Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?

For those of us inclined to see sexual assault and rape as a very serious problem that is far, far more important than political concerns, the statements to her therapist and husband, Mark Judge’s writings about his own and friends’ drunken bad behavior, and the statements from her friends noting how much she changed after the incident (which they weren’t aware of at the time), add up as making the allegations credible enough that they should be taken seriously.

Of course, for anyone who sees this merely as an opportunity to get a conservative on the SCOTUS, and that anything that might possibly delay that should be seen in the most negative/dishonest light as possible, and that sexual assault and rape in society is a relatively minor thing compared to that, these pieces of data aren’t likely to be seen as convincing.

If Kavanaugh is innocent, an investigation really could help him. Hard as you might find it to believe, there are plenty of us who don’t know for certain what happened, and could be swayed in one direction or another by a full and objective investigation. Not everyone has already made up their mind.

Putting politics aside, this article makes a lot of sense:

I had a thread here a while ago about how, even in my experiences, people remember details in wildly varying ways. Imagine this scenario (and I’m totally making it up for illustration):

By age 17, Kavanaugh and Judge are relatively experienced drinkers and partiers. In the early 80s, sex was more freely given that it was even in the late 80s, so it is very likely that they typically had consensual sex at these parties.

Ford, then 15, was conforming to social pressure by attending these parties, but she was not the hard partying girl that others were.

So we have this spontaneous gathering where Kavanaugh and Ford meet and talk. They start making out and he goes to remove an article of clothing as a prelude to sex. She is terrified by this as she is not experienced in the party scene. She also is not turned on because Kavanaugh is slobbering drunk and smells like booze. She rebuffs his advances and they both go their separate ways, paths never crossing again.

For Kavanaugh, this incident is not implanted in his memory. He has been at many parties with many girls, and this one thing does not leave any sort of mark on him. Indeed, he doesn’t even remember who Ford is.

However for Ford, this was a terrifying event. She really did not want to party anyways but she did so to be one of the “cool” kids. She did not enjoy such casual intimacy.

Fast forward to 2012 and her marriage is in trouble. Kavanaugh has completely forgotten about the incident. However Ford has remembered the core details of fear, clothes attempted to be removed, drunk guy on her, but like all of us, fills in the surrounding details with things that are more likely than not, wholly inaccurate.

In therapy, this memory, both the true and false details are brought forward as perhaps a reason that her and her husband are having issues with intimacy. Suppose then therapy works and they reconcile. That’s an even more certain indication to her that the problem was this unresolved “sexual assault” that happened when she was a teenager. Her memories become more solidified, even the false ones.

Meanwhile, Kavanaugh has no memory of this party or her because it was not a significant event in his life.

Now, putting aside all politics, is this a plausible or at least possible scenario?

This is the first I’ve heard of this bit. Cite?

It’s a possible scenario, but based on the writings and accounts of survivors of sexual assault, it’s no more possible or plausible (and possibly less so) than that her account of attempted rape is accurate – that such events really are seared into the memory of survivors, and while they often don’t remember exact time and place, they do remember the details of the perpetrator’s identity and actions. Further, I think it’s more likely that women and girls really do generally understand the difference between fumbling romantic advances and attempted rape, particularly when one of the actions is covering her mouth with his hand when she tried to call for help then that they get these possibilities confused. So IMO it’s possible (probably more plausible than “she made it up entirely for partisan purposes”), but without further evidence, less plausible than that her account is accurate.

Of course. But, in Ford’s defense, it wouldn’t be difficult to craft plausible hypotheticals that could explain the situation in a way that largely condemns Kavanaugh (maybe he was just black-out drunk at the party and so does not remember it, but it really did happen, for example).

Regarding covering the mouth when screaming: Several years ago I was sitting in the living room and my then wife was in the yard and started screaming. I ran outside and found that she had discovered a dead iguana in the bushes. She was still screaming.

I covered her mouth with my hand as I did not want the entire neighborhood and the police over at the house.

Perhaps this was a similar situation. There was a misunderstanding and Kav was saying “Okay, Christ, we won’t have sex. No need to alert the world!”

Or, you know, she could have shit to do on Wednesday. I set meetings all the time. It requires a few emails back and forth to decide on a day. I’ve never just set a meeting day and insisted upon it if someone can’t make it.

That’s not really an excuse, any more than “I hit her to stop her from screaming”.

