think that's enough time to dig up dirt but honestly the Republicans are stupid. If they wanted to seal this up before midterms they should have either forced a vote this week or cut K loose and go for another nominee.

Republicans CAN’T cut K loose. Trump nominated him. Only Trump can pull the nomination. And TRump always, always, always, always fights back no matter what. They have to vote him down (pissed Trump base) or vote him forward (pissed women). It is lose-lose. Mitch McTurtle didn’t want K to begin with. Right now, he would do anything in his power to make him go away.

I think that there are quite a few R Senators who hope more women come forward and this nomination becomes untenable. Because they are cowards and don’t want to have to vote.

PP, you do not even have the most basic idea how government works. No one can make Trump withdraw Kavanaugh, but no one can make the Senate give him a vote.

McConnell wants, more than anything, to keep the Senate in Republican hands. If he senses that confirming Kavanaugh in the face of these allegations will turn off voters, he will simply not schedule a vote.

Without a vote, Kavanaugh would withdraw himself in order to regain some semblance of normal life.

Kavanaugh will never again have any semblance of a normal life; nor will his family. This allegation - whether true or false - has instantly turned him into a pariah.

Many high profile types recently ousted by MeToo allegations are slowly creeping back into the spotlight. Even if Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed, he will likely retain his current position, feel a little local heat, then be back to normal.

Sorry, but if this accusation is false, he will never again be "back to normal." I imagine his daughters are already being mocked and bullied, by having a "rapist" as a dad - as I'm sure many parents in this area are telling their kids. He's a marked man. At this point, doesn't matter if he did it or not - most of you have already decided he's guilty. It's sickening.

She has presented a pretty convincing narrative which includes naming people present who were actually his friends at the time. Plus, no one would make up a rape story and add an extra witness, who is friends with the alleged assailant, to the room.

I’m sorry you are having difficulty accepting this, but people are believing him to be guilty because that is what the known facts support.

Did she name someone other than Mark Judge as having been there? It's not so much that I'm having "difficulty" believing this; it's much more that NONE of us knows the truth and an otherwise innocent man has no way of defending himself. The accusation is out there and you believe it. In your mind, he's guilty. I truly hope nothing similar ever happens to your loved ones.

According to the Washington Post articles, she identified two other boys who were at the party, but not in the room.

So what? Let's say I wanted to tell people that Joe from my high school attempted to rape me. I could easily identify two of Joe's friends and claim they were there. That doesn't mean it's a truthful statement.

Did you tell a licensed physician about it a decade ago? Did you take a polygraph?

Aside from her and her lawyer's word, do you have proof of this?

Do you really think these things don’t exist? Because if that’s your position, you’re just a crazy partisan.

I don't know if they exist. I want to see proof that they exist and I would like to see her take another polygraph administered by a neutral party.

I agree. The FBI ought to be conducting interviews of Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge, and anyone else Ford recollects was at the party. The FBI ought to conduct polygraphs as well.

The White House could ask for this, but they aren't. Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys. The hyperbole on this thread is absurd. He isn't being "convicted," "indicted," or "stoned to death." At most, he's just not getting a particularly prestigious job. Spare your tears.

Wrong. He is now an "attempted rapist" in the eyes of many - those of you who refuse to understand that this is a "he said / she said" situation. He is "guilty" in the court of public opinion, with absolutely no evidence and no trial.

There is evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This means the republicans are very confident about Kavanaugh't denial.

They may know the woman is lying.

Or they’re hoping against hope no more victims emerge.

There’s already chatter about additional people.

Links? Sources? Didn't think so.

There certainly have been many rumors today. Wait and see. Quite a few posters here yesterday were insisting Professor Ford would not go public.

To bad she didn't go public years ago, when there could have been a full investigation, either implicating him or clearing his name.

Indeed, well too bad people slander and drag accusers through the mud, slut shame them, ask about what they were wearing and whether they were drinking, suggest they had it coming or deserved it, suggest they encouraged it, suggest they just wanted sex and then changed their minds afterward, to name a few. Once that changes maybe more will come forward at the time of their attacks.

Well, certainly, victims - or alleged victims - would be more believable if they would report assault immediately rather than waiting decades and expecting to be believed without any corroborating evidence. I've been teaching my daughter that if she is ever assaulted, she *must* report it immediately if we hope to get justice. Waiting only makes it that much less credible within the justice system. Sorry you don't like hearing the truth.

Are you also teaching her that you will be sympathetic to her attacker and concerned about the repercussions of any reporting on him. Because, as you point out, it may just ruin the poor boy’s reputation.

See, there's this thing that goes hand-in-hand with timely reporting of assault. It's called proof. You know, a way of verifiying that an incident actually occurred. It's something that could be very useful if women would just avail themselves of it instead of keeping it to themselves for decades and then deciding to unburden themselves.

Not sure what proof you think existed then that doesn’t now. Sexual assault allegations are almost always he said/she said cases which is why so many women are reluctant to bring them. They know there are people like you predisposed to believing the male.

NP. I'm a woman and predisposed to believe a person with some actual information. If you can't even remember the year, I'm going to be suspicious if you remembered anything correctly at all.

THIS. Thank you.