# The Democratic Sexual Assault Playbook **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 30, 2018, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210 "2018-09-30T11:53:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/121 "2018-10-05T07:59:15Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I can give you three names of clients that I am representing in post conviction proceedings that are serving effective life sentences because of uncorroborated accusations. This type of attitude allows that. Is this really a thing that happens? And if so, is it common in sexual assault cases? > [@](#): > > It definitely seems to be. Simple allegations will lead to the conclusion that Kavanaugh is a rapist, a drunk, and a liar. Oh come on. If a friend of yours comes up to you and says, “Hey, X raped me at a party last month. I’m not going to the cops about it, but I want my friends to know,” do you just ignore that and keep hanging out with X? Do you act like this is just a baseless allegation and do nothing? I wouldn’t, and I think most people wouldn’t. > [@](#): > > My allegations is not that Democrats manufacture sexual assault allegations. Okay, so is this you walking back _various_ statements you made throughout the other Kavanaugh thread, including the one made in the OP? That is, that if this sticks, republicans will never confirm another supreme court nominee? > [@](#): > > Oh, they are certainly looking for them, but the “playbook” is when they find them to pump them up to level 15. Guilty as charged based upon the allegation. I read a lot of leftist and liberal media. And what I’m seeing is absolutely not this. What I’m seeing is calls for investigation. Demands that we slow down the process so that we can look into these allegations. Claims that, because of how hard it is to work around evidence of sexual assault, we should consider another candidate instead. Appeals to how Ford seemed trustworthy, while Kavanaugh seemed unhinged and lied a lot. Hey, [here’s the latest from CurrentAffairs](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/if-the-rule-of-law-means-anything-kavanaugh-must-be-impeached). Missing from it: any claim that Kavanaugh committed sexual assault. Funny, that. And yeah, _no shit_ the dems are gonna milk this. When your political opponent is accused of doing something horrible, it would be borderline negligent not to make hay out of it, unless the allegation is obviously and trivially nonsensical - and even that rarely, if ever, stops the republican party. (Swift Boats and Vince Foster, anyone? Virtually everything said about Clinton in the run-up to the 2016 election, anyone?) > [@](#): > > Your side declared him guilty when the allegations came out, Can you quote one senator saying that? One congressperson? One nationally syndicated leftist columnist? One democrat with _any_ significant influence and reach who declared Kavanaugh guilty when the allegations came out? If not, I would encourage you to stop. Stop seeing witch trials when there are none. Stop acting like the democratic position on this is far more extreme than it actually is. This is hysterical, and it’s exactly what shitheels like Mark Levin and Tucker Carlson _want_ you to think - they _want_ you terrified that we’re going to convict an honest man over raw accusations. But to my knowledge, nobody is demanding that, save a handful of fringe people on Twitter or Medium. > [@](#): > > and some have said that\* even if he is innocent\*, then fuck him because women have been not believed for too long and we should balance the scales on his back. Who? A congressman? A liberal judge? A talking head on MSNBC? Or some fucking rando on Twitter? This is the same asymmetry we see in the SRIOTD thread and the SLIOTD thread - the former contains almost exclusively quotes from big-name republican politicians and pundits. The latter contains mostly random people on twitter. But these two things _aren’t equivalent_. I can find random assholes on twitter who are saying _basically anything_. But they aren’t responsible for the laws we live under. :mad: > [@](#): > > Then we have the secondary effects. As I have repeated and is now verified with an investigation, there will be no corroboration of these events, but you get embarrassing dirt on a candidate. Thomas liked his porn. Kavanaugh liked his beer. [Kavanaugh repeatedly and demonstrably lied under oath to congress](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying). One of these things is not like the others. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Your side also smears and taunts in the media for weeks until both Thomas and Kavanaugh lashed out at their accusers. OMG, they don’t have the temperament to be judges!!! Kavanaugh claimed these accusations were the result of a conspiracy from the Clinton administration. Even if he was baited or hurt by the media accusations, _I’m sorry, you shouldn’t get to be a supreme court justice after saying that_. You trust this man to be a fair and impartial justice? After _that_ shitshow? Hell, you brought up Clarence Thomas, but did Clarence Thomas blame Anita Hill on the Carter administration and promise revenge? No, because that would have sounded _fucking insane_. He said his piece, he remained calm, and he got the job. > [@](#): > > And, again, yes, it IS a job interview. But what are the standards of a job interview? No standards? Perfection? No beer in college? A mere accusation means no job for you? I hope you don’t have someone in your past with an axe to grind. The standards for the supreme court, a lifetime appointment to one of the most important government positions we have, should be _really fucking