Clinton has nothing to do with this conversation. He is not pertinent either in timeline or to the comment you highlighted in red. He never bragged about grabbing crotches nor was he accused of doing exactly that... by a dozen or more women. Hence my response.
Yeah, maybe but conversely, if this unsubstantiated allegation of some 40 year old sexual impropriaty was happening to your son, you may feel differently.
Oh but yes he does, especially when so many willing to fry Kavanaugh...... simply found no issue with allegations against Clinton. Heck, many did what you assert, as regards Ford’s treatment, to the many women making allegations against Clinton. So, we’ll just disagree. Is Ford going to appear in DC on Monday?
If it delays the confirmation vote than it will accomplish exactly what Democrats want. The Republican do not want to allow Democrats to continue to delay the confirmation vote of a SCOTUS nominee past the mid-term election. Dr. Baker's reps said she was willing to testify. The Senate Judiciary Committee has offered her an opportunity to be heard and present her case and offered her the option of an open or closed hearing. Dr. Baker is now appearing to be unwilling to testify at that time, wanting an FBI investigation instead. What happens if she is unhappy with the FBI's investigation? (see more of that below). Will she want an agency not controlled by the executive branch to investigate? Will she hold off testifying until the three or four other people she remembers at the party are also willing to appear at the hearing as well? Delaying this hearing once opens it up to being delayed indefinitely. We have now heard from three of the 4/5 people Dr. Baker remembers being at the party, three of them have no memory of such a party or the events she describes. Kavanaugh ex-classmate denies being at party in assault allegation - CNNPolitics I'm trying to find the article again but read one this morning that states there is a 2010 DOJ Memo that limits the FBI ability to conduct investigations for background checks that are outside of their jurisdiction. The reasoning seems sound, as if the FBI showed up at Mr. Judges' or Smyth's door and told them they wanted to talk about Dr. Baker's claim, there is no legal means to make them talk with the FBI. They can just say," I do not wish to talk with you and you cannot make me," and there is nothing the FBI can do to compel them to. So what happens if the FBI cannot make anyone named by Dr. Baker discuss the allegation? Will she be satisfied with that investigation? I will try to go back and find the article that references the 2010 DOJ Memo and post it here.
The mid-term election is still six to seven weeks away. This is a weak excuse. Also, look at the language used by Judge and Smyth. They have purposefully not said, "I wasn't at that party." They're denying knowledge or memory of it. It is a statement designed to allow them to later backtrack if necessary. If she's lying, why name Judge or Smyth and give them the chance to deny?
Whether it happened or not is immaterial. In this quote you're making an argument that teenage girls deserve to be sexually assaulted as a life lesson for drinking at parties. It does not matter if she was or not because this statement, as its written, outlines your opinion on how our social structures and rules should operate. Paraphrased: If a girl/woman is drunk at a party and is sexually assaulted (possibly raped? your cutoff point is unclear), it is a learning opportunity that she deserved. Perhaps you didn't intend to make that argument, but you certainly did. **excerpt bolded for emphasis
The next SCOTUS session starts in less than two weeks. They are having a hard time denying exactly what Dr. Baker has claimed because she has not provided the details necessary to provide Judge or Smyth with the knowledge of where and when they supposedly were. Again, how can they prove they were or were not at a location at a certain time when that information has not been provided.
And? They can get by for a time with eight justices. Wouldn't be difficult to deny having been at a party with her during that period if they never were in the same location.
Someone waits three decades before making an accusation. Someone in power waits two months before making accusation available, during the specific period when and where the accused is being assessed. Someone wants to wait until a separate investigation is done. Wait is a four-letter word in this case.
If she was "dogpiled," why not blame the dogpilers...or at least hold them to this same standard? Why is it that you seem to quick to blame the victim?
Why should they have to wait if a witness refuses to testify? Tell them when and where they supposedly were and then they can give you a clear denial. Hard to deny never being at a party with a couple friends over the course of months 35 years ago. You are also assuming that they even remember who Dr. Baker is, there is a very good chance that they have no idea who she is and don't remember her from high school.
