Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    • Contentious
    Sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh
    • Trump's speech at the UN as a whole is one of the greatest speeches in presidential history.

      ~~

      It's plainly obvious that, regardless of the truth of any of these sexual assault allegations, that the Democrats in power don't take these charges seriously. We know they don't because they're using vile, last-second desperation tactics to dredge up these reports that, in the case of Ford, were known about for weeks, and in the other cases were so "conveniently" found out about just as everyone was realizing how unsubstantiated Ford's accusation was.

      How about we realize that, before we start "believing survivors", we actually need to make sure the person we're believing really is a survivor of what they claim to be. If reports like these can defeat a Supreme Court nominee through "public opinion", with all of their uncorroborated evidence and consistently refuted claims by the alleged witnesses, then it really does beg the question of how any nominated judge could get through.

      This scenario could be that the woman is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But it continues to look more and more like Mayella Ewell being forced to come up and demand she be believed for her own sake.
    • ^This would argument would hold more water if the Republicans in charge of the committee would have started the FBI investigation into the allegations as soon as they came to light...as requested by the woman who came forward. If an investigation had been started immediately, the proceedings wouldn't have been much more held-up than they currently are.

      I mean, I could go on about how ludicrous your spiel is for a number of other reasons, but the fact that the committee refuses to open an investigation should be the cause of your griping --- not that the women came forward.
      Don't want the default to be "believing survivors" blindly? Investigate and thoroughly scrutinize the claim, per the survivor's own request.
      Don't want uncorroborated evidence used to sink his nomination? Investigate the claims and get people on the record under threat of perjury, per the woman's request.

      There is precedent for this exact circumstance...a woman accusing a nominee to the supreme court of inappropriate sexual behavior has been dealt with before and while that process had many problems, they did at least perform an FBI investigation ahead of her testimony. The investigation took like 3 days. This isn't rocket science.

      Republicans refuse to do this because they are afraid of what the investigation would find.
    • My understanding is the report was not made public until now because Ford wanted to remain anonymous and Feinstein was respecting her wishes, reporters found out about the allegations recently and that's how it got out. It wasn't Democratic lawmakers trying to pull a fast one at the last minute.

      I think it's pretty clear that she is a survivor, based on notes from a therapist in 2012 where she mentioned an attempted rape, you can argue that maybe she has the wrong guy but can you really debate that she wasn't assaulted at all - why else would you bring that up in therapy if it didn't happen? If you're concerned about the accuracy and truthfulness of her testimony then I assume you're fully onboard with a nonpartisan FBI investigation? I think it's likely that it was Kavanaugh, but it doesn't matter what I think - the FBI should make this determination via an investigation. Wouldn't you like to know if we're putting a rapist a court? Neither Kavanaugh nor the Senate GOP want an investigation, so that raises red flags that he doesn't seem interested in potentially clearing his name.



      The post was edited 1 time, last by Viajero de la Galaxia ().

    • The default is that, without corroborating evidence, you don't believe the accuser. We don't believe that she's telling the truth until we find the proof that she isn't -- we take her accusation seriously, but not as presumably true.

      Ford is the only one who hasn't committed to testifying under oath, and her lawyers' demands are absolutely asinine.

      My gripe was never with the woman coming forward per se, it was with the slimy way in which the Democrats operated with regards to her allegation.

      The FBI only investigated Anita Hill's bogus claims because the matter at hand was involving federal employees -- this alleged incident is at best a state crime that occured decades ago, and there hasn't been enough information given to even know where on earth to begin with such an investigation.

      Your last line does give away the game though -- Democrats don't care about finding the truth of these claims, at least not nearly as much as using them as smears on the character of all who disagree with them politically.

      I never asserted that the woman is outright lying, though I am amused at the Democrats' sudden love for the "nonpartisan FBI" -- I'm certain that if an investigation were done through it, despite this particular case not being under its jurisdiction, the Dems would flip instantly and claim that it only found nothing because of Trump's corrupt meddling or some such nonsense.

