Social Question

JLeslie's avatar

Does it matter if Kavanaugh did it?

Asked by JLeslie (55803points) 4 weeks ago from iPhone

I believe the woman. I believe Kavanaugh did a really horrible thing when he was a teenager.

If he never did anything like that again, if there is no pattern, then does it matter at this point? It matters to the woman who was assaulted for sure, but if it was a stupid, pretty horrible in my opinion, teenage thing does it make him unable to overcome the one mistake?

A teenager convicted of a crime would have the conviction sealed with most crimes.

Let’s go on the assumption it’s one time. I realize we don’t know if it was only one time.

If this was your son, your husband, your favorite politician, what would you think?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

130 Answers

mazingerz88's avatar

Assuming Blasey is telling the truth, it matters. An investigation matters next.

Which seems obvious to me the last thing the Republicans would want due to the risk of discovering the allegation is indeed true.

The truth seems to be glaringly staring right at our faces. The Republicans and their conservative base would shove anybody down the nation’s throat and as quickly as possible. That is simply how they play to win this “game.”

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

If she is not telling the truth then this is a major blow against the #metoo movement. It looks and sounds like a witch-hunt if you asked me. If it’s true, well the past never really dies and the left will blow this up and make it an excuse to disqualify the man. An apology to her and the truth for the public is the least he should do.

zenvelo's avatar

Yes, it matters. It matters because it has continued in light of his voiced opinions pn political issues and in his court decisions.

It isn’t just an act from 30+ years ago. It is the consistent view of women as lesser beings, that as a male he has the right to impose himself and his ideas upon half the population.

canidmajor's avatar

It matters because it speaks to character. A 17 year old is old enough to drive, hold down a job, be emancipated. A 17 year old young man is almost full grown, and has physical power. If he hasn’t learned not to hurt people by that age, if he has learned that there are no consequences for egregious behavior because he’s white, male, and privileged, he is less likely to understand that in his 50s.

Look at Brock Turner.

notnotnotnot's avatar

@JLeslie: “I believe the woman.”

If you believe her, you believe that Kavanaugh is lying. Now. Would you consider lying at 53 to be a disqualifying feature of someone who is attempting to be in a position to impact the country (and world) for generations?

JLeslie's avatar

^^I agree the lie is enough to disqualify him, but I’m not asking about that. I’m more curious whether people think this one bad action as a teen, assuming it’s true, and I’m assuming that here, means it ruins his ability to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Was he supposedly drunk when he attacked this girl? I don’t know that detail. I really am not usually lenient when it comes to alcohol, I don’t think it’s ever an excuse, but I’m curious.

notnotnotnot's avatar

^ Kav is 53 years old. He’s had a lifetime to show that he is not that person anymore. And it appears that he is that person. His views on reproductive freedom mean that his existence on the court would be a threat to half the population of this country. He assaults a girl at 17, and gets to fuck all girls and women at 53.

JLeslie's avatar

^^His views on reproductive freedom have nothing to do with assaulting a girl when he was a teenager. How people put that together is beyond me. I’m extremely pro-choice, but I just don’t see the connection. Your saying every person against abortion thinks it’s ok to attack women? They don’t put together that way. As a woman I do, I want control over my body, but I know that plenty of men and women treat women well, and as equals, but have a problem with abortion. Abortion is a tricky topic for those who truly believe the fetuses life is equal to a life outside of the womb.

Anyway, my question would be if he was pro-choice and did what he did to a girl when he was a teen, then is the incident enough to disqualify him. Remember, I asked to think of your favorite politician.

canidmajor's avatar

@JLeslie, I’m surprised you don’t see the connection between bodily autonomy and being allowed to decide what to do with one’s body.

chyna's avatar

But he didn’t treat her as an equal. He treated her as a piece of meat that he was welcome to. Your asking if he was drunk at the time doesn’t cut it. I’ve been drunk and have NEVER groped, attacked or forced myself on another human being.
If he had said that “yes” he did it, he apologized and was ashamed of himself, etc, I might feel differently. But to lie about it and make her feel like a lying piece of shit is beyond reprehensible. I don’t want someone that lies in the position to make laws for the country that serves him and his good ol’ boys only.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@chyna I wish I could give you five hundred great answer points for that answer!!!^^^

kritiper's avatar

He was drunk, supposedly, and he was underage. Yes, it matters, but is it applicable under law?

canidmajor's avatar

@kritiper, this is about character, not law.

JLeslie's avatar

Oh Lord. Why do people only read half of what I write.

So, a Liberal who always votes for women’s rights never beats his wife or screams at his daughter for wearing a shirt skirt. Is that right? So naive. Assholes and criminals come in many packages.

I’m asking about the one thing.

If he had said he did it, I think he would have been disqualified on the spot. I do care if he is lying, I’m not excusing lying.

It’s too bad she didn’t address it with him back when she talked about it with her shrink, but I would never fault any woman for not coming forward or keeping assault to herself ever. It’s up to the woman period how she handles it. I mean too bad for her, maybe she would have been freed of some of her pain from it. That is if he had acknowledged it with her and apologized. Who knows what he would have done. He’d probably be worried about being recorded even if he wanted to apologize.

Demosthenes's avatar

If it’s true, then it matters because he’s been lying about it. The act itself he could get past (I believe he should be able to), but lying about it would disqualify him from this lifetime position.

