Kavanaugh Hearing

1) No independent verification. He said, she said and the alleged third person in the room says it did not happen.
2) Appears to be an isolated incident, over 30 years ago in high school. Let's hope that we are not going to start holding leaders accountable for stupid acts they committed back in HIGH SCHOOL, most likely under the age of 18.

 

A stupid act is underage drinking. Attempted rape is attempted rape. You don't get to play the "it happened a long time ago" or "I was a stupid kid" cards.

And there might be independent verification. She says she told people years ago and there are notes proving it.

 

Accuser willing to testify.


Trump high court pick Kavanaugh's accuser willing to testify, lawyer says

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A woman who has accused Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee, of sexual misconduct decades ago is willing to publicly testify before a Senate panel set to vote this week on his nomination, her lawyer said on Monday.

Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of trying to attack her and remove her clothing in the early 1980s when they were both high school students in a Maryland suburb outside Washington. Kavanaugh, the Republican president’s second nominee for a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court, has denied the allegations.

The accusation has threatened to complicate his nomination, which must be approved first by the Senate Judiciary Committee and then by the full chamber, which is narrowly controlled by Trump’s fellow Republicans. A committee vote is scheduled for Thursday, just weeks before Nov. 6 congressional elections.

Some Republicans on the committee have said Ford should have a chance to tell her story, a view also expressed on Monday by White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway.

Trump high court pick Kavanaugh's accuser willing to testify, lawyer says | Reuters

 

Because what we needed was more of a circus. Agree you have to vet the story. I blame Kavanough for being a hoodlem first. Second I blame the Pubs for blocking Obama’s pick from even going to a vote for creating the win at all cost environment we are in. They deserve this mess, but then that’s why things never smooth over... tit for tat.

I suggest live polygraph testing at Capital Hill. That would be right up the alley for this time period.

 

Polygraphs are worthless. They are just used to try to coerce confessions. I would find her more believable without the polygraph.

 

An impossible situation all around. No one knows what happened or didn't happen in that room except those who were there. Maybe the woman is making it up or exaggerating just to harm Kavanaugh's chances at confirmation and he is getting blasted for something he didn't do.
Or maybe she's telling the truth about a painful event in her past and she's getting blasted for having the courage to step forward.

An impossible situation ...

 

Her therapist’s notes from 2012 confirm this isn’t a last minute claim.

 

White House has declared the woman to be a liar:

 

Apparently statutes of limitations don't apply to conservatives. Still waiting for someone to tell me of a liberal investigated for his teen behavior on a comparable scale.

 

So therapist notes from 24 years after the fact. My knowledge of how our memories work is that an uncorroborated 30 year old memory is next to worthless.

 

Nope, you don’t reward Dems for playing this stupid timing game. If they have to pull Kavanaugh, give them Bill Pryor as a replacement nominee.

And I say that as someone who would have viewed a Pryor nomination as too inflammatory before this circus.

 

The notes do nothing but possibility verify something happened. Without her naming BK to the therapist, it is meaningless.
It could have been anybody and she is choosing to use BK's name for political purposes.

 

Now that the letter writer has been released as having attended Holton-Arms, let me go back to address this point. Kavanaugh did attend Georgetown Prep. That is an all-boys school in North Bethesda for the elite of the elite (tuition to high school, as a non-boarder, is about $38K per year today). Holton-Arms is an all-girls school in Bethesda for the elite of the elite (tuition to high school is about $42K per year today). If you were organizing a party with girls and boys at it, it is highly likely that you would draw from these two schools, as they are from the same areas/same crowd. Montgomery County has some of the best public schools in the country (usually ranked 1st or 2nd). These are going to be the folks that aren't just rich (the rich often send their kids to public school in that county) but are super-rich and don't want their kids hanging out with anybody but their other super-rich friends. If a Georgetown student holds a party, it is highly likely that a high percentage of any girls at the party come from Holton-Arms.

 

Trump actually made a good faith nomination and put forth a guy who is the very definition of a mainstream conservative jurist.

Dems revealed they’re going to play dirty and fight to the death on literally anyone Trump nominates, so if you’re going to have the same fight on your hands no matter who it is, may as well use the opportunity to ram a guy to the right of Clarence Thomas up their asses.

Sure you miss out on the delicious liberal tears you could have gotten by nominating Pryor to RBG’s seat down the road, but I’m sure we can find a perfectly good replacement when that situation actually arises.

 

Actually we should give him as much credibility as you are giving her.
No proof from either one. means equal credibility.

 

I've wrestled with this idea quite a bit (but at a much "lower" level) since this type of situation comes up with my students and the job market. Should something they did at 15 or 16--say use drugs or get into legal trouble--preclude them from employment? But this is at an entry level position, not a life-time appointment to the highest court in the land. I don't think there should be any hard SoL type rule determining what can or can't be considered since this isn't a legal proceeding and his liberty isn't on the line. It's a political one, yet there are many situations that I personally believe irrelevant.

 

This would assume that both deserve equal trust. But what if it's determined one is lying and the other is being truthful?

 

Honest question, what did the Democrats “do”?
My understanding of the timeline is that this woman went to the Washington post in July but didn’t come forward. She then decided to go to her congresswoman, who forwarded it to Feinstein, who asked the FBI to investigate. Once the story became public, the woman came forward.
Assuming all of that is true, what should the have done or not done differently? Not to say they didn’t push this forward happily, but what other choice did they have if that’s the scenario?

 

I am not claiming it’s a smoking gun, only that she said people that she told the therapist members of high Washington society were involved, and told her husband(admittedly an interested party) the name. Just saying it is pretty clear it isnt some random whacko. It is pretty clear something happened to her. Whether he truly was involved we may never know for certain, but she seems pretty credible all things considered.