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

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 10/6/18 at 3:25pm

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

[madbrian]

Posted: 10/6/18 at 3:39pm

There will be serious ramifications. Given his tirade last week, there will be countless legitimate calls for him to recuse himself from many cases. Given his hubris, he won’t recuse, and decisions will be tainted.

[javero]

Posted: 10/6/18 at 8:40pm

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]

Posted: 10/7/18 at 2:10am

the evolutionary purpose of sexual aggression is that it allows for the spread of the aggressor's genetic material.  this is why it is well described in nature (amongst mandarin ducks, for example).

of course, one can't get an aught from an is.  but it is the beginning of the discussion of how to right the ship.  to reiterate: just because it happens in nature, it doesn't make it right.

males in particular require healthy egress for their sexual frustrations (i.e., jerking off).  those who do not have healthy outlets invariably find unhealthy ones (i.e., adultery and unwanted children at best, rape and predatory behavior at worst).  one of the main criticisms of the abrahamic traditions is that even this isn't allowed and is a source of shame.  it made sex taboo and banished it to the dark corners of our psyche, so that we can't have a grown up conversation about it.  and making something taboo is an unfailing recipe to pique ppl's interest in it (the hungry man thinks only of food).  you get a lot of sexually frustrated men, alcohol, and an environment where sex is a game, and if you don't get it, you're a loser, and you have ticking time bombs. 

to be clear, this is not an attempt to excuse sexually aggressive behavior.  imho, the "beginning" of making it right involves an adult conversation about human sexuality, and accepting that sex between two to even several consenting adults is a good and healthy thing.  self-gratification to porn should be considered a healthy way to allow release of sexual tension.  there should be legalized sex workers and their profession, along with porn performers, should be honored as contributing to a healthy society.  if a dude acts out inappropriately with a sex worker, they get the same treatment they do at a strip-joint--they get their ass beat by bouncers and they get kicked out, which aught teach them some manners.

it should be noted that even were all of this implemented, there would still be sexual predators, because acting that way would have, for the vast majority of the history of life, ensured the spread of one's genetic material.  some people are just sociopathic; the only way to deal with them is the law.

Updated On: 10/7/18 at 02:10 AM

[javero]

Posted: 10/7/18 at 9:52am

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]

Posted: 10/8/18 at 2:26am

Sexual assault is not about sex, it's about POWER!

[bethnor]

Posted: 10/8/18 at 2:48am

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.

 

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 10/8/18 at 10:32am

If Brett were in a courtroom in Cook County, Illinois and spoke to a judge like he did to the Senators - he would be held in contempt. He lacks the judicial temperament to sit on any court let alone the SCOTUS.  He also seemed drunk to me.  Flake and Collins and the rest of the GOP can rot. 

[Pauly3]

Posted: 10/8/18 at 7:35pm

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.

 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/8/18 at 7:49pm

Pauly3 said: "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 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."

***

Look at his tetimony.  He lied at every opportunity.  This was not the testimony of an honest man maintaining his innocence.

I dont' know what Manchin thinks other than this:   He voted yes because he thinks it's the only way to remain in the Senate.

I believe Collins convinced herself that the burden of proof wasn't meant in order to vote yes.  I believe she believes the best about Judge Kavanaugh
I believe she is wrong on both counts.
I believe she is preposterously telling herself this is a case of mistaken identity in spite of the fact that Dr. Ford knew both Judge and Kavanaugh.  That is absurd.
And I believe that Collins turned a blind eye to the many lies in BK's testimony, and the outrageous way he acted on his last day of testimony.

I believe they are both kissing Trump's ass.  And I hope they both suffer for it.

 

Updated On: 10/9/18 at 07:49 PM

[artscallion]

Posted: 10/8/18 at 8:54pm

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]

Posted: 10/8/18 at 9:21pm

artscallion said: "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!"

If 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.

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.  Regarding Dr. Ford being a witness, yes, she was a witness.  But she said there were other witnesses and named them.  Those witnesses provided statements under penalty of felony (including her female friend), and no one could help anyone come to any understanding of what did occur or even what might have occurred.  Not even the smallest of things could be corroborated.  I don't insist Dr. Ford is wrong.  But there is too much that is not understood to join in on the lynching.  That others find it so easy is appalling.

[artscallion]

Posted: 10/8/18 at 9:45pm

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.

 

[javero]

Posted: 10/8/18 at 10:46pm

Pauly3 said: "...Not even the smallest of things could be corroborated.  I don't insist Dr. Ford is wrong..."

