Based on everything you've learned in life thus far, what is your feeling here?

Is she the one who dropped a dime on the black guys bbq in Oakland? All these Palo Alto white women are confusing?

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Based on everything you've learned in life thus far, what is your feeling here?

---

If I understand Susan Collins enough, I'm going with her.

(1) The accuser is particularly credible.

(2) Whereas there might be a lot to say for Judge Kavanaugh during the intervening 36 or so years [even tho my (MC's) opinion of him is overwhelmingly negative, from a political point of view]: If his adamant denial is untrue (which, so far, looks to be the case - again, MC, not Sen. Collins), that would be automatically disqualifying (I, truthfully, would not have gone as far as Sen. Collins on this point, having some sympathy for the truly gross mistakes in judgment that young people, especially male people, make around sex.

I'm just glad that none of my mistakes had the awful consequences that this conduct did on the long course of Prof. Ford's life - although, of course, when it goes as far as he did, it's hard to imagine that it wouldn't hurt that much. . . . (and I was never THAT drunk - which, although not an excuse, is nevertheless prevalent enough in our society that one can see getting to that state as a real vulnerability to the disease of alcoholism, which could merit some, as the Stones put it, Sympathy for the Devil)

Read a quick headline, basically; it's NOT about sex or sexual assault, it's about if Kavanaugh is lying.

This makes sense to me because he can't be prosecuted, it's long gone...but if he's lying then there is a problem because he's up for a SC justice position, highest court in the land, yada, yada.

Also read 200 of Ford's former classmates have penned a letter of support.

We won't know the truth but unless this woman is a raving lunatic-which is unlikely-Kavanaugh is done. This ain't Clarence Thomas world.

Another Bear said:

---

Read a quick headline, basically; it's NOT about sex or sexual assault, it's about if Kavanaugh is lying.

This makes sense to me because he can't be prosecuted, it's long gone...but if he's lying then there is a problem because he's up for a SC justice position, highest court in the land, yada, yada.

Also read 200 of Ford's former classmates have penned a letter of support.

---

IF Kavanaugh was drunk and has no recollection of the party it wouldn't be lying.
If Ford has 200 witnesses at the party that saw Kavanaugh, but he doesn't remember attending.

His gander should be cooked. Since he has stated he didn't attend the party, and if Ford has witnesses that say he did, he has already been proven a liar and any of his statements about the 'assault' cannot be credible. The problem with being dead drunk is that by being in an illegal state you start halfway to guilty.

Wingnuts getting desperate, grasping at straws. They got the wrong Prof. Ford. Idiots.

Far-right news sites smear California professor after misidentifying Kavanaugh accuser

I have no idea if she is lying, nor do I think anyone here knows.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I have no idea if she is lying, nor do I think anyone here knows.

---

She seems highly credible to me and I don't think she is lying. She has a lot to lose by coming forward and she doesn't seem motivated here by fame or money. She does not seem mentally unstable. I believe her like I believed Anita Hill. Does your comment above also apply to Anita Hill?

Exactly, she has nothing to gain. In fact she'll probably pay a personal price. It's going to hurt.

Merc News: "Christine Blasey Ford feared an avalanche of attacks if she went public about Kavanaugh, friends say"

Dan Eggen (WaPo): "Hatch...said that Kavanaugh had told him that he was not present at the party in question which prompted some to wonder how Kavanaugh could make such a claim given that Ford had never specified the exact date or location of the gathering."

As noted by posters above, we have moved completely beyond whether transgressions in high school can be disqualifying. The only question is whether Kavanaugh is lying to us right now -- though, it does matter what he is lying about. We are not talking about this if he lied about smoking pot.

Is mark judge lying?

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I have no idea if she is lying, nor do I think anyone here knows.

---

She seems highly credible to me and I don't think she is lying. She has a lot to lose by coming forward and she doesn't seem motivated here by fame or money. She does not seem mentally unstable. I believe her like I believed Anita Hill. Does your comment above also apply to Anita Hill?

---

No. Sane answer as other thread. There were women who claimed the same experiences as Hill (recall this was not about sexual assault but workplace environment (and he asked Hill out)). On a personal note, one of my female law partners at the time had experienced inappropriate comments from Thomas about hookers and strippers (out of context for the conversation) while at Yale law school with Thomas.

All I heard was the accusers letter in the press. You obviously must have personal knowledge to determine she is so highly credible. Care to share?

I was of the thinking HS was a long time ago and maybe it warrants dropping. Then I realized, if the system can they can try a 16 y.o. for capital murder and put him away for life, Brett Kavanaugh can stand scrutiny for a supreme court nomination for an alleged sexual assault.

The GOP and Grassley are trying to hold the hearing to only Kavanaugh and Ford's testimony. That isn't to go hold mustard. We need to hear about the adventures of "Bart O'Kavanaugh", according to Mark Judge and a parade of witnesses. We need to hear Kavanaugh's denial he was at the party...even as Ms. Ford never disclosed a location or date/time.

