Kavanaugh and #me too

[donnie_baseball]

This is an interesting scenario.

Obviously, you have to hear the woman out.

Could Kavanaugh have been a jerky frat boy at overprivileged Georgetown Prep? Sure. Does that define him, 35 years later, as a husband, dad, and jurist? Most likely not.

Dr. Blasey waits 30+ years to come out with this story, which, by her own accounts sounds like 2 drunken idiots playing grab-ass with each other more than anything, and she escapes when they start "scuffling." No clothes came off, no one was raped. Yes, it came out in marriage counselling, allegedly, in the context of psychoanalysis, one would gather. PTSD? Doubtful.

This is the jewel the Democrats have been waiting for. They are desperate to stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed. He's squeaky clean, so it's been tough to come by. You have to wonder if this is abuse of #metoo, and the timing is certainly uncanny.

 

[SPK145]

Blasey, Judge, and Feinstein should all testify under oath under penalty of perjury before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

[Section112]

I have no idea what happened and you should never do what she said. But this is 35 years later and no one has ever said anything about this and the FBI has done a lot of background checks on this guy. Feinstein (the Gloria Allred of the Senate) holds this until now but she knew about it supposedly in July? Something smells here.

Politics are absolutely brutal and I guess everyone knows that anything is a possibility when you run for office or want to be on the Supreme Court. If everyone was perfect we would have no one in office. This is simply payback but a man's reputation is on the line who in his professional career has no blemishes remotely like this.

 

[Merge]

I have no idea what happened and you should never do what she said. But this is 35 years later and no one has ever said anything about this and the FBI has done a lot of background checks on this guy. Feinstein (the Gloria Allred of the Senate) holds this until now but she knew about it supposedly in July? Something smells here.

Politics are absolutely brutal and I guess everyone knows that anything is a possibility when you run for office or want to be on the Supreme Court. If everyone was perfect we would have no one in office. This is simply payback but a man's reputation is on the line who in his professional career has no blemishes remotely like this.

Pretty much agree with all of that.

Obviously I have no idea what actually happened, but the fact that she told a therapist about this in 2012 does bother me a bit. It gives some credence to the allegation and presents a situation much worse than a some dumb high school kids fooling around.

I do think this will kill his nomination though I’m not ready to say that it should.

It’s hard to say that nothing someone did in high school matters but it’s also hard to say how much it should matter after being what seems to be a good person after high school.

 

[HALL85]

Kavanaugh has been adamant about not even being there and now some shady stuff starting to surface about a case involving her and his mother when she served as justice. If he’s lying and someone can prove he was there, then he’s done, but how do you block someone who wasn’t involved in the incident?

 

[Section112]

Rumored on twitter is that Kavanaugh's mother presided over a foreclosure case where Blasey's parents lost their house. And the therapist notes when she brought this up a few years back do not match her current story. This is getting interesting.

At minimum it will be another opportunity for politicians to grandstand some more. Corey Booker is probably already working on his speech...

 

[SPK145]

You also have this Judge fellow saying it never happened and you have Feinstein sitting on this. Why??

 

[Merge]

Rumored on twitter is that Kavanaugh's mother presided over a foreclosure case where Blasey's parents lost their house. And the therapist notes when she brought this up a few years back do not match her current story. This is getting interesting.

At minimum it will be another opportunity for politicians to grandstand some more. Corey Booker is probably already working on his speech...

I was expecting the story to be bogus until I read that there is a record from the therapist, and that she passes a polygraph.

 

[Merge]

You also have this Judge fellow saying it never happened and you have Feinstein sitting on this. Why??

Really don’t know. It could be Feinstein didn’t believe there was enough there to make it an issue and someone else leaked it to the intercept, or could also be that this was a calculated political move etc.

Both will apparently testify next week in the issue. Gonna be an ugly week heading up to it though.

 

[Section112]

I was expecting the story to be bogus until I read that there is a record from the therapist, and that she passes a polygraph.

I have a feeling that this has been in the hopper for a while. Supposedly she took down all her social media in preparation for this. Have a feeling that Feinstein has a few more cards up her sleeve.

 

[SPK145]

I was expecting the story to be bogus until I read that there is a record from the therapist, and that she passes a polygraph.

Who gave the polygraph, somewhere I read it was her own attorney, not sure if that is true?

 

[donnie_baseball]

I was expecting the story to be bogus until I read that there is a record from the therapist, and that she passes a polygraph.

