# New sexual assault allegation against Justice Kavanaugh **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 15, 2019, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241 "2019-09-15T01:28:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/121 "2019-09-16T16:57:36Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’d like to understand \*\*HurricaneDitka’s \*\*conspiracy theory a bit better. Is your view that a dozen Yale grads and other people sat down and decided to fabricate a story about Kavanaugh in order to sink his nomination and that what they went with was something that happened at a high school party with no third party witnesses and the penis slap incident? In that scenario, why wouldn’t they have constructed a lie in which they themselves were witnesses if they were prepared to lie about, e.g., what the victim had told them at the time of the incident? Why didn’t they do this to Gorsuch or Roberts or Alito? First off, I think there’s something that needs to be clarified that I thought was obvious to all but apparently is not: Every comment I’ve made about the alleged incident in this thread has been about the Max Stier “story”. Indeed, the thread itself, is about the Max Stier “story”. It’s the “new sexual assault allegation”. The Deborah Ramirez stuff is old news. Given that information, do you wish to rephrase your question (because it appears to have been based on some faulty assumptions - and I’m not just talking about the NYT article now)? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/122 "2019-09-16T17:09:49Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > First off, I think there’s something that needs to be clarified that I thought was obvious to all but apparently is not: Every comment I’ve made about the alleged incident in this thread has been about the Max Stier “story”. Indeed, the thread itself, is about the Max Stier “story”. It’s the “new sexual assault allegation”. The Deborah Ramirez stuff is old news. Given that information, do you wish to rephrase your question (because it appears to have been based on some faulty assumptions - and I’m not just talking about the NYT article now)? Seems like you’re avoiding the substance of the issue, and focusing on whether the story was printed using the correct administrative procedures according to New York Times Directive 32, paragraph R, subsection 4932, clauses 1, 7, and 15. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/123 "2019-09-16T17:11:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think you’ve got a bright future writing for the NYT 😉 Fox News pays better and I wouldn’t have to put any thought into what I write. It took me like ten whole seconds to come up with the line you quoted – that kind of heavy lifting isn’t needed for the My Pillow News Update viewing audience. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/124 "2019-09-16T17:17:07Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Seems like you’re avoiding the substance of the issue, and focusing on whether the story was printed using the correct administrative procedures according to New York Times Directive 32, paragraph R, subsection 4932, clauses 1, 7, and 15. “the substance of the issue”? What substance? The theoretical victim apparently doesn’t recall it. The supposed eyewitness doesn’t want to talk about it. The source here is two anonymous people who heard about it second- or third-hand, and a couple of NYT writers so desperate to sell their book that they’ll leave out key details like, oh, say, that the alleged victim doesn’t have any recollection of the event. This is like Avenatti all over again. There’s no “substance” here, just the slow-motion destruction of the NYT’s reputation (although, admittedly that’s more like whipping a dead horse these days). ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/125 "2019-09-16T17:20:36Z")
I’m wondering if the reluctance of the FBI to conduct an investigation is based on the fact that the evidence is quite dated. Even if there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, what are the chances that charges would be brought by a prosecutor, especially when the alleged victim is not willing to corroborate now, let alone bring those charges herself. After all, we saw the outcome when an (alleged) victim did testify during his confirmation hearing. The issue isn’t whether these actions should disqualify Kavanaugh. They absolutely should, IMO. But if he has not been indited, let alone convicted (criminal or civil) of the charges, how do you impeach the guy based only on findings of the court of public opinion. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/126 "2019-09-16T17:22:38Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’m wondering if the reluctance of the FBI to conduct an investigation is based on the fact that the evidence is quite dated. Naw, it’s just that Individual-1 has ordered them not to. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/127 "2019-09-16T17:25:02Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Naw, it’s just that Individual-1 has ordered them not to. Should I file this under the growing stack of accusations made without supporting evidence? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/128 "2019-09-16T17:39:06Z")