A proper FBI investigation allowed to run its course would have gone a long way towards either strengthening or obliterating Dr. Ford's claims.  In the end, it was the usual political theater that gave the likes of Senators Flake and Collins cover to toe the party line, while permitting Democratic Senator Manchin to save face with Trumpista cult members back in WV.  The FBI investigation was a sham but that's all water under the bridge now.  Hopefully, the Dems will regain the House after midterms and find a way to force Trump to produce his tax returns.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 10/8/18 at 11:06pm

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.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 10/8/18 at 11:16pm

javero said: "A proper FBI investigation allowed to run its course would have gone a long way towards either strengthening or obliterating Dr. Ford's claims."

I agree it could have, possibly.  But had a proper FBI investigation turned nothing new up, would the outrage be any different?  I'm guessing not.

[LaurenB]

Posted: 10/9/18 at 3:45am

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.  

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/9/18 at 7:01am

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

I appreciate the truth in this.  But is it a complete truth?  

For a great many men who sexually abuse and rape the wielding of toxic masculine power through sexual criminality is a highly sexually charged act.  Any total distinction between sex and power in this context is illusory.  


 

Updated On: 10/9/18 at 07:01 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/9/18 at 7:26am

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

[javero]

Posted: 10/9/18 at 8:19am

pauly3 wrote: "But had a proper FBI investigation turned nothing new up, would the outrage be any different?  I'm guessing not."

I concede you the point.  We'll never know that outside of a confession on the part of Judge K given the sham of an FBI investigation.  I'm particularly annoyed by the way the Dems exploited Dr. Ford.  I'm also not willing to call Senator Dianne Feinstein a liar with respect to the leaks but someone from her staff was the likely source that person was shrewd enough to give the Senator from CA plausible deniability.  I know how that game is played.

LaurenB wrote: "But for me, I found her [Ford] sympathetic, compelling, but not credible."  

I'm going to slightly recant my earlier full-throated support of Dr. Ford.  I simply found her the more credible of two individuals with dubious credibility.  I was never under the impression that the Senate committee hearing was a criminal investigation.  Nevertheless, IMHO Judge K flunked one of the key tests before him that day, that is whether or not he possessed the right temperament to be a judge in the highest court of the land.  The SCOTUS is tainted thanks in large part to the presence of Associate Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh. 

[adamgreer]

Posted: 10/9/18 at 8:45am

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]

Posted: 10/9/18 at 9:20am

There are various reasons not to confirm BK.  But I'm not ready to downplay the role of a credible accusation of attempted rape and his patently dishonest testimony with respect to questioning material to that inquiry.  Far from it.  Any criminal defendant (and he is not one) who would have answered like he did with lies (even according to his friends who had supported him) deflections (conspiracy theory, politicization, arguing with his examiners, brazenly mischaracterizing witnesses not remembering the party with refuting of Dr. Ford's testimony (when one of them expressly stated she believed Dr. Ford!) - a mendacious attempt, particularly with a judge who should know the laws of evidence! - inconsistent material falsehood (in one breath regretting the Renata Alumnius comment as an Animal House salacious prank; in the next taken such offense that senators considered it exactly that! - deceitfully treating the senators' questions as dragging Renata through the mud, and arguing preposterously that it didn't mean anything sexual (contrary to his initial statements) because as Renata herself had stated they never had sex (as if that were the issue - hardly!), suggesting the Democrats should have ignored Dr. Ford's accusation instead of putting him through this (boo hoo), turning pertinent questions about his denying ever being so drunk he might not recall what he did right back on the senators (no witness should get away with that in any forum), the list goes on and on.... any witness behaving like that in a criminal trial would be in extreme jeopardy.  In a forum like this, where the burden is not so high (even Collins herself framed it as "more likely than not" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt", he should never have been confirmed.

And that's just this issue.  We haven't even gotten to all the other reasons to find him a liar and unfit for SCOTUS.  

The defense of this confirmation is not worth its salt.  And for Collins - who demanded Franken's resignation because she found his accusers credible (and she had ever right to do so) to rationalize her decision is beyond hypocrisy.   

Updated On: 10/9/18 at 09:20 AM

[LaurenB]

Posted: 10/9/18 at 9:34am

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.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 10/9/18 at 11:15am

Lauren, that appreciation is mutual.  Thank you so much for your thoughtful response.

Passions are running high with this one and it's good to know two people who see things somewhat differently can discuss it without hostility or ill-will. 

One point of agreement is the contempt we both share for whoever leaked Dr. Ford's name to the press.

Updated On: 10/9/18 at 11:15 AM

[South Florida]

Posted: 10/9/18 at 2:34pm

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.