Should a high School incident be relevant 35 years later?

[Javier h]

Vague?

Specific names were given which trust me is a huge. Two people have been ID and yes, I suspect one will acknowledge the incident existed with a different twist if able to testify.

Of course the specifics will be given under oath which will include a time frame...dates?

Meanwhile, back in the ranch.....

As did many Trump supporters on social media. Some touted poor student ratings for Ford, failing to notice that they had found an altogether different California professor with a similar name. Others pointed out that Kavanaugh’s mother, also a judge, had been involved in foreclosure proceedings against Ford’s parents. This was true, but this was not revenge served cryogenically cold: Her ruling had been for Ford’s parents, not against them.

Yeah, this will get ridiculous as the days move forward. Why anyone would throw themselves in this mess is beyond me. I suspect a bunch of threats on her life have been made etc. This is one mess, most would want to stay out. Who knows what this is doing to her two kids etc.

Edit: The main "bedroom" witness who allegedly participated wrote a letter to the Senate and said with his attorney, that he doesn't recall anything. Yeah, like who would want to get into this mess! Game over. There is no way to prove anything. The two other people also identified (yes altogether there were four) but not in the bedroom will likely not come forward.

[naplesE30]

If this allegation were not so ambiguous in nature it would maybe have some merit. However, to not recall so many details of a life changing event, year, number guys, address, city, home owner etc is questionable at best. It also convienently makes it impossible to defend against in a trial of opinion. Without any facts neither guilt or innocence can be proved. Me thinks it is intentionally vague, so he can’t concretely be exonerated.

[Wschnitz]

z31maniac likes to think hes BigBrained and talks down to everyone so, its more that then morality.

[saucers]

Thank you for EXACTLY proving my point.

You have already convicted him in the court of opinion without even so much as being arrested.

It pains me that people with your intellectual capacity are allowed to vote.

Court of public opinion is what you're looking for.
I'm saying find out what happened, then confirm/don't confirm the guy.
It pains me that someone with your morality is allowed to vote.

[Wschnitz]

You guys are really good at attacking eachother instead of eachothers statements.

Should get back out to the playground I guess.

Raped someone or not its disgusting the fuss thats being put up about wanting to make sure hes clean before appointing him, Merrick Garland had essentially no controversy but because it was Obama they had to make sure it was the end of the fucking world.

[MR E30 325is]

I think the goal here is to make sure a guy who basically raped a woman isn't appointed to a lifetime position on the supreme court.
He's not managing a burger king.

Exactly. Why is this point not understood more completely?

If you are an individual being considered for a lifetime position with a very high level organization, in which you pass judgement on others in the most extreme way possible, you need to be squeaky clean. Your friends need to be squeaky clean.

There are too many other individuals who have worked their entire lives, who aren't accused of heinous crimes, who deserve the position.

I mean, just the way his friend Judge writes is more than enough to shake your head in disgust.

[z31maniac]

I think the goal here is to make sure a guy who basically raped a woman isn't appointed to a lifetime position on the supreme court.

Thank you for EXACTLY proving my point.

You have already convicted him in the court of opinion without even so much as being arrested.

It pains me that people with your intellectual capacity are allowed to vote.

[saucers]

There is no reason to come forward with an accusation that isn't followed up with charging the individual, if the goal is not to defame the individual.

I think the goal here is to make sure a guy who basically raped a woman isn't appointed to a lifetime position on the supreme court.
He's not managing a burger king.

If you're being honest in your inability to see how damaging these accusations can be to someones career, especially in one where their ethical behavior is paramount in their ability to carry out their duties, then you've got a lot to learn. I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse though, no one is dumb enough to think that if these accusations are found to be without merit that this is just all going to left in the past.

Thomas has been on the SC for 27 years, I think he's doing just fine.
If you think this won't backfire on dems if this comes out to be false, you've got a lot to learn.