You know why not. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/129 "2019-09-16T17:51:15Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > First off, I think there’s something that needs to be clarified that I thought was obvious to all but apparently is not: Every comment I’ve made about the alleged incident in this thread has been about the Max Stier “story”. Indeed, the thread itself, is about the Max Stier “story”. It’s the “new sexual assault allegation”. The Deborah Ramirez stuff is old news. Given that information, do you wish to rephrase your question (because it appears to have been based on some faulty assumptions - and I’m not just talking about the NYT article now)? The information in the NYT article includes this: > [@](#): > > During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been “the talk of campus.” Our reporting suggests that it was. > > At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time. Is it your view that the Ramirez allegation is true but the very similar Stier-related one is a liberal conspiracy? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/130 "2019-09-16T17:59:01Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The information in the NYT article includes this: > > Is it your view that the Ramirez allegation is true but the very similar Stier-related one is a liberal conspiracy? It’s my view that calling what Pogrebin and Kelly have done “reporting” is already playing fast and loose with labels. Furthermore, I’ve never felt that Ramirez’ story had enough supporting evidence or sufficiently resolved the doubts surrounding it to label it “true”. I feel similarly about this Max Stier story. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/131 "2019-09-16T18:04:12Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > “the substance of the issue”? What substance? The theoretical victim apparently doesn’t recall it. The supposed eyewitness doesn’t want to talk about it. The source here is two anonymous people who heard about it second- or third-hand, and a couple of NYT writers so desperate to sell their book that they’ll leave out key details like, oh, say, that the alleged victim doesn’t have any recollection of the event. > > This is like Avenatti all over again. There’s no “substance” here, just the slow-motion destruction of the NYT’s reputation (although, admittedly that’s more like whipping a dead horse these days). Is it fair to say that you believe Kavenaugh to be innocent – not just not guilty, but innocent – of each sexual assault allegation that has been made? If that’s the case, then would you say that some people – name your boogeyman – are fabricating each of these stories out of whole cloth? And what is your level of confidence in your conclusions here? ETA: and is it also your view that if a person reports a crime to authorities, that they are obligated to speak to the press about it if they are to maintain their credibility? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/132 "2019-09-16T18:04:44Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Your understanding isn’t accurate. What you’re suggesting is to charge a person with a crime, then do an investigation. I think there might be some confusion regarding use of terminology. I suspect when a lot of people use the term “impeachment proceedings” or similar phrases, they are talking about initiating a process that may eventually lead to impeachment. Unless that process begins, there will be no thorough investigation. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/133 "2019-09-16T18:04:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Furthermore, I’ve never felt that Ramirez’ story had enough supporting evidence or sufficiently resolved the doubts surrounding it to label it “true”. I feel similarly about this Max Stier story. Ok. But I’m asking a more specific question. Of the seven people who are reported to have heard of the incident long before Kavanaugh was a federal judge, how many are: (a) Not actually saying that but are instead being misrepresented by the journalists; (b) Lying; (c) Sincere but mistaken. I took it that your view was that some or all were (a) or (b). That strikes me as wildly implausible, so I wanted to hear more about how you got there. If instead you’re just saying (c), that strikes me as more plausible (though not especially plausible) but also not the kind of basis on which to say the kinds of things you’ve said in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/134 "2019-09-16T18:15:12Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Is it fair to say that you believe Kavenaugh to be innocent – not just not guilty, but innocent – of each sexual assault allegation that has been made? … No, I believe there are significant reasons for doubt with each sexual assault allegation, but I’d stop short of saying that I know for a fact that he is innocent of all of them. > [@Ravenman](#): > > … ETA: and is it also your view that if a person reports a crime to authorities, that they are obligated to speak to the press about it if they are to maintain their credibility? I think it’s difficult to “maintain” something that was never established in the first place. AIUI, he didn’t “report a crime to authorities”, at least not to the ones with jurisdiction to prosecute it. If the “reporting” is to be believed (and there’s significant doubt about that too), he “notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account”. If he was more forthcoming than the NYT was with the fact that the woman didn’t recall it, I’m not surprised that they did not expend more resources on it in the compressed timeframe they had. