Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If a student accuses a teacher, counselor, school psychologist, priest, etc of inappropriate contact 35 years later, I happen to think there needs to be better recall and/or corroboration before ruining a person's reputation with only accusations.

Sure, there needs to be a legitimate investigation. You know, instead of rushing a lifetime appointment through and then having the pussy-grabber-in-chief lie about it.

AGAIN, it's a shame Senator Feinstein sat on the info until just before the voting.

Out of respect for the victim's wishes.

Then they should have been honored, and Dr. Ford shouldn't have read a prepared statement with two attorneys at her side just before the voting. A bit coincidental, no?

They weren't honored. Someone leaked the letter, and Ford identified herself only after that happened and when reporters were tracking her down. There's nothing coincidental about that, it's cause and effect. When she knew she was going to be identified either way, she decided to protect herself and take control of things as much as she could. That was the right thing for her to do.

I wish Kavanaugh had not been confirmed, but from day one when this story broke I was also unhappy that her privacy was violated like that.

Didn't she also call the Washington Post herself? That part never made sense to me if she was trying to be private. Really none of it makes sense to me. If you accuse someone of a crime, it should be to the police not a congressperson or a priest. I don't understand these crime accusations that don't get told to law enforcement.

What did she think would happen by telling people of a crime? They would just consider his character without trying to investigate? That makes no sense.

The first time she contacted WaPo, she did it through the encrypted anonymous tip line, and provided an anonymous way for someone to respond to her. A reporter did respond to her and they discussed the allegations further, but Ford didn't want to be publicly identified so the WaPo journalist kept her confidence and the story wasn't reported. Once the existence of the letter was leaked and people started digging to figure out who sent it, reporters were showing up at Ford's home and at her workplace, even grilling her about whether she was the source of the allegations in front of her students, which is wildly inappropriate. She felt it was inevitable that her name would be published eventually, so she contacted the WaPo journalist who responded to her anonymous tip and whom Ford had come to trust to tell her story.

So basically she wanted to trash his reputation with both congress and through media without being involved herself? Am I getting this right? What was the purpose of contacting them? What was the purpose of contacting congress if she didn't want to press charges? The only thing it could be was that she wanted to tarnish his reputation without actually doing an investigation.

I have asked this all along.... If she did, indeed, want to remain anonymous, what was her goal? What did she expect of Feinstein?

She addressed that already. She said she wasn't sure what she wanted to do when it started, she didn't want to make it a public thing, but she didn't feel right just letting the confirmation process go by without saying something. After the initial contact with Eshoo, Feinstein and WaPo, she went quiet and didn't authorize the release of the allegations because she wasn't comfortable with her name being made public. If the letter had never been leaked, she may never have gotten comfortable enough being identified publicly to allow the allegations to come out. Someone else forced her hand.

[Anonymous]

"she didn't want to make it a public thing, but she didn't feel right just letting the confirmation process go by without saying something"

Equals she wanted to trash his reputation to me. She wanted her words to trash his reputation enough for them not to vote for him. Plus with the Washington Post contact, she obviously wanted to make it public somehow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not know that she is keeping all of the contributions. You are speculating.

She SHOULD after what she has been put through.

Once again, as Bart O'Kavanaugh said "what comes around goes around." Keep that in the back of your silly little minds.

FACTS don’t matter to Trump supporters.

That's a pretty ironic statement in light of the many DCUM posters who think just an accusation makes something a fact.

Look. You self identify as a Trump supporter. You support a lying conman who has cheated the government out of tax revenue and thinks he can grab anyone he wants by the pu$$y. As a core belief, facts clearly don't matter to you.

Nope. I do not. I DO believe very strongly that a person's reputation shouldn't be ruined based on accusations alone.

I do strongly believe that a person’s life shouldn’t be ruined by an assault/rape.

Agree, especially if it was a minor incident like Ford alleged. Kav doesn’t deserve to have his life ruined.

[Anonymous]

Lets say the crime was stealing or embezzlement. If you don't want to press charges and have an investigation, the only other reason for reporting anything to anybody is to ruin their reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"she didn't want to make it a public thing, but she didn't feel right just letting the confirmation process go by without saying something"

Equals she wanted to trash his reputation to me. She wanted her words to trash his reputation enough for them not to vote for him. Plus with the Washington Post contact, she obviously wanted to make it public somehow.

