Travesty unfolding in Kavanaugh Hearing

[PawDawg]

The two are not mutually exclusive. And the Trumpsters laughed and cheered when he said what she said.

That's deplorable!

[PawDawg]

2012: While at couples therapy with her husband, Ford told the Post she described the alleged incident in detail for the first time. Her husband, Russell Ford, recalled to the Post that she talked during their 2012 sessions about the incident, mentioning Kavanaugh's last name and that he was a federal judge who might be on the Supreme Court eventually. Ford provided portions of the therapist's notes to the paper, which described an incident without mentioning Kavanaugh by name. The Post said the notes referred to four boys involved, which Ford said was an error made by her therapist. Ford told the Post four boys at the party, but only two were in the room.
2013: Notes from an individual therapy session said Ford talked about a "rape attempt" from when she was a teenager, according to the Post.
July 2018: Ford reached out to the Post's tip line as Kavanaugh's name appeared on the shortlist to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. "Around the same time," the Post said, Ford contacted her member of Congress, California Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo.
July 9, 2018: President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court.
Late July: Ford opted to contact California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein via a letter through Eshoo's office. In the letter, Ford requests Feinstein keep the matter confidential.
Early August: On the advice of her attorney Debra Katz, Ford took a polygraph test. The Post said Katz provided the paper with the results of the test, which was administered by a former FBI agent. The results concluded Ford was truthful when she said a statement summarizing her allegations was accurate, according to the newspaper.
Late August: As Kavanaugh's nomination proceeded, Ford said she decided she did not want to go public with her accusations given the expectation that he would be confirmed. She told the Post that her thinking was, "Why suffer through the annihilation if it's not going to matter?"
September 4-7: The Senate Judiciary Committee holds contentious hearings on Kavanaugh in which the nominee was lauded by Republicans and faced with regular interruptions from protesters. No mention is made of the allegations that would surface days later in the media.
September 12: The Intercept reported that Feinstein is in possession of a letter detailing an accusation against Kavanaugh and that she would not provide the letter to other members of the committee.
September 13: Feinstein said she received information on Kavanaugh and had "referred the matter to federal investigative authorities." CNN reported that Feinstein had forwarded a letter to the FBI relating to alleged misconduct by Kavanaugh while he was in high school and that the letter Feinstein sent had all the names redacted except for Kavanaugh's.
September 14: The New Yorker reported on the substance of the allegations without naming Ford. CNN reported on details of the allegations. Mark Judge, who was reported that day to have been Kavanaugh's friend in the room, denied the allegations in an interview with the conservative Weekly Standard. The White House issued a statement from Kavanaugh denying the allegations.
September 16: The Washington Post published an article in which Ford comes forward and details her allegations. The White House reiterated Kavanaugh's statement denying the incident occurred.
September 17: Katz said Ford would be willing to speak publicly with lawmakers as key senators voiced interest in delaying a vote on Kavanaugh's nomination. The White House stood by Kavanaugh, who was seen entering the building and who issued a new statement again denying the allegations and saying he would be willing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in an effort to clear his name. Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins became one of the key undecided senators to say she welcomed testimony from both Kavanaugh and Ford. Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, the committee chairman, said, "Anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has deserves to be heard, so I will continue working on a way to hear her out in an appropriate, precedented and respectful manner."

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/09/17/pol....google.com%2F

Three days is way more than it usually takes for a leak to spring.

I've never understood why it had to be a conservative who leaked it when the socialists had much more to gain by forcing her into the spotlight.

[Guisslapp]

Three days is way more than it usually takes for a leak to spring.

I've never understood why it had to be a conservative who leaked it when the socialists had much more to gain by forcing her into the spotlight.

Ford wrote to Eschoo before July 9 and then to Feinstein, via Eschoo’s office in late July. The story about the letter got leaked sometime before the Intercept article on Sept 12.

Which of the “few days” are you referring to? And who said it was a conservative that leaked it? I didn’t know anyone had any idea who leaked it. My guess would be a staffer, probably from Eschoo’s office.

