Kavanaugh Hearing

So let's sketch this out. It's 2012. She hears a guy from her home town maybe might be nominated to the Supreme Court if Romney beats Obama (and an opening comes up). It's not a certainty, but it's possible. One option is to bring up the story now and try to force Kavanaugh off the bench, perhaps to be replaced by an Obama-appointee. But she decides against it. What if Obama loses to Romney? Best to wait it out. So she goes to her therapist, lays down her bread crumbs, and lies in wait.

Obama wins. If she forces Kavanaugh off the bench now, a liberalish appointee is all but guaranteed. But does she spring her trap? No. She's hesitant. What if a Republican wins the White House in four years and then Kennedy retires, she wonders? She decides she has to save her ammo in case the worst happens and the Reuters article proves its predictions true. #MeToo happens. She ignores it. She bides her time. Gorsuch is nominated? Who cares. She has her eye on the Kavanaugh prize. Finally, after years of waiting, Kavanaugh is nominated. She pounces like a rabid partisan dervish and sinks his candidacy. Success is finally hers.

But then, something happens that she did not intend. Trump nominates someone else just as partisan as Kavanaugh and life goes on. Oops.

That's a plan that definitely makes sense.

 

The "evidence" provided to the Washington Post which, if it is to be believed, makes clear that she did.

"Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students 'from an elitist boys’ school' who went on to become highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.'"

"In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions, she recounted being trapped in a room with two drunken boys, one of whom pinned her to a bed, molested her and prevented her from screaming. He said he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court."

 

You seem to think this sort of thing is acceptable...

Which I would disagree with... the goal shouldn’t be to hurt Kavanaugh professionally... it should be to prevent him from doing such a thing (if he actually did it) again... or legally hold him accountable for his wrongdoings...

If the standard for removing someone from “the bench” is allegations of some sort of heinous wrongdoing... than any controversial figure, or anybody with enemies... can find themselves victims of this sort of thing without ever having done anything wrong...

 

Is it just me, or does “me too,” sometimes remind me of McCarthyism...

Which just makes me sad... the cause is good... the way they go about it, ruins the movement...

 

I think you're underestimating the leakiness of Senate offices. Supposedly the reason it finally came out was other Dem Senators getting upset because they knew Feinstein had it and wasn't doing anything with it.

If pretty much anyone other than Diane Feinstein herself knew it was out there, I would be relatively confident that the GOP probably did as well.

 

Another thing you can count on is that some people are looking for ways to discredit Kavanaugh's witness, Mike Judge.

Brett Kavanaugh’s character witness Mark Judge has extremely disturbing views about women

 

So, you suppose it's likely that this woman made up a phony sexual assault accusation in 2012 against someone that maybe possibly could be be nominated to SCOTUS at some indefinite point in the future, told her therapist and husband about it, and then just put it on ice until the moment came (which had no guarantee of ever happening)? All for what? Politics doesn't make any sense, since, as you've claimed Kavanaugh is a "moderate," not some uber-conservative. That kind of a stunt is just as likely to backfire with a more conservative nomination. She also could have tried to knock Kavanaugh off the DC Circuit at a much more opportune time and even if unsuccessful, the mere presence of the accusation likely would have blown up any SCOTUS run before it started.

So if politics doesn't make sense, why is she supposedly lying? She hates Kavanaugh? I suppose it's possible, but, again, why not blow up his career earlier? It seems abundantly more likely that she's actually just telling the truth, and didn't seek to suffer the scrutiny you and others are lavishing on her until she felt it absolutely necessary.

 

Just because one person is willing to do something wrong (assuming she’s lying)... doesn’t mean everyone is...

Not complicated, dude...

And you keep acting like she’s some sort of martyr now that she came out with this... the Washington Post and New York Times think of her as a hero... along with a good part of the Democratic Party...

