Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For everyone who thinks K’s life is ruined, I remind you of the Duke Lacrosse case. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/duke-lacrosse-case-fantastic-lies-documentary

The moral of the story is that if you went to Landon and the person you abused was Black and poor, you can get a top lawyer, get away with it and be paid millions. If you were stupid enough to end up with a corpse in your hands, as in the UVA case, then you went to jail.

The Duke lacrosse players have fabulous careers, doting wives, etc. ten years on. Maybe they will be coaching basketball for their daughters someday in Chevy Chase, too.

Ummm. Yes, because it was proven that these accusations were false. And now it is a generally accepted belief that these men were wrongly accused to begin with. If this truth had never emerged, they would be ruined for life. Just as Kavanaugh will be if he is not able to prove that he didn't do this. See the difference???

Actually, no. I don’t. None. That is why I mention it.

Mmmmkay. I'll attempt to spell it out for you. But honestly I don't know if that will work because I can't account for lack of intelligence or critical thinking here.

Duke Lacrosse Case: Accused boys were presumed guilty due to an accusation. After months of everyone thinking they were absolute monsters, but after players were allowed to present evidence to refute their accusers claim (which was actually possible to do since the date, time, location, and witnesses at the party were all "known" variables in the accusation), the case was dropped against them because no evidence could support the claim. It is now widely believed that the Duke Lacrosse players did not commit rape against this woman as she claimed they did. (Though they're behavior and overall character was deplorable that night...100% IMO)

Kavanaugh Case: Accused judge is presumed guilty due to an accusation. He is assumed to be a monster because "I believe her" is all that is required for society to forever place this label on him. He will have no recourse or avenue by which to refute her claim because there is no time/place/witnesses/evidence named that would allow him to offer any evidence (if he had any, 36 years later!) to counter in a "prove your own innocence"-type fashion that we apparently now require as a society.

This is how the two cases are different. And why his future is ruined and will forever be marked as a sexual predator, whereas theirs was not and they will not. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Applause. Thank you for spelling all of this out for the obtuse PP. I'm incredulous that anyone would claim there is no difference in these scenarios. Kavanaugh will never get to clear his name, simply because too much time has passed to present any hard evidence exonerating him. You are so right that now we're in a "prove your own innocence" time. It's frightening, to put it mildly.

Honest question: if you were Ford and this actually did happen, would you just shut up and not come forward? If so, why?

I'm the one who wrote the above about the diff between the two cases. And your question is a good one. One that I would have seriously given huge consideration to if I were Dr. Ford. And I don't think there is a "right" answer here, but I were her and I knew this to be true, I think I would have told myself that I have no other option but to provide the information that I had in order to clear my conscience.

I do not blame her for coming forward. At all. THough I agree with the other poster who implied that it is very very unfortunate that she did not come forward much sooner than 36 years later. (And I think personally for me I would have weighed what happened on that night back then with what the climate was at the time, what his state of mind was, his age, my age and state of mind, and how he has conducted himself as an adult before I took the step to blow up his life. Because this is about the SCOTUS but it is also about a man who is, by all accounts, a decent person and human being insofar as he has lived his life in adulthood.) Not saying she SHOULD have done that. It's not really her responsibility to see how he turned out, etc. BUt since you asked what *I* would have done in her shoes, that would probably have played a role for me. But maybe that makes me not as "brave" or at least not as much of a risk-taker--given that this could have backfired on her tremendously.

What I do not like is that people have pounced on her allegation as infallible truth when they have NO WAY OF KNOWING, PROVING, oR VALIDATING this accusation. (And he has no way of disproving it!) And I think that is a dangerous and sad place for us to find ourselves in as a society.

But that is the thing. Sometimes you don't get the job. Sometimes there is a better candidate - like someone where there isn't a question that they "might" have raped someone, that they "might" have drugged someone, that they "might" have thrust their penis in someone's face so they had to touch it to get away. Sometimes you go with the person who doesn't have these risks.