high_. It should be higher than this. It shouldn’t be that you get accused of sexual assault by multiple people, lie repeatedly in your hearings, throw out insane partisan rhetoric while losing your cool in your hearings, and then get confirmed nonetheless. We _always_ have a certain asymmetry when hiring people. The cost for passing up a good candidate is almost always fairly mild - there are other very qualified people for the job. Kavanaugh was one of a slate of _25_ judges recommended by the Federalist Society. However, the cost of hiring a bad candidate can be very severe. This goes double and triple for a nominee to an important job where it takes a literal act of congress to get them removed. And, as Nathan Robinson says in the articles linked above: At this point, my position on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination is quite simple: you cannot flagrantly violate a sworn oath and be placed on the Supreme Court. Someone who lies to the Senate in sworn testimony is not just unqualified to be a justice, but they should not be any kind of judge at all. **Judges must take oaths seriously, because if they treat them as meaningless, then it’s unclear why they should mean anything to anybody**. If Brett Kavanaugh lied to the Senate in his testimony, his nomination must be withdrawn, and he must be impeached and removed from office. Alger Hiss was sent to prison when he lied to Congress, Roger Clemens was prosecuted just for allegedly lying to Congress about baseball. I do not think there is much room for disagreement about this principle. > [@Velocity](#): > > So let’s say that Ginsburg retires or dies and Trump gets to appoint a 3rd SCOTUS nominee. And Democrats discover that this nominee, too, also has a history of sexual misconduct. Is there a way they could bring such accusations forward _without_ people accusing them of running a sexual-assault-playbook/routine? Good question. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/122 "2018-10-05T08:15:24Z")
I wonder what our resident pro-Kavanaugh types have to say (if anything) about the letter, submitted to Congress yesterday [and signed off by more than 2400 law professors](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/04/unprecedented-unfathomable-more-than-law-professors-sign-letter-after-kavanaugh-hearing/?utm_term=.a91d848c8c2c), opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I mean, I have no idea what percentage this is of all the law professors in the country, but we can at least agree it’s a significant number, right? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/123 "2018-10-05T13:39:35Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > I wonder what our resident pro-Kavanaugh types have to say (if anything) about the letter, submitted to Congress yesterday [and signed off by more than 2400 law professors](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/04/unprecedented-unfathomable-more-than-law-professors-sign-letter-after-kavanaugh-hearing/?utm_term=.a91d848c8c2c), opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I mean, I have no idea what percentage this is of all the law professors in the country, but we can at least agree it’s a significant number, right? I think getting thousands of lawyers to protest the nomination is part of the playbook. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/124 "2018-10-05T13:41:39Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > I wonder what our resident pro-Kavanaugh types have to say (if anything) about the letter, submitted to Congress yesterday [and signed off by more than 2400 law professors](https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/04/unprecedented-unfathomable-more-than-law-professors-sign-letter-after-kavanaugh-hearing/?utm_term=.a91d848c8c2c), opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I mean, I have no idea what percentage this is of all the law professors in the country, but we can at least agree it’s a significant number, right? A lot of law professors are liberals? Huh. Who knew? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/125 "2018-10-05T14:33:12Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > A lot of law professors are liberals? Huh. Who knew? So which ones who signed that list are liberals? You clearly know if you’re playing the “liberal bias” card, so are there any conservatives on that list? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/126 "2018-10-05T18:58:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > What the fuck are you talking about? What are you responding to? I am responding to you. That’s why I quoted you. > [@](#): > > Seriously. Cite, please, for what the fuck you’re talking about. 😃 > [@Kimstu](#): > > Mm, get Laura Bush instead for maximum impact (no pun intended). I wasn’t aware that Laura Bush was ever convicted of drunk driving. That’s because it never happened, and your implication is false. So no, that wouldn’t have any impact at all. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2018, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210/127 "2018-10-05T19:22:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I wasn’t aware that Laura Bush was ever convicted of drunk driving. She wasn’t: she killed somebody when running a stop sign, but no alcohol impairment was ever tested for, much less proven. So does your sudden concern about correcting the details of implied misbehavior mean you’re now withdrawing your insinuation about Rep. Lee’s implied responsibility for the alleged doxxing tactics by an intern in her office? :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-democratic-sexual-assault-playbook/822210.md?page=6)