The witness hasn't refused to testify. She has asked for an investigation to develop a record before she testifies. If they want the truth, it seems like the least they can do. An investigation and a full record won't favor a liar. It's not hard to deny never having been at a party with her if they never were. Better yet, if they have no idea whom she is, they could also say that.
Have you ever actually been to a party in high school or college? I went to a number, and have no idea who the hell was or wasn't at most of them - and they were significantly more recent than the early to mid 1980s. I may be able to tell you whether or not I interacted with a specific person at a specific party, but if I told you that I have never been at a party that someone else who lived in the same area also attended, that would be little more than a guess on my part.
Have you ever been the victim of sexual assault? My mother was raped when she was a teenager. She still, to this day, relives the events in her mind and deals with the associated trauma, and won't tell anyone who it was. Perhaps she would if it was a SCOTUS nominee (due to the far reaching implications). Dr. Ford first discussed this with her spouse and therapist in 2012. Not sure how a reasonable person could believe that she had a 6-year plan to derail a SCOTUS nomination at the last moment for political reasons. It is much more reasonable that Dr. Ford was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh and she tried for years to get past it. She obviously couldn't and it was impacting her life/relationship so she reached out for professional help. When her attacker was nominated to the SCOTUS, she was likely conflicted between her own trauma and desire to push it away and a duty to her family, friends, colleagues, country, and students to come forward about it. Sure it took her til the last moment, but statistically speaking most victims of sexual assault never report it in any fashion. The fact that she came out about it, in the face of all this public scrutiny, and put her name on it, speaks volumes. No reasonable person would contrive this story and give the types of testimony she reportedly as (to her therapist) for political reasons. Now, you could perhaps argue that she's insane... but you lose that argument if you are a Trump voter because well, your candidate is insane.
If you want to generally bring up what you consider as hypocrisy by Dems, that's your business, but it has nothing to do with what I posted. Which for the fourth time was responding to the potential voter response to a sexual assault victim being aggressively interrogated in public. I don't know when Ford is appearing to testify... not my job, man. I do know as I think we all do that she asked for an FBI investigation and she's almost certainly not going to get it.
I'm still wondering what Dr. Ford has to gain about making her allegations against Kavanaugh? She has plenty to lose. She was living a very comfortable, upper-middle class, anonymous lifestyle in a very desirable part of the country. Speak up now and not only does she lose her anonymity, but her name is drug through the mud, she gets called a liar, she is slut-shamed by people saying she deserved it and it was a lesson learned, and on top of all of this, she also has received death threats. Yeah, who wants to sign up for this? Not sure what happened, as there are three sides to every story, but for sure, in Dr. Ford's mind, she is telling the truth. And why wait 35 years to make the claim? See above. It's why as many as 80% of sexual assaults go unreported. We've already heard the argument why ruin Kavanaugh's life from his supporters, and for sure, that argument would have been used 35 years ago. Ford would have also been slut-shamed back then, heard that she deserved it, and heard that she should have known better by not putting herself in a vulnerable position. And Kavanaugh, coming from a rich, politically connected family, would have had great lawyers working on his side. Is it really any wonder many assaults go unreported? The timing might be suspect, but she has spent most of her adult life trying to push this memory down and hide it. When she did finally admit to what happened, it was to her husband and therapist, who are two people who legally cannot be forced to give up this information to anyone. I bet Dr. Ford would have been happy to leave it at that, but when your alleged abuser is being nominated for the SCOTUS, it changes the variables.
I suspect you're playing a bet sloppy with knowing something for certain than. From the discussion upthread, it sounds like you and I may have had at least some overlap in years at UF. That being the case, even if I knew who you were I wouldn't be comfortable saying that I'm completely confident I've never been at a party that you also attended, or even that I'm certain that I've never met you before.
