I’m not so much questioning her allegations regarding Cavanaugh’s behavior as I’ve been questioning the supposed surprise, shock and trauma that she alleges to have experienced as a result.
The purpose of that, of course, is ultimately to call into question the veracity of her entire account.
And now having said that, aren’t we all speculating? 
lying to Congress doesn’t count?
LOL. Professionals in law enforcement regularly investigate cases with even less evidence (a single statement with no supporting evidence like therapy notes) than this one.
He was a college frat boy. Frat parties are mainly an excuse to try to have sex with girls, whether they are sober or not. He just started early in high school.
Questioning the validity of women’s traumas at the hands of men, such a time-honored activity.
I would like to see some cites for that. I cannot think of any law enforcement that would start an investigation in the present circumstances, let alone one with less evidence.
That’s not what I was saying. Here’s the post I was responding to:
That’s an utterly ridiculous assertion. It’s not the “job” of the victim to provide evidence – law enforcement very often proceeds with only the victim’s statement (and further, that statement is a piece of evidence). It’s the “job” of the investigators to find evidence.
This is the best post in this thread. Spot on.
You live in a fucked up country.
Nah. You know the old saying: You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him read his own cite.
Yes, they do. that is the point.
They all have their “youthful indiscretions” of sexual assault, and they want someone one the supreme court who will be sympathetic to that.
You can debate the merits of the accusation, but there have been several posters here who have said that even if the allegations are 100% true, that he should still be seated.
They don’t care about sexual assault, and consider it to be just something that boys do. They are far, far more worried that the guy who committed sexual assault faces no consequences, than the victim of the sexual assault. In fact, they will attack the reputation of the victim of sexual assault in order to protect the guy.
Getting Kavanaugh on the bench right now is a massive blow to women’s rights, and that is exactly why they support him.
barring a surprise last minute witness or more information he will be confirmed.
It could lead to the loss of more seats this fall but the GOP probably figures it’s better to have him on the court for 30 years. Election losses can be reversed.
Yeah, I know. Then again at least we did not elect Donald-fucking-Trump.:rolleyes:
Tell me, what is your experience with criminal law, procedure and investigation?
Proud moments abound.
Question suggestions from Mr Kavanaugh, minion, to his boss, Ken Starr…
Proud moments, to be sure… Covered himself in glory, he did.
It is a testament to the Republican Party’s modesty and restraint that they refrain from trumpeting these wonders in American jurisprudence. Must have been difficult to restrain themselves, having so much…so *very *much!.. to be proud of!
What the actual fuck? Your whole post was pretty disgusting, but this takes the biscuit. What on earth does an attempted rape have to do with virginity? Either the alleged attack happened, in which case it has no bearing on it, or it didn’t, which also has no effect on it.
Also, who cares? The age at which she lost her virginity is irrelevant to anything, and it’s with good reason that no investiagtion would be allowed to consider it.
That’s not even the worst of it. Maybe under some anachronistic moral code, if you willingly have sex then you cannot wear white with roses. But it’s pretty fucking horrible to say that you don’t deserve to have choices due to something out of your control.
This is probably why Grassley wants an “independent” person to ask the committee’s questions. So that they can be edited in advance. So that Dr Ford doesn’t have some Republican Senator asking just how long has she been a total slut.
This is a FOX News cite, just to clarify.
I know we keep going in circles on this, so I’ll try not to be repetitive. Imagine you are the Montgomery County, MD Sheriff and Ford comes into your office and tells you her story. The four witnesses that she claims were at the party: Kavanaugh, Judge, Smyth and now Meyer have written you a letter all denying that they were at such a party and/or do not recall such a party occurring. What do you do?
You can fan your deputies out to interview those people, browbeat them into confessing that there really was such a party and that they remember something from 36 years ago and further interview everyone who attended any high school in the area, and let’s further say that you hit on your inside straight draw and you find evidence that there really was such a party.
All you now have is the equivalent of Anita Hill working at the same place that Clarence Thomas worked. You have no evidence that the assault happened, again except for Ford’s word. The only people who could possibly provide solid evidence that what she said happened are Kavanaugh and Judge, both successful people who will have lawyers and will not be subject to coercion tactics to get them to confess like a guy you just caught selling a dime bag on a street corner. It will simply not happen.
Plus, there are two rapes from last week that we need to investigate. You’re going to divert resources from investigations that may bear fruit on this snipe hunt?
Okay, this is for all the marbles, the Supreme Court, so you need to investigate. Who is your audience? You have 46 Democratic senators who will not vote to confirm even if you interview Jesus Christ himself who declares Kavanaugh innocent. You have 48 Republican senators who will vote to confirm unless you find solid physical evidence (which, see above, will never be found) of his guilt.
So basically your audience is six senators who have the power of the purse to conduct their own investigation. Let them do it if investigating this cold case is so important to them. Don’t waste your time.
Is any of the above inaccurate? And further, as you know that there is very little likelihood of finding anything, isn’t your secret goal just to have Kavanaugh answer embarrassing questions about his juvenile sex life and drinking habits? How many girls did you sleep with in high school, when did you lose your virginity, did you have sex with girls when you were drunk, when they were drunk, you mentioned your dad as your hero did you brag to him about these girls, were you ever so drunk you didn’t remember having sex, etc. Did your wife know about all of this sex, did you ever get tested for AIDS, did you engage in anal sex a risky behavior that could lead to AIDS, did to tell your subsequent partners about your risky sexual behavior, would it be hypocritical of you to overrule Obergefell or Lawrence because you also engaged in illegal sex at the time, are you sure that nobody you had sex with got pregnant and had a abortion, if she did get pregnant do you think she should have had your permission before getting an abortion, etc.
Again, I could add to the lengthy paragraph above. That is the true goal with any “investigation.”
And no matter what he does, the optics will be criticized. If his daughters are in the hearing room, he will be asked how he could subject those young children to such testimony when he knew what he would be asked. If they are not in the room, he will be asked if he has something to hide from them.