Barring an anal probe... you've already done everything that you possibly can to check on Kavanaugh... and he's always come out completely clean in spite of that... The guy on a personal and professional level has been close to perfect on all accounts... All you have is a vague testimony from, maybe 1982... that he sexually assaulted this one girl... contrary to every other relationship Kavanaugh has had... The accuser doesn't even remember enough details to warrant any sort of investigation... But for some reason, you're still not sold on Kavanaugh... I'm sure this has nothing to do with politics...
Some basic facts that could be established by an investigation: which specific party did this occur, who else was at the party, where the party was, how she was acting in the following days, how he was acting in the following days, etc. Investigation is needed to place context around the accusation and to inform questions and testimony. Just throwing them up there to testify with none of this is ensuring that we know as little as possible beyond what we already know. Which, since we are now imputing motives, is what you would prefer.
Stop telling victims how you think they should have reacted to their traumatic events. That's disgusting. What reason would that former intern have to lie? Obviously she's got a big motivation to lie since it means keeping her job. Things like this are exactly why we have a #MeToo movement. Am I doing this right?
Who do you expect to remember this, if she doesn't... For such a traumatic experience, there is no person more likely to remember this than the accuser, herself... Yet, she doesn't...
No, actually, there's a lot more than that. Her testimony is supported by therapist notes from six years ago, her husband's account, and her friends' accounts. All of those accounts predate Kavanaugh's nomination. That's why an investigation is necessary. Unless you're now going to allege that she's been planning this "conspiracy" for six years, those are significant pieces of evidence that bolster her credibility.
Sure. But if there's no corroboration to bolster his account, it's merely a he said/she said accusation.
How do you establish any of this in an investigation? It's all things that she doesn't know, and I don't suspect you're going to get many answers from Kavanaugh or Judge on "Which party was it that you weren't at and didn't try to rape this lady at?," "Who else was at the party that you say never happened and where was it?," or "How was Mr. Kavanaugh behaving in the days following the party that you say never occurred? No, we don't know what days those would be, we were hoping you could tell us." As it turns out, people who say that something never happened don't tend to be real great at filling in the details on what didn't happen unless they are complete morons.
Her testimony that she was sexually assaulted... Again, it doesn't say where, it doesn't say when apart from the year, which is likely a rough estimate rather than an exact year... Okay... if we're going to rely on the accuser's "husband and friends" to establish an opinion... Then we'll have to rely on Kavanaugh's "wife and friends" to establish an opinion... Fair is fair... And we all know exactly what they're going to say, before they even say it... Her friends are going to speak vaguely because they likely don't remember much, if she said anything, in fact to them... Her husband is going to agree with her... and Kavanaugh's wife and friends are going to defend him... We'll still be left with uncertainty... but now the Democrats will have the opportunity to retake the Senate... Awfully convenient circumstances for you, if you ask me....
Don't know. Won't know unless we ask. Without knowing what happened there, why else that day may have been memorable to another person, etc., we can't say. Factually untrue for people that deal with trauma. Trauma victims often forget basic details even hours later. Memory during trauma is encoded in a much more sensory fashion. That is actually one of the big problems with how sexual assault has been historically investigated. Police ask about details and try to poke holes in the story (e.g., "you said you got there at 8:30 but now you said you had just gotten there at 10:30, which is it?")
Just to get this straight, you don't want to investigate a credible attempted rape accusation because it will give Democrats the opportunity to retake the Senate? Well, at least you're honest. Fact is that the Republicans control the Senate through December. There's nothing stopping them from investigating. There is no rush. P.S. Here's her account: "In the interview, Ford said she believes the alleged incident occurred in 1982, when she was a 15-year-old sophomore at an all-girls school in suburban Maryland. Kavanaugh, who attended an all-boys school, would have been 17. She said she was at a party with other teenagers at a home close to a country club where she spent time during the summer." It gives quite a bit more information than you're claiming.
But her friend that she told either 30-40 years ago.... she'll remember or it.... Or the Therapist she told 30-40 years later, they'll remember it... Dude... By all means give us the therapist notes, idc... but why do I feel like that won't happen due to privacy concerns... No, you want us to believe you.... you cited the therapist notes, let us see the therapist notes...
Go to other people at the school. Ask the victim who she might have been with at the pool that day (she may have some ideas that she doesn't want to share because she isn't 100% sure but would be appropriate as an "I think so and so was there..."). Ask her who else she remembers at the house. Ask her what if anything she can remember about the route she took from the pool. Ask her who tended to also hang around that pool that summer. Work through high school social networks if you need to do so. Again, I don't know what they would find or where they would even start. But this is not exactly stuff that should be handled by the Senate Judiciary Committee, who aren't investigators and are mostly looking to politically grandstand and get their desired result.
That's nothing... She believes it was in 1982....Hardly a sure statement... The party was in a home close to a country club.... Where's the home? that's pretty much nothing to go on, dude...
Anyone wanting any sort of investigation of this matter can thank Diane Frankenstein for that not happening. The moron should have sent the letter to the Judiciary Committee when she received it. Further, Ford has substantial responsibility for the lack of any investigation into her allegation of a 36 year old incident since she’s never reported the matter to any law enforcement agency.
Maybe. I don't know. That is why you ask. Even if she doesn't, maybe she remembers something that leads you to the next step. This is how and why you investigate. Huh? Now you are deflecting, flailing, and off on some tangent. The therapy notes are her decision and that is important. If she wants to provide them to all of us, great. If she wants to provide them to specific investigators but not the general public, also great. If she doesn't that is her choice. An investigation can occur without them.
Where do you keep getting this. She said in her letter she told no one and it only came up in 2012 as an incident with no names to her therapist. The husband is the only one who is named as someone she said the name Kavanaugh to after 2012.
Then don't cite the therapy notes as evidence that you're right... As far as I care, if you're not willing to give them to me or law enforcement authorities... as far as I care... the therapy notes don't exist...
You seem very confused. I'm saying there should be an investigation, which is what this woman wants. You are almost making my argument for me, by portraying how worthless a controlled/political hearing is. Which is what this woman apparently doesn't want Of course at a hearing they will each have "character witnesses". Do you think Ford/Kavanaugh would get to "pick" who the FBI interviews? The whole point of an impartial investigation is to avoid that, follow the facts. BTW this is not a criminal matter, I"ve seen some say FBI has no jurisdiction. That is quite likely true from the perspective of the criminal courts, beyond the possible statute of limitations issues. But you people realize federal law enforcement does backround checks, right? That is where the FBI comes in here. It is relevant backround info on a federal employee. It is new info that needs to be followed up on, that it didn't come up before doesn't preclude whether it should be investigated now. All that should matter is the credibility of the allegation, for better or for worse. I don't believe the story 100% credible. But I don't have the gall to dismiss it out of hand either. They should at least look into it, before any political theater.
Which is why you start asking people about it. Ask her who she hung around with at the pool. Go talk to them as investigators. Try to narrow it down with them and with her help.
