I’m wondering if the second accuser might be a put up job. Her exposure as a liar would neatly discredit the first…which would, of course, be the whole idea. As for “proving a negative”, it’s done every day. I can prove I’m not a high school drop-out, a doctor can prove that a woman’s never been pregnant, etc.
Boy, sounds like more information is needed. We should probably do some sort of “investigation”(to coin a new word) to find out the truth.
Except her story was circulating before Ford’s accusation came out. And it wasn’t initially reported by her–it was reported by multiple of her classmates.
If a college professor from an upper crust background is treated as if she might as well be a meth addicted pathological lying hysteric, I’m not sure why a career civil servant would be regarded any differently. She will likely be branded a Deep Statetist.
So Steophan’s position is that if Kavenaugh withdraws, we will never see another judge, cabinet secretary, or other Senate-confirmed official again.
Chicken Little, much?
If you’d care to link to any threads about unsupported allegations of sexual assaults affecting the politics of other countries, I’ll get right on dismissing those as well.
The portion of the American people that you tend to politically identify with are usually fairly strongly against the FBI and other agencies overstepping their jurisdiction to investigate people. If the President wants them to conduct another background check on Kavanaugh, that’s fine. It may even be happening for all any of us know (I doubt it, personally). But they shouldn’t be investigating allegations of state crimes. You know that.
My interpretation was that he did so after she had started screaming, to stop her from continuing. Yours may be correct, though, doing something to “stop someone screaming” is ambiguous.
That doesn’t change that it’s an unsupported claim that they were even at the same party, let alone that he actually did that.
That is pure idle speculation, there are no such accusations, only claims that people Kavanaugh knew may or may not have been involved in group sex.
Here:
I would suggest that the Venn diagram between “people who have sexually assaulted someone” and “people who worry about the dire consequences of investigating sexual assault accusations” is pretty much a circle.*
*Not entirely a circle. Our illustrious posters on this board who hysterically wail about the dire consequences of actually investigating sexual assault are of course not themselves monsters.
If unsupported allegations are all it takes to prevent the opposition from appointing someone, you’d be remiss not to make them, from a purely political point of view. Yes, I was using hyperbole, but on the other hand I’ll see your “chicken little” and raise you “the boy who cried wolf”. It seemed we were getting somewhere with taking accusations of rape seriously, and improving the way they are dealt with. That won’t last when high-profile people start being punished due to unsupported accusations.
I know that you haven’t read all the posts in the thread as carefully as you claim to have done. Want to go try it again? I suspect multiple people may have addressed the issue of whether the FBI will investigate state crimes.
By “punished” you mean “investigated”. And by “investigated” you mean “undergo a background check which you already agreed to as a requirement for accepting the nomination”.
Yes, this will definitely be the end of the world.
I think you should come up with a cite for people on the liberal end of the spectrum being on the record as oppposing background checks for political appointments. Because as far as I can tell, this is another example of the portion of the American people that you tend to identify with being usually fairly strongly against reality, when it comes to saying things to get them what they want.
And speaking as someone who has been through FBI background checks, not only did I sign forms specifically authorizing them to obtain law enforcement information from any agency they wish, be it the Mayberry PD or the Galactic Highway Patrol; I also authorized them to obtain information about my finances, medical history, and probably a bunch of other stuff I can’t remember.
FBI can’t look into the character of a person when it comes to state crimes… who are you trying to kid? Give me a break.
Maya Wiley tweeted:
Avenatti replied:
So four women. No overlaps.
How many more Senate confirmations of Republican appointees do you expect during the next two years? You acknowledged you were using hyperbole… so, like… three? Four? Six?
Or dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens?
Personally, I’m going with the latter.
I don’t know if you should be counting to four, at least yet:
We don’t even know the name of Avenatti’s client, do we?
No-one is worried about the consequences of investigating sexual assault accusations. We are worried about the consequences of prejudging the results of such investigations, the consequences of expanding the remit of certain agencies to investigate things outside their jurisdiction, and extremely worried about the morality of treating people as suspicious, if not outright guilty, based on unsupported accusations.
This whole “no smoke without fire” attitude has proven to be dangerous many times throughout history. It’s called a witch-hunt with good reason.
If you think Kavanaugh’s attitude to women disqualifies him from a supreme court position, point to those of his rulings that demonstrate it. That’s the way this should be being handled.
Nope. But we will.
Time and time again we have seen that Avenatti doesn’t just make claims, he delivers.
Well, that certainly explains why so many people, yourself included, are arguing that the sexual assault accusations shouldn’t be investigated.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Multiple men fucking an unconscious woman is not “group sex”.
It’s gang rape.
So we’re at Ford and Ramirez (both of their stories have significant issues), and waiting to see if Avenatti “delivers” or if there’s something more to the now-deleted tweet. ETA: that sounds like 2 women to me.