This left wing ploy to derail the Kavennah vote is ridiculous. To drag out something 35 years ago is wrong.
posted by SpockThis left wing ploy to derail the Kavennah vote is ridiculous. To drag out something 35 years ago is wrong.
Well, not if the accusation is true...
In many states, this would be past the statute of limitations. Some states, such as Maryland (which I think is where this would have occurred?), have no statute of limitations for rape.
Story in WaPo has her husband and a therapist from 2012 verifying her recollection. She provided notes from that therapy session. She also passed a lie detector test. I'm inclined to believe her.
posted by gutWell, not if the accusation is true...
In many states, this would be past the statute of limitations. Some states, such as Maryland (which I think is where this would have occurred?), have no statute of limitations for rape.
Story in WaPo has her husband and a therapist from 2012 verifying her recollection. She provided notes from that therapy session. She also passed a lie detector test. I'm inclined to believe her.
I have serious doubts for one main reason. She's not looking to press charges and allow due process to happen. That in and of itself makes me believe she's only interested in political grandstanding and that this is nothing more than a political hashtag moment #Shenanigans#MeToo#MuhParty
I’m going to laugh my ass off if trump pulls kavanaugh and then nominates Barret. That truly is something the left doesn’t want.
posted by gutWell, not if the accusation is true...
In many states, this would be past the statute of limitations. Some states, such as Maryland (which I think is where this would have occurred?), have no statute of limitations for rape.
Story in WaPo has her husband and a therapist from 2012 verifying her recollection. She provided notes from that therapy session. She also passed a lie detector test. I'm inclined to believe her.
If Feinstein believed her she wouldn't have hid it for 8 weeks and not bring it up once at their hearings. That, and the fact that bringing something up from 40 years ago already makes it fishy, are why I don't believe her at all. The therapy sessions also never mentioned any name of someone. And polygraphs have no basis of being accurate.
posted by CenterBHSFanI have serious doubts for one main reason. She's not looking to press charges and allow due process to happen.
That's where I was at, but now she's come forward and is willing to speak to Congress. So she'll be questioned under oath. The fact she talked about it in therapy 6 years ago makes it really tough to think it's made-up.
posted by like_thatI’m going to laugh my ass off if trump pulls kavanaugh and then nominates Barret. That truly is something the left doesn’t want.
But if they have to nominate someone else, is there time to confirm them before the election?
posted by gutBut if they have to nominate someone else, is there time to confirm them before the election?
They could slam it through as fast as they want. But yea it's like an 8 week process if you do it "by the book".
posted by iclfan2If Feinstein believed her she wouldn't have hid it for 8 weeks and not bring it up once at their hearings. That, and the fact that bringing something up from 40 years ago already makes it fishy, are why I don't believe her at all. The therapy sessions also never mentioned any name of someone. And polygraphs have no basis of being accurate.
Feinstein may have been waiting for some additional corroboration. More likely, she sat on it intentionally so there wouldn't be enough time to confirm someone else before the election.
Now I believe the incident happened. To say it wasn't Kavanaugh would mean this woman realized she could use that therapy session to manufacture a very elaborate hoax. I'm naturally very skeptical, but even I can't go that far.
posted by gutFeinstein may have been waiting for some additional corroboration. More likely, she sat on it intentionally so there wouldn't be enough time to confirm someone else before the election.
Now I believe the incident happened. To say it wasn't Kavanaugh would mean this woman realized she could use that therapy session to manufacture a very elaborate hoax. I'm naturally very skeptical, but even I can't go that far.
Yeah, I've come to that conclusion as well. I've found myself recently not quickly judging any women's account of events. If she is willing to testify on the record, let her. Let's see how this goes.
posted by ptown_trojans_1Yeah, I've come to that conclusion as well. I've found myself recently not quickly judging any women's account of events. If she is willing to testify on the record, let her. Let's see how this goes.
Screw that. Vote at the earliest possible moment. The delaying tactic is far more important than a grabbed titty in high school.
posted by queencitybuckeyeScrew that. Vote at the earliest possible moment. The delaying tactic is far more important that a grabbed titty in high school.
This is where I'm at. Republicans agreed there should be testimony, Dick Durbin says this week is too soon. MMk confirm him. We will never know if she is telling the truth (it is LITERALLY impossible) and does coming onto a girl while drunk at 17 really disqualify you when as an adult there are a ton of woman defending his character? And why is it that this random ass woman should be believed more? There will never be proof, it will always be he said she said.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/kavanaughs-accuser-dirty-little-secret
Interesting …..motive
posted by iclfan2... does coming onto a girl while drunk at 17 really disqualify you when as an adult there are a ton of woman defending his character? And why is it that this random ass woman should be believed more? There will never be proof, it will always be he said she said.
