Brett Kavanaugh: a rapist, liar, and disgusting human is now a justice.

I think democrats should vow to get him impeached this final month up to the midterms. What a fücking disgrace, Collins and Manchin are. I truly hope they both burn in hell. I’ve never been affected by sexual assault either directly or indirectly, but I can’t seem to not be emotional by this. As someone who is inspired and surrounded by so many strong old, young, amazing women I just can’t fathom how this might affect someone who has been the victim of sexual assault. To know someone who may or may not have committed such an act is sitting on the highest court in our country is an absolutely scary thought. Not only are the sexual assault allegations are weighing on me, but also the way Brett acted during his testimony. He showed absolutely no remote for Dr. Ford nor did he show any composure. He acted like a child in that seat and I believe that’s not a good sign for how he’d act as a judge. Republicans really messed up. Especially Collins. To just ignore half the countries population and not treat the testimony as it was, a job interview.

Updated On: 10/6/18 at 03:25 PM

Judge K, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby,..., just the tip of the iceberg. It's my understanding that as recently as 30 years ago many states still treated sexual assault as a misdemeanor provided that a definition of the offense was even codified in their criminal code.

I can't begin to understand how someone gets off on sexually assaulting others. I'm not being glib either. What percentage of the urge is nature vs nurture? And what human evolutionary function does sexual assault serve? So many women and innocent children have suffered at the hands of their sexual abusers, as well as the other class of frequently silent sufferers, male and female victims of sexual assault while incarcerated.

It appears that folks like Senators Grassley, Graham, Hatch, Flake, and Collins are even more confounded by the phenomenon than I am. I believed Dr Ford's testimony. Really wish the GOP Senators would have allowed the FBI to conduct a proper investigation so that all the facts would have come to light. I don't think the scotus is big enough to accommodate the baggage of both Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Updated On: 10/6/18 at 08:40 PM

bethnor wrote: "..there should be legalized sex workers and their profession, along with porn performers, should be honored as contributing to a healthy society."

I could not agree more. I also highly suspect it would allow many women and some men to escape the clutches of the parasites known as "pimps". Thanks for that very insightful commentary, bethnor!

A Director said: "Sexual assault is not about sex,it's about POWER!"

a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. i don't doubt the power enhances the sexual experience in their brain.

as an analogy, i am sure that big game hunters are turned on when they snuff larger, more powerful animals. that's part of the reason why they are addicted to guns. it's the power rush, which in turn is something of an aphrodisiac.

Call_me_jorge said: "What a fücking disgrace, Collins and Manchin are. I truly hope they both burn in hell."

Do you believe Collins and Manchin believe Kavanaugh to be a rapist and voted to confirm despite their beliefs? We don't know what Kavanaugh did or didn't do 36 years ago. We don't know if he and Dr. Ford were ever in a room together. Where there very well could be some small amount of corroboration for the location of the alleged incident - or for the incident itself, there is none. Memories are not always reliable. We don't know if Dr. Ford is recalling a party no one else remembers or if she could possibly be remembering a completely different party (where who knows what occurred). Everything about this specific case is unclear. There is little to no doubt Dr. Ford experienced a horrific event, but there is very much doubt regarding the actual circumstances surrounding the specific event she describes. Mob mentality and the calling for a virtual lynching (if not literal), when you have no idea of the facts, is what is disgraceful.

Pauly3 said: We don't know what Kavanaugh did or didn't do 36 years ago. We don't know if he and Dr. Ford were ever in a roomtogether. Where there very well could be some small amount of corroboration for the location of the alleged incident - or for the incident itself, there is none. Memories are not always reliable. We don't know if Dr. Ford is recalling a party no one else remembers or if she could possibly be remembering a completely different party (where who knows what occurred). Everything about this specific case is unclear. There is little to no doubt Dr. Ford experienced a horrific event, but there is very much doubt regarding the actual circumstances surrounding the specific event she describes.Mob mentality and the calling for a virtual lynching (if not literal), when you have no idea of the facts, is what is disgraceful."