      I'd love to know that there isn't an attempted sexual assaulter on the court (not to be confused with a rapist, mind you, which is even worse), but I have yet to be given any serious evidence to suggest that any allegations about Kavanaugh are true, so I have no great reason to believe them.
      INACTIVE UNTIL 2021

      The post was edited 2 times, last by logicalpencils ().

    • Well, until I can be given proof that these claims are true, I have no way to determine definitively whether it is hysteria or honest condemnation. But the insistance from so many on the left that we not treat Kavanaugh as innocent until proven guilty, under whatever excuse they want to give, puts them at least on the witchcraft side.

      The Avenatti accusation in particular is quite black-and-white on this, however: either the accusation is true and Kavanaugh really is a super-secret gang rapist, or it is false and this has been a vile, corrupt smear campaign that despite its refutation will muddy his character for the rest of his life.
    • @logicalpencils

      The world was literally laughing at Trump and you responding with "actually it was the best speech" is almost as laughable as the original speech.

      Firstly, Dianne Feinstein withheld a name at the request of the sexual assault victim who believed that if her name was put forth to the public that her safety and the safety of her family would be at risk. Given that Republicans are now issuing death threats against her and her family, to the point where she has had to literally abandon her home, proves her concerns were grounded in reality. That you willingly ignore the very real threat to her person and to her children while chiding the Democrats about not taking things seriously is an indictment of anything you have to say on this matter (and any other for that matter). Feinstein acted in good faith toward her constituent. It's an act that is rare in politics, and an impossibility for Republicans, so I understand your confusion.

      Secondly, as the Republican party has amply proven there are no time limits to how long a Supreme Court seat sit open. They were quite happy to allow Merrick Garland to go 293 days without even having a hearing on his nomination. They went on record, time and again during the 2016 election, stating that "If Hillary Clinton wins this election, we will not allow her to seat a Supreme Court Justice." So there is nothing that is last second about the very real concerns that exist that Kavanaugh is a serial sexual predator. These hearings don't have an arbitrary start or end date beyond what the Senate Judiciary decides. If it decides it would like to spend more time on this, it can easily do so. The only reason timing matters right now is because Senate Republicans are looking at poll numbers and starting to sweat that they may not hold the Senate after the mid-terms. If you think this matters more than ensuring sexual predator doesn't occupy the Supreme Court, again, this is an indictment of you by your own words.

      Third, victims of sexual assault undergo hugely traumatic experiences. Often times they will repress severe emotional damage they've undergone in order to try to just *live*. And sometimes, when they see others coming forward naming the man who also hurt them it gives them the courage to stand up and do the same. It's not really a surprising turn of events given recent history, in light of the #MeToo movement, or given statistics because when a man has sexually assaulted one person he has almost always sexually assaulted several others. There is rarely just one victim. Weinstein, Cosby, Gnomeshi, Nassar, the series of accusations against priests within the Catholic Church. There are literally dozens of men in positions of power who have taken advantage of women or children and gotten away with it for decades. The fact that you're only showing concern at this interval that multiple women could have been sexually assaulted by a man and your concern is not that a man sexually assaulted possibly dozens of women but that they would choose to step forward now in solidarity with another victim of the same man is, again, an indictment of you.

      Fourth, there is a manner by which Fords accusation can be substantiated. She specifically named a witness to the events that were perpetrated against her by Kavanaugh: Mark Judge. Mark Judge, who's lawyer told him to skip town. Mark Judge, who has publicly state he would refuse to testify in front of the Judiciary Committee. Why would she name another person in the room if she was lying? What purpose does that serve someone who would create a fabrication? It makes no sense at all, if she were lying, to say someone else was in the room. It would make much more sense for her to claim she was alone in the room with Kavanaugh because then we would be left with only her words vs his. The Senate can compel Judge to testify via subpoena why is he not being sought to put tell to this supposed lie?