Well, the accusation is much more serious than you characterize it. Not like he should go to jail, but perhaps it would disqualify one from SCOTUS.
Saw another guy she named [not accused] - his buddy - denies it happened. But she's the one that made him a witness. She also said, rather specifically, there were 4 guys at the party (therapist notes said 4 were in the room, which the woman said was a recording error).
So I don't know if there's a big unsolvable mystery here. Can someone else confirm the party happened and who was there?
posted by QuakerOatshttps://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/kavanaughs-accuser-dirty-little-secret
Interesting …..motive
Fake news, again.
posted by gutWell, the accusation is much more serious than you characterize it. Not like he should go to jail, but perhaps it would disqualify one from SCOTUS.
Saw another guy she named [not accused] - his buddy - denies it happened. But she's the one that made him a witness. She also said, rather specifically, there were 4 guys at the party (therapist notes said 4 were in the room, which the woman said was a recording error).
So I don't know if there's a big unsolvable mystery here. Can someone else confirm the party happened and who was there?
She herself doesn't know the place or date of the party.... And there will never be proof, it happened 30+ years ago. Someone else saying there was a party doesn't prove anything. Y'all need to be more skeptical.
posted by iclfan2Y'all need to be more skeptical.
What you're saying is this woman decided "hey, I can use that therapy session from 2012 where I talked about an unnamed perp to block a SCOTUS nominee". Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of that.
But wait there's more....then she colludes with Feinstein to pretend not to be interested in coming forward, to both give her more credibility AND to delay the process.
If a member of an investigative body withholds potential pertinent ‘evidence’ from that body, for personal / political gain, is that not some type of violation or illegality?
posted by gutWhat you're saying is this woman decided "hey, I can use that therapy session from 2012 where I talked about an unnamed perp to block a SCOTUS nominee". Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical of that.
But wait there's more....then she colludes with Feinstein to pretend not to be interested in coming forward, to both give her more credibility AND to delay the process.
The democrats are using it to delay the process. They don't care about the validity of the ladies' allegations, only that they can delay it as long as possible. I have no idea why she would come up with this now, but I'm skeptical of anyone waiting 40 years to bring up an "assault". Further, I have a hard time believing anyone can remember an event from that long ago accurately. Finally, there is still and never will be proof, so this whole thing is ONLY delaying the inevitable confirmation.
Maybe it happened, sucks for her if it did, but it will never be proven and the whole charade is pointless. That's where I'm at on it. But I'm certainly not going to just believe her word over his. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
posted by SpockThis left wing ploy to derail the Kavennah vote is ridiculous. To drag out something 35 years ago is wrong.
If it's true, it's not only not wrong, it's the closest thing to just.
posted by gutStory in WaPo has her husband and a therapist from 2012 verifying her recollection. She provided notes from that therapy session. She also passed a lie detector test. I'm inclined to believe her.
This is where I am on it. We're hardly dealing with some Machiavellian Nostradamus here. I sincerely doubt she was plotting a character assassination of someone back in 2012 just in case there was ever a reason to use it.
And unless it's been covered up, I doubt she's had any training or practice beating a polygraph.
posted by CenterBHSFanI have serious doubts for one main reason. She's not looking to press charges and allow due process to happen. That in and of itself makes me believe she's only interested in political grandstanding and that this is nothing more than a political hashtag moment #Shenanigans#MeToo#MuhParty
It isn't exactly a rarity for people to feel shame as victims of assault, even decades after, so I really can't see how her not wanting it to be the focus in a court room is adequate evidence to mistrust her story. Conversely, the fact that the account was told back before he was a serious spot on the radar for SCOTUS makes it pretty credible.
posted by gutThat's where I was at, but now she's come forward and is willing to speak to Congress. So she'll be questioned under oath. The fact she talked about it in therapy 6 years ago makes it really tough to think it's made-up.
Exactly. Other than it being true, it's hard to come up with a motive for it at the time.
posted by QuakerOatshttps://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/kavanaughs-accuser-dirty-little-secret
Interesting …..motive
Why am I not surprised you would pull a self-professed Opinion piece with loose allusions from the Federalist Papers to try to tarnish the reputation of the alleged victim?
Also, Kavanaugh's mother ended up dismissing the foreclosure in 1997 after they refinanced.