Ah, yes, the polygraph tells all. If this was weighing so heavily, why not move to destroy his career as he was on his ascent, publicly, for years? She can remember neither the time nor the place, but recalls exactly who was there. Call me skeptical.

 

[Merge]

Ah, yes, the polygraph tells all. If this was weighing so heavily, why not move to destroy his career as he was on his ascent, publically, for years? She can remember neither the time nor the place, but recalls exactly who was there. Call me skeptical.

I went to a lot of gatherings in high school where I didn’t know the host and I couldn’t tell you now where I was.

That’s not that unreasonable of a thing.

And why now? IF this is true (a big IF at this point) then maybe it is easy to ignore someone before the become one of the most important people in the country?

I’m not throwing out the possibility this is a political hit job, but there is enough there to dig deeper.

 

[HALL85]

I went to a lot of gatherings in high school where I didn’t know the host and I couldn’t tell you now where I was.

That’s not that unreasonable of a thing.

And why now? IF this is true (a big IF at this point) then maybe it is easy to ignore someone before the become one of the most important people in the country?

I’m not throwing out the possibility this is a political hit job, but there is enough there to dig deeper.

“Possible hit job” from the conspiracy king...lol. Please just admit to being a blind partisan and we can be done with it.

 

[Merge]

“Possible hit job” from the conspiracy king...lol. Please just admit to being a blind partisan and we can be done with it.

How is it blindly partisan to think this story could possibly be a political hit job against Kavanaugh?

 

[HALL85]

How is it blindly partisan to think this story could possibly be a political hit job against Kavanaugh?

“Could be?”...how is it not?

 

[Merge]

“Could be?”...how is it not?

Unless you know facts that no one else here knows, believing it is or isn’t at this point is blindly partisan.

 

[HALL85]

Unless you know facts that no one else here knows, believing it is or isn’t at this point is blindly partisan.

A Feinstein hit job is infinitely more plausible than your Russian conspiracy...timing says it all

 

[Merge]

A Feinstein hit job is infinitely more plausible than your Russian conspiracy...timing says it all

If you say so.

 

[seton1996]

I was expecting the story to be bogus until I read that there is a record from the therapist, and that she passes a polygraph.

Polygraphs by your own law team can be handled where “you pass”, lawyers & polygraph questioners know what questions to ask and not ask, also if you fail the test disappears.

The one other thing I found a little weird, supposedly husband comment when she brought it up in therapy, she was worried this guy would one day be on Supreme Court. Sticks out to me as a weird comment, especially in 2012, with a Democrat president in office.

This is a tough one, as we do not know if it happened, and if something did happen is it exactly what she is saying 35 years later or was it a lot less harmless high school kids fooling around.

 

[HALL85]

Would be interesting to see the context of the polygraph. Were the questions about her just being fondled and not naming a specific person or were there are questions about Kavanaugh himself.

 

[Section112]

I believe that once this type of an allegation comes out, lawmakers are gonna side with her because of how it looks if they confirm him. All they care about is getting reelected and optics matter more than substance. And the longer this gets drawn out the more support she will get whether she can prove it or not. I think he is toast frankly unless she does not have her act together or he can prove he was not at the party. The sooner they have this hearing the better for Repubs and Kavanaugh. The longer it gets drawn out the more support she will get whether its true or not.

 

[JimmyCryan]

I believe that once this type of an allegation comes out, lawmakers are gonna side with her because of how it looks if they confirm him. All they care about is getting reelected and optics matter more than substance. And the longer this gets drawn out the more support she will get whether she can prove it or not. I think he is toast frankly unless she does not have her act together or he can prove he was not at the party. The sooner they have this hearing the better for Repubs and Kavanaugh. The longer it gets drawn out the more support she will get whether its true or not.

This.

 

[HALL85]

I believe that once this type of an allegation comes out, lawmakers are gonna side with her because of how it looks if they confirm him. All they care about is getting reelected and optics matter more than substance. And the longer this gets drawn out the more support she will get whether she can prove it or not. I think he is toast frankly unless she does not have her act together or he can prove he was not at the party. The sooner they have this hearing the better for Repubs and Kavanaugh. The longer it gets drawn out the more support she will get whether its true or not.

Monday is going to be interesting. If I were the Republicans, I would be very careful on the questioning of her. Can't be accusatory, but rather compassionate about what happened to her, but focus more on the challenge of recollection with clarity under duress. As long as someone doesn't come out and make Kavanagh out to be a liar, it will move right to a vote.

I think it's going to be a be careful what you wish for moment. Would Amy Barrett be up next?