I hope this didn’t happen... the truth is all that matters... but we’ll likely never know what the truth is... and knowing that, she had nothing to lose by coming out with this... Nobody can fairly call her a “liar” because they can’t say she’s lying... but the optics may be bad enough to remove Kavanaugh From Supreme Court consideration... which is actually a legitimate conversation being had, right now...

You along with the the New York Times and Washington Post are painting her out to be this courageous, heroic, martyr... while simultaneously acting as though she risked everything by coming out with this...

 

The Senate has to have a hearing and it is. Let's hear from the witnesses before we prejudge this. Impossible to corroborate or disprove something from 40 years ago. Senator Grassley's letter should be read very carefully. Senator Grassley has broadened the hearing beyond this accusation. I have already heard enough on other matters that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed, to say the least. There are plenty of qualified judges to pick from that will uphold the "conservative" viewpoint Trump's supporters want. Bad pick.

 

The same puzzle cuts back the other way.

If she's telling the truth, it seems rather strange that literally the only time she has seen fit to raise it with anyone is when there is a real possibility of Kavanaugh being nominated to the Supreme Court. And it's somewhat tough to square why, if it supposedly happened, the only time it merits mentioning is in the context of a potential Supreme Court nomination.

If she thinks it makes him unfit to be on the Court, it certainly would have made him equally unfit to be on the DC Circuit. And if it's about empowering herself, or getting closure, she certainly could have done that without waiting for him to be nominated for the Supreme Court.

 

Why shouldn’t Kavanaugh be picked?

 

Social change like that is rarely clean and reasonable. It's like a pendulum that started too far one way, ends up too far the other way and eventually settles in the middle.

 

Because he was picked.

To paraphrase one of the intellectual giants of the modern left, "We have to nominate the judge so you can find out why you oppose him."

 

And a motive to truly accuse him of rape.

Rape/sexual assault victims tend to have weird reactions, at least to us as outsiders. Weirdly, some worry about the professional damage done to the perpetrator. Others worry about the police not believing them, because they often struggle with what happened and what the punishment should be.

As I said, I wouldn't be sure that she even knew that he was on that court (although I just read that Ben said she apparently did know he was on there by 2012). But even in that quote, it sounds like she worried about him being on the SC even then.

One of the primary issues with dealing with rape cases is that there is no one reaction to it because of how core the trauma is and because of the nature of the act. Some people call the police and head to the hospital. Others worry about their attackers, which sounds so weird coming from the outside but is legit something that happens. Others repress it and go into PTSD. That is not to say all reactions are equally healthy or likely, but reactions to sexual trauma are some of the hardest to predict.

Which is not to say that this definitely happened. But rapes/sexual assaults are terrible events for trying to use context clues to judge the veracity of claims.

 

How should they go about it?

 

She absolutely risked a lot by doing this. She has already been widely smeared by a rapid response organization that posted a bunch of reviews of her class about how she was a vindictive, crazy bitch, when it wasn't her (they got the wrong professor). When the real deep dive investigations get going, nobody comes out perfectly clean. The FSU victim was portrayed as a slut (with some racists undertones about how she liked black men) based on her history with boyfriends. The OSU victim was painted as a crazy alcoholic and had her own mother call her out as a liar. Whatever the biggest weakness is in her past, the worst thing she has done, the terrible relationship that she wouldn't want public, etc. will be public and national news in the next few weeks.

 

Both will testify on Monday

Brett Kavanaugh, Christine Blasey Ford to testify Monday - CNNPolitics

 

What? Yes, all three of those guys are successful, well-educated professionals. How is that at all relevant to her credibility? I brought it up because she has something to lose. She isn't some unemployed bum. Her career and background give her credibility.

Looks like you're wrong.

 

It's not exactly uncommon for people to hold back on talking about abuse. Particularly when it comes to people in power who can make your life hell if you call them out in their behavior. It's entirely plausible that she would take a live and let love approach for a random circuit judgeship, but not the SCOTUS. Same reason accusers come out of the woodwork against already successful people as they climb higher up the ranks.