      Fifth, do you know what's compelling evidence that someone is a survivor of sexual assault? Years of therapy. Years of therapy which have been transcribed. Years of transcribed therapy which have been plainly offered to the Judiciary Committee. And, even beyond that, the Senate Democrats have offered to do precisely as you have said should happen: we confirm what truly occurred, if we can, via an FBI investigation into the events. The Democrats are prepared to have these events investigated. Dr. Ford is prepared to have these events investigated, again, not the actions one would expect from a woman you malign as baseless.

      Sixth, why was the Orrin Hatch's office communicating the name of a woman to Ed Whelan before they ostensibly knew of Kavanaugh's assault of her? Why was Whelan preparing to malign an unrelated school teacher from Colorado in order to run interference for a Supreme Court nominee? Why did the spokesman of Hatch, Matt Witlock, tell people to watch Whelan?



      Seventh, your statements, the same vile rhetoric regurgitated from Republican talking points, are predicated upon Kavanaugh NEEDING to be the next Supreme Court Justice. But a nominee can remove themselves from consideration and a president could remove their nominee if they so wished. Kavanaugh does not need to be a USSCJ. There is a short list that was circled months ago of people Trump was interviewing for possible nominees. On that list were women. If you want someone who, statistically speaking, has probably never sexually assaulted someone you could just nominate one of them instead. Some of them even had Senate Democrats vote for them for their current positions.

      All of the above is only addressing the "concerns" listed.

      Beyond being a sexual predator, there is another pretty good reason to not want Kavanaugh on the Court: he's a liar. He lies all the fucking time about the most pointless shit. During the Fox News interview he did earlier he lied consistently about his drinking habits during college, habits which are corroborated by witness statements from dozens of classmates, his former college roommate, the memoirs of his friend Mark Judge, messages *he literally wrote in year books* decades ago. It's eminently clear that he is shamelessly lying over something that is inconsequential. People drink. Teenagers and college students drink. A Justice, in particular a Justice for the Supreme Court, should have upstanding moral character and enough common sense to realise lying over pointless things which are easily fact-checked is fucking stupid.

      And *none* of this is touching upon the fact that the vast majority of his record is being withheld from Senate Democrats because the Republican party is too cowardly to have the things he's said and done on public record.

      TL:DR; Stop your concern trolling.


      “Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told.”
      ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

    • ...and that's a bingo!!

      I've got: "These Women are Opportunistic", "Crying 'I need Proof!!' while actively dismissing all evidence put forth", Free Space, "It's a political con job!", and "Women are Hysterical". How fun!

      Avamike has a much better post above than I'm about to put out here, but for your further consideration:

      People largely wouldn't assume he was guilty if he weren't acting like it.
      I think there's actually a lot of room for a nuanced discussion about whether these allegations should be disqualifying and I think this tact would go over really well with moderates, but Kavanaugh and the Republicans on the committee refuse to allow a good-faith discussion about it based on their actions up to this point.

      An admission of the drinking (which has been attested to by numerous people and written about prior to this nomination) and a statement showing his thoughtfulness or remorse just to the drinking and general teenage stupidity (evidenced in his year book) would have gone a long way (hand-in-hand with being open to an investigation) to winning over moderates. He would not be polling this badly if it were just that women were accusing him of sexual misconduct/sexual assault. I don't have enough faith in people to believe that alone would sink him with the right tact, even today. Many people are clearly very sympathetic to the idea that these women could be showing up to hurt his career or themselves have political motivations (and by extension empathize that it could happen to them/their son)....but it is the fact that he refuses to acknowledge even being a fallible normal person, that he refuses to be open or honest, and that he clearly doesn't want these allegations looked into officially that make him appear guilty to people. If you're so sure of your innocence, welcome confirmation of it in the form of an investigation.

