Quote (Goomshill @ Sep 23 2018 06:38am)

I'm really doubting she'll testify. The republicans won't want to come off as too harsh to a 'victim', but all it would take is gentle questions about the most basic details of her story and she'd implode.

Quote (Beowulf @ Sep 23 2018 07:48am)

if she doesn't does it go away and get taken over by the next headline or does this entire process linger over republicans through midterm season?

Quote (Goomshill @ Sep 23 2018 12:25am)

More developments happening, mostly about WaPos handling of the story:

[URL=https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1043708347977949186]https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1043708347977949186[/URL]

1) More big breaking news, which further undercuts the Ford accusation, as well as media handling of it. A source has given me the email that WaPo reporter Emma Brown sent to Mark Judge, one person Ford claims was at the party. This email is dated Sunday, Sept. 16, 2018
2) The email wants a comment from him. The subsequent story would reveal Christine Ford's name, and give details of the supposed "assault."
3) One part of the email to Judge reads: "In addition to Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, whom she called acquaintances she knew from past socializing, she recalls that her friend Leland (last name then was Ingham, now Keyser) was at the house and a friend of the boys named PJ."
4) This matters for two big reasons--Ford's credibility and WaPo's. The subsequent WaPo story would go on to cite Ford's name and details, and also list notes from a therapist that Ford told this to in 2012. Read carefully what WaPo reports, the same day it emails Judge:
5) "The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.”
6) Wait, say what? WaPo reports publicly that Ford says it was "four boys,"even after WaPo reporter tells Judge that Ford had told her it was three boys and a girl.
7) So first, huge problem: This was just a week ago, and we have Ford giving two different accounts of who was present. Four boys. No, three boys, one girl. Either way, therapist notes from 2012 definitively say four boys, which Ford didn't dispute. But now... a girl!
8) Other problem: WaPo's reporting. Reporter has for a week had the names of those Ford listed as present. One is a woman. Yet it writes a story saying FOUR BOYS. Why? Maybe a mistake. But if so, why did WaPo never correct that narrative?
9) What, you can't find Keyser? She has lived in the DC area a long time. The paper had no trouble tracking down the other two men (btw, who also denied such party). And why not publish Keyser's name? It published the other men's names.
10) In its most recent update tonight, WaPo writes: "Before her name became public, Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware."
11) Wow. "Before her name became public, Ford told..." That is WaPo admitting that it had the name, and had Ford's response to what would clearly be a Keyser denial, but NEVER PUT IT OUT THERE. Again, why? A lot of people have a lot questions to answer.

Quote (fender @ 23 Sep 2018 12:53)

holy shit, ofthevoid went full rape apologist. we've seen with ghot what extreme partisanship can do to your brain, and it's sad and disgusting, but i wonder what happens to people who sacrifice their basic human decency, common sense, and critical thinking so much earlier in life...

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Sep 23 2018 08:38am)

he might have played down sexual violence a little, but he still raised a point which is supremely important, both for the Ford/Kavanaugh case and for society in general: sexual boundary crossings are not a binary thing, they exist in a continuum.

On a scale from 1 (groped someones ass or tits briefly) to 10 (violent gangrape that leaves the victim half-dead), what Kavanaugh is accused of here is a 2/10, maybe a 2.5/10. Minor sexual boundary crossings are happening millions of times everyday all around the world without any malicious intent and without causing lasting damage or even trauma to the victims. A guy at a party trying to kiss or feel up a girl who doesnt reciprocate is a common thing and mostly harmless if it stays at that.

Now, what Kavanaugh is accused of here is one notch above that, its a shitty and scumbaggy thing to do, and would include at least some degree of malicious intent - but even if true, it would still sit on the very lowest end of the things that could reasonable be called "attempted rape".

Most of us have done something shitty or scumbaggy to others when we were teens.This doesnt excuse the actions he's accused of if they are true, but imho it's still important to put it into perspective.
The question must be asked whether what Kav is accused of having done 35 years ago as a drunk and horny teen, even if true, would actually be bad enough to cast enough of a shadow on his personality and integrity to disqualify him from serving as a SCOTUS judge. I dont know my personal answer to this question tbh, but it is very much a question that has to be asked.

Quote

But Kavanaugh grew frustrated when it came to questions that dug into his private life, particularly his drinking habits and his sexual proclivities, according to three people famliar with the preparations, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. He declined to answer some questions altogether, saying they were too personal, these people said.

"I'm not going to answer that," Kavanaugh said at one point according to a senior White House official, who said the questions were designed to go over the line and that he struck the right tone.