The problem is that we don’t know if it’s true and may never know.

canidmajor's avatar

We don’t know if he never did it again. We do know that these things don’t seem to happen in a vacuum.
Why do you ask us to assume it’s only one time? You mention a specific person, and a specific situation, so asking us to suddenly go all hypothetical on this is disingenuous and silly.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie I don’t think it really does. Unless there’s further claims of some kind, since he’s a girls coach, it’s simply his word against hers. She admits there was drinking, it was a party and there are no witnesses, and now all the codicils about testifying…seems shady.

chyna's avatar

Too bad for her that she didn’t address this to him in 2012? OMFG DID YOU JUST THAT?

JLeslie's avatar

@canidmajor That’s the assumption I put forth for this Q. Obviously, I can’t know if he ever did it again. I think if someone did something at 17 it can be in a vacuum, and the law agrees. But, it’s not unusual for there to be more than one instance too. We don’t know. As far as I know other women haven’t come forward.

I’m not defending the guy, I’m trying to just get an answer to the question regardless of his religious views and politics. The people on this Q who don’t want Kavanaugh, they already didn’t want a pro-life judge, so it doesn’t matter if he was an angel otherwise, and that seems to be the only thing people can think about.

I personally feel on the fence about the alleged attack (which I believe). On the fence about whether it should affect a professional career 30 years later. I’m undecided. That’s why I asked the Q.

JLeslie's avatar

@chyna Again selective reading. Jesus. She can do whatever she wants. I didn’t say she should have done anything.

canidmajor's avatar

If you want people to “assume” things, make it hypothetical. Geez.

JLeslie's avatar

^^Impossible. We all know what’s in the news, the hypothetical conversation would be about Kavanaugh and everyone would know it.

@KNOWITALL So, you don’t believe the woman? I do believe her. It’s so hard for me to imagine a woman making it up and putting herself through all of this attention if it wasn’t true. Details might be remembered a little off in her mind, but if she felt attacked and afraid I’m thinking there is truth there. Just my opinion.

chyna's avatar

I’m glad you are worried about HIS life and political career and to hell with hers for the last 40 years.

JLeslie's avatar

I’m worried about HERS!!!

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie I never said I didn’t believe her. I’m saying it’s his word against hers and they were both minors and alcohol was involved by her statement. And it was 36 years ago. And I haven’t heard any other claims against a man who coaches girls basketball.

So I wouldn’t crucify him by any means, nor treat her poorly. That’s why they simply want her to come tell them what happened and let them make a decision.

The prevarication is what seems shady, and how she submitted the information and to whom.

notsoblond's avatar

Poor guy. Affecting his career 30 years later.

These assaults affect US our entire fucking lives!

I can’t believe the things I’m reading here from WOMEN!

this is too much for me. I need to step away. I’m disgusted.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Got it. I’m not going to question how it came about it the timing, because I think if she was assaulted she gets to come forwards whenever she feels ready or able to do it. However, I do think the people she initially cane forward to helped plan out the “best way” to handle it.

@notsoblondanymore I was assaulted in college, and was lucky to get him to stop, I think I easily would have been raped if I hadn’t protested so much, and resisted. I almost never think about it. It is a moment in my past. But, it only lasted a minute, and I wasn’t raped, but I was frightened I was going to be. I don’t know all of the details of this Kavanaugh accusation. I’m not comparing anyway, it’s all wrong obviously, I don’t know what possesses men to do such things. The guy I was with was 22. That to me is no longer young, he was an adult. I don’t think I would recognize the guy who attacked me. I never went out with him again (obviously) and I just was grateful it wasn’t worse than it was.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie While I understand your train of thought, the statute of limitations was created for the purposes below, which I agree with.

The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:[6]

A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence.
By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.
Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice.

kritiper's avatar

@canidmajor Character isn’t most important in a court of law, where the final judgment will be made.
If all you think about is character, then anyone who is thought to be guilty will be without benefit of trial.
If you think that character is all that matters, then let’s string him up right now!

Mariah's avatar

I haven’t read answers above, yet.

It matters for several reasons. Regardless of your opinion on the ability for a would-be rapist to reform, he stated under oath that he didn’t do it. So, if he did do it, he committed perjury, which is more than enough to disqualify any SCOTUS candidate.

Jeruba's avatar

It’s not the deed, which is vile enough (and does reflect character; he was no toddler battling over a toy). It’s the lying that’s disqualifying. But of course judges who can lie like blazes to cover things up are just what this administration wants.

In her column for the Washington Post on September 16th, Ruth Marcus cited a senator’s remarks in the Anita Hill – Clarence Thomas hearing:

Here, the words of then-Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) are relevant — and persuasive. Byrd took to the Senate floor in October 1991 to explain why he was withdrawing his initial support for Thomas and would vote against him.

“No individual has a particular right to a Supreme Court seat,” Byrd said. “. . . If we are going to give the benefit of the doubt, let us give it to the court. Let us give it to the country.”

As this mess plays out, the Byrd test seems like the right one for honest senators to keep in mind. (source)

People are acting as if Kavanaugh had a right to the appointment. He doesn’t. If we can find someone who doesn’t have such a shadow on his record, let’s do it. If we can’t, we’re in more trouble than we’ve begun to realize.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Jeruba In this country, we’re supposed to be innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty. He has not been at this time.