In any case, this is going to blow up in the GOP's face. Maybe Kavanaugh gets confirmed but I don't see it. If he is confirmed, it will be very bad optics heading into a critical midterm election. Supreme Court justices should not be liars.

Kavanaugh should say,

"Hi there, good to see you again, though not under these circumstances. When I was first asked about this, I denied, because I didn't know who or what was being alleged, and I have no recollection of the event, so I was telling the truth then. But now that you've made yourself public, I should add that I DO remember you. However, I do not remember any event along the lines of what you've described. It was 35 years ago and I was 17. If you say I acted inappropriately then, I will not contradict that that was your experience. All I can say is that I do not have any recollection of it, I do not behave that way, it is not familiar to me, yet I'm sorry that you feel I offended you."

Done. Moving on. Vote. Approve.
I do not think anyone is going to hold him accountable for a stupid high school drinking-grabbing episode. Do you?

It does raise the question - if he did do this at 17, is that a disqualifying event?
How many of us have stupid drunken behavior in our background that we would be embarrassed about? I'm not trying to condone attempted raped in the slightest. The super longest term BI'ers will recall I've spoken out against men and the objection of women for years. But I know I'm a different person today than I was at 17, and I imagine Kavanaugh is, too!

That said, I hope Kavanaugh gets bumped, the Dems sweep both houses, and thereafter stall a Kennedy replacement until after 2020 - as revenge for McConnell stalling to infinity the Obama SCOTUS pick!!!! That would be delicious sweet revenge!! F the GOP. They've lost their minds. Implode and don't come back until you've cleansed and reinvented yourselves.

There is no objective truth here. Kavanaugh and Blasey are all we jurors need to issue a verdict..

Like I just wrote...if they can try 16 y.o.s as adults and put them away for life...Matt Kavanaugh can deal with being put on the hot seat. This is a supreme court appointment.

According the Daily Beast, GOP are playing hardball with the Kavanaugh appointment and there will be no withdrawal...and yet they are at great risk on many levels. I think it's going to blow up in their faces. Susan Collins will fold and vote no on confirmation.

Anita Hill: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/opinion/anita-hill-brett-kavanaugh-clarence-thomas.html

Another Bear said:

---

According the Daily Beast, GOP are playing hardball with the Kavanaugh appointment and there will be no withdrawal...and yet they are at great risk on many levels. I think it's going to blow up in their faces. Susan Collins will fold and vote no on confirmation.

---

She probably gets the wink to do that now that McCain's successor is sitting, assuming everyone else holds firm. Another interesting aspect from a political side is the blue state senators like Mansion who were likely to vote for BK, will no longer be able to do so, which also may have political fall out. If other accusers come forward the GOP made a huge mistake digging-in.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Anita Hill: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/opinion/anita-hill-brett-kavanaugh-clarence-thomas.html

---

I disagree with a lot of this. "They don't get it" was about the work place.. Hill never accessed Thomas of a sexual attack, as she infers. A rape is entirely different issue, and in my opinion, a far more serious allegation. Thomas was a lossy boss. DK is being accused of a major felony (I appreciate the state of limitations lapsed long ago) Attributing a civil burden of proof seems highly inappropriate, and Hill as a law professor should know better. DK should be allowed to defend himself in the same manner as anyone accused of rape.

Anarchistbear said:

---

There is no objective truth here. Kavanaugh and Blasey are all we jurors need to issue a verdict..

---

I agree with Feinstein. You limit a trial to just the defendant and accuser? Hell no

concordtom said:

---

Kavanaugh should say,

"Hi there, good to see you again, though not under these circumstances. When I was first asked about this, I denied, because I didn't know who or what was being alleged, and I have no recollection of the event, so I was telling the truth then. But now that you've made yourself public, I should add that I DO remember you. However, I do not remember any event along the lines of what you've described. It was 35 years ago and I was 17. If you say I acted inappropriately then, I will not contradict that that was your experience. All I can say is that I do not have any recollection of it, I do not behave that way, it is not familiar to me, yet I'm sorry that you feel I offended you."

Done. Moving on. Vote. Approve.
I do not think anyone is going to hold him accountable for a stupid high school drinking-grabbing episode. Do you?

It does raise the question - if he did do this at 17, is that a disqualifying event?
How many of us have stupid drunken behavior in our background that we would be embarrassed about? I'm not trying to condone attempted raped in the slightest. The super longest term BI'ers will recall I've spoken out against men and the objection of women for years. But I know I'm a different person today than I was at 17, and I imagine Kavanaugh is, too!

