Trump court pick tearfully denies woman's sexual assault allegation

[attrayant]

8 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Why wait 36 yrs to accuse maybe the Wrong Person. Should've Reported the Allegation and maybe supplied some DNA and /or some evidence and the Witness she said that was There. Can't Proof Anything Now.

 

Take a look at an excerpt from Lindsey Graham's autobiography:

 

"I learned how much unexpected courage from a deep and hidden place it takes for a rape victim or sexually abused child to testify against their assailants," the South Carolina Republican wrote in his 2015 autobiography.

"Trying to get a scared, confused, little kid or young woman who feels the best part of her life is over to recall a memory that their every psychological impulse is trying to suppress is not something you forget," he continued. "It has stayed with me ever since."

 

Now go read this, from Psychology Today: Why Don't Victims of Sexual Harassment Come Forward Sooner?  Too much to quote here, but reasons on the short list include: fear of consequences, denial, threats from disbelievers.  Finally there is victim shaming, as you yourself have engaged in by making that post.  

 

 

[chokrai]

It seems that no matter how low the Democrats go, how evil and vile they show themselves to be there is always plenty of people that will support them. 

[DaiHard]

49 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

An excellent summary of why this man should never be appointed.

He is obviously a political appointee to a role that should in itself be free of politics but is increasingly seen as another way of pushing a right wing agenda through interpretation of the law. 

It's no coincidence that Trump and his cronies are trying their very best to get this man in as everyone in Washington now sees the supreme court as an uncontested route to their political leanings which in this case is right-wing christian ideology.

 

Kagan, Sotomayer and Bader Ginsberg are not political? Bader Ginsberg admitted she was political at her nomination hearing. And you think it is ok to trash a person's life because you don't like their politics. People like you are beneath contempt.

[brucec64]

4 hours ago, neeray said:

 

It's a win/win for the Dems. If the Repuglicans ram through his nomination, many voters will show their distaste at the mid terms.

If he doesn't get approved, they were successful in stopping a bad SC judge choice.

 

It's not a win win if Republicans ram through the nomination. They may be punished at the polls, but the big prize is control of the SC for the next 20 years. The Republicans will play the long game on this one, and may sacrifice a couple of pawns. It will be interesting to see if they can push him through two votes.

[Kieran00001]

37 minutes ago, chokrai said:

It seems that no matter how low the Democrats go, how evil and vile they show themselves to be there is always plenty of people that will support them. 

 

Sure, because prosecuting men for their sex crimes is real low and there is nothing evil or vile about supporting a sex pest just because they support your political agenda.

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, DaiHard said:

I hope that those of you that are so quick to rush to judgment on unsubstantiated allegations just because you don't like Trump never find yourself in the position where your falsely accused because you'll get precious little sympathy

You say that I am 'beneath contempt' yet you are quite happy to victim blame. 

You are assuming he is being falsely accused despite the very convincing facts presented throughout this thread that show you otherwise.

Also, I never said that Democrats didn't play the political supreme court game; it's been going on for quite some time now and both parties have no choice these days but to play, but this guy is now a dead man walking and should do the honourable thing and walk away.  

[atyclb]

3 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

I don't sense this guy has the ability to empathize with average Americans. His strong suit seems to be the ability to make adroit legal reasonings which have endeared and ingratiated himself into the graces of the Republican elite who have in turn groomed him for career advancement. But whether you're talking about abortion rights, civil rights, immigration, prisoner rights, corporate interests vs individual interests, campaign finance reform, gun rights, or environmental protection, how an 'average Joe' TVF member thinks putting this guy on the Supreme Court is in their best interests boggles my mind. You think this guy is going to look out for your interests? Unless you're in the top 10%, I think this guy is going to be looking after interests far far above your pay grade.

 

 

me thinks the average joe tvf member might be more concerned about thailand politics and the wifes reactionary mood to it.

 

since i am unemployed seems any supreme court judge appointed is above my pay grade and it makes me want to cry and seek out my safe place. 

 

ps; what the republicans did to bill clinton is equally as retarded as what the dems are doing to kavanaugh 

Edited September 28, 2018 by atyclb

[Krataiboy]

I can imagine many men who lived through the sexual revolution of the Swinging Sixties and Seventies are thanking their lucky stars they never became rich and famous.

 

Of course, rapists and sexual abusers such as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby deserve to be called out and severely punished. Their conduct was as inexcusable then as it would be now.