[Anonymous]

^This sounds like you think what happened to her isn't "that bad" or well, he was drunk...or she was tipsy, or they were young, so since he turned out to be a decent guy the rest of his life you would have given him a pass? And this is a typical response I have heard from those who think people are being too hard on Kavanaugh, but it is not okay.

And the thing is, Kavanaugh it up for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court. He should not get a pass. (Nor should Bill Clinton have gotten a "pass" for his alleged rape of JB btw...nor should Ted Kennedy have gotten a "pass" for drunkenly driving his mistress off a bridge and fleeing the scene...nor should Trump have gotten a "pass" for...well...ANYTHING!)

We need to expect more from the character and behavior of men. Period. But especially men in leadership. Enough.

[Anonymous]

And in other news, Hatch says that Fienstein did not leak the letter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But that is the thing. Sometimes you don't get the job. Sometimes there is a better candidate - like someone where there isn't a question that they "might" have raped someone, that they "might" have drugged someone, that they "might" have thrust their penis in someone's face so they had to touch it to get away. Sometimes you go with the person who doesn't have these risks.

Careful what you wish for. This nominee was the more moderate of the short list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As for the question about Ashley's friends on here:
They were here.

They were extremely off the hook, personally overprotective and reported the thread to the FBI!

So yeah... they were here.

Again - you have no idea. I was on here last night and said that I hoped the FBI was reading those posts because some of them were disgusting lies and rumors - like the one claiming there is "domestic abuse" in the Kavanaugh household. Who says things like that?? I'd love for the FBI to trace some of you who put lies like that out there. And I don't know any of the Kavanaughs.

Now the FBI must police every anonymous Internet forum out there? You people have seriously gone off the rails.

Well, let's see. Speaking of going off the rails, you've demanded the FBI waste their time finding out what absurd slang terms in Kavanaugh's yearbook meant, so yeah - I'd be happy if they traced any anonymous posts which deliberately spread lies about him and/or his family.

So...
speculation on an anonymous mommy website = bad
daily, blatant LIES from POTUS and press secretary to world = A-OK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For everyone who thinks K’s life is ruined, I remind you of the Duke Lacrosse case. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/duke-lacrosse-case-fantastic-lies-documentary

The moral of the story is that if you went to Landon and the person you abused was Black and poor, you can get a top lawyer, get away with it and be paid millions. If you were stupid enough to end up with a corpse in your hands, as in the UVA case, then you went to jail.

The Duke lacrosse players have fabulous careers, doting wives, etc. ten years on. Maybe they will be coaching basketball for their daughters someday in Chevy Chase, too.

Ummm. Yes, because it was proven that these accusations were false. And now it is a generally accepted belief that these men were wrongly accused to begin with. If this truth had never emerged, they would be ruined for life. Just as Kavanaugh will be if he is not able to prove that he didn't do this. See the difference???

Actually, no. I don’t. None. That is why I mention it.

Mmmmkay. I'll attempt to spell it out for you. But honestly I don't know if that will work because I can't account for lack of intelligence or critical thinking here.

Duke Lacrosse Case: Accused boys were presumed guilty due to an accusation. After months of everyone thinking they were absolute monsters, but after players were allowed to present evidence to refute their accusers claim (which was actually possible to do since the date, time, location, and witnesses at the party were all "known" variables in the accusation), the case was dropped against them because no evidence could support the claim. It is now widely believed that the Duke Lacrosse players did not commit rape against this woman as she claimed they did. (Though they're behavior and overall character was deplorable that night...100% IMO)

Kavanaugh Case: Accused judge is presumed guilty due to an accusation. He is assumed to be a monster because "I believe her" is all that is required for society to forever place this label on him. He will have no recourse or avenue by which to refute her claim because there is no time/place/witnesses/evidence named that would allow him to offer any evidence (if he had any, 36 years later!) to counter in a "prove your own innocence"-type fashion that we apparently now require as a society.

This is how the two cases are different. And why his future is ruined and will forever be marked as a sexual predator, whereas theirs was not and they will not. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Applause. Thank you for spelling all of this out for the obtuse PP. I'm incredulous that anyone would claim there is no difference in these scenarios. Kavanaugh will never get to clear his name, simply because too much time has passed to present any hard evidence exonerating him. You are so right that now we're in a "prove your own innocence" time. It's frightening, to put it mildly.

