All it may do is indicate a degree of good faith on her part... Best-Case scenario, this proves that she believes in the allegations and Kavanaugh's particular involvement in them, not that they actually happened...
Quite frankly, then I don't marry her. If she doesn't trust me enough to tell me the name of a man who assaulted her, then I move on. Zero chance I would put myself in that sort of predicament. I'm just speaking for myself, of course. And I am very sensitive to sexual assault victims. I have talked to some too. Talking to victims who are reluctant to give a name is one thing. But if I'm gonna marry you, I'm going to make sure that SOB doesn't step anywhere near our domain. He could endanger our children, our family. Way too much risk there. Perhaps you don't operate this way and that's cool, but I don't leave such things to chance. And again, I'm as sympathetic to victims of this sort of crime as anyone you'll ever meet. I mean, she's now going to go on national TV to talk about this and she couldn't even tell her husband the name? Sorry, I don't play that. If America deserves to know, her husband did too.
He’s generally correct that it’s been the pretty consistent narrative about GOP nominees. Heck, Kennedy - and even David Souter - were both met with plenty of handwringing that their confirmation would sound the death knell for Roe. In some cases - Souter for example - it was more limited, chiefly to abortion rights groups and some ultra-liberal senators, but it’s been a narrative as to all of them that I can think of.
It's not about trust... It's psychological issues... problems caused by abusive trauma... it's not about you... and it's nothing against you... You offer good points... but not everyone considers such a person threat at that point in time, especially if the allegations are from teenage years... It's a bit of a stretch to suggest one incident of sexual assault with a drunk aggressor would lead to stalking that hasn't been recurring over the years...
In order for it to not be Kavanaugh, you have to come up with a credible explanation for why she said it was Kavanaugh in 2012 and 2013 when it isn't true. Can you do that? That's a horrible way to handle it. If she wanted you to know the name, she'd tell you. Pressing her for that information is not how you handle that. Like I said earlier in this thread, a family member of mine came out and said she was raped during the #metoo movement last year. If any of us knew the guy's name, we'd find him and make him pay. But nobody in our family pressed her for a name. If she wanted us to know, she'd have told us. It's her story to tell.
I don't know man, its kind of weird that one of your conditions of a serious relationship is to know the details of someone's perhaps most traumatic moment in their life in excruciating detail. I mean right here is a good reason why a lot of women don't tell their partners everything, especially the names of their tormenter, because men will act like idiots about it and maybe make things worse, or at the very least it will reopen old wounds. I understand the protective instinct, but I also understand why a woman wouldn't want to activate that in their partner, because that also leads to some stupidity when men think they have to do something about it because now its about them and their family.
No, I do not. The burden of proof is on Dr. Ford to prove it was Kavanaugh, it is not Kavanuagh's burden to prove it was not him. That is not how this process works.
Wait a minute. I'm acting like an idiot, because I want to protect my wife? I never said anything about hunting the man down and beating the crap out of him. You're making a straw man argument here. That is clearly not what I said.
That's incorrect. This is not a criminal trial. There is no burden of proof. Insofar as there is a burden of proof, it's on Kavanaugh. This is a job interview.
No more a stretch than to suggest such an incident would affect his BK's abilities as a jurist 36 years later. See what you did there?
I wouldn't call you an idiot. But you're acting like a person who doesn't know what he's doing. You're acting like a person who has no idea how to listen to a victim of sexual abuse. And to be blunt, you're acting in a very insensitive manner.
The problem with the 2012 and 2013 therapy sessions is so far from what we know, she never mentioned Kavanaugh by name according to the notes. Brett Kavanaugh accusations: A timeline - CNNPolitics So far Kavanaugh has actually provided physical evidence where Ford has yet to provide one ounce of physical evidence.
Wrong. It's the highest court in the land. If he's committing sexual assault and then lying about it under oath, it disqualifies him from SCOTUS. Hell, just sexually assaulting somebody disqualifies you from SCOTUS.
In 2012, she told her husband his name. He affirmed that under oath. In 2013, she told her friend a "federal judge" assaulted her. That friend affirmed that under oath. That's quite clear to me. And no, Kavanaugh has not provided physical evidence of anything.
But the subject matter is a criminal offense, not how well he listens on the job or his attendance record at the DC Court of Appeals. It deals directly with a criminal offense, one which there hasn't even been formal charges brought for.
Yes, I realize that, genius. I was being flippant. Hence, my final statement. Likewise, I don't think it's a bad idea to be aware of a former attacker of my wife's, no matter how long ago it's been. It's not as though I'd expend a lot of energy on it. But being aware of my surroundings with something like that, it's a simple prerequisite.
It's behavior that disqualifies him from the job. It's a job interview, not a criminal trial. There is no burden of proof on her. The only burden is on Kavanaugh to prove his fitness for the job.
It's behavior that you do not know whether or not he did and I would really love it if you stopped acting like you do know. Because, you don't.