Mariah's avatar

That’s for criminal trials. It’s more than reasonable to deny somebody an prestigious, powerful, lifetime position for credible allegations of sexual assault. Of course, the claim should be further investigated, but that’s exactly what the GOP doesn’t want. They want to rush a ‘yes’ vote through without even investigating.

Jeruba's avatar

@KNOWITALL, he is not being tried in a court of law, which is the only place where that standard applies. Otherwise nobody would ever be arrested for anything. He’s being considered for a lifetime appointment to a position where he will pass judgment on the fate of other cases. Do you want someone who thinks lying is the best way to deal with past sins to decide what happens in a case you care about?

Telling the truth under oath, under penalty of law, is essential to the judicial process. How can we have someone who doesn’t believe in that wield power over the people and the law of the land?

Again: Kavanaugh is not a defendant in a trial. He is a nominee for one of the most powerful positions in the United States.

LostInParadise's avatar

If Kavanaugh did what he is being accused of, and if he denies it under oath, then he is committing perjury, a rather serious offense, which should bar him from being appointed.

The problem is that so far there has been no corroborating evidence that has been made public. The woman is unsure of the specific time and location. Her side is going to have to do better. As much as I dislike what Kavanaugh stands for, if it is just his word against hers, that is not enough to prevent a confirmation vote.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Mariah @Jeruba Neither of you knows anything about this case, nor does anyone else. It’s an accusation and nothing more at this point.

Most people feel this is simply a political stunt and nothing more, and I tend to agree based on available information.

If you don’t like that, too bad, it’s my opinion. I don’t think we do women any favors by allowing false accusations either, so until she will at least give her version under oath, it’s a non-issue. She even admitted there are no witnesses and no evidence, so not sure what she can do to stop his appointment.

Mariah's avatar

So you think we should assume it is false, do no further investigation, and confirm Kavanaugh? Because that’s what the GOP wants to do. That’s what we’re arguing against.

chyna's avatar

There are usually no witnesses to a rape. Did anyone witness yours @knowitall? I believe her because she told her therapist in 2012. This isn’t new. I won’t change my mind and you won’t change yours. But we are not the deciding votes on this matter.

Mariah's avatar

There even was a witness in this case. Mark Judge. He should testify.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I think the charges are probably true. The question of whether he has behaved impeccably since and is therefore eligible for exonneration is open to debate. What is reasonably certain, is that a conviction on such a charge would torpedo any shot Kavanaugh had at an appointment to the Federal bench

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Mariah I think she should stop playing games, get in there and testify before the only people that matter, the ones who are voting.

@chyna No one saw mine. I don’t think my situation was anything like her, I knew my rapist very well and our parents were friends. I never said a word to anyone except my husband, and that was just because we were having a conversation. I’m not a victim and I don’t need revenge.

Mariah's avatar

She is not playing games, she is literally just requesting that the FBI do some digging so that the decision can be based on more than just a “he said/she said” set of testimonies. Why is it so objectionable to you to wait for a bit for the FBI to do a proper investigation? Why the rush?

notnotnotnot's avatar

@KNOWITALL: “I think she should stop playing games”

Yeah, real fun stuff. The woman is getting death threats.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Mariah I think it’s political maneuvering. If her testimony is important and truthful, she should give it and let them proceed from there, imo.

@notnotnotnot Then maybe she should have filed criminal charges or sued him instead of sending it to Feinstein.

Mariah's avatar

She can’t file criminal charges. The statute of limitations is up.

Again, if she testifies now, it will be her word against Kavanaugh’s. If we stop and breathe for two seconds instead of rushing this vote through next week, maybe the FBI will be able to find some evidence that has more weight indicating one way or the other. Why can’t we wait for the FBI to do a proper investigation?

Why don’t you just admit that you’re more interested in having a SCOTUS judge who will help you overturn Roe than you are in making sure this man isn’t an attempted rapist before putting him on the highest court in the land. It’s painfully obvious.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Mariah, the rush of course is the November elections, and Republicans are already probably out of time to kick Kavanaugh to the curb, and get a new candidate vetted. Besides how many other candidates can there be who believe that a sitting President can’t be charged with a crime?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Mariah No one is overturning Roe anymore than Trump tried to overturn SSM.

If she doesn’t come in to testify like a normal person, they’ll probably vote him in regardless of your opinion or mine.

Mariah's avatar

If they do that, we should vote out every one of those amoral motherfuckers.

tinyfaery's avatar

Internalized misogyny is an ugly thing.

Well, it matters to me, because I have, you know, those pesky morals.

If (imo, he did) he lied that is the problem and he should not be appointed to the position. Also, I’d never trust anyone, except in very specific incidences, who even attempted to sexually assault someone, especially one who never admitted it, or asked for forgiveness and atoned for his crime. He has no credibility. I don’t believe for a second that she is lying, or mistaken, or that Kavanaugh has a doppelganger.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Mariah Amoral? As if that matters.

mazingerz88's avatar

There is no statute of limitations in Maryland for this. Saw it on the news the other night. Or is that fake news?

mazingerz88's avatar

Ford could still file charges even after Kavanaugh is confirmed.

Mariah's avatar

^ I stand corrected, I was mistaken.

