[Post removed.]

Kavanaugh was nominated by the most prolific liar to ever stain the White House. Birds of a feather ..., apples fall by their trees, ... etc., etc.

You can be smart, you can be honest, you can be a Republican. Nobody doubts that Kavanaugh is a smart Republican.

It's that simple. Believe Ford.

It really doesn't matter who you "believe" ... "belief" is not truth. We can't convict anyone without some proof, impartial witness, physical evidence, etc.
She probably is telling her recalled version of the truth ... something happened to her, but whether what she described happened as described and involved Kavanaugh is lost in time. Its interesting that there are claims that she had discussed this with a therapist previously (indicating that the whole episode isn't fabricated), but no claim of Kavanaugh's name being mentioned in connection until his SC nomination this summer (which makes her discussing it before the nomination irrelevant as "proof" of who was actually involved in the incident). The one thing that is certain is that the timing of this claim being brought forward now IS political ... it is undeniably unfortunate that her claims are being treated as a chess move by certain Senate politicians. They bear the responsibility for this already "collapsing into simply another partisan issue". If this info was known back in July, why is it brought up now after the confirmation hearings are completed? Bishop to King 7

Dan -- I agree with you that the DiFi timing is unfortunate -- both she and Eshoo should have reported this earlier to the FBI and Feinstein should have raised questions at the Senate judicial hearings.

"Belief" is belief, you are right, but I hope the Senate panels will find out the truth.

A special hearing has been scheduled For Monday -- with both Dr. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh testifying under oath. I will be glued to the TV screen.

Thanks for your comments!

It is hardly surprising that Kavanaugh says this didn't happen. First, he and his friend are described as very drunk. Second, Kavanaugh did not experience violence. Third, such an event would have been a minor incident quickly forgotten by the purpetuaters. It is highly unlikely that Kavanaugh would remember.

Believe Ford?
Why not believe Kavanaugh?
Because Trump's a liar?
A liar or a salesman, a persuader? A leader.
Okay, you don't like him. I get it. Because he's crass? Too different? Too effective? Or too American?
Does the Left Coast believe in America anymore?
What are the facts of Trump's leadership? What is the state of Trump's America?
What are the facts that support Ford's eleventh hour accusation?
Are you sick of partisan politics yet?
Do you put party over country? The UN over the US?
I don't.
Our Constitution (and Christ) are still the best hope for all.

I wonder just how many of us are regretting something we did at age 17?

Is this the way the world now turns?

I have no idea about this particular incident, but it seems as if nearly everybody in the public eye has a skeleton in the closet which is being brought out into the open. Probably lots of us not in the public eye are very pleased that our skeletons are still well closeted. Would we really want some of the things we did as teenagers make a difference to our future 30 years on?

I think the past should be buried unless of course it is something that the statute of limitations still can be taken into account.

This is such a blatant desperate attempt by liberal Dems to do anything to postpone a great nomination pick. Shame on them for using purposely last minute timed accusation and take advantage of people who sympathize with woman who have been assaulted, which is serious and no mistreatment of any woman should be tolerated, but these are 30+yrs ago underage and no actual assault was ever filed, if it is proved that she was paid or came forward just to promote her and her parties interests, she should be fired and put in jail.
People's lives are being ruined by non proven accusations all because people didn't get there way at the pols. I guess we will see who is full of it in the days to come I just hope justice swings both ways if the accusations are proven false she is held accountable so women know that is not OK to be assured but it's also not OK to falsely accuse and there are consequences for both!

None of us knows what happened back then. The timing of this public allegation is awkward, to say the least. Kavanaugh would be kicked out of his *current* judgeship if the allegations are believed (no real way to confirm). Is this fair at this point?
Our system is as good as practical/possible, but not perfect. Human interactions and memories are imperfect. And, I cannot agree with destroying this man now based upon what we've heard (unless strong corroboration/evidence) is produced. Please don't continue to turn our country into a witch-hunt based on political hatred. We must operate with due process.

This is a male/female issue as well as a partisan issue.
I believe that the males on the Left who are acting outraged about this are really just feigning it.
Regardless, I don't think this will stop Kavanaugh from becoming a Supreme Justice, unless Flake wants to stick it to Trump, Flake is your only hope, Dems.