[Guisslapp]

That's deplorable!

Deplorable to laugh and cheer the accusations of a victim of sexual assault? I would say so.

[johnnylightnin]

Deplorable to laugh and cheer the accusations of a victim of sexual assault? I would say so.

I agree, but that doesn't corroborate the accusation. The chest beating has been over the top, but the facts are still the facts.

[PawDawg]

Deplorable to laugh and cheer the accusations of a victim of sexual assault? I would say so.

key word is accusations not victim. Should be accuser

[detltu]

I agree, but that doesn't corroborate the accusation. The chest beating has been over the top, but the facts are still the facts.

Yep. It doesn't make it right, but it's at least partially a push back on the accusation being crammed down everyone's throats as unassailable.

I don't have a good solution to the problem of women coming forward and facing scrutiny when making these accusations. In this particular case I think the best thing would have been to allow her to keep her anonymity (at least publicly). Investigate the claims, allow her to speak to the senate judiciary committee privately. If there is nothing actionable about the claims, then at least she wouldn't have her name dragged through the mud publicly.

Losing her anonymity was not the republicans fault in this case.

[Guisslapp]

key word is accusations not victim. Should be accuser

Circumstantially, a credible accuser. Which means she should be treated as if she were an actual victim. Not treated dismissively, and thereby revictimizing and making other victims more likely to keep their victimization a secret. This was unconscionable behavior. Absolutely unacceptable and should have been condemned by everyone. Not cheered and laughed at.

[detltu]

Circumstantially, a credible accuser. Which means she should be treated as if she were an actual victim. Not treated dismissively, and thereby revictimizing and making other victims more likely to keep their victimization a secret. This was unconscionable behavior. Absolutely unacceptable and should have been condemned by everyone. Not cheered and laughed at.

I don't know if I am at quite your level of pearl clutching, but I agree it shouldn't have happened.

[dawg80]

Good Lord goosey, give it up. Shouldn't you be out kicking down more Ted Cruz signs, as you have been reported doing.

By this time next year goosey will attempt to revise history even more. He'll post there was actual forensic evidence, that Kavanaugh's DNA was found on a blue dress stuffed in a closet of some undisclosed house, somewhere in Maryland. And when asked, "Now, try to remember Christine, you know, be 'helpful,' isn't this a dress you once wore?" Ford, "Well, I recall owning a blue dress...but I think I loaned it to some Whitehouse intern, a Monica somebody..."

Ooops! never mind!

[PawDawg]

Right because the guy is always lying and should just man up and take it

[Guisslapp]

Right because the guy is always lying and should just man up and take it

Because it is men, not women, that are under assault per Trump. Ridiculous.

[PawDawg]

Because it is men, not women, that are under assault per Trump. Ridiculous.

I'm finally following your logic...

- He was nominated by Trump
- He is ACCUSED of sexual assault 38 years after the fact
- Trump condones assaulting women
- Therefore the ACCUSED must be guilty

gotcha!

[Guisslapp]

I'm finally following your logic...

- He was nominated by Trump
- He is ACCUSED of sexual assault 38 years after the fact
- Trump condones assaulting women
- Therefore the ACCUSED must be guilty

gotcha!

I didn’t say he was guilty. I think more likely than not he did it, but it certainly wasn’t proven. But I think the way he uniquely talked to the female Senator, plus other factors demonstrate a lack of respect for women. Did you ever see this piece?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-yale-amy-chua

[detltu]

I didn’t say he was guilty. I think more likely than not he did it, but it certainly wasn’t proven. But I think the way he uniquely talked to the female Senator, plus other factors demonstrate a lack of respect for women. Did you ever see this piece?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-yale-amy-chua

He didn't "uniquely" talk to the female Senator any more than she "uniquely" talked to him. I'm not sure if I read that article or one covering the same topic but it's simply more speculation. What if he just wanted them to look professional and not unkempt? That's not to say that he isn't hiring based on looks or any other number of nefarious possibilities, but there is no evidence.

What other factors demonstrate a lack of respect for women?