 

[seton1996]

Monday is going to be interesting. If I were the Republicans, I would be very careful on the questioning of her. Can't be accusatory, but rather compassionate about what happened to her, but focus more on the challenge of recollection with clarity under duress. As long as someone doesn't come out and make Kavanagh out to be a liar, it will move right to a vote.

I think it's going to be a be careful what you wish for moment. Would Amy Barrett be up next?

Absolutely, very interesting. The Republican Senators are in a tough situation.

Ask the wrong questions, or in the wrong manner and you might cause a storm for yourselves, and deal with the consequences at election time.

But if you go too soft, may cause her story to be considered more credible, costing the Kavanaugh nomination and possibly alienating your own supporters, the President and your party.

 

[Pirate19001]

Rumored on twitter is that Kavanaugh's mother presided over a foreclosure case where Blasey's parents lost their house.

It is one thing to be suspicious or want to hear more information, but what you mention is the definition of fake news.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...other-didnt-foreclose-on-his-accusers-parents

This is why victims of sexual assault often dont come forward. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by people who try to discredit them.

 

[JimmyCryan]

It is one thing to be suspicious or want to hear more information, but what you mention is the definition of fake news.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...other-didnt-foreclose-on-his-accusers-parents

This is why victims of sexual assault often dont come forward. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by people who try to discredit them.

Hindsight is, of course, 20/20, but if she had come forward in 1985, 1995, or even 2005, the scrutiny of her story, and her character, would have been infinitesimally less.

 

[Section112]

It is one thing to be suspicious or want to hear more information, but what you mention is the definition of fake news.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...other-didnt-foreclose-on-his-accusers-parents

This is why victims of sexual assault often dont come forward. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by people who try to discredit them.

My first line said it was "rumored on Twitter" - sorry if you did not see my line about that. Twitter is not even a news source so it's a rumor and nothing more and that is why my first line said "rumored on Twitter." I appreciate the correction - you should work for the NY Times and maybe they would not print so much fake news.

I have no horse in this race but let's also not forget that once an allegation comes out like this a judge's reputation is shot whether he is innocent or guilty. And that is not fair either if in fact he did not do it. And to say the victim in this case does not have anything to gain may be true and may not be true. This is big time politics and to think there may not be money floating around or some quid pro quo in the background is naive. In normal assault cases that is probably very true and we should be very sensitive to victims, but in this case there are big time donors who would send money to this lady in a heart beat. This is down and dirty stuff that we are seeing right now with the timing of this coming out and the players involved. Could be true could not be true but the sooner its over the sooner the Repubs will come out with the new Judge that will get torn apart.

 

[Merge]

My first line said it was "rumored on Twitter" - sorry if you did not see my line about that. Twitter is not even a news source so it's a rumor and nothing more and that is why my first line said "rumored on Twitter." I appreciate the correction - you should work for the NY Times and maybe they would not print so much fake news.

I have no horse in this race but let's also not forget that once an allegation comes out like this a judge's reputation is shot whether he is innocent or guilty. And that is not fair either if in fact he did not do it. And to say the victim in this case does not have anything to gain may be true and may not be true. This is big time politics and to think there may not be money floating around or some quid pro quo in the background is naive. In normal assault cases that is probably very true and we should be very sensitive to victims, but in this case there are big time donors who would send money to this lady in a heart beat. This is down and dirty stuff that we are seeing right now with the timing of this coming out and the players involved. Could be true could not be true but the sooner its over the sooner the Repubs will come out with the new Judge that will get torn apart.

Agree with all of your takes on this so far.
We haven't quite figured out how to navigate these types of allegations yet, but they will likely kill his nomination. There is a chance he may or may not deserve that.

 

[knowknow456]

My first line said it was "rumored on Twitter" - sorry if you did not see my line about that. Twitter is not even a news source so it's a rumor and nothing more and that is why my first line said "rumored on Twitter." I appreciate the correction - you should work for the NY Times and maybe they would not print so much fake news.

This paragraph is not necessary to having a real debate and is just stirring the pot which is the same kind of behavior you are complaining about with others. Taking the debate even lower is just not necessary IMO.

As to your overall point, I do not agree that Twitter is not a news source. As an example, the President breaks news on Twitter multiple times per week.

 

[Pirate19001]

My first line said it was "rumored on Twitter" - sorry if you did not see my line about that. Twitter is not even a news source so it's a rumor and nothing more and that is why my first line said "rumored on Twitter." I appreciate the correction - you should work for the NY Times and maybe they would not print so much fake news.