I actually thought he was going to claim that Ford was screaming because of a dead iguana. I mean, the conpsiracy theories have been fast and furious these days!

And if it was, somehow, just a “misunderstanding”, then Kavanaugh should have the decency and integrity to come forward and explain that. If he’s not capable of that, then IMO he doesn’t meet the bar for integrity that we should demand on the SCOTUS.

None of that is corroboration. Corroboration would be if for instance, someone had found her in the bathroom when the incident happened.

What the hell are you talking about? How is Kavanaugh, or anyone else, supposed to answer a claim if they have not heard it/ And, no, they are not just witnesses, they are * parties*, and those can always hear each other.

I’m not trying to minimize the work that you do, but I am sure that it is not on the level of the United States Senate and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Further, I’m sure that if the meeting was time sensitive and you believed that one of the participants was simply making excuses to continue delaying the meeting, you would not be as gracious in granting continuing extensions.

What could she possibly be doing that is more important than this? If she is attending a funeral of a family member, then I could understand. Merely being pissy and calling a certain date “arbitrary” is a power play.

Again, as I said in my hypo, he has no memory of it because it did not stick out as an important thing to remember. Do you remember every gathering you were at in the 1980s?

Then he should honestly admit that he sometimes drank heavily in high school and doesn’t remember every gathering he went to. It really is reasonable to care about integrity and honesty for potential SCOTUS justices.

I hope that any person on this board who had any remaining shred of respect for you has lost it. They should have lost it long before, but this is just like a little extra shit frosting on your shit cookie.

Whether you believe this horrifying nonsense you are spewing or you are just employing it for cynical purposes, you are a disgusting boil. You spread corruption and ignorance and you’ll never face any repercussions for it.

I’m out. There are a lot of great people on this board, but staying here is like staying at a party where everyone has your shit on their shoes: the stench is disgusting and a nasty disease all too likely.

Meh, I see all five of those prosecutors on MSNBC every night. Their list of corroboration is not that strong, particularly the last bit about about “why would X do Y if Z was (or wasn’t) true?” That is a common tactic, but honestly, it reminds me of Nancy Grace.

I hope she’ll testify in open session next week, it will probably sway a lot of people. I’m starting to get a vibe that her people may not think she’s up to it, they’re handling her like a christmas ornament. Testifying privately won’t have anywhere near the impact.

I agree this is an interesting head-scratcher.

On one hand, you’d think Kavanaugh and/or his allies wouldn’t be that stupid and careless as to mount a defense founded on details that had not been disclosed by Ford. Wouldn’t that be a rookie mistake? Wouldn’t a seasoned lawyer see this quicksand pit from 500 miles away and deftly avoid it? Who doesnt realize this is how dumb criminals who talk to cops without having a lawyer present often incriminate themselves? For all we know, the names of all the female party attendees might be known by Ford but at the advice of her lawyer, she withheld that information specifically to see if Kanavaugh would knee-jerkingly reveal awareness of their names. Could he be *that * incompetent as to fall for that?

On the other hand, Team Kanavaugh was apparently dumb enough to think coming out with the doppelgänger theory made a lick of strategic sense. So this tells us that we can’t assume too much about their competence and sophistication. Anything therefore is possible.

if Feinstein took this seriously it would have been the first thing on the list in the process of vetting Kavanaugh. Not only was it not the first, it wasn’t even the last. It was after the fact. the hearings were over.

There’s literally nothing to investigate at this point. By her own recollection she wasn’t raped or prevented from leaving a party that she claims she attended 36 years ago with boys from a different school. She doesn’t know the exact date or location and makes no mention of such an event taking place for another 30 years.

Yes, the only concern about the timing is political. It’s a deliberate attempt to delay the nomination and Feinstein owns this 100%.

The best I can say about this is that it’s not the rapiest thing said in the thread. That it’s entirely hypothetical fiction intended to discredit a person who claims to be the victim of sexual assault gives us a good idea of how low the bar is. Quick, someone find James Cameron.

Irrelevant to what the Senate should do now, which is treat the allegation seriously and investigate.

Many, many sexual assault and investigative professionals feel the opposite, and I’m inclined to go with their take over yours. It’s indeed quite possible to find out facts about events from as far back as three decades ago. Not a slam dunk, but still a chance of finding out more information.

Irrelevant to what the Senate should do now, which is to treat the allegation seriously and investigate. The only reason not to is political.