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/135 "2019-09-16T18:25:16Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Ok. But I’m asking a more specific question. Of the seven people who are reported to > have heard of the incident long before Kavanaugh was a federal judge, how many are: > > (a) Not actually saying that but are instead being misrepresented by the journalists; > (b) Lying; > (c) Sincere but mistaken. > > I took it that your view was that some or all were (a) or (b). That strikes me as wildly implausible, so I wanted to hear more about how you got there. If instead you’re just saying (c), that strikes me as more plausible (though not especially plausible) but also not the kind of basis on which to say the kinds of things you’ve said in this thread. I’m dubious about the report that seven people heard of the incident long before. What are their names, and what precisely are they willing to testify / declare publicly that they heard? When did they hear it and from whom? For example, one of the hearsay sources the NYT article cites is Ramirez’ mother. [Over here](https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/16/new-york-times-admits-alleged-victim-kavanaugh-incident-no-recollection/), I read: > [@](#): > > … Ramirez’s mother, who says she was told “something happened” — that’s the actual quote — at Yale. “Something happened” is so far from corroboration that Brett Kavanaugh thrust his dick at Ramirez that it’s almost laughable. Should I be able to tell my wife “something happened” today and decades from now use that as corroboration that person X did Y to me? Are the other hearsay sources similarly vague? I have no reason to believe they’re any more specific about what they heard at this point, especially given the NYT track record on this matter. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/136 "2019-09-16T18:46:53Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > No, I believe there are significant reasons for doubt with each sexual assault allegation, but I’d stop short of saying that I know for a fact that he is innocent of all of them. > > I think it’s difficult to “maintain” something that was never established in the first place. AIUI, he didn’t “report a crime to authorities”, at least not to the ones with jurisdiction to prosecute it. If the “reporting” is to be believed (and there’s significant doubt about that too), he “notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account”. If he was more forthcoming than the NYT was with the fact that the woman didn’t recall it, I’m not surprised that they did not expend more resources on it in the compressed timeframe they had. Hey, can you tell me where you get those knives that slice so finely? I mean, splitting hairs is one thing, but now we are ablating microns with such unbelievable precision. ---
**Author:** ![E-DUB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/e-dub/32/403_2.png) [@E-DUB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-DUB)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/137 "2019-09-16T18:52:22Z")
It was pretty clear at the time that the FBI investigation was single-buttocked. If this was intentional, that should be looked at as well. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/138 "2019-09-16T19:00:17Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m dubious about the report that seven people heard of the incident long before. What are their names, and what precisely are they willing to testify / declare publicly that they heard? When did they hear it and from whom? For example, one of the hearsay sources the NYT article cites is Ramirez’ mother. [Over here](https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/16/new-york-times-admits-alleged-victim-kavanaugh-incident-no-recollection/), I read: > > “Something happened” is so far from corroboration that Brett Kavanaugh thrust his dick at Ramirez that it’s almost laughable. Should I be able to tell my wife “something happened” today and decades from now use that as corroboration that person X did Y to me? Are the other hearsay sources similarly vague? I have no reason to believe they’re any more specific about what they heard at this point, especially given the NYT track record on this matter. Let’s not be intentionally dismissive of the much more likely scenario. If your boss stuck his crotch in your face, you might mention it to your friends over drinks. They might, in due time, mention it in front your mom in a circuitous way while they are over for a visit with you (assuming a long familiar relationship with her). Your mom might not question you closely because a) she’s not stupid and b) she frankly doesn’t want to hear the ugly details. Years later, if asked, she would say “something happened”. (Arguably, your wife is a bad example because she would want to know more, in detail, because she’s your wife and not your mom.) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/139 "2019-09-16T19:04:12Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Let’s not be intentionally dismissive of the much more likely scenario. If your boss stuck his crotch in your face, you might mention it to your friends over drinks. They might, in due time, mention it in front your mom in a circuitous way while they are over for a visit with you (assuming a long familiar relationship with her). Your mom might not question you closely because a) she’s not stupid and b) she frankly doesn’t want to hear the ugly details. Years later, if asked, she would say “something happened”. (Arguably, your wife is a bad example because she would want to know more, in detail, because she’s your wife and not your mom.) A complete and thorough investigation might answer questions like this. It’s not hard to imagine the motivation of those who acted to prevent such a thorough and complete investigation. It is kind of hard (or maybe impossible) to imagine motivations that are anything besides morally bankrupt. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2019, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241/140 "2019-09-16T19:08:38Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I think there might be some confusion regarding use of terminology. I suspect when a lot of people use the term “impeachment proceedings” or similar phrases, they are talking about initiating a process that may eventually lead to impeachment. Unless that process begins, there will be no thorough investigation. Do you think that Warren or Harris are using the term in that manner or knowledgeable enough to be using the word correctly? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-sexual-assault-allegation-against-justice-kavanaugh/840241.md?page=8)