Travesty unfolding in Kavanaugh Hearing

[glm47]

Undecided, but I don’t dismiss repressed claims of sexual assault just because the alleged perpetrator denies it.

He’s not the only one denying it. A witness identified by the victim is also denying it.

Kavanaugh was subject to a Senate hearing and over a 1,000 questions. Doesn’t it bother you that Democrats never brought this up until now? It reeks of political theatre to me.

The democrats, and many republicans, are extreme hypocrites.

[The Historian]

“Breaking it up” is also an overly noble way of describing someone that participated in the assault, where is only virtue seems to be drunk diving onto a person that is having their clothes ripped off.

Her husband says she brought this up as early as 2012.

Anyway, she seems to be willing to testify, so they have an opportunity to hear her out and test her credibility. Seems like the obvious right thing to do at this point.

The Committee will hear from both of them on Monday. If no other details emerge in the next week, I suspect she'll be able to make her allegations against him but will also have to testify at length about her political activities over the years as well. In the style of Clarence Thomas, he will vehemently deny the allegations. With no other information, that will likely satisfy Flake and other Republicans on the Committee. He'll get out of Committee on a party line vote, and he'll be confirmed by the full Senate before the start of the new SC session on 10/1.

[detltu]

Undecided, but I don’t dismiss repressed claims of sexual assault just because the alleged perpetrator denies it.

I only say that because you call him a sexual assaulter. I agree we shouldn't dismiss the claims simply because the accused denies, but I argue that we shouldn't just accept them because the claim is made either. The standard should be higher than that.

[DONW]

She doesn't remember when or where it happened. She took a lie detector test in August before the letter came out. She's not even sure abo0ut the year. Shumer wants the FBI to investigate it, but, the FBI says there is nothing to investigate. A genius on MSNBC said, " why was she wearing a swim suit, was there a pool at that house?" Maybe she should have hired the creepy porn lawyer. This is the same shit they pulled with Clarence Thomas. Democrats think it's ok for them to lie to promote their cause. She's being paid very well by some democrat donor.

[Guisslapp]

Don’t lower courts have to be confirmed too? I would think something this serious would have sunk him back then. If true.

The accused says she is confronting this issue because she feels like she has a competing duty to let people know. Since hardly anyone noticed his lower court confirmation, she may not have either. That was my point.

[Guisslapp]

The accused says she is confronting this issue because she feels like she has a competing duty to let people know. Since hardly anyone noticed his lower court confirmation, she may not have either. That was my point.

Accuser, I meant to say.

[techman05]

Gotcha

[detltu]

I will say this. I don't believe that she is completely fabricating this story to harm Kavanaugh. Something happened. Weather it was actually Kavanaugh involved or things happened exactly how she remembers is harder to determine. 30 years time and the potential involvement of alcohol makes it pretty questionable how reliable the story is.

[FriscoDog]

Meanwhile on the democratic front.. Karen Monahan's charges of abuse by Democratic Senator Keith Ellison has been swept under the rug by MSM. Karen has received threats, against her and her family, alienated by her party, etc. and has produced text messages from Ellison, and other evidence. She did not wait 30-40 years to come forward but told people right away. She also released her therapist records as well. This was done with Ellison as a sitting member of Congress, not 40 years ago when he was a teenager. Crickets by those self-proclaimed righteous people on the left...

[techman05]

The accused says she is confronting this issue because she feels like she has a competing duty to let people know. Since hardly anyone noticed his lower court confirmation, she may not have either. That was my point.

It still bothers me that, it appears, it is important enough to bring up since he is in a position to gain placement on the highest court in the land. However, if it really happened, I would argue that no victim ever forgets and she knew exactly where he was and what he was doing. Why not bring it up and ruin his career 20 years ago? Unless there is concrete evidence like photos, it won’t be enough to stop the vote, but it will ruin this guys reputation and family life regardless of whether or not it is true. As I said before on another thread, let’s have hearings and testimony concerning all the pasta of every elected and appointed official. Drag everyone thru the mud for equal opportunity of embarrassment. That way we know whose transgressions can be excused and whose transgressions get them crucified. Note, I didn’t say what transgressions because we already know it is about the who and not the what.

[johnnylightnin]

As I said before on another thread, let’s have hearings and testimony concerning all the pasta of every elected and appointed official.

I'm guessing Scalia had the best pasta.

[PawDawg]

Now she has decided she may not show up?

[techman05]

I'm guessing Scalia had the best pasta.

Probably so. Past. Not pasta.

[detltu]

It still bothers me that, it appears, it is important enough to bring up since he is in a position to gain placement on the highest court in the land. However, if it really happened, I would argue that no victim ever forgets and she knew exactly where he was and what he was doing. Why not bring it up and ruin his career 20 years ago? Unless there is concrete evidence like photos, it won’t be enough to stop the vote, but it will ruin this guys reputation and family life regardless of whether or not it is true. As I said before on another thread, let’s have hearings and testimony concerning all the pasta of every elected and appointed official. Drag everyone thru the mud for equal opportunity of embarrassment. That way we know whose transgressions can be excused and whose transgressions get them crucified. Note, I didn’t say what transgressions because we already know it is about the who and not the what.

Some victims would prefer to move on from an incident and try to forget about it. Most people didn't know this guys name or hear about him on a daily basis before he was nominated. It's hard to forget about something like that when the (alleged) perpetrator is all over the news every day.

Now she has decided she may not show up?

She has nothing to gain by testifying. She has no proof and the republicans will try to attack her character and expose her political bias.
The democrats will lift her up as a hero, but they likely won't be able to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation.
95% of the people have made up their mind on Kavanaugh and the remaining hold outs are probably leaning one way already and without some shocking revelation they would just hear her out and vote how they were going to anyway.

[techman05]

Just heard on Fox News that, “it is probably terrifying for this woman to come forward.”

I can’t fathom what a woman goes thru who is treated this way. However, unless she can produce credible threats against her safety, I see no reason to be terrified. It’s not like Kavanaugh is goin for break into her house and kill her.