Patty_Melt's avatar

I have known too many demented, devious, confused women to take her accusation at face value.
In high school, I knew a girl who had herself convinced that Elton John was her boyfriend. When he came out, she just giggled and told people he was telling people that so women wouldn’t bother him because he was hers.
My mom told me I was the result of rape, that she was forced by my dad, and had to marry him as a result. It turns out they were sleeping together for two years before she got pregnant.
I have seen women thwarted used rape as a go to weapon.
Rape, and other forms of sexual assault are very serious, and damaging, but false accusations of the same are equally damaging.
I’m just pointing out that the accusers are not always the victims.
Then again, if he and she were both drunk at a party, something could have happened which he has no memory of.
If that were the case, he has not perjured himself, even if something did happen. Given no other accusations have surfaced, he might be haunted with wondering if he did something awful, and blanked the whole thing.
The thing is, it is not cut and dry. It is not a given. There are many possibilities.
I believe it looks like a snow job. The want her to get a testimony done, so it can be determined whether there should be an investigation, but she is wanting an investigation first.

kritiper's avatar

@Mariah So you think it’s okay to prosecute a person outside of a court and, if deemed acceptable by the mob mentality, condemn said person? That’s not fair…
That’s not even American.

Jeruba's avatar

@kritiper, what did @Mariah say that led you to that conclusion? I can’t see anything like that in the posts above.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I haven’t read all the posts, but a few things I know about this,the woman DID NOT come forward at this time for her fifteen minutes of fame.
The woman is a credible witness as she is some kind of university professor, an other thing SHE wants an FBI investigation, if she is lying why would she want that?
Trump doesn’t want an FBI investigation, afraid of what they may find??
She has had death threats and has had to move out of her home.
So much for the christian right,and they say the left are all hate.
Kavanaugh is a right wing extremist, when asked about impeaching clinton he said a president could be impeached for degrading the office, much less than committing any crime.
But won’t say anything bad about the Don father.
NOW to get back to your question, should it matter if he did or didn’t do it?
Only if he is lying about it now,then it matters.

Mariah's avatar

Condemn said person to the horrible, cruel fate of not getting to serve on the Supreme Court? Sure.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

” It’s more than reasonable to deny somebody an prestigious, powerful, lifetime position for credible allegations of sexual assault”

By that logic all anyone ever has to do is make allegations and that sort of thing happens all the time in politics. While I think it probably happened this is a he said-she said case with no hard evidence. Nobody else has come forward with anything. If it can be somehow proven and he lied under oath then he should be out but we don’t have that and there has to be due process, even for this.

JLeslie's avatar

So, the jellies who keep referring to his lie (assuming he is lying, which remember I think he most likely is) would be ok with Kavanaugh having had attacked her. Those jellies would forgive him at least to the point that it happened a long time ago and shouldn’t have an impact. Or, do those jellies think what he did is so heinous that no man who did such a thing should be on the US Supreme Court?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

He was a dumb teen ager at the time of this incident,while the act horrible as it is teen agers do pretty stupid things while it doesn’t make it all right.
Lying about it now for a man who could hold a lot of power in your country is the real crime.

mazingerz88's avatar

Kavanaugh if he was sincerely confident of being innocent in this should be the first one to push for delay until there’s ample investigation to the satisfaction of Ford.

JLeslie's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Thanks for answering that. So, for you, you can look past the stupid teenage thing (I realize you think it’s a pretty awful thing) but not the lie.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Totally agree @mazingerz88 ,the woman wants an investigation as well.
Just the right think there doesn’t need to be one.

JLeslie's avatar

Did Ford first go to her representative before Kavanaugh was nominated? Was he just on some short list at the time?

imrainmaker's avatar

Proper investigation is necessary before any decision is made looking at how powerful and important position it is. Otherwise the trend will continue to have shady people at the top positions. He himself should be open with it if he thinks he’s innocent.

mazingerz88's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 My biased assumption is Kavanaugh was totally shocked and flabbergasted the first time he heard about Ford’s allegation. He really thought that seat was already in the bag.

After all the vetting and prep his own Republican conservative cabal has done to prepare and make sure he was pristine, all their jaws dropped on the floor at the same exact time.

McConnell, Grassley and Hatch were the least surprised. The Democrats could play cruel politics too. Some may call it politics or justice, it’s also payback, plain and simple.

Republicans despicably crossed a line ignoring Garland.

If it was up to me, why not just change the rules and follow what the Republicans did.

If a Supreme Court judge retires or dies, wait until the next presidential election is done before a replacement is installed?

I also assume Ford would have left Kavanaugh alone if he wasn’t being considered for the Supreme Court position. She could have lived in peace knowing he is a circuit court judge but not if he’s in the most powerful judicial entity in the country.

Yellowdog's avatar

The problem is, we already know too much about Brett Kavanagh. No individual has been more thoroughly examined in U.S. History

Six F.B.I investigations have turned up nothing in Kavanaugh’s past regarding sexual impropriety or criminal activity. Over 200 women who knew Kavanaugh in High School, College, and Law School have signed a letter testifying to his character during the 1980s. These are individuals who knew Kavanaugh well and worked with him or had living relations with him during those years. Everything Kavanaugh has ruled on, written, taught, and emailed has been searched thoroughly.