I disagree. I don't think she knew, when this started, what her options were and wanted to know more to make a decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lets say the crime was stealing or embezzlement. If you don't want to press charges and have an investigation, the only other reason for reporting anything to anybody is to ruin their reputation.

criminals deserve to have their reputations ruined. She firmly believed he was a criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say the crime was stealing or embezzlement. If you don't want to press charges and have an investigation, the only other reason for reporting anything to anybody is to ruin their reputation.

criminals deserve to have their reputations ruined. She firmly believed he was a criminal.

Then she should have gone to law enforcement both in Montgomery County and pushed for an FBI investigation from the start.

You can't just make accusations in private or wherever about crimes without people realizing that you either want to prosecute the person or spread rumors to harm their reputation. It was one or the other. I really don't understand why the left doesn't get this basic understanding. She had two choices here. She's not a toddler. She knew what she was doing. The fact that she tried to do this anonymously from the beginning says to me she didn't want to prosecute, but just wanted to harm his reputation. Which she was able to achieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lets say the crime was stealing or embezzlement. If you don't want to press charges and have an investigation, the only other reason for reporting anything to anybody is to ruin their reputation.

+1 exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets say the crime was stealing or embezzlement. If you don't want to press charges and have an investigation, the only other reason for reporting anything to anybody is to ruin their reputation.

criminals deserve to have their reputations ruined. She firmly believed he was a criminal.

Then she should have gone to law enforcement both in Montgomery County and pushed for an FBI investigation from the start.

You can't just make accusations in private or wherever about crimes without people realizing that you either want to prosecute the person or spread rumors to harm their reputation. It was one or the other. I really don't understand why the left doesn't get this basic understanding. She had two choices here. She's not a toddler. She knew what she was doing. The fact that she tried to do this anonymously from the beginning says to me she didn't want to prosecute, but just wanted to harm his reputation. Which she was able to achieve.

Also, you aren't a criminal till you are charged and found guilty. I think she knew from the start that this would never happen.

[Anonymous]

It would have been better for Ford herself if she had not spoke out. She knows this, she's still getting death threats. Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out. It takes enormous courage for someone to do this.

The FBI had their hands tied and were not able to do a proper investigation. I they had been, this whole situation at least could have been clearer.

Moral of the whole story: report your sexual assault now, before the assaultor becomes famous. Keep notes and pictures, gather evidence, no matter how painful. Yes, you will probably be villified for reporting, whether you are male or female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would have been better for Ford herself if she had not spoke out. She knows this, she's still getting death threats. Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out. It takes enormous courage for someone to do this.

The FBI had their hands tied and were not able to do a proper investigation. I they had been, this whole situation at least could have been clearer.

Moral of the whole story: report your sexual assault now, before the assaultor becomes famous. Keep notes and pictures, gather evidence, no matter how painful. Yes, you will probably be villified for reporting, whether you are male or female.

Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out

She did this to tarnish his reputation. Look. There aren't a myriad of options when reporting crimes. You are either trying to get the person to be charged and put in jail or you are trying to tarnish their reputation regardless of the outcome. She achieved her mission.

Yes of course if you are going to come forward 36 years after the fact you need to be sure you have proof if you want the person to be found guilty. Where is all the common sense? It makes no difference how famous the person is. It makes a difference how much proof you have after 36 years. Having the FBI investigate is above and beyond what most people get in a sexual assault case especially one that long ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do not know that she is keeping all of the contributions. You are speculating.

She SHOULD after what she has been put through.

Once again, as Bart O'Kavanaugh said "what comes around goes around." Keep that in the back of your silly little minds.

FACTS don’t matter to Trump supporters.

That's a pretty ironic statement in light of the many DCUM posters who think just an accusation makes something a fact.

Look. You self identify as a Trump supporter. You support a lying conman who has cheated the government out of tax revenue and thinks he can grab anyone he wants by the pu$$y. As a core belief, facts clearly don't matter to you.

Nope. I do not. I DO believe very strongly that a person's reputation shouldn't be ruined based on accusations alone.

Same here. And there were more than just accusations against Kavanaugh.

And his life was/would have been in no way "ruined". Terminal cancer ruins people's lives. War ruins people's lives. Rape and murder and sexual assault can ruin people's lives. Not getting the Supreme Court seat isn't having your life "ruined".

November is coming. Take out the trash that nominated and confirmed this punk.