      Now personally I do believe these women based on what I've read and I do think this should be disqualifying...a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is no-one's right and I'm fine with us holding the standards for that very high. I don't want men or women sitting on the court who have shown a lack of regard for other people's sexual autonomy...I think that's a pretty low bar to have to clear as a person and certainly I don't think that a sexual predator of any kind should be sitting on the bench deciding on cases which deal with sexual predation and its victims. I wish this were something I could count on everyone to agree with as a very base standard...but FFS just last year Roy Moore nearly won a Senate seat.

      I would continue to argue with you, but it is pretty clear you don't really care...any evidence is not "proof" enough, any logical conclusions are dismissed, and there's clearly no good-faith argument that will make you budge one iota.
      As someone who genuinely gives a shit about this topic and is affected by it...I'm gonna peace out. I sincerely hope you grow up and it some day dawns upon you that women are people, but I'm not going to hold my breath. :(
    • Excuse me, but I will not stand for an assault on my character like that. Never have I said or done anything to suggest that I do not respect women as people fully equal to myself in dignity and under the law, because I in fact do have that respect.

      I didn't call the accusing women opportunistic, I called the Democrats who brought it out opportunistic. I have not dismissed any evidence and have no idea what you're talking about in that regard. I used the word "hysteria" because that was the word used by the person I was responding to, and never suggested that this was a matter of "their female nature making them hysterical".

      But yes it does certainly look like a political con job, even if the allegations are true. The Democrats in power have been treating them that way.

      Kavanaugh never suggested that he isn't fallible or that he never drank or did dumb things as a result -- he says in that Fox interview that he did. But to get upset that a person wants to portray their best self, and to use it as proof that he's guilty, is going about seven steps too far.

      I concur that these allegations, particularly Avenatti's, are damning if true and that he in fact should not have been put on any court if again they are true. The severity of the truth of these claims is why I want there to be more serious evidence presented -- I want to hear from what should be dozens of witnesses to the Avenatti accusation, I want to hear Ford testify as soon as possible, I want the cross-examination on both the accused and the accusers, etc, etc.

      I don't know how you got from "you disagree with me" to "you're acting in bad faith", but I can assure you there's no trolling going on here -- I legitimately do not yet find the accusations convincing, and find the behavior of many Democrats (and Republicans) inappropriate in regards to them.

      ~~

      Death threats are never acceptable.

      Feinstein had knowledge of the allegation for 6 weeks and didn't even ask Kavanaugh to answer to them privately, or share it with anyone; and then she drops a vague, "Kavanaugh may have done a thing" comment and the nature of the allegations conveniently goes public soon after? Yea, no.

      I do agree that this round of accusations probably wouldn't have occurred if they'd nominated Amy Barrett, instead of picking out a middle-of-the-ground judge who Democrats tore into over Roe v. Wade anyways. Might as well have given them something worthy of crying over if they were going to do it regardless.

      But the point being made with needing to confirm Kavanaugh is that not doing so would show that just making accusations is enough to prevent a nominee from getting through, and that's unacceptable.

      Congratulations, though, you did get what Democrat Senators were hoping to acheive -- a faulty basis on which to accuse all Republicans of being sexist villains who want to cover for rape. That's what it always comes back to, isn't it? I can't get through one conversation on this or any other left-dominated forum without being accused of some bigotry as a means to invalidate my genuine concerns with the issue at hand; in this case, my concern that in our sincere efforts to take sexual assault accusations seriously, we are abandoning due process.
      INACTIVE UNTIL 2021

      The post was edited 1 time, last by logicalpencils ().

    • I'm seeing in this report the allegation (as I've said before, this one is incredibly damning and without leeway -- it either is true and abhorrent or false and a cruel smear), Kavanaugh's denial, Trump's comments, Republicans' assurance they are investigating all claims and all witnesses, various other goings-on... but I'm not seeing the corroborating evidence for the allegation itself? NPR just mentions that they haven't corroborated the claims.
      INACTIVE UNTIL 2021

      The post was edited 1 time, last by logicalpencils ().