Bigger difference: duke guys were threatened with arrest and expulsion. That is a LOSS of freedom and education that they possessed. Kavanaugh is not entitled to confirmation. The question is: should we GIVE him this post? He loses nothing. The standard is different. Get it through your thick heads.

Exactly. Kavanaugh is NOT ENTITLED to the SCOTUS, despite what he and the rest of his privileged peers think. There are better options. People who are more balanced and less partisan. And without multiple assault accusations. Time to move on and pick someone better for this very important, lifetime appointment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For everyone who thinks K’s life is ruined, I remind you of the Duke Lacrosse case. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/duke-lacrosse-case-fantastic-lies-documentary

The moral of the story is that if you went to Landon and the person you abused was Black and poor, you can get a top lawyer, get away with it and be paid millions. If you were stupid enough to end up with a corpse in your hands, as in the UVA case, then you went to jail.

The Duke lacrosse players have fabulous careers, doting wives, etc. ten years on. Maybe they will be coaching basketball for their daughters someday in Chevy Chase, too.

Ummm. Yes, because it was proven that these accusations were false. And now it is a generally accepted belief that these men were wrongly accused to begin with. If this truth had never emerged, they would be ruined for life. Just as Kavanaugh will be if he is not able to prove that he didn't do this. See the difference???

Actually, no. I don’t. None. That is why I mention it.

Mmmmkay. I'll attempt to spell it out for you. But honestly I don't know if that will work because I can't account for lack of intelligence or critical thinking here.

Duke Lacrosse Case: Accused boys were presumed guilty due to an accusation. After months of everyone thinking they were absolute monsters, but after players were allowed to present evidence to refute their accusers claim (which was actually possible to do since the date, time, location, and witnesses at the party were all "known" variables in the accusation), the case was dropped against them because no evidence could support the claim. It is now widely believed that the Duke Lacrosse players did not commit rape against this woman as she claimed they did. (Though they're behavior and overall character was deplorable that night...100% IMO)

Kavanaugh Case: Accused judge is presumed guilty due to an accusation. He is assumed to be a monster because "I believe her" is all that is required for society to forever place this label on him. He will have no recourse or avenue by which to refute her claim because there is no time/place/witnesses/evidence named that would allow him to offer any evidence (if he had any, 36 years later!) to counter in a "prove your own innocence"-type fashion that we apparently now require as a society.

This is how the two cases are different. And why his future is ruined and will forever be marked as a sexual predator, whereas theirs was not and they will not. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Applause. Thank you for spelling all of this out for the obtuse PP. I'm incredulous that anyone would claim there is no difference in these scenarios. Kavanaugh will never get to clear his name, simply because too much time has passed to present any hard evidence exonerating him. You are so right that now we're in a "prove your own innocence" time. It's frightening, to put it mildly.

Honest question: if you were Ford and this actually did happen, would you just shut up and not come forward? If so, why?

I'm the one who wrote the above about the diff between the two cases. And your question is a good one. One that I would have seriously given huge consideration to if I were Dr. Ford. And I don't think there is a "right" answer here, but I were her and I knew this to be true, I think I would have told myself that I have no other option but to provide the information that I had in order to clear my conscience.

I do not blame her for coming forward. At all. THough I agree with the other poster who implied that it is very very unfortunate that she did not come forward much sooner than 36 years later. (And I think personally for me I would have weighed what happened on that night back then with what the climate was at the time, what his state of mind was, his age, my age and state of mind, and how he has conducted himself as an adult before I took the step to blow up his life. Because this is about the SCOTUS but it is also about a man who is, by all accounts, a decent person and human being insofar as he has lived his life in adulthood.) Not saying she SHOULD have done that. It's not really her responsibility to see how he turned out, etc. BUt since you asked what *I* would have done in her shoes, that would probably have played a role for me. But maybe that makes me not as "brave" or at least not as much of a risk-taker--given that this could have backfired on her tremendously.

