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

[Anonymous]

BK's resume reads of frustrated pseudo-jock, misogynistic mentality.

He was drunk, rapey Bart O'Kavanaugh at GPrep.
He was DKE at Yale (speaks for itself).
He was Truth and Courage at Yale (speaks for itself).
He was lying, leaking, underhanded GOP hack for Ken Starr.
His financial statement is sketchy (parents erased debts...but debts for what?)
He is dissemblng, smirking and sneering his way to SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Holding a woman down, placing your hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming, and attempting to RAPE her, is more than a "bad choice". I'm not sure what kind of people you spend time with, but you might want to consider better friends. I have three boys in their 20s. They are at least as disgusted by this as I am. I hope you're not raising boys.

Agree. But, there is not any reason to believe her over him. At least not right now. Thirty five years ago, and she told no one? Give me a break. I was once a teenaged girl. I even had an experience like that described--except it was in a living room,not a bedroom, and there was no other witness. The guy was a creep, and I was scared. I told all my friends. I told them when it happened. And, no, I would never have told my mother. Would I have gone to the authorities? NO. I was not raped. But, my friends sure knew.

So, PP, how would you feel if your three boys were falsely accused?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Holding a woman down, placing your hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming, and attempting to RAPE her, is more than a "bad choice". I'm not sure what kind of people you spend time with, but you might want to consider better friends. I have three boys in their 20s. They are at least as disgusted by this as I am. I hope you're not raising boys.

Agree. But, there is not any reason to believe her over him. At least not right now. Thirty five years ago, and she told no one? Give me a break. I was once a teenaged girl. I even had an experience like that described--except it was in a living room,not a bedroom, and there was no other witness. The guy was a creep, and I was scared. I told all my friends. I told them when it happened. And, no, I would never have told my mother. Would I have gone to the authorities? NO. I was not raped. But, my friends sure knew.

So, PP, how would you feel if your three boys were falsely accused?

I would make them take a poly.

I was also assaulted and can't remember much. Everybody is different.

[Anonymous]

She has nothing to gain from a false accusation and a lot to lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots and lots of women have dealt with overly agressive male behavior in high school and beyond. The pinning down and hand over the mouth behavior is f..ed up. She is in a tough position. A supreme court nomination was too much. At what point is the behavior so questionable and the position so powerful that a woman feels a responsibility to step up?

Agree. But, it is her word against his. Why do you believe her over him?
Her memory seems to be quite selective here.

NP.

Because she had a lot to lose and nothing to gain by coming forward. Because the gaps in her story are believable given the content of the story.
Because he has already lied under oath, bragged about heavy drinking in HS, has denied noticing anything amiss in an extremely hostile workplace (Kozinski’s chambers), has written emails that suggest racist/sexist drunken gambling weekends with the boys remained his idea of fun into adulthood. Because this is an Administration that is notoriously poor about vetting appointees and seems to have no problem with abusive behavior toward women. Because I heard him testify on other issues in the course of the confirmation and he seemed like real weasel. Because the timing of the 65 women who knew him in HS letter suggests BK knew this kind of claim was out there and specific to those years.

Haven’t seen/heard her speak. That could change my perception.

I’ve been on the other side in a HS case like this. Basically, it matters if (a) there’s a compelling reason to believe that/explain why a false accusation would be made and (b) the scenario is a plausible one. The other case was yes/no. This one is no/yes. At least thus far. Attempts at providing (a) have been ridiculously disingenuous — e.g. alleged foreclosure vendetta, nutjob teaching reviews. Both are demonstrably false with literally 2 minutes of inquiry. (BK’s mom dismissed suit/house wasn’t foreclosed on, reviews are of a different prof with different credentials at a different u in a different field).

[Anonymous]

Do you think they’ll admit the yearbook pages of Kavanagh and judge? There are some things on there that need some explaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BK's resume reads of frustrated pseudo-jock, misogynistic mentality.

He was drunk, rapey Bart O'Kavanaugh at GPrep.
He was DKE at Yale (speaks for itself).
He was Truth and Courage at Yale (speaks for itself).
He was lying, leaking, underhanded GOP hack for Ken Starr.
His financial statement is sketchy (parents erased debts...but debts for what?)
He is dissemblng, smirking and sneering his way to SCOTUS.

What do those Yale designations indicate for us non ivy peons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots and lots of women have dealt with overly agressive male behavior in high school and beyond. The pinning down and hand over the mouth behavior is f..ed up. She is in a tough position. A supreme court nomination was too much. At what point is the behavior so questionable and the position so powerful that a woman feels a responsibility to step up?

Cartoon depicting the plight of Anita Hill is relevant today. I

https://twitter.com/kaltoons/status/1041876926430932994

[Anonymous]

I would make them take a poly.

