Supreme Court of the United States

[Bernie Brewer]

Apolgies, see my response to nots above and replace "perjury" with "lied under oath".

That's the problem with reading and responding to older posts. There are always response before the one I make. I will never learn. My apologies for taking a swipe at you when you've already settled the matter.

[senorsheep]

But others are coming forward backing her story, which is why there should be an investigation and not just a "he-said-she-said" session in front of a committee comprised solely of old white men.

So now it's racial? Man, I really need to follow this closer - who in this sh!t show is suddenly not white?

[Teenwolf]

First, I am sorry to hear of your personal experience and the pain it has caused you. On occasion, while not attempting to be personal, we stumble on things that strike someone else so deeply and personally, that we can't even begin to imagine to the road down which they walk. I can assure you it was not my intent to make this personal to you. I had no idea you suffered through that experience or how painful that experience was/is for you. Unless youÂ’ve been there you canÂ’t fully understand how this impacts someone, especially someone who suffered through long term abuse. ItÂ’s never happened to me, thankfully. While I'll choose be sensitive to your situation, and not comment specifically, I do honestly wish you the absolute best in your healing process. I know it is often a lifetime struggle, depending on the depths of the abuse. I'll be more sensitive to you in the future.

With sensitivity to your unfortunate life experiences, I have a degree Psychology with an emphasis on counseling and assessment, so I am aware of the role of a therapist. A therapist can provide evidence of state of mind and even receipt, with permissions, the confidential discussions of clients/patients. But that testimony is not evidence of the crime. If she did not share this with anyone for many years and it only came up in her 2012 therapy sessions, does she really remember all the facts. She may believe she remembers them as fact, but if she suffered through an event of this type, it was over a short period of time, maybe seconds, or minutes. Even in her letter she said they pulled her into a room and she was able to get away.

Memories are funny things. Witnesses to a Bank Robbery canÂ’t remember what the robber looked like an hour after the fact.

A therapist repeating a description of those memories doesnÂ’t in itself make them fact.

Thank you for your understanding and kindness.

I want to point out that obviously, my case is specific to me. Details in my case will differ from every other. However, it's very important that I let you know these incidents are burned into your mind with extreme clarity. I remember details about this person from close to 30 years ago that you would never ever remember about anyone else. Details about the events that I've burned into my mind will never fog over, never go away. I remember his VOICE. Let that sink in.

That's why I choose to believe victims first and foremost. I believe that anybody who's gone through what I have would NEVER make up an incident, and NEVER make up details that weren't true, as well as having memory of the events that's far more credible than others' memories of some random party 30 years ago.

I will admit that 30 years is a long time to remember all the details of a particular traumatic incident, but the main details never leave the victim. That's why I find this case credible.

[Mithrandir]

So now it's racial? Man, I really need to follow this closer - who in this sh!t show is suddenly not white?

I would assume that DMT means that old white men will tend to side with other old white men when it comes to cases like this. And i agree with DMT.

[Bernie Brewer]

I think it's necessary for her and for him to take the stand, under oath, and say what happened, and answer questions openly and honestly about their testimony. Maybe the husband, to establish timelines. Maybe the blackout drunk eyewitness, for whatever his testimony is worth.

If some new evidence or information comes to light during that process, then it might be necessary to pursue that.

I agree with this. What are the Republicans going to do at this hearing? They surely can't attack her. I suppose they could ask her questions, but they can't assassinate her character or they will prove the War on Women is real, not just talking points of the other side. I suppose they can ask Kavanagh to rebut her comments, but if he says it isn't true what more can he say? What she believes is what she believes. What does the testimony of others change, unless of course, there is a smoking gun, I. e. a blue dress! I keep referring to the blue dress not to beat the Clinton dead horse, but that was evidence in a case of this magnitude. I suppose another real eyewitness could come forward and say under oath that they saw the whole thing go down. Then Kavanagh would be toast. The other guy will undoubtedly never testify, as he has nothing to gain and everything to lose, even without being guilty. He would likely deny everything, if it was true, as any defense attorney worth their salt would tell him to do just that. The Dems will get another chance to beat the drums on Kavanagh and at the cost of this woman's privacy and dignity. Whoever outted her should be outted themselves.

[senorsheep]

I would assume that DMT means that old white men will tend to side with other old white men when it comes to cases like this. And i agree with DMT.