The fact that Democrats seem to be the ones forcing this just before the confirmation, the same ones who were acting like animals during the earlier proceedings are actually exploiting Ford for political purposes. Too many people know Kavanaugh for this to be gotten away with,

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Yellowdog Your overly loyal dedication to the right is almost borderline creepy.
This Ford woman is a credible person she is a university professor,she has had death threats against her which I highly doubt they are coming from the left.
She has had to move out of her house because of those threats.
SHE WANTS an FBI investigation if she is a plant from the evil left why would she want that??
If Kavanaugh is as pure as baby shit as you claim than one more investigation isn’t going to hurt anyone and he should get on a soap box once cleared and shout SEE now get off my back and lets get on with it.
Unless of course you or he are afraid there might be something to these claims.

notsoblond's avatar

No individual has been more thoroughly examined in U.S. History?

You sure about that @Yellowdog?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

At least that is what he heard on Fox news.^^

Jeruba's avatar

Are we (some of us) perhaps thinking that routine investigation of Kavanaugh would have included an investigation of the reported high school party or the people and events connected with it? Why would it, if he wasn’t involved?

How much his background has been looked at otherwise is irrelevant to the present case. It’s her claims that are the roadmap here, not his career. And if the two threads never meet, or if they do—well, then we’ll know something we don’t know now.

Yellowdog's avatar

There have been six background investigations by the FBI—no candidate has ever been examined as extensively as Kavanaugh. The Senate has been extremely rigorous and harsh in interviews and reviews of everything he has taught, written, ruled upon, etc etc. The Left has been looking for anything.

The FBI has declared that there is nothing to investigate. Ford has no date (not even a year) no address, cannot say how she got home etc etc. Her 2012 account of the incident says she was attacked by four men and there were no names. Other than her testimony which she does not even give, there is nothing to investigate. There was no Federal crime committed, nor evidence or detail of a municipal crime for a local police department. We are not even allowed to see a letter Feinstein holds. What is there to investigate? That’s why the FBI has refused. They have thoroughly investigated Kavanaugh six times already. We are just given an impossible, never-ending ever-changing list of demands and are expected to merely take the t accusation at face value.

someone above said that Republicans were now dismissing this as a ‘boyish prank.’ Actually, no. They are adamant that the incident never happened at all. It is wholly inconsistent with his character at the time, according to hundreds of people who actually knew him, hung out with him, dated him, worked with him, and participated in high school, and further academic life.

I think most Republicans DO want t o hear what she has to say. But the list of demands keeps changing and someone is evading her testimony. Kavanaugh and his family have received death threats since his nomination and especially now. He, his wife, and his daughters are the true victims of this fiasco. Kavanagh deserves an opportunity to clear his name as soon as possible.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Yellowdog Exactly. Thats why people are starting to think it’s all a delaying tactic. The prevarication not the accusation itself.

Jeruba's avatar

@Yellowdog, are you saying the investigations have already looked into his past connection with Dr. Ford? If so, why? If not, why shouldn’t they?

They’re not looking into his past connection with me. But I don’t have any and don’t claim to. She does.

mazingerz88's avatar

Whatever genius vetting and whoever did it even if it included the great Sherlock Holmes would not have found out about the Ford incident.

No one was apparently told then, no police report etc.

DOESN’T mean it did not happen.

Hence the need for an official investigation on this particular incident.

Ford should just file charges imo. There’s no statute of limitations in MD.

If it did happen, then the house exists. It can be found. And there’s a supposed witness who can be subpoenaed. And more people could come out who were there.

This excuse about how impossible it is to investigate this incident from 30 years ago is just insulting to people with brains.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Yellowdog you seem full of facts about anything right,and good for you BUT you almost never post a link to those facts, and almost never even state where you learned them, so others can go there and say you know he was right about this.

Also why the extreme rush to get Kavanaugh appointed?
Why not let this latest claim get investigated and do it after the midterms?
Then they can show the public see we investigated even this one and he is pure as baby shit ,now fuck off.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

“Ford should just file charges imo.” Mine too, so… why has it not happened?

mazingerz88's avatar

Because the objective is to stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed and doing it this way could already make that happen. If it fails, my guess is Ford will file charges. I hope she does.

kritiper's avatar

You, @Jeruba, said “In this country, we’re suppose to be innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty. ...”
@Mariah said, “That’s for criminal trials. ...”

kritiper's avatar

I don’t think charges can be filed for something someone might have done when they were under the age of 18.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The thing to appreciate is that back when the incident occurred, such a charge based on Ford’s description of events would almost certainly be dismissed out of hand.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@kritiper I think charges can and have been filed against minors.
Especially something like sexual assault.

kritiper's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Yes, against MINORS. Once a juvenile becomes 18 the juvenile record is wiped clean and cannot be use against the individual as an adult.

JLeslie's avatar

Did Kavanaugh remember her at all? Or, just didn’t remember the incident she alleges? Did they run in the same circles? It is possible he didn’t commit the incident to memory if he didn’t think much of it. Not making excuses, just saying. The guy who once had me pinned under him so I could barely move and finally my protesting and little wriggling I could do, he let me up, I doubt he remembers me. However, I doubt that was the only time he did something like that, which is a problem in and of itself. I barely remember what he looked like, and I was pretty frightened for a little bit there.

Plus, memory is a screwed up thing. My sister is sure she was very frightened when they used to have drills in school for the bomb. You know, hiding under desks and all of that. She feels it affected her anxiety level overall, another trauma added to other traumas. Thing is she never did it. She and I were born after that was a thing. I even asked friends who went to school with us to see if my memory was wrong, and everyone agrees with me.