I have no horse in this race but let's also not forget that once an allegation comes out like this a judge's reputation is shot whether he is innocent or guilty. And that is not fair either if in fact he did not do it. And to say the victim in this case does not have anything to gain may be true and may not be true. This is big time politics and to think there may not be money floating around or some quid pro quo in the background is naive. In normal assault cases that is probably very true and we should be very sensitive to victims, but in this case there are big time donors who would send money to this lady in a heart beat. This is down and dirty stuff that we are seeing right now with the timing of this coming out and the players involved. Could be true could not be true but the sooner its over the sooner the Repubs will come out with the new Judge that will get torn apart.

I really agree with almost everything you post in the second paragraph. A measured approach needs to be taken. Still why bring up the rumor, that is so easily dismissed with a little research, at all? It was started to discredit Blasey, and giving credence to it pushes that agenda.

 

[HALL85]

Some interesting twists still developing. Ford (or her attorney) still have not confirmed that she will testify on Monday. And there's a thought of bringing in outside experts to interview them. This way, it doesn't put any Senator in a risky position with their base if their line of questioning is too tough. Let someone else ask the tough questions...more theater.

 

[MBF72]

I believe that once this type of an allegation comes out, lawmakers are gonna side with her because of how it looks if they confirm him. All they care about is getting reelected and optics matter more than substance. And the longer this gets drawn out the more support she will get whether she can prove it or not. I think he is toast frankly unless she does not have her act together or he can prove he was not at the party. The sooner they have this hearing the better for Repubs and Kavanaugh. The longer it gets drawn out the more support she will get whether its true or not.

Though the Senate confirmed Thomas in 1992. Maybe this is their reboot for that Mulligan?

 

[MBF72]

Georgetown Prep yearbook 1983 presents and shows references to keggers. Geez, which adult/faculty member thought that was a good idea?

I taught in a large suburban CT high school for my entire career. If the guy or woman who oversaw the yearbook---kind of a big deal--- let that get through to the presses, he/she would either be overseeing a lot of cafeteria duty or be asked not to return.

 

[HALL85]

Ford now not testifying. lol

 

[shupat08]

Ford now not testifying. lol

Nice try. You got about halfway there with the facts .

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/4...er-says-fbi-should-probe-before-she-testifies

So now all Trump has to do is ask the FBI to update their background investigation of Kavanaugh and when that's complete. She'll testify.

 

[SPK145]

Nice try. You got about halfway there with the facts .

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/4...er-says-fbi-should-probe-before-she-testifies

So now all Trump has to do is ask the FBI to update their background investigation of Kavanaugh and when that's complete. She'll testify.

What a bunch of wasteful bull, trying to investigate from 35 years ago, she 's just being the dems puppet trying to delay this. The repubs told her she could testify in private.

"Late Tuesday, Ford broke her silence and said the FBI should investigate her accusations before she testifies before the Senate, saying she felt some senators had already pre-judged her case."

Isn't that hysterical, all the dems and repubs have already pre-judged Kavanaugh before his hearings began!!!

This is now the charade Section112 promised everyone it would become.

Get on with it.

 

[shupat08]

What a bunch of wasteful bull, trying to investigate from 35 years ago, she 's just being the dems puppet trying to delay this. The repubs told her she could testify in private.

Get on with it.

Someone who was up for a sec of labor position for GHWB said the FBI routinely completes updated background investigations when new accusations of nominees are made during or after the hearings.

Why should this case be different?

It shouldn't.

Get on with it.

 

[HALL85]

Nice try. You got about halfway there with the facts .

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/4...er-says-fbi-should-probe-before-she-testifies

So now all Trump has to do is ask the FBI to update their background investigation of Kavanaugh and when that's complete. She'll testify.

No I got it right. She’s not testifying Monday and she’ll never testify. This was nothing more than a stall tactic to create a change in public opinion.

Okay, so how do you investigate a crime that was never reported, unknown when it happened or where it happened?

 

[shupat08]

No I got it right. She’s not testifying Monday and she’ll never testify. This was nothing more than a stall tactic to create a change in public opinion.

Okay, so how do you investigate a crime that was never reported, unknown when it happened or where it happened?

Have the FBI bring her, kavanaugh, judge and the therapist in for interviews. Update his background file.

And at the current moment she has not said she "will never" testify. So you are imposing your preconceived opinion into the news and changing it. Whether it ends up being the case or not. You are misreporting the current news by leaving info out.

#FakeNews85