 

But perhaps some sympathy should be according to at least some of the ageing celebrities being scooped up as the "Me,Too" movement relentlessly casts its dragnet ever wider. 

 

In many instances, their alleged offences make them minnows in the predatory pond compared with sharks like Weinstein and Cosby. Yet they still end up not only getting hooked but also publicly gutted, with careers wrecked and family lives shattered.

 

This seems harsh, particularly when one considers how drastically norms of social and sexual behavior have changed over recent decades. Viewing the past through the prism of the present is can all to easily produce a distorted image.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Krataiboy

[Gecko123]

Takeaways after studying Kavanaugh testimony:

 

All guns blazing during opening statement, and very moving, but credibility during questioning by Democrats went downhill almost immediately. Downplayed Mark Judge relationship, even though described as joined at the hip by others, and his name appears in Kavanaugh calendars, yearbook Also, acknowledged aquaintance with all people Ford said was at party, but claims doesn't know Ford. Dodged questions about need for FBI investigation. If he is so adamant about his innocence, why is he so reluctant to call in FBI? Too many real life anecdotes about him conflict with image he is trying to project. Played the Clarence Thomas "high tech lynching" card. His hot demeanor raised some temperament issues. His mouth suggested a regular drinker. Lindsay Graham's tirade was an embarrasing abomination.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Gecko123

[candide]

20 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

I can imagine many men who lived through the sexual revolution of the Swinging Sixties and Seventies are thanking their lucky stars they never became rich and famous.

 

Of course, rapists and sexual abusers such as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby deserve to be called out and severely punished. Their conduct was as inexcusable then as it would be now.

 

But perhaps some sympathy should be according to at least some of the ageing celebrities being scooped up as the "Me,Too" movement relentlessly casts its dragnet ever wider. 

 

In many instances, their alleged offences make them minnows in the predatory pond compared with sharks like Weinstein and Cosby. Yet they still end up not only getting hooked but also publicly gutted, with careers wrecked and family lives shattered.

 

This seems harsh, particularly when one considers how drastically norms of social and sexual behavior have changed over recent decades. Viewing the past through the prism of the present is can all to easily produce a distorted image.

Well, there are two issues in case he effectively did what she claimed.

The first is, as you somehow suggest, is to consider wether it is a kind of youthful mistake that could be forgiven.

The second is that he stated he did not do it. That makes the first issue neglectible, as the only question now is wether he lied or not.

If he lied, he cannot be decently appointed judge.

[atyclb]

interesting this reminded me of something that happened during university, also decades ago and also involving a party.

 

i was invited by a classmate to a party that was supposed to have many fellow classmates.

 

i went to his house to the party but seemed i was either the first or the only guest aside from H, the host classmate that invited me. he gave me rum and cola and assured me the others would arrive soon.    to cut through the chase(pun intended) this is what happened.  he grabbed me and tried to get my pants off. i ended up breaking away and literally was running around the house with this guy chasing me. ran into a bathroom and locked the door. after a while and after hearing him say dont worry he wont do that again, i left the bathroom and walked home.

 

at school i asked another classmate that was a relative of his if H is at all gay and told him what happened. his relative began to crack up and answered, H. he is 100% gay.

 

i have never sought counseling nor has it to my knowledge interfered with anything in my life. i have some great gay lesbian friends to this day.  the guy "H" comes from a prominent well off family and he is likely successful. not sure if relevant but a recent search with his full name shows him as a registered democrat.

 

if he were to gain notoriety for a soon to had prominent position or status i would not be inclined in the least to report what happened or to go public because imo big deal.

[alanrchase]

11 minutes ago, atyclb said:

interesting this reminded me of something that happened during university, also decades ago and also involving a party.

 

i was invited by a classmate to a party that was supposed to have many fellow classmates.

 

i went to his house to the party but seemed i was either the first or the only guest aside from H, the host classmate that invited me. he gave me rum and cola and assured me the others would arrive soon.    to cut through the chase(pun intended) this is what happened.  he grabbed me and tried to get my pants off. i ended up breaking away and literally was running around the house with this guy chasing me. ran into a bathroom and locked the door. after a while and after hearing him say dont worry he wont do that again, i left the bathroom and walked home.

 

at school i asked another classmate that was a relative of his if H is at all gay and told him what happened. his relative began to crack up and answered, H. he is 100% gay.