There are other memories she has confused, one is something that happened to me. She put the actions of one man onto a different one, and it added to why she won’t speak to our father. She was wrong though about that thing, she was just piling on. When I corrected her I think she realized that she had it wrong, after years of believing the wrong thing.

My MIL is sure she saw me take communion in Catholic Church. I would NEVER do that. First, I’m not Catholic, second, even if Catholic your supposed to be free of sin or have confessed. I would never disrespect the church by taking communion when I’m not eligible. Moreover, I’m Jewish and an atheist, and when I’m in church I don’t kneel when everyone kneels, I don’t do any of that. I will stand when people stand though.

False memory is real. I’m not accusing Ford or Kavanaugh of false memories, but it would be good to hear from witnesses. Try to get more information.

notsoblond's avatar

A person never forgets an assault.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It will be interesting to see if there are others who recall the party. Why was Ford in a bathing suit? Even more interesting would be someone from the party with the temerity to stick their head up voluntarily into a brutally abrasive wind.

JLeslie's avatar

@notsoblondanymore Never forgetting is not the same as remembering something differently than it happened, or remembering something that didn’t happen.

I do believe something happened, I believe Kavanaugh did something inexcusable. They should do the investigation. I think it’s possible Kavanaugh barely gave it a second thought and doesn’t remember it the way she does. He wasn’t traumatized. Trauma etches things into the brain.

notsoblond's avatar

@JLeslie Right. I meant the victim never forgets the assault. I wasn’t speaking about the perpetrator.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

That I totally agree with @JLeslie ,he tried to force himself on a girl that wasn’t willing he didn’t succeed and didn’t give it a second thought being a horny stupid teen age boy that probably had been drinking.
She on the other hand was traumatized by it, should have said something about it then but didn’t.
The problem if he does remember it and now lying about it, that is the real problem.
Kavanaugh is a real right wing nut job that doesn’t believe in birth control much less the woman’s right to decide about abortion.
What has to be found out in this,1 did this happen?
2.Does Kavanaugh know and is lying ?

JLeslie's avatar

^^None of that should have said something about it. To who? First, probably nothing much would have been done. If she had told her parents they might have done nothing. That is often the case. If they had gone to the police, the police might have done nothing much either. Plus, in my case, I was just happy to get away and l moved on. I never thought about reporting anything.

She was 15 and drinking, so what’s the likelihood she would tell her parents or the authorities? She’s already breaking rules and laws. Most kids are afraid to tell when they know they are already doing something wrong. Then when she is in her 20’s and knows that it would be ok to tell someone, because then she realizes no one would care that she was drinking, it’s already years later.

I don’t know why it came up in her therapy a few years ago. Was she still traumatized by it? Was she worried about her burden of knowing something like this about someone who had a lot of power? I don’t know exactly why it came up. Is he one of several men that have harmed her? My observation, and this is nowhere near scientific, is the more bad incidents a woman has, and the more severe they are, the more she is likely to catastrophize even lesser traumatic incidents. I hate to even write that, because any attack is an attack, in fact even a man just touching your arm or messaging your shoulders when you don’t want to be touched can be coercive and pretty damn horrible.

notsoblond's avatar

^ I didn’t tell my parents because I went to a boy’s house when I shouldn’t have. I was ashamed. I didn’t have the courage to speak about my assault until I was 40. 25 years later. My father still doesn’t know. It’d break his heart. I’ve only shared with Fluther and close friends. The assault still haunts me.

JLeslie's avatar

^^None of my assaults haunt me, but I wasn’t raped, I never had a prolonged sexually abusive relationship, and I think it makes a lot of difference. The things that happened to me often lasted less than a minute, although it seemed longer. I’m terrified of being raped, I never would say that I can imagine what it’s like for those who have been through it.

The irony is I’m betting male molestation and rape is reported even less often. So many men so quick to say women should report when these things happen.

Men are harassed, hazed, and abused more often than I realized and they go along. In some ways it’s similar I think.

kritiper's avatar

Oops! @KNOWITALL said that to @Jeruba . Sorry about that.

Yellowdog's avatar

@SQUEEKY2

Kavanagh was quoting a group called “Priests for Life” when he was saying, “It was a technical matter of filling out a form. They [the priests] said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of abortion-inducing drugs.”

Because birth control is against the Roman Catholic Church’s religious policies it does not have to provide that coverage to its employees. That is what this case is all about. Kavanaugh upheld this law protecting the rights of Priests for Life and the Roman Catholic Church, as is the role of a judge.

This is no reflection or indicator of Kavanaugh’s personal views on abortion or birth control, which are not in the equasion. Just what the law says.

Kavanaugh has never stated his personal views on abortion or birth control, nor are they relevant—although there is considerable misinformation being spread out there using that quote. The job of a supreme court justice is to interpret the law according to the constitution; the Supreme Court does not make new laws.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That is an interesting point of view. You might get away with the statement that the Supreme Court does not WRITE new laws, but the court is well into the business of making new laws through the roundabout of overturning old laws. The court has “legalized” abortion, bribery for political influence, etc.

stanleybmanly's avatar

It does matter if Kavanagh did it, if only for the fact that open knowledge of the fact would almost certainly preclude any possibility of his initial appointment to a judgeship. in fact he might well have been denied admission to the bar.