What I do not like is that people have pounced on her allegation as infallible truth when they have NO WAY OF KNOWING, PROVING, oR VALIDATING this accusation. (And he has no way of disproving it!) And I think that is a dangerous and sad place for us to find ourselves in as a society.

+1 You have expressed my thoughts as well. Thank you for your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A a parent, I'd try to ensure my kids didn't interact too much with Kavanaugh; any sleepovers should be at my home, and I wouldn't let my kids drive with him
There's way too much alcohol in all these stories for me to be comfortable

And already, his life has been permanently altered. Nice.

Nothing has happened to his life. This will all be old news in a couple of weeks and he will be on the SCOTUS.

B.S. Whether he is or isn't confirmed, his life will never be the same. Thanks in large part to people like you.

I’m sorry but so what? Statistically speaking, she’s probably telling the damn truth.

But you don't know that she is. No one knows who's telling the truth. And I certainly care about an innocent man being treated as if he's guilty. You claim to also, but of course, only if we're talking about a POC. Right?

It doesn't matter. If you have a hint of scandal = NO SUPREME COURT

He was a wild guy in high school and partied a lot. Those are the breaks.

Funny that didn't come out until so late in the process. Really funny.

or during all the years of his adult life in which no one has every come forward with anything of this nature

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Mmmmkay. I'll attempt to spell it out for you. But honestly I don't know if that will work because I can't account for lack of intelligence or critical thinking here.

Duke Lacrosse Case: Accused boys were presumed guilty due to an accusation. After months of everyone thinking they were absolute monsters, but after players were allowed to present evidence to refute their accusers claim (which was actually possible to do since the date, time, location, and witnesses at the party were all "known" variables in the accusation), the case was dropped against them because no evidence could support the claim. It is now widely believed that the Duke Lacrosse players did not commit rape against this woman as she claimed they did. (Though they're behavior and overall character was deplorable that night...100% IMO)

Kavanaugh Case: Accused judge is presumed guilty due to an accusation. He is assumed to be a monster because "I believe her" is all that is required for society to forever place this label on him. He will have no recourse or avenue by which to refute her claim because there is no time/place/witnesses/evidence named that would allow him to offer any evidence (if he had any, 36 years later!) to counter in a "prove your own innocence"-type fashion that we apparently now require as a society.

This is how the two cases are different. And why his future is ruined and will forever be marked as a sexual predator, whereas theirs was not and they will not. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

You appear not to be intelligent enough to understand the CRUCIAL difference between these two cases.

Duke Lacross Case: Boys were being charged criminally.

Kavanaugh Case: Kavanaugh is applying for a job promotion.

See the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. I saw this claim here too. This is one of the negative aspect of Twitter.
This is exactly why I am skeptical of so many of the claims out there.

Mainstream media reporters and commentators appeared to be much too zealous in spreading a false story on social media Friday that was very damaging to Brett Kavanaugh, the president’s nominee to the Supreme Court.

“I should not have RTed this.”

The story was contained in just one tweet, and it had no link, just a claim that the content came from the Wall Street Journal.

Despite the dubious sourcing, various reporters retweeted it over and over for hours, apparently in hope that the damaging story was true.

The tweet came from an account named “Alan Covington,” and it said that Republicans pulled a prosecutor who was questioning Brett Kavanaugh during his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee because she had determined he had lied.

“Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her,” the tweet read.

“That WSJ story doesn’t appear to exist”

But the story was completely false, and they soon began to delete their tweets and undo their retweets.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/09/28/journalists-made-a-damaging-kavanaugh-story-go-viral-but-it-was-too-good-to-be-true

And, the problem is these #FakeNews tweets get retweeted hundreds of thousands of times, but the corrections barely see the light of day. The damage is done. The negative stuff is out there and is believed by many, even if it is not true.

Sometimes I think Twitter was invented by an enemy country in order to bring our country down.

I agree - and would say the same about DCUM. Anonymous posters can put out any ugly rumor they please, and those who refuse to use their critical thinking skills take it as gospel. It's too bad Kavanaugh (and others) can't sue anonymous people for the libel they spew.