 

i have never sought counseling nor has it to my knowledge interfered with anything in my life. i have some great gay lesbian friends to this day.  the guy "H" comes from a prominent well off family and he is likely successful. not sure if relevant but a recent search with his full name shows him as a registered democrat.

 

if he were to gain notoriety for a soon to had prominent position or status i would not be inclined in the least to report what happened or to go public because imo big deal.

If someone else came forward with a similar accusation and he denied he had ever done anything like that, would you then be tempted to come forward?

[atyclb]

24 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

If someone else came forward with a similar accusation and he denied he had ever done anything like that, would you then be tempted to come forward?

 

no not at all. i dont hold any malice towards him. i think he had a crush on me and the "party of 2" was his adolescent idea to win my affection. i didnt feel shame or embarrassment or guilt or feel a crime was committed.  in life you live and you learn

 

for me to consider coming forward would require some accusation with real forensic-medical evidence of a serious malicious sex crime.

 

in hs and university boys will be boys and girls will be girls as there were also sexually aggressive girls

 

if i were ever to meet him again i would greet him and could possibly tell him despite his best efforts i am still a virgin.

 

Edited September 28, 2018 by atyclb

[petesc55]

5 hours ago, Credo said:

Her memories are neither repressed or recovered.   She remembered it when it happened and afterwards.   She simply did not report it and she explained why.   So no repressed, no recovered memories.   

 

 

But she doesn't remember where it happened, whose house, how she got there, how she got home, and the people she claimed knew about it don't remember anything, either.

[alanrchase]

5 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

no not at all. i dont hold any malice towards him. i think he had a crush on me and the "party of 2" was his adolescent idea to win my affection. i didnt feel shame or embarrassment or guilt or feel a crime was committed.  in life you live and you learn

 

for me to consider coming forward would require some accusation with real forensic-medical evidence of a serious malicious sex crime.

 

in hs and university boys will be boys and girls will be girls as there were also sexually aggressive girls

 

So you would know that he is lying but it wouldn't bother you? What else might he be prepared to lie about? My problem with Kavenaugh is his general dishonesty. 

[atyclb]

Just now, alanrchase said:

9 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

no not at all. i dont hold any malice towards him. i think he had a crush on me and the "party of 2" was his adolescent idea to win my affection. i didnt feel shame or embarrassment or guilt or feel a crime was committed.  in life you live and you learn

 

for me to consider coming forward would require some accusation with real forensic-medical evidence of a serious malicious sex crime.

 

in hs and university boys will be boys and girls will be girls as there were also sexually aggressive girls

 

So you would know that he is lying but it wouldn't bother you? What else might he be prepared to lie about? My problem with Kavenaugh is his general dishonesty. 

 

i wish you all the luck in the world in the quest for finding the perfect human being

[atyclb]

9 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

So you would know that he is lying but it wouldn't bother you? What else might he be prepared to lie about? My problem with Kavenaugh is his general dishonesty. 

 

 

furthermore after that incident i did not feel animosity or consider him an enemy. my analysis; adolescence , alcohol, sexuality.   boys will be boys as people will be people.

 

 

[scorecard]

25 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

 

furthermore after that incident i did not feel animosity or consider him an enemy. my analysis; adolescence , alcohol, sexuality.   boys will be boys as people will be people.

 

 

 

Says a lot about your personal ethics and morals.

 

 

[sirineou]

31 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

i wish you all the luck in the world in the quest for finding the perfect human being

We are not looking for perfection .just honesty. Don't you think honesty is a desire condition in a judge? 

 Would you like to have your case decided by a dishonest judge? and if it goes against you, will you resign to your fate by saying Good luck trying to find a perfect human being? 

 

 

[chokrai]

You just proved my point, you are willing to destroy the guys life with absolutely no proof.

[DM07]

1 hour ago, petesc55 said:

 

But she doesn't remember where it happened, whose house, how she got there, how she got home, and the people she claimed knew about it don't remember anything, either.

There are a lot of things in my youth, that I KNOW really happened.

In some instances, I can give you the names of people who were there and the place it happened, but not the date, in other cases, I can 100% remember the place.

Does that mean, these things happened or not?

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, chokrai said:

You just proved my point, you are willing to destroy the guys life with absolutely no proof.

Not at all, he could have and should have asked for an FBI investigation to clear his name.

[DM07]

I literally know not a single person, who actually is still in possession of a calendar from last year, let alone 36 years ago!