But of course, you'll try again. Accepting that he might have done something to morally disqualify himself is just outside the scope of possibility, right? After all, he's "conservative." They're all good guys.
posted by iclfan2She herself doesn't know the place or date of the party.... And there will never be proof, it happened 30+ years ago. Someone else saying there was a party doesn't prove anything. Y'all need to be more skeptical.
If there's a motive, I am.
I've yet to hear a plausible one for the time in question.
posted by iclfan2The democrats are using it to delay the process. They don't care about the validity of the ladies' allegations, only that they can delay it as long as possible. I have no idea why she would come up with this now, but I'm skeptical of anyone waiting 40 years to bring up an "assault". Further, I have a hard time believing anyone can remember an event from that long ago accurately. Finally, there is still and never will be proof, so this whole thing is ONLY delaying the inevitable confirmation.
Maybe it happened, sucks for her if it did, but it will never be proven and the whole charade is pointless. That's where I'm at on it. But I'm certainly not going to just believe her word over his. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
I completely agree that the Louies don't actually care about her as a victim. Their interest is purely political. That doesn't speak to the legitimacy of her story one way or the other, though.
It's hardly an unthinkable scenario to want to put an assault behind you, but then come forward about it if you find out that the person who assaulted you is going to be placed into a position of power based, in part, on his character. A close relative of mine was a sleazeball back when we were more involved in his life. I have effectively just cut him out of our lives, but you can bet your ass I'd make a stink if he were a nominee for SCOTUS. He would be morally unfit. Doesn't mean I'm going to raise hell in the meantime, though.
Whether or not it will be proven doesn't make it pointless. Aside from the fact that we can't know how a jury might side anyway, again, the seeming absence of motive to tell such a story back then, coupled with complete inaction to use the story toward some end at the time, makes it seem extremely unlikely that it was made up.
If it's not true, there are really only two plausible explanations I can think of: mistaken identity or collusion between her, the therapist, the person administering the polygraph, and anyone else who might need to be involved.
Sounds like some left wing professor who had her family screwed over by his mommy (judge) decided to load some ammo years in advance by making up some therapy crap that she never named any names in to use later.
So the woman didn't want to deal with the scrutiny of a court room. I can understand that, for sure. But now... now she's got that scrutiny x10.
Ok. I can see how she would pass by a smaller scrutiny for a bigger one. Different times of life and all of that.
Still skeptical. I can't help it. The timing is just too convenient.
posted by SpockSounds like some left wing professor who had her family screwed over by his mommy (judge) decided to load some ammo years in advance by making up some therapy crap that she never named any names in to use later.
Erm ... first, you're reaching for a conspiracy. Occam would strongly disagree, and you're going from implausible to amusing.
Also, you apparently missed the part where "his mommy" is actually the one that kept her family from being screwed (by dismissing the foreclosure).
posted by CenterBHSFanSo the woman didn't want to deal with the scrutiny of a court room. I can understand that, for sure. But now... now she's got that scrutiny x10.
Ok. I can see how she would pass by a smaller scrutiny for a bigger one. Different times of life and all of that.
Still skeptical. I can't help it. The timing is just too convenient.
Well, the timing is certainly a factor. There's no doubt about that. As I said, it's a lot easier to let it go when the offender is just some random stranger living somewhere else in the world.
When that person becomes a candidate for a position of power, there's a little more urgency to making public something like this.
So I definitely don't disagree about the timing. I think the timing is absolutely, 100% relevant to the release of the info. And to be sure, the Louies are going to virtue signal until they cream all over themselves with it. They don't give a shit about her, but it helps their cause, so they will.
I'm just saying that it doesn't make her statement itself, or even the circumstances around it, particularly suspicious.
posted by O-TrapI'm just saying that it doesn't make her statement itself, or even the circumstances around it, particularly suspicious.
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume she's a feminazi...I think her story is probably true, and being Kavanaugh is going to destroy women's rights and take away their abortions she HAD to come forward.
Now there IS a chance the story was about someone else and she's manipulated the facts to torpedo his nomination [because...feminazi]. It's just pretty unlikely, especially given she passed a lie detector (which studies show is probably about 85% reliable).
The bigger question is if things really happened as she believes/recalls....because I'm guessing this is a drunk 15 and 17 year old at a party. Except Kavanaugh denies even being at the party. If reality is something less than her version of events, should that disqualify him? The problem is, she talks about him covering her mouth to stop her yelling....which is pretty black-and-white that this is much more serious than a clumsy come-on.
Not surprised at all to see some of the people on here calling the woman a liar. Lol. If this was a liberal candidate, you’d all be saying she’s telling the truth and he shouldn’t be a SCOTUS. Admit it..