[cale]

You need due process to accuse someone?
She says something happened, he says it didn't happen. Now the senate is trying to find out what happened.

I don't see a problem here.

There is no reason to come forward with an accusation that isn't followed up with charging the individual, if the goal is not to defame the individual. If you're being honest in your inability to see how damaging these accusations can be to someones career, especially in one where their ethical behavior is paramount in their ability to carry out their duties, then you've got a lot to learn. I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse though, no one is dumb enough to think that if these accusations are found to be without merit that this is just all going to left in the past.

[saucers]

I'm not sure suggesting due process be followed prior to someone being accused counts as rambling, but ok.

You need due process to accuse someone?
She says something happened, he says it didn't happen. Now the senate is trying to find out what happened.

I don't see a problem here.

[cale]

What are you even rambling about? If he's found to be believed in the senate hearings, he's going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
How does that ruin his life?

I'm not sure suggesting due process be followed prior to someone being accused counts as rambling, but ok. Given how easy it is for everyone to play by the rules and protect the identity of victims and children, it's rather apparent that the goal here was to make this incident as public as possible by Feinstein.

[Javier h]

Yup

I have no doubts that she is telling the truth. My question is, was it really him?

I am mean did she just meet him this one time at some random party and after all these years she's fingering the wrong guy?

This is why he needs to take a polygraph, in his defense, if he is being truthful. Both parties could be right.

But if he did do it, then he should be upfront about it. Sorry but he knew they would search his background and all the skeletons will come around even those where he wasn't a legal adult.

To me it sounds like some High School football player got overzealous at a minimum and tried forcing himself. Idiot move but enough for most to chuck him from the bench.

Question: Do most believe Anita Hill?

That's another classic. Her story was too original not to be true and she never did say he forced himself.

Hill also took a polygraph test. While senators and other authorities noted that polygraph results cannot be relied upon and are inadmissible in courts, Hill's results did support her statements. Thomas did not take a polygraph test. He made a vehement and complete denial, saying that he was being subjected to a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks" by white liberals who were seeking to block a black conservative from taking a seat on the Supreme Court.

All Thomas did was basically inappropriate talking and yet it was enough to have her dismissed and confirm him.

[supermansocks95]

This. Republican or Democrat, gay or straight, Christian or Muslim, etc.

It's complete bullshit that in today's social media driven world, an accusation is all it takes to ruin someone's life. Not even being arrested, or being charged, or even having the case dismissed.........or god forbid be convicted.

Nope, all you have to do now is just accuse someone.

Not gonna lie, I was accused by my daughter's mom a couple of years ago (day after Christmas 2016, to be exact) because she thought we called DCF on her (anonymous caller sent in tips). Had to go in and be interrogated on my lunch break. Definitely stayed home after that. Easily one of the worst days of my life. They honestly make you feel like you actually committed a crime... Ever since then, I've had a pretty damn negative outlook on that whole movement. I could've been sent to prison for a good amount of time just because my ex was mad at me. Any person who falsely accuses someone of a crime with malicious intent should serve every bit of that sentence instead.

[saucers]

And? If there is sufficient evidence, he should be formally arrested and charged with a crime.

You don't seem to understand that "trial by media" doesn't really live up to the "right to a fair trial" as guaranteed under the 6th Amendment.

What are you even rambling about? If he's found to be believed in the senate hearings, he's going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
How does that ruin his life?

[z31maniac]

She's a doctor and college professor, what does she gain by lying?
She spoke about it to her therapist 6 years ago, who has the notes.
She passed a polygraph test (whatever that's worth)

He has all the reason to lie, she has literally none. Conspiracy theories aside.
She knew by doing this her world was going to be torn upside down

Bad side, she said she couldn't remember the year or what house it happened in. Could be mistaken identity

And? If there is sufficient evidence, he should be formally arrested and charged with a crime.

You don't seem to understand that "trial by media" doesn't really live up to the "right to a fair trial" as guaranteed under the 6th Amendment.