Yellowdog's avatar

And, what exactly in Kavanaugh’s very well documented and extensive history of making legislative decisions to protect our constitution, would lead you to believe he would vote or rule to overturn Roe Vs Wade? Is there anything even remotely that controversial or conservative in his history that would lead you to that conclusion?

Is there any reason to believe that issue would even be up for legislation?

I don’t even hear this being discussed on religious cable channels anymore. Though there have been a lot of fringe left groups demonstrating with coathangers and so forth.

Overturning Roe would put the laws back into the jurisdiction of individual states. But that is not being discussed and would only be legislated by Kavanaugh within the bounds of the constitution / existing laws. Rulings have to be made, and have been made, on all kinds of complex issues regardless of a judge’s personal beliefs or views on the topic.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

You really need to point to the sources where you get your information.^^
Again why the rush on this guy let this last one get investigated then appoint him.
You scare me on how far right you are coming across at being.

chyna's avatar

@yellowdog They asked him during his hearings, he wouldn’t answer. That tells me he would overturn it.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Yeah sorta kinda gives one that type of impression, unless your so right wing you don’t see it.

Yellowdog's avatar

That’s all right. @SQUEEKY2 Everyone is scared of something.

chyna's avatar

So another woman has came out and said he exposed himself to her in college. Here

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I just read six more witnesses want to come forward against Kavanaugh but are afraid of threats like Ford has faced.

mazingerz88's avatar

Makes me wonder if what matters more now to the WH is finding another candidate who had written just like Kavanaugh that sitting Presidents could or should not be subpoenaed.

Patty_Melt's avatar

@chyna, I read through your link. It looks like things are still split.

The accusations mentioned are real bad stuff.
If he is guilty of these things, I think he should face charges.
If he is not guilty of the accusations, I think the finger pointers have a lot to answer for, and should be held accountable.

It is a very ugly stew pot at this point. Hoo boy, so ugly.

I still feel very suspicious of the timing, but that in no way means I excuse him if guilty. However, if he is innocent, somebody owes him.
<Shaking my head.>

JLeslie's avatar

I thought there are statutes of limitation on assault and sexual assault in most states. What charges would he be brought up on? Or, you mean for lying?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@JLeslie I would look that up,I have heard people getting charged for sex offences many years after it took place.
It might vary from state to state but I don’t think so.

JLeslie's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 If it’s Maryland I’m almost positive there are statutes of limitation on this sort of thing, unless they changed recently. I grew up in Montgomery County, the very county Ford states the assault happened.

mazingerz88's avatar

^^I live in Montgomery County now.
: )

rojo's avatar

Does it matter if he did it?

Yes, it does.

And what matters more is that he admits to making the mistake. I do not know if it would help him but it for certain would help Dr. Ford in her healing process.

And, I notice another woman has come forward to say that he also did something somewhat similar to her.

Again, he was drunk but being drunk is a choice you make and you are still responsible for your actions.

rojo's avatar

@Patty_Melt I am glad you can separate actions from timing. Sure the timing was political theater, just like the entire sham proceedings but that does not impact the action if he is guilty of such.
I had a huge argument with my son this morning over this very point. To his mind the timing overrides the act and negates any culpability for such actions. I cannot agree with that. Regardless of how and when the allegations were made if they are true it should not matter.

JLeslie's avatar

@mazingerz88 I’m not sure if we went through this connection before. Did you go to school with Auggie and me? We can take it to PM.

rojo's avatar

@Yellowdog as I am understanding it only about 10% of Kavanaughs notes, etc have been releases for review. Perhaps the information necessary is in the 90% of the paperwork that people are not being given access to.
If he is the knight in shining armor that he is being made out to be, perhaps it would be prudent to release all of those documents?

Soubresaut's avatar

Is the timing necessarily so odd on Ford’s part? I can easily imagine she had a horrible experience that she decided to put behind her—it was in the past, it was done—but then she’s watching as the person who caused that horrible experience is being considered for a prominent and hugely influential public position. Suddenly, what happened in the past is no longer in the past. His face is everywhere, and there are hearings where senators are supposed to be assessing his character, assessing whether he’s a good fit for the supreme court—and the story she has carried with her all these years certainly seems to say something about his character, should she tell someone? So she reaches out to her local representative, who advises her to reach out to one of her state representatives, which she does… and eventually we get to where we are now.

Anyway, my point is that it’s easy to imagine an honest explanation for why Ford might only come forward now. Not that that’s necessarily what happened, just that it’s as easy to imagine as her coming forward for genuine reasons as potentially disingenuous ones. Plenty of women people are silent about such experiences for long periods of times, until something changes (whether they feel they can finally speak out about it, or feel they have a newfound duty or reason to speak out about it, etc.)

JLeslie's avatar

@Soubresaut I don’t think it’s very odd that Ford felt compelled to do something as she learned Kavanaugh was nominated or likely to be nominated. I think what is purposely timed for political reasons is for the politicians to bring Ford’s letter to light, the leak, while in the middle of the questioning period of Kavanaugh. Drag it all out so the court has one fewer conservative on the court for more months. If Ford’s claim had come out sooner the whole thing would have been dead in the water sooner.

As far as Kavanaugh’s politics and personal beliefs, if we ignore the assault allegations, I think there are much worse candidates out there who could wind up on the court. Of course, I don’t think we should ignore the allegations though.