Ah, so white people tend to side with white people against white people. I see.

[Judge Jude]

"It is pretty clear to me reading the posts from JJ, Bernie 1jay, chancellor, etc that when folks here, and I assume when Republicans generally, bring up other cases where men have gotten away with abuse, they are not doing it as a rallying cry and reminder that we must now be better. It is to point out, "your guy got away with it, and your side didn't criticize him, so now our guy gets to get away with it, and anyone on your side is a hypocrite if you try to criticize him or hold him accountable."

well, now you're guilty. I am not a Republican, and in fact have never been a member of any party. Kavanaugh is not "my guy," and you are tarring with way too broad a brush.

there have been two things in particular about politics that have shocked me over the years.

the first was when I noticed that Ronald Reagan - who I never voted for, sorry to burst your stereotype - clearly was suffering from early-stage Alzheimer's in 1984 as he ran for re-election. It was obvious in his first debate, but he had a couple of good one-liners after that, and the media pretended all was right with the world.

the second was in the 1990s, when women who came forward with tales of trauma at the hands of Bill Clinton were mocked and tormented. the most famous example was Clinton aide James Carville's "If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find." this was hilarious to many Democrats.

NY Times reporter Sidney Blumenthal eagerly quoted anonymous Clinton administration sources calling Monica Lewinsky a stalker, a nut, and worse. Blumenthal then took a cushy job in the Clinton administration, go figure.

I was astonished at the viciousness of so many Clinton supporters, some of whom were so gullible that once Clinton was shown to have lied under oath, they parroted a nonsensical talking point of, "well, everybody lies about sex under oath."

If anyone truly cares about Clinton's victims or sexual abuse victims in general, then they would want nothing to do with Bill or her enabler Hillary. I don't think we're going to get very far on this issue until that day of reckoning comes. that wasn't one incident or one woman that, if inaccurate, would be unfair to them. it was a repeated pattern, with a mountain of evidence, and there was a remarkable level of evil involved.

I don't think anyone here has been disrespectful to this professor who came forward. I just think too much of this country is in denial about the Clintons. I'm glad that this woman isn't being ridiculed in the mainstream media (the internet as cesspool cuts across the board); that's progress, at least.

The one thing about Trump is more people recognize how awful he is on this same front (though I don't think the worst allegations against him are as bad as those against Bill). I looked at that 2016 race and saw a shitshow, but not everybody did.

[Mithrandir]

Ah, so white people tend to side with white people against white people. I see.

No. OLD WHITE MEN tend to side with other OLD WHITE MEN against women of any color. Get it straight. You disagree?

Of course I'm not saying it happens like this 100% of the time, but more often than not.

[Teenwolf]

I don't think anyone here has been disrespectful to this professor who came forward. I just think too much of this country is in denial about the Clintons. I'm glad that this woman isn't being ridiculed in the mainstream media (the internet as cesspool cuts across the board); that's progress, at least.

You dont think its disrespectful to call it youthful indiscretions, deserving the reward of a lifetime confirmation? I know I'd feel pretty disrespected if I were the victim.

[Judge Jude]

if that was posted, I did not see that

[Bernie Brewer]

Thank you for your understanding and kindness.

I want to point out that obviously, my case is specific to me. Details in my case will differ from every other. However, it's very important that I let you know these incidents are burned into your mind with extreme clarity. I remember details about this person from close to 30 years ago that you would never ever remember about anyone else. Details about the events that I've burned into my mind will never fog over, never go away. I remember his VOICE. Let that sink in.

That's why I choose to believe victims first and foremost. I believe that anybody who's gone through what I have would NEVER make up an incident, and NEVER make up details that weren't true, as well as having memory of the events that's far more credible than others' memories of some random party 30 years ago.

I will admit that 30 years is a long time to remember all the details of a particular traumatic incident, but the main details never leave the victim. That's why I find this case credible.

All of that is relevant. All of that makes perfect sense. I am not choosing to not believe her. In fact, I believe her. but I believe that something happen, but it wasn't rape. It was "attempted" rape, maybe, I don't know, I'm not an expert in THAT field! I doubt she is making it up, but the facts are very hard if not impossible to prove 35 years later. And, on the chance that she is misremembering who was involved, because, ya know that alcohol thing was involved, where does Kavanagh, who is already vilified go to get his reputation back? As a victim, unless it was a trial, why would you willingly put yourself through this? Doesn't this bring the pain back again. It isn't closure for her, as she will live with the knowledge that the public now will never look at her the same again.