You're not that far off....

"During Wednesday’s Senate hearing concerning foreign influence on social media platforms, Twitter founder and CEO Jack Dorsey stated that his goal in combating the proliferation of fake or misleading accounts was to amplify the voices of active journalists on the site. That’s nice, but since Dorsey has admitted his company is “left-leaning,” we’re left to wonder which journalists he wants to promote."

and

"Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that the social media giant’s staffers who have right-leaning political views don’t feel comfortable to speak up because of the company’s ultra-liberal work environment.

“We have a lot of conservative-leaning folks in the company as well, and to be honest, they don’t feel safe to express their opinions at the company,” Dorsey told New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen in an interview published on Friday by Recode."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many interviews have there been with women who say grabbing someone, trying to rape them, is okay?

I would not my daughters to go to school with their sons, that is for damn sure.

And when talking to sons, I think good advice is to not date girls who drink heavily and/or use drugs. For decades, parents would caution their daughters AND sons to avoid those types--with good reason. High school and college kids need to consider the importance of potential consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A a parent, I'd try to ensure my kids didn't interact too much with Kavanaugh; any sleepovers should be at my home, and I wouldn't let my kids drive with him
There's way too much alcohol in all these stories for me to be comfortable

And already, his life has been permanently altered. Nice.

Nothing has happened to his life. This will all be old news in a couple of weeks and he will be on the SCOTUS.

B.S. Whether he is or isn't confirmed, his life will never be the same. Thanks in large part to people like you.

I’m sorry but so what? Statistically speaking, she’s probably telling the damn truth.

But you don't know that she is. No one knows who's telling the truth. And I certainly care about an innocent man being treated as if he's guilty. You claim to also, but of course, only if we're talking about a POC. Right?

It doesn't matter. If you have a hint of scandal = NO SUPREME COURT

He was a wild guy in high school and partied a lot. Those are the breaks.

Funny that didn't come out until so late in the process. Really funny.

or during all the years of his adult life in which no one has every come forward with anything of this nature

People - women - don't come forward with this type of allegation because they fear the very criticism and speculation Ford's allegations brought to her.

That backlash against the accuser can be as painful as the initial assault. Sure, innocent until proven guilty, but accusers have the right to come forward without being painted as angry/crazy/unstable/loose/embittered (fill in the blank) harpies who were out to ruin Brett's very fine and upstanding career. Which is exactly how conservatives have painted Ford.

Conservatives just want these women to shut up. Unless of course they are making accusations against a Democrat and then conservatives are so very concerned about women (Franken).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
And as many of us have stated, repeatedly - it isn't about his confirmation. I was neutral on him being confirmed at all, before these allegations came out. I honestly didn't feel strongly either way. With the accusation, I at least want to see him be treated fairly until and unless any evidence is presented that definitively ties him to this allegation. I've never thought he's "entitled" to confirmation. I don't know anyone that thinks that. What I *am* concerned about is his presumption of innocence. And every one of you claiming he's guilty with no proof should be too. It would really suck if you or a loved one were one day falsely accused of something, wouldn't it?

Where in the world have you been when there were other SC nominee hearings? It is an arduous process. Any hint of a problem and people withdraw their names so their president can get a new nominee who can make it through the process.

Problem here is that his ambition is actually greater than anything else in him.

You're omitting the elephant in the room. Remember the comments of Schumer when Kavanaugh first nominated? "I will oppose Kavanaugh with everything I've got." Those words were spoken before Kavanaugh had been accused of anything, and I'd say those feelings are representative of Ford's attorney and most DCUM posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep. I saw this claim here too. This is one of the negative aspect of Twitter.
This is exactly why I am skeptical of so many of the claims out there.

Mainstream media reporters and commentators appeared to be much too zealous in spreading a false story on social media Friday that was very damaging to Brett Kavanaugh, the president’s nominee to the Supreme Court.

“I should not have RTed this.”