Yellowdog's avatar

None of the witnesses of either of the two accusers will back up the stories, and have said that they had no recollection of the alleged events. Of the second accuser, Debra Ramirez, all of her witnesses have denied the allegations and have vouched instead for Kavanaugh. The New York Times would not even print the story of the second, and the Maryland police have stated that they will not investigate the Ramirez allegations even though her attorney insists that they will.

I initially believed that Dr. Ford’s allegations could have some truth in it and was interested in what she had to say. It was Feinstein who seemed to be making a national spectacle of the allegations for political purposes. Now, I am doubting she will even testify, so we’ll never know.

Yellowdog's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Lots of posts since you last responded. Kavanaugh did not refuse to answer when asked about his views of Roe Vs. Wade and/or abortion. He stated he did not have a position on it.

Whether or not a judge does have an opinion is completely irrelevant to how they weigh and measure the legal criteria.

JLeslie's avatar

So, if they won’t back up the story then has Ford incorrectly remembered the event? I need to google what the supposed witnesses are saying.

Patty_Melt's avatar

She admitted to being drunk, and openly states that details are fuzzy.
That in addition to the long time gap since, she could have every last detail remembered wrong, or fabricated.
I am highly skeptical.

mazingerz88's avatar

^^ Yes highly skeptical. What if she wasn’t drunk and claims she was totally clear and lucid would that make you just skeptical and not highly skeptical?

This makes me wonder what if there’s two or three witnesses and none of them was drunk whether it will then be called a conspiracy of liars etc. etc.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@Patty_Melt me too, everything about this is just too convenient.

mazingerz88's avatar

^^ Too convenient? As in you allege something from long ago and people believe you right away convenient?

notsoblond's avatar

Wow is all I have to say about the last several comments. smh

I need to quit following. This is disgusting.

Soubresaut's avatar

@JLeslie (and others)—again, I think it’s easy enough to imagine Feinstein acting in good faith with her actions. From what I understand, Ford had asked that her identity not be released to the public (or at least, if at all possible not be released). It doesn’t seem like a stretch to believe Feinstein held off on releasing this information out of respect for Ford, to spare Ford the attention she expressly did not want (attention that includes death threats). But when it seemed to Feinstein that Kavanaugh might be confirmed, she then felt it was now necessary to reveal what she had known and held back, to give a more complete picture to the other senators, and the public, as they make up their minds.

Kavanaugh was put on a short list of SC nominees by a conservative group specifically because they felt he would make his judgements through a decidedly conservative lens. Trump promised to appoint a person who would strike down a specific Supreme Court precedent (Roe v. Wade), and from what I’ve managed to follow on this whole process, it seems likely that Kavanaugh is of that mind. Let’s also not forget that according to McConnell, even a year away from an election is too soon to the election to appoint a new justice—Kavanaugh’s nomination is much closer to the upcoming elections than Merrick Garland’s was (and Garland was, from what I understand, much more of a centrist than Kavanaugh). Given how much Kavanaugh’s appointment appears to be a political attempt to stack the court with judges who will rule specific ways on specific issues, and given how close it is to an election, opposing Kavanaugh’s appointment already seems fair from my eyes. It also seems to me that these are the very reasons (stacking the court, trying to rush it before the election) that the Republicans in Congress are trying to push this nomination through as fast as possible, even at the expense of process—why shouldn’t that be opposed?

And if Feinstein decided to hold off on this information and release it when she did for purely strategic reasons that had nothing to do with protecting Ford… Honestly, so what? Is it suddenly not relevant? Is it suddenly not worth investigation? I mean, it’s not like there was some expiration date on the information—aren’t we glad that it’s known and can be investigated before his confirmation, so that it’s not some ugly truth that emerges only after it’s too late? And if a nominee has enough questionable things surrounding him that those questionable things can be strategically spaced out for timing’s sake, doesn’t that say more about his unsuitability than anything else?

JLeslie's avatar

^^For sure it’s worth investigating.

The so what is when Democrats (in this case) try to play like there was no strategy it just sounds like trying to play deer in the headlights when stupid like a fox is more likely.

Both sides are all about strategy. I think when either side tries to fain innocent the other side just immediately shuts down and won’t listen at all. It promotes distrust.

I have people all over my Facebook strongly defending Kavanaugh, and upset his family is being put through this.

It all does seem to be backfiring a little. If the information had been released sooner maybe Trump would have thought Kavanaugh would be too much trouble. At the same time, Kavanaugh might be better than some of the other candidates. It’s not like Trump is going to nominate a pro-choice, very liberal candidate.

I’m still pissed Obama left a seat on the court open. I know people make excuses about it, but it was horrible. That, and the BS the court did to usher in Pres. Bush.

Did you see the documentary RBG? It’s great.

Soubresaut's avatar

I haven’t seen it yet! Haven’t seen a lot of things yet, it’s definitely at the top of that list though.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@JLeslie Your pissed at Obama for leaving a seat open??
Really and I don’t even live in your country Obama tried to fill the seat, but the right were in no way going to allow it so close to the election.
Which makes them super hypocrites , now with Kavanaugh and the mid terms coming up,the right won’t even play by their own rules.

JLeslie's avatar

Pissed at the republicans about the spot remained open, but it happened while Obana was president. I should have been clearer. I think Obama maybe could have been more vocal though. Just how wrong it was.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther