Nothing new or unusual is being proposed. The FBI has investigated such allegations regarding SCOTUS nominees before at the direction of the President. Not criminal investigations, but focused investigations to provide better information to the President and Senate about a specific set of allegations. That’s what they should do now.
Shame. The vast majority of sexual assault victims feel ashamed because they “let” themselves be violated. They feel responsible even if intellectually they know they weren’t. Also, it’s common to feel like being raped turns you into damaged goods.
The author’s point has nothing to do with virginity. The point is that Ford was determined to act normal, not like the victim of something dirty and shameful.
If this needs to be explained to you after all the discussions you’ve had on this board about rape, I don’t know what’s wrong with you. It’s not that difficult to understand.
I don’t know why this merits an eye roll. Can you expound?
So it’s your opinion then that he indeed did not intend to rape her but merely to grope her over her clothes?
I don’t recall having said that the word “virginal” was contained in the article. Can you perhaps point to where I did?
And secondly, yes, I do admit that the article implied that she was no longer virginal in her mind, both in the immediate aftermath of the alleged attack and some years later upon her graduation from high school.
Yes, the people calling for an investigation into sexual assault accusations are the bad ones.
Generally, the witnesses were named by the accusers. The witnesses stated they have no memory of these incidents. Meaning, they have no memory of the incident or the party where the incident occurred. (*If there is a specific denial, let me know.) It’s just been too long to remember.
I have no memory of being born. I was there, it happened, but I have no memory of that. There are many things in life that I was present at, that happened, that I have no memory of - I went to dozens of parties in high school and college that I have no memory of - definitely not specific things that may have occurred in another room. A really easy follow-up question to these witnesses would be, “To be clear, are you stating you have no memory of the alleged incident, one way or the other?” (You don’t know whether it happened or not, whether there was a party or not). I do not think they are stating they remember the party and are denying the incident occurred (an affirmative denial).
FBI investigating, witness testimony at hearing…all would be helpful.
Have you made one post today that didn’t include an ad hominem, a distortion of what others have posted, or a clear factual error?
A big part of a background check is determining if there’s anything about you that makes you susceptible to blackmail. The FBI will investigate something that would ordinarily only be a state crime during a background check for this reason.
As they should.
Yes, I agree with you that Kavanaugh intended to rape her (great defense of the man, by the way). But in the process of attempting to rape her he committed sexual assault. Is this really a difficult concept for you?
Like if I set out to steal $10,000, but the bag contains only $1,000, I have unsuccessfully stolen $10,000, but I’ve still committed a crime.
Do you think it’s a defense, if you murder someone, to say “but I was only trying to kidnap them, at which I was unsuccessful”?
OK, buddy.
More witnesses? These alleged victims have named everyone at these events. If there are more witnesses that calls into questions either their credibility or the witnesses’ credibility.
Yes I would. However, what evidence could you find which would prove these allegations with such certainty as to warrant a perjury charge?
I think you misspelled “allegedly”. Unless you are claiming new evidence, in which case, cite?
Regards,
Shodan
Are you saying the FBI should or could compel Ms. Ford to make a statement under oath? How about Judge?
You are saying they should be compelled to give up their right to remain silent. Is that correct? What do they do if either Ford or Judge refuses? Arrest? Public shaming? Thumbscrews?
Regards,
Shodan
Throw that word in wherever you feel appropriate (while you still can).
Ford would probably be eager to speak to them on the record. She’s the one who’s been asking for an investigation, after all.
And if Judge refuses to speak on the record, well that’s a data point that the American people should know about.
If she were so eager, she could have sent her letter to the FBI instead of her Congressperson. Just a thought.
I wouldn’t support Kavanaugh’s nomination, because I don’t support it now, and didn’t before all these accusations became public. I didn’t support Gorsuch’s nomination either, for what it’s worth. I’m in favor of putting moderates on the Supreme Court, not right-wing ideologues. So there’s that.
But of course, I’m not on the Senate. What we’re talking about now is whether the Senators should vote to confirm Kavanaugh. My Senators won’t. Other Senators will. Who will and who won’t is pretty clear in most cases, and it turns out that there are only a handful of Senators whose votes aren’t already in the bag.
Those are the three or four “moderate” Republicans like Collins or Flake, who either represent moderate states, or fucking hate Donald Trump and are retiring and aren’t afraid to show it. Then there are the handful of red state Democrats, who ordinarily would be inclined to vote for a conservative nominee, like, for example, Gorsuch. Most nominees that make it to a vote get confirmed on a fairly bipartisan basis, usually ones who run into trouble don’t make it to the point where an actual vote is needed. They count heads, and if it’s not in the cards the nominee is withdrawn and someone else is put forward. See Harriet Meiers, and Clinton’s nannygate nominees.
Anyway, suppose there were an investigation and suppose the FBI comes back with “Well, she says one thing and he says another thing, that’s all we can tell you.” Now what? Does the vote go forward or not? It only goes forward if the wafflers–the moderate Republicans and red state Democrats–feel obligated to vote to confirm despite the lack of information.
It seems to me that we’re not discussing a criminal conviction here, for which the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We’re not even discussing a civil case for which the standard is preponderance of the evidence. We’re discussing a politcal appointment, for which the standard is “What will my constituents and colleagues and donors think?”.
Is sticking it to the liberals and showing strength the winning strategy for those people? Or is it showing possibly feigned “sensitivity” and a willingness to listen to victims? I have no idea what these wafflers will decide is their best bet.
On the other hand, what if there is an investigation, and the FBI turns up some evidence that Ford lies a lot about all kinds of things? Yeah, it’s smearing the victim, and won’t change most people’s minds. But it could certainly change the minds of those red state Democrats. Or maybe the FBI starts to turn up more and more evidence of more and more misconduct by Kavanaugh. What’s going to happen then?
An investigation has at least three possible outcomes. More evidence exonerating Kavanaugh, which isn’t likely but could happen. More evidence incriminating Kavanaugh, which also isn’t likely. Or neither. If the answer is “neither” then we’re no worse off than we were before, right? Except we have to wait another week or two while this media circus goes on, when everyone wants to go home and start campaigning for November.
Well, the media circus isn’t going to end if you ram through the vote before an investigation. We’ve seen some new allegations come up. Are they going to stop the minute Kavanaugh is confirmed? Maybe, if it’s all George Soros trying to keep him off the Supreme Court. Except probably not, because right now the campaign isn’t to keep Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court, the campaign is to make Republicans look like enablers of sexual assault.
So how do Republicans stop that? One way is to hold the damn investigation, and if incriminating evidence shows up you vote against Kavanaugh, if exculpatory evidence turns up you vote for Kavanaugh, and if nothing turns up you vote the way you were going to vote before.
The problem for Republicans is that the base wants a fight on this. Trump wants a fight on this. Remember back at the beginning of the thread when you recommended laying off the accuser and not making it personal? How’d that work out? Not very well. Trump kept his mouth shut for a week, but you can’t shut Trump up, even when shutting up would save his life. And so the Right-wing media-industrial complex is churning this into just another culture war issue where the facts don’t matter. And so, which side are you on?
McConnell is on the Senate floor excoriating the Dems if anyone is interested.
Right. Hopefully they could also get a statement from Judge, but I realize now that they couldn’t compel him without a subpoena.
Do you feel this is likely to get to a point where we will no longer be able to use the word “alleged”? That this is going to result in a conviction?
Sounds like a day that ends in y.
I am. C-SPAN?