That said, I hope Kavanaugh gets bumped, the Dems sweep both houses, and thereafter stall a Kennedy replacement until after 2020 - as revenge for McConnell stalling to infinity the Obama SCOTUS pick!!!! That would be delicious sweet revenge!! F the GOP. They've lost their minds. Implode and don't come back until you've cleansed and reinvented yourselves.

---

While I'm not going to pre-judge the good professor or the good judge, the conduct the professor alleges is more than a drunk grabbing episode. Sound like attempted rape to me.

This is a good read. The short of it: false rape accusations tend to dramatic and lurid, with crazy details. The Kavanaugh case is not that. The statements by Ford seem rather bland. Another feature is false accusers often have a criminal history. Also noted, false accusations are RARE, which makes sense given most rapes are not reported.

I've studied false rape claims. The accusation against Kavanaugh doesn't fit the profile.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

There is no objective truth here. Kavanaugh and Blasey are all we jurors need to issue a verdict..

---

I agree with Feinstein. You limit a trial to just the defendant and accuser? Hell no

---

This is more performance art and inquisition than truth finding. No verdict is going to be issued; what matters are the persuasiveness of the arguments and their political implications.

Kavanaugh has already played his role- Judge, family man, girl's basketball coach. He's going to continue to play that role- only now sexual assailant is added to that portfolio. His answers-indeed all his prurient questions about Clinton-now are cast in a different light.

The woman is the wild card. What really matters is her testimony. If she is credible, Kavanaugh is toast. The Senate Judiciary Committe has nothing to do with " the truth." It is a group of partisan politicians. We'll figure out the truth for ourselves.

Another Bear said:

---

This is a good read. The short of it: false rape accusations tend to dramatic and lurid, with crazy details. The Kavanaugh case is not that. The statements by Ford seem rather bland. Another feature is false accusers often have a criminal history. Also noted, false accusations are RARE, which makes sense given most rapes are not reported.

I've studied false rape claims. The accusation against Kavanaugh doesn't fit the profile.

---

From the district attorney next door - this is fairly accurate. Less than 10% (maybe as low as 2%) of rape allegations are false (don't ask me how she got the numbers). And it usually is teens or somebody with an ulterior motive (e.g., child custody) or mental issues. None of the is present we assume (clearly Prof Ford is no longer a teen). But all this so-called analysis is also based on a letter from a woman this author doesn't know, and just makes assumptions about. Prof Ford is represented by counsel with an known agenda and the letter was put forward via a Stanford law professor, both lawyers that possibly had input into how the letter read (if attorney didn't provide input, that could be malpractice), and who would know how to write-up a credible rape claim. There seems to be rush to judgment before we hear what Prof. Ford and Judge Kavanuagh have to actually say (and I would say any other relevant witnesses, but apparently that isn't going to be the case for reasons I could speculate upon).

None of this proves that Prof Ford is or is not telling the truth, but it does suggest we should be skeptical of the notion that it is common for women to say they've been sexually abused when they haven't been. Almost always they are telling the truth. But as this author points out, we don't know what happened for sure in this situation.

Seems to me the reason why the GOP want to limit it to Kavanaugh and Ford is so Brett's wingman, Mark Judge, won't speak. His published accounts of prep school drunkenness includes the character "Bart O'Kavanaugh". If Judge testifies, it will become a full 3 ring circus with the finale being the public flogging of Brett Kavanaugh.

I agree, sure, sit on the hot seat.
But if he delivers the short speech I wrote, I don't think he gets derailed.
There is no evidence of a crime. Only an accusation. 35 yrs later.
Statute of limitations is way long gone, I don't think you can hold it against him.
This is not a cold case murder with DNA in the lab.

Another Bear said:

---

Seems to me the reason why the GOP want to limit it to Kavanaugh and Ford is so Brett's wingman, Mark Judge, won't speak. His published accounts of prep school drunkenness includes the character "Bart O'Kavanaugh". If Judge testifies, it will become a full 3 ring circus with the finale being the public flogging of Brett Kavanaugh.

---

Okay, that would be more evidentiary and I get your point here. It would add up and paint a poor image of him.
Ironic thing is, acting like a jackass is less of a crime than what the palo alto doctor accuses.
That would be funny.

Sounds like the GOP is going to hustle is thru, and flake et al will likely vote accordingly.

Even if Kavanaugh gets the boot, I don't see how Dems can stall a new appointee for 2'years.

McConnell is a real honest to goodness assss.

I think the dynamics of the hearing have changed. Christine Ford simply has to present herself as credible. The onus is Kavanaugh and if he's telling the truth.

The sexual assault won't be tried but Kavanaugh's credibility will be. The Mark Judge factor is in play here too because he has published books speaking directly to the era and it doesn't look pretty.

No doubt the GOPs on the committee with take their swings and swipes at Christine Ford but there's danger there. It's going to repel and engerize women and not for the GOP. Times are changed. Going after Ford will look plain wrong.