BTW thanks for creating another forum where we can talk about this free of the oppressive censorship in the main thread on PA Online. How do you even solve an issue if you don't let people freely converse???

Diana wrote:

"...losing a seat on the Supreme Court for possibly this one offense may be too harsh."

-----------

Too harsh? I think not. An attempted rape that results in a woman suffering a lifetime of consequences from the violence is a serious offense.

One offense? Again, I think not. If Mr. Kavanaugh committed this offense, and is now lying about it, well, that adds up to more than one offense.

Posted by Dan, a resident of Midtown

>> It really doesn't matter who you "believe" ... "belief" is not truth. We can't convict anyone without some proof, impartial witness, physical evidence, etc.

This isn't about "convicting" Kavanaugh of anything. Yes, it would be considered a felony today in California, but, in Maryland at that particular "anything goes" time-- he might have gotten his hand slapped.

Doesn't matter-- serving on the Supreme Court is a privilege, and one of the most -responsible- positions on the planet. It isn't a "job". No one is denying him the right to work at a car wash.

What it is about is whether Kavanaugh should become, for life, a justice of the Supreme Court, a position with enormous responsibility. There are many reasons why he shouldn't. This incident illuminates just one more reason.

Christine Blasey Ford claims that 36 years ago, right before he is nominated to the Supreme Court mind you, that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her and we're supposed to believe her? Where was Ms. Ford when Kavanaugh was hired in 2001 as an associate by the White House Counsel? What about in 2003, when Kavanaugh served as Assistant to the President and White House Staff Secretary, where was she then? And in 2003, when it took the Dems three years to keep Kavanaugh from his 2006 confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where was she then? She had 3 years to try and discredit this amn and didn't bother. But now, 36 years after her claims, she feels she must come forward. It's all BS, it's the democratic party once again trying to ruin the life of a good man. When are you people going to wake up? The Democratic Party is destroying the State of California and you people continue to vote them in. Don't believe me? Even your own liberal biased CNBC has posted a story on it. Wake up people, it's all a lie. Web Link

I see the same liberal double-speak here as in other circumstances. #1 Did you know you don't have to be a judge or even a Lawyer to be a Supreme Court Justice?

So should we be forced to believe "innuendo" simply because it came from a Female (D) against a Male (R)? Because where was all the outrage when Bill Clinton (D) was accused of RAPE!!! Oh but to Dems, it was the "he's one of us so it's OK" mindset.

I do not believe Ford at all, and if she is telling the truth, file a criminal or at least a civil lawsuit TODAY! She won't because she's lying.

We are still INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY and sexual improprieties are NOT EXEMPT from this doctrine.

Bill Cosby IS Guilty...Brett Kavanaugh IS NOT!

Posted by Paul H East Coast, a resident of another community,, 12 minutes ago

>> I see the same liberal double-speak here as in other circumstances. #1 Did you know you don't have to be a judge or even a Lawyer to be a Supreme Court Justice?

I could return the favor, changing "liberal" to "conservative", except that the people involved, Trump, Kavanaugh, McConnell, are not -conservatives- in the sense of, say, Edmund Burke. Web Link Rather, they are "conservatives" in the sense of upholding "social and economic inequality". Plutocracy. These are not "classical liberals" conservatives.

No one should draw a conclusion that this accuser is telling the truth or lying unless they were there as witnesses.

In fact, it implies a certain degree of prejudice -- whether sociopolitical or simply gender affirmation -- to draw a conclusion by what is read on the internet or heard in the mass media.

There are friends of the accuser who believe her to be an outstanding and honest person. Likewise, there are friends of the accused who believe that he is an outstanding and honest person.

I do have problems with publicly convicting a then-teenage boy for supposedly groping a classmate at an alleged alcohol-fueled teenage party 36 years ago when the facts, memories and even time frame of the alleged incident has been lost to the decades.

Sadly, some people want it to be true and others want it to be untrue. Most of those individuals are motivated by preexisting political and social prejudices. Those are the worst types of jurors in the Court of Public Opinion.

Perhaps people should watch 12 Angry Men in order to remember just how flippant judicial prejudices and reactionary assumptions can make justice everything but blind.

Addendum: Some have said that Dr. Ford was a big-time contributor and that is why she is complaining now about Kavanaugh. But from 2014 to 2017, she gave $72 to Democratic candidates and committees, according to the NYT.