I find this ancient- calendar- fetish very convenient...and deeply weird!

Not saying, it is impossible...but...come on! 

[chokrai]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Not at all, he could have and should have asked for an FBI investigation to clear his name.

That is just nonsense. 

[Jingthing]

I literally know not a single person, who actually is still in possession of a calendar from last year, let alone 36 years ago! I find this ancient- calendar- fetish very convenient...and deeply weird!

Not saying, it is impossible...but...come on! 

 

His calendar actually points to the date of the incident. The democrats blew it not pushing that.  

The man revealed his true character. He's not fit to be on the Scotus. Angry, lying, evasive, filibustering, and toxically hyper partisan. Clearly unwilling to ask for his name to be really cleared by the FBI because he has big stuff to hide. The ABA has now pulled their previois endorsement of his character and are calling for a full FBI investigation of the accusations.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

[attrayant]

6 minutes ago, chokrai said:

That is just nonsense. 

 

Clearing your name and (according to you) preventing your life from being destroyed is nonsense?  How's that exactly?

[simple1]

4 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

An excellent summary of why this man should never be appointed.

He is obviously a political appointee to a role that should in itself be free of politics but is increasingly seen as another way of pushing a right wing agenda through interpretation of the law. 

It's no coincidence that Trump and his cronies are trying their very best to get this man in as everyone in Washington now sees the supreme court as an uncontested route to their political leanings which in this case is right-wing christian ideology.

 

 

Totally agree. In addition to your post above, how can this man now be appointed to the Supreme Court as he manifested such deep resentment, if not hatred, during the hearing. IMO the extreme politicalisation of appointing judges is counter democratic.

Edited September 28, 2018 by simple1

[NanLaew]

32 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

His calendar actually points to the date of the incident. The democrats blew it not pushing that.  

The man revealed his true character. He's not fit to be on the Scotus. Angry, lying, evasive, filibustering, and toxically hyper partisan. Clearly unwilling to ask for his name to be really cleared by the FBI because he has big stuff to hide. The ABA has now pulled their previois endorsement of his character and are calling for a full FBI investigation of the accusations.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

I don't read the ABA pulling their endorsement, only urging the committee to delay their vote until an FBI investigation is complete.

 

The American Bar Association has urged the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to slow down on the vote on Brett Kavanaugh for a position on the Supreme Court until the FBI has time to do a full background check on claims of sexual assault made by Christine Blasey (blah-zee) Ford and other women.

 

However, the Jesuit publication America has publicly withdrawn their endorsement.

In an editorial posted late Thursday, America magazine said it has no special insight into whether Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth. But it said that the nomination was no longer in the interest of the country and "should be withdrawn.""If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman's report of an assault," the editors wrote. "Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country."

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

I don't read the ABA pulling their endorsement, only urging the committee to delay their vote until an FBI investigation is complete.

 

The American Bar Association has urged the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to slow down on the vote on Brett Kavanaugh for a position on the Supreme Court until the FBI has time to do a full background check on claims of sexual assault made by Christine Blasey (blah-zee) Ford and other women.

 

However, the Jesuit publication America has publicly withdrawn their endorsement.

In an editorial posted late Thursday, America magazine said it has no special insight into whether Kavanaugh or Christine Blasey Ford is telling the truth. But it said that the nomination was no longer in the interest of the country and "should be withdrawn.""If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman's report of an assault," the editors wrote. "Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country."

 

 

They pulled it in the sense that Kavanaugh was using that endorsement as one of his strong arguments on why he should be confirmed. Now the ABA is saying we're not at this point saying he should be confirmed. An investigation is needed. The way he dodged multiple questions about whether he wants a real nonpartisan investigation was super revealing. Ford was credible. He was not. I reckon he still probably will be confirmed but he will be a tainted judge for life. He cares more about getting that job (and his clear ideological goals such as trashing gay rights and ending Roe v. Wade) more than clearing his name. Probably because his name can't be cleared. An innocent man would not have testified as he did. 

[manarak]

42 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Totally agree. In addition to your post above, how can this man now be appointed to the Supreme Court as he manifested such deep resentment, if not hatred, during the hearing. IMO the extreme politicalisation of appointing judges is counter democratic.

 

yet the system itself makes the appointments political.

and if you think about it, political nominations are more likely to guarantee plurality than cooptations. the latter would more likely result in the profession's dominant political orientation to take over.

 

a valid alternative to political appointments would be election by congress.