While it sounds like I back Kavanagh, I actually know very little about him, other than he seemingly promoted women and minorities as his clerks and in the legal profession. Sounds like a personal War for Woman to me. I'll admit that I did watch a lot of the hearings, which were a farce from the get go. I hate that the GOP only asked softball questions, but the I saw how the Democrats were going to bounce this guy at all costs. I saw how they treated him, how they tried to bait him, how they tried to trap him and I don't recall the GOP playing this kind of game with Kagan or Sotomayor.

[senorsheep]

No. OLD WHITE MEN tend to side with other OLD WHITE MEN against women of any color. Get it straight. You disagree?

I disagree that race is relevant in this discussion.

Get rid of "WHITE," "WHITE," and "of any color," and you'll have yourself a statement that, however accurate, is at least logically consistent in the context of this topic.

[senorsheep]

I'll admit that I did watch a lot of the hearings, which were a farce from the get go. I hate that the GOP only asked softball questions, but the I saw how the Democrats were going to bounce this guy at all costs. I saw how they treated him, how they tried to bait him, how they tried to trap him and I don't recall the GOP playing this kind of game with Kagan or Sotomayor.

Neither side is acting in good faith. I am incredulous that anyone actually believes that their team is.

[Bernie Brewer]

It is pretty clear to me reading the posts from JJ, Bernie 1jay, chancellor, etc that when folks here, and I assume when Republicans generally, bring up other cases where men have gotten away with abuse, they are not doing it as a rallying cry and reminder that we must now be better. It is to point out, "your guy got away with it, and your side didn't criticize him, so now our guy gets to get away with it, and anyone on your side is a hypocrite if you try to criticize him or hold him accountable."

Of course, not a single person here has actually shown that any "lefty" poster here is actually guilty of maintaining the double standard they want to decry, so they have to rely on general attacks against Dems or lefties, rather than engage individuals here as individuals, rather than representatives of a side or team. It's counter-productive, but it doesn't appear like it will change. It seems that the thinking is the sins of hypocrisy committed by others whom I am politically aligned with are my own sins. I think that is absurd. I am my own person. If you want to call me out, call me out, not "Dems" or "liberals" or whatever label you derisively want to assign to the team you are rooting against. I promise, I will do the same--I'll engage you based on your stated positions and claims, and not simply use you as a proxy for one side of the political spectrum.

With that in mind, who here is defending Bill Clinton? Who here is calling his accusers liars while at the same time calling for Kavanaugh's head? No one that I am aware of. Certainly not me. But again, rather than have a substantive discussion about the standards of proof we should use in such matters, some people here seem to prefer to reuse, again and again, the tired old tactic of whataboutery (and Bernie, that is what it is--a deflection from actually discussing the specifics of the case at hand, the one being discussed at the moment).

Such a tactic would be very compelling if you were actually using it against someone being inconsistent on such matters, but I'm not aware of anyone doing that here, so it is a deflection tactic at best. I really wish we could stay on topic with those willing to take a stand, one way or the other, about the case at hand. I appreciate those saying Kavanaugh's accuser has not presented sufficient evidence to discredit him from being appointed. I disagree with that position, but I understand and respect it, and think it can lead to meaningful dialogue that may help me see the matter differently.

Look you've already informed that I haven't swayed your opinion on any issue yet, so why should I even try!

But, I'll give it a shot (across the bow). I would strongly suggest to you or any other lefty posters that if you think only the right plays whataboutery, you're just plain silly. Personal attack, maybe, in response to what I take as a personal attack! The right happens to be in power now, so when the left calls out a foul on the GOP controlled Senate, House, or Executive Branch, its natural for those on the right to remind the caller outter of their side's nebulous history with truthiness! I ABSOLUTELY recall it happening on this very Board during the Obama administration. Dare someone say something unfavorable Obama or ACA or any other Dem lead initiative during the time the Dems/Obama were in control, the response would be "Well, if Bush hadn't..."

[Bernie Brewer]

Neither side is acting in good faith. I am incredulous that anyone actually believes that their team is.

On that we can agree. My heart isn't really in this fight, or any of them lately.