If someone I personally knew walked into my house and punched me in the face, and I told you who did it, people would believe it, even 36 years later. When you're mugged in an alley and the police ask you to pick the guy out of a lineup, and you do, they believe you. So why is it that when it's involves a woman witnessing her own sexual assault by someone she knows personally, suddenly we need corroboration? It happened because she said it happened. SHE's the fvickin' witness!

Pauly3 said: mIf the person you claimed walked into your house and punched you 36 years ago denied it, and you said there were others present who witnessed and/or were present while it happened but could remember no such event, I wouldn't automatically believe you had the facts straight."

This is a false analogy. She never claimed there were witnesses to the attack, she simply named people who were at the party, unaware of what was happening to her. None of the witnesses denied being at the party. They just said they had no specific recollection of a specific party. Not surprising when nothing out of the ordinary happened to them.

" If you're mugged in an alley and you pick the suspect out of a lineup, the police continue investigating. If they can't find a single corroborative piece of evidence, and they can't place the person at the scene (because you have no idea where the scene was, how you got there and how you got home), they don't make an arrest."

This is just not true. And millions of black men around the country are sitting in jail cells proving it. But when it's a woman accusing a powerful white man, the default is that she's confused, vague, etc. The attempts to cast doubt on her mental competence, and the repeated false stories about how she couldn't even describe the house, or stating that her witnesses rebuked her claims when they really didn't rebuke them at all (in fact one of the witnesses has stated that she believes Ford, she just doesn't have a specific recollection of which party it might have been.) Others continue to repeat the lie that even Ford's family doesn't believe her despite this having been disputed by interviews with them. All of that is what is truly appalling.

Artscallion, Dr. Ford claimed there was another witness (Mark Judge) as well as others named as being present at a specific gathering or party that no one else recalls, and no one else, at the party or not, has come forward to say he/she/they remember driving a 15 year-old Christine Ford to or from a small gathering in the Summer of 1982 at an unknown home that has become infamous. Where there easily could be corroboration, there isn't. Combined with Kavanaugh's long and distinguished professional life that thus far appears to be incident free - despite 6 FBI investigations, it should not be surprising and certainly not outrageous that people have questions about what really happened 36 years ago.

That any black men are sitting in jail cells due to no other reason than a victim's identification from a lineup doesn't make the point I was making false. The spirit of what I was saying is the laws in this country that presume innocence should apply to the person picked out of a lineup be he white, black or otherwise. If there is no probable cause, then an arrest should not be made period. If I am correctly applying "presumption of innocence" and "probable cause", then your usage of the analogy was false.

With Kavanaugh, I'm not comparing the senate hearing to a criminal case. If one doesn't agree he should have been confirmed, then fine. But to condemn his life (and worse), along with others who voted for his confirmation, is going way too far.

Holding up this case as a test case for what's wrong with America with respect to women being victimized first by an incident - and then again long after - is problematic, I think. No conclusive facts are known. This is the wrong test case.

I am a woman, probably older than everyone on this thread, and also have been a victim of sexual assault and harassment. I did not believe Dr. Ford, not because of what she didn't recall from 36 years ago, but because of the holes in her story about recent memories or recollections. Not remembering what she showed to the Washington Post reporter regarding her therapist's notes, not remembering details about her recent polygraph, her inconsistent statements about flying, not knowing that Senators were willing to fly to CA to interview her confidentially. We weren't there, so none of us will know the truth. But for me, I found her sympathetic, compelling, but not credible.

IMO, I do think she is disturbed, but I cannot point to the alleged Kavanaugh experience as the reason or catalyst. This is a rough statement, but I have had too many encounters with very sweet-looking manipulative women who have perfected the art of manipulation over a lifetime. My reaction to her testimony was that she was practiced in the art of manipulation. Obviously this is just my opinion. I also thought she spoke with an affectation, using that little-girl voice when convenient. As a woman, I found that annoying.