The story was contained in just one tweet, and it had no link, just a claim that the content came from the Wall Street Journal.

Despite the dubious sourcing, various reporters retweeted it over and over for hours, apparently in hope that the damaging story was true.

The tweet came from an account named “Alan Covington,” and it said that Republicans pulled a prosecutor who was questioning Brett Kavanaugh during his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee because she had determined he had lied.

“Mitchell advised Republicans that to continue questioning Kavanaugh she was required by her oath in Arizona to inform Kavanaugh of his rights after he lied to her,” the tweet read.

“That WSJ story doesn’t appear to exist”

But the story was completely false, and they soon began to delete their tweets and undo their retweets.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/09/28/journalists-made-a-damaging-kavanaugh-story-go-viral-but-it-was-too-good-to-be-true

And, the problem is these #FakeNews tweets get retweeted hundreds of thousands of times, but the corrections barely see the light of day. The damage is done. The negative stuff is out there and is believed by many, even if it is not true.

Sometimes I think Twitter was invented by an enemy country in order to bring our country down.

I agree - and would say the same about DCUM. Anonymous posters can put out any ugly rumor they please, and those who refuse to use their critical thinking skills take it as gospel. It's too bad Kavanaugh (and others) can't sue anonymous people for the libel they spew.

You're not that far off....

"During Wednesday’s Senate hearing concerning foreign influence on social media platforms, Twitter founder and CEO Jack Dorsey stated that his goal in combating the proliferation of fake or misleading accounts was to amplify the voices of active journalists on the site. That’s nice, but since Dorsey has admitted his company is “left-leaning,” we’re left to wonder which journalists he wants to promote."

and

"Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that the social media giant’s staffers who have right-leaning political views don’t feel comfortable to speak up because of the company’s ultra-liberal work environment.

“We have a lot of conservative-leaning folks in the company as well, and to be honest, they don’t feel safe to express their opinions at the company,” Dorsey told New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen in an interview published on Friday by Recode."

That goes both ways. I work at a very conservative company and liberals like myself keep our thoughts to ourselves. My colleagues and employers are Fox-news loving Republicans who have referred to Ford as a "bi*ch" working for George Soros - a complete and total fabrication and absurd conspiracy theory.

So, please stop with painting conservatives as victims of the media. Fox news a propaganda arm of the GOP and unfortunately, a very effective one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who doubt Dr. Blasey's account because she doesn't remember all the details, here's an interesting NPR article on how memories are encoded during traumatic events. One notable passage:

Take, for example, a clerk at convenience store who gets robbed at gunpoint, says McNally. "The person may often encode the features of the weapon, the gun pointed at him, but not recall whether or not the person was wearing glasses, because their attention is focused on the most central features of the experience."

McNally says this would explain why Ford says she remembers what happened during the alleged assault but she can't remember the date of the party or its location.

"They were forgotten because they were never encoded," says McNally. "When somebody has an experience such as this, they're not necessarily saying, 'I better get down the address.' They're preoccupied with trying to escape this terrifying experience."

Also, "people in general are not good about dating events, whether they're traumatic events or nontraumatic events," he adds. Unless there are other clues to the date, most people tend to forget when something happened.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/09/28/652524372/how-trauma-affects-memory-scientists-weigh-in-on-the-kavanaugh-hearing

These type of articles crack me up. When there is no hard evidence, no witnesses, no facts to back up her claims, this is what we are left with - nothing but a bunch of perhapses, maybes, and this could be whys.

Articles like this are neither here nor there. They are little anecdotes put out there to try to conjure up a 'win' for her.

As I said to my liberal husband "I've seen you black-out drunk once in our marriage. There is NOTHING but my own morality that stops me from accusing you of rape during that timeframe. You are completely reliant on that". When he started with the "well you'd have to prove it in a court of law" I said "Yes, I would. But in the court of public opinion, you would be wholly screwed - I could damage you beyond repair with a shaky voice and a few tears because of this out-of-control 'me too' movement. People are now afraid to NOT believe the woman, especially when it involves a wealthy white male. This is NOT where we want to be".

That ended the conversation.