If you were accused of sexual assault and gang rape, as well as being a complete black out drunk who constantly harassed women - with no evidence - wouldn't you consider your life affected? You don't think your friends, neighbors would look at you differently? What did you DO to be accused? You must have done something. And people who didn't know you would just know you as a rapist. Your kids friends probably wouldn't be as likely to be allowed in your home. You might not be accepted in environments where there are children. Even if you had never done a single thing wrong.

It's not war. But I'd consider my life ruined if that happened to me. I certainly would no longer have the life I had before I was falsely accused.

You obviously do not believe her or find her story credible. For the millions that do believe her, it would seem that he brought this all on himself by his own choices for his own behavior.

For the people who think she (and the others - including the gang rape) is telling a factual account, any comment that Kavanaugh's life has been ruined is a minimization, since he obviously go away with so much without ever being held accountable.
For people who think what she testified to (and the other reports - including the gang rape) is not a factual account, any comment that Kavanaugh's life has not been ruined is a joke, since it's clear that being so publicly attacked will never go away.
I would hope that most of us are capable of seeing the other's side. If he is innocent, his life has been ruined. If he is guilty, while his life has been altered, it hasn't been ruined because he is only being held to some level of accountability for his actions.

I do find her story credible, in the sense that it is believable and I believe she believes what she testified to. I do not believe she testified to something that actually happened, however. You can believe something occurred and be wrong. You can even believe something horrific occurred and be wrong. You can be credible in your accounting of such an event, and still be wrong.

I also understand that her life has been forever altered just as much as his has. And both are going to be considered heros by some and villains by others. That's really unfortunate, and I wish it had been handled with more concern and respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

Exactly.

Neither does it support Ford. And that none of her witnesses remember such a gathering, or anything similar, does benefit Kavanaugh and hurt Ford.

Exactly. Ford was known as a binge drinker at Holton Arms.

And?

We will never know because it was never investigated. It certainly seens plausible. So they will both live in the shadow of uncertainty.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would have been better for Ford herself if she had not spoke out. She knows this, she's still getting death threats. Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out. It takes enormous courage for someone to do this.

The FBI had their hands tied and were not able to do a proper investigation. I they had been, this whole situation at least could have been clearer.

Moral of the whole story: report your sexual assault now, before the assaultor becomes famous. Keep notes and pictures, gather evidence, no matter how painful. Yes, you will probably be villified for reporting, whether you are male or female.

Obviously she decided to risk harm to herself and her family to speak out

She did this to tarnish his reputation. Look. There aren't a myriad of options when reporting crimes. You are either trying to get the person to be charged and put in jail or you are trying to tarnish their reputation regardless of the outcome. She achieved her mission.

Yes of course if you are going to come forward 36 years after the fact you need to be sure you have proof if you want the person to be found guilty. Where is all the common sense? It makes no difference how famous the person is. It makes a difference how much proof you have after 36 years. Having the FBI investigate is above and beyond what most people get in a sexual assault case especially one that long ago.

Most likely JUSTICE Kavanaugh (I really like the sound of that) will not press charges for false allegations. There needs to be a punishment for people who make these crazy allegations with impunity, forcing the accused to expend time and money to prove himself innocent.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/10/09/uc-davis-student-spent-12000-defending-himself-against-false-sexual-misconduct-allegation/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not remembering things, such as parties, doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because one of Ford's friends doesn't remember being with Kavanaugh 35 years ago, that in no way exonerates Kavanaugh.

Exactly.

Neither does it support Ford. And that none of her witnesses remember such a gathering, or anything similar, does benefit Kavanaugh and hurt Ford.

Exactly. Ford was known as a binge drinker at Holton Arms.

And?

We will never know because it was never investigated. It certainly seens plausible. So they will both live in the shadow of uncertainty.

When people were asking for an investigation, after the 4 named witnesses submitted statements to the Senate, several of us asked what an investigation would do. The 4 named witnesses already said they can't support Ford's statement. We were told that people might talk to FBI investigators differently than they might present information to the Senate, through their attorneys.

Ok fine, so the Senate requested permission to extend the FBI investigation, and got it. And the FBI investigated Ford's allegations. And now we're told no no no, they didn't.

My understanding is that yes, they did. They did not investigate the other allegations (Yale party, gang rape) but did officially question Ford's named witnesses.

Are you denying that happened?

I can’t believe you’re arguing that the “investigation” was anything but a sham. Go read up on what it did include and DIDN’T include so you don’t sound so clueless.