This is not to say that I thought he was purer than snow. I do think he was trying to gloss over his Animal House teenage years, but there is a difference between being a boorish jerk and a sexual assaulter. But I do think she had a complex childhood. Privileged, hanging out with older teens, and probably a wannabe with the older kids. Something may have happened, I don't doubt that. But I do question her credibility.

LaurenB said: "I am a woman, probably older than everyone on this thread, and also have been a victim of sexual assault and harassment. I did not believe Dr. Ford, not because of what she didn't recall from 36 years ago, but because of the holes in her story about recent memories or recollections. Not remembering what she showed to the Washington Post reporter regarding her therapist's notes, not remembering details about her recent polygraph, her inconsistent statements about flying, not knowing that Senators were willing to fly to CA to interview her confidentially. We weren't there, so none of us will know the truth. But for me, I found her sympathetic, compelling, but not credible.

IMO, I do think she is disturbed, but I cannot point to the alleged Kavanaugh experience as the reason or catalyst. This is a rough statement, but I have had too many encounters with very sweet-looking manipulative women who have perfected the art of manipulation over a lifetime. My reaction to her testimony was that she was practiced in the art of manipulation. Obviously this is just my opinion. I also thought she spoke with an affectation, using that little-girl voice when convenient. As a woman, I found that annoying.

This is not to say that I thought he was purer than snow. I do think he was trying to gloss over his Animal House teenage years, but there is a difference between being a boorish jerk and a sexual assaulter. But I do think she had a complex childhood. Privileged, hanging out with older teens, and probably a wannabe with the older kids. Something may have happened, I don't doubt that. But I do question her credibility."

Lauren, you point out that Dr. Ford hasn't accurately remembered things that just happened to her - facts about this and that in the period since she first told Congress of her accusation when she's been in extreme stress with death threats and had to relocate her family (though frankly, I believe you're wrong that the Senate agreed to send senators to her in California, the offer I believe was to send staff, not senators).

But even if she lacks a clear memory about these recent events, how does that have any bearing on her credibility as a witness stating that two young men, both of whom she knew, one tried to rape her while the other facilitated at a party 36 years ago?

I'm sorry but I don't see the connection between a lack of clear memory about certain details in an investigation into a crime and a lack of remembering who among one's acquaintances tried to rape them in the past.

I see no nexus between the two with respect to sincerity, earnestness, respect for the truth,
forthrightness or material cognitive and recall ability.

Compare this to the countless lies (even many of BK's friends and drinking buddies from his youth say he's lying) and material mischaracterizations of evidence in BK's testimony.

Updated On: 10/9/18 at 07:26 AM

Bart's guilt or innocence is not the reason to disqualify him from the Supreme Court. He should have been immediately disqualified for the shouting and yelling "performance" he gave at the hearing. He was rattled, unstable, and extremely partisan. That should have been game over. But in this era of Republican/Taliban rule, it's "passion."

henrikegerman - First of all, thank you for your thoughtful response. I hesitated posting, because so many of these threads can turn into a real $hit-fest.

Yes, you are correct, it was the staffers who would have traveled to CA, not the Senators.

Regarding her lack of memory of details 36 years ago, if something traumatic occurred then, I do not dispute her lack of memory of those events. I tend to block unpleasant memories, so I did not have a problem with that. My problem was her wavering on current events. I believe some of those events, like her polygraph, occurred before she was outed, though I could be mistaken. I do know that her polygraph took place on August 7th, long before the Senate hearings took place. So I don't think she would have had any threats that early in the process.

Anyhow, they say that women can be harder on other women. And perhaps that is the case here. But she is highly educated, from a sophisticated cosmopolitan background, and something about her just does not ring true for me. I fully accept her being bewildered at age 15 and for the decades that followed, but recent inconsistencies gave me doubt. But we will never really know, unfortunately.

As javero said, my biggest anger is for the person who leaked and betrayed her. This could have been handled in confidence and who knows, maybe Kavenaugh would have withdrawn his nomination.

But I do appreciate a civil discussion.

Henri the keg guy delivers as usual. I look at what the GOP has done to suppress voting and I feel so sad. Kavanaugh has not been accused of rape and it makes the title of this thread a problem.