So, you would not believe your sons? Sorry that you have so little trust--or do you really distrust men that much?

As for a poly--you do know they are not always reliable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She has nothing to gain from a false accusation and a lot to lose.

Agree especially because Families apparently are in the same social circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots and lots of women have dealt with overly agressive male behavior in high school and beyond. The pinning down and hand over the mouth behavior is f..ed up. She is in a tough position. A supreme court nomination was too much. At what point is the behavior so questionable and the position so powerful that a woman feels a responsibility to step up?

Agree. But, it is her word against his. Why do you believe her over him?
Her memory seems to be quite selective here.

NP.

Because she had a lot to lose and nothing to gain by coming forward. Because the gaps in her story are believable given the content of the story.
Because he has already lied under oath, bragged about heavy drinking in HS, has denied noticing anything amiss in an extremely hostile workplace (Kozinski’s chambers), has written emails that suggest racist/sexist drunken gambling weekends with the boys remained his idea of fun into adulthood. Because this is an Administration that is notoriously poor about vetting appointees and seems to have no problem with abusive behavior toward women. Because I heard him testify on other issues in the course of the confirmation and he seemed like real weasel. Because the timing of the 65 women who knew him in HS letter suggests BK knew this kind of claim was out there and specific to those years.

Haven’t seen/heard her speak. That could change my perception.

I’ve been on the other side in a HS case like this. Basically, it matters if (a) there’s a compelling reason to believe that/explain why a false accusation would be made and (b) the scenario is a plausible one. The other case was yes/no. This one is no/yes. At least thus far. Attempts at providing (a) have been ridiculously disingenuous — e.g. alleged foreclosure vendetta, nutjob teaching reviews. Both are demonstrably false with literally 2 minutes of inquiry. (BK’s mom dismissed suit/house wasn’t foreclosed on, reviews are of a different prof with different credentials at a different u in a different field).

Well stated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BK's resume reads of frustrated pseudo-jock, misogynistic mentality.

He was drunk, rapey Bart O'Kavanaugh at GPrep.
He was DKE at Yale (speaks for itself).
He was Truth and Courage at Yale (speaks for itself).
He was lying, leaking, underhanded GOP hack for Ken Starr.
His financial statement is sketchy (parents erased debts...but debts for what?)
He is dissemblng, smirking and sneering his way to SCOTUS.

What is Devil’s Triangle in his yearbook mean?

[Anonymous]

If he got drunk and stole a street sign, I'd have to give him a pass. Holding a girl down and grinding against her while you covered her mouth is something else entirely.

She has no motivation for lying that compensates for the shit storm she's getting as a result of coming out. Her allegations have indicia of credibility including the therapist notes from 2012, the earlier statements from 2002, and the polygraph test. She also adds the sort of "slapstick" elements about Mark Ford that a liar probably wouldn't include. For that matter, if you were going to fabricate an encounter entirely, you wouldn't put Kavanaugh's buddy in the room.

Meanwhile, Kavanaugh's categorical denial reinforces or at least prevents him from undermining some of those elements. If he had said he was there, but it went down differently, he could cancel out the polygraph and Mark Ford elements. But, having taken himself out of the room, his ability to paint the events in a different light is severely limited. Now you basically have to believe one of them or the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He'll withdraw later this week, continuing to deny the allegations but not wanting to put his wife and daughter through it. Trump can then nominate someone new almost immediately. Plenty of time to confirm someone before January (in unlikely event GOP loses the Senate)

Liberals are disgusting - they are banking on that and it’s why they did it. It’s the hallmark of me too

In actuality the so-called hallmark of Me Too is that men can't stop raping women. You suggesting Me Too is strictly political is what is disgusting.

Men 'can't stop raping' women so your automatic conclusion is all women are to be believed?

How about your prosecute those in your wheelhouse and then I'll believe you. Hollywood is FULL of accused pedophiles and rapists, and so far, the only one prosecuted is Cosby. Even Weinstein seems to be protected.

DP. Research has shown that the false accusation rate for sexual assault is around 2-5%, which is the same as other serious crimes. It does mean some are false, yes. But the chances are beyond highly likely, 95-98%, that this happened. Add to that it is estimated that only approx 40% of victims even come forward. They don't come forward for many reasons, not the least of which is they won't be believed, surprise.

So generally, yes, I believe the victims.

I agree with prosecuting everyone accused of sexual assault, but it would be more realistic to focus at least on the cases that are most credible first. And to do that we also need to adjust the statute of limitations in other states and we also need to -- hear me out -- BELIEVE VICTIMS.

[Anonymous]

The GOP is going to shred Ford like they did Hill. They will stop at nothing to discredit women.