Also, Christine Beasley Ford me with her therapist six years ago. She really had no reason then to fabricate a story against Kavanaugh, who was not under consideration for a Supreme Court nomination. Obama had been reelected and Trump wouldn't be president for four more years.

I doubt I am the only reader living with a sense of malaise about this story and so many of the things that are going on locally, nationally, and internationally. I am at a loss to see how this unfolds into anything but a lose-lose-lose outcome for the accused, the accuser, and all the rest of us. Fast forward to next Monday night. The best outcome will be incontrovertible testimony from one side or the other but there's a good chance the exercise will change nothing and we will be exactly where we are today: two conflicting recollections about a high school party.

And what if there is incontrovertible testimony? Will those already convinced that one side is right and the other is wrong accept the outcome? What follows? Given how politicized this issue is, going forward is going to demand the best from everyone. I hope we are good for it.

Attempted rape at any age is a felony. She also said he held her down so that she couldn't breathe and she thought she was going to die. It derailed her life and gave her PTSD for several years.

He was not in the public eye until this nomination, so there was little cause to raise the issue now, even knowing that raising it now would bring her online and real threats and harassment from the pro-trump contingent. She's willing to risk that to avoid someone of his character becoming a Supreme Court judge for life.

What message does it send to rape victims everywhere to put someone in the highest office that likely committed a felony years ago, and got away with it? Only people of the highest character and impartial record should be put in that robe.

He fails on both accounts.

@ Women in Tech - That would be true....but only if it was TRUE. We don't know if it is true. She says it's true. He says it's not true.

Anyone who would side with one person on this without knowing ALL of the facts (and, of course, without having been present at that party on that day at that time) is likely motivated by something other than truth.

"Only people of the highest character and impartial record should be put in that robe."

This is a very purist way of thinking. I do not believe such people exist.

Also, calling it "PTSD" and saying it derailed her life seems like a stretch, especially seeing as she went on to become a wealthy Palo Alto professor.

At the heart of this is a growing misandry where women are wearing the cloak of victimhood and using the "metoo movement" to intimidate men and gain social leverage.

Men are equally guilty of playing the victim as well these days, there are many groups of men in modern times who are ascribing false evil motives to women. Honestly I'm not a fan of the gender wars.

In truth, this is all a major smoke and mirrors act to get us talking about sexual assault again but the ulterior motive is to hurt Trump in any way possible because its *morally justified*.

I agree with Nayeli's above post; truth is critical. To categorize whatever happened as an "attempted rape" is the job of prosecutors, based on evidence. At the very least we need to wait until the hearing on Monday to know more about what did/did not happen at that party. Just as we should never blame a victim we should not assume guilt. I think we do not want to become a nation in which an accusation stands as proof. That would be a dangerous and slippery slope.

They may both believe they are telling the truth. She may have been assaulted, but to a lesser degree than she recalls. Kavanaugh may have done what she alleges, or maybe he did something less egregious. She may be confused as to who assaulted her.

I was sexually assaulted when I was young, at least twice, by the same person. I recall very specific details. However, I was shocked to discover that I had a major fact wrong. I thought the perpetrator was 14. When researching this during therapy years later I discovered he was 17 at the time. My memory clearly was wrong on a very major point, as the perpetrator's younger brother was actually 14. Yet, I confirmed with another victim that it was the older brother who assaulted each of us.

[Portion removed.] As an assault victim, I have great empathy for Ms. Ford. As an assault victim who suppressed memories of my assaults and then confronted those suppressed memories as an adult, I realize memories of trauma can be exaggerated or incorrect.

It is unlikely that this can be resolved with certainty.

[Post removed.]

Call the third witness, Mark Judge, his best friend.

Judge even brought it up in his book - all about Kavanaugh so drunk and puking in his car. Google it.

Call the witnesses, all of them, to testify. Sort it out. Get to the bottom of the character of a lifetime nominee.

,,,,,,,,,,

Judge changed names in the book to protect people's privacy, but he at one point referenced a friend named "Bart O'Kavanaugh." The character was described as someone who got so drunk he "puked in someone's car the other night."

Also, about all the noise like "why should we believe her when she didn't say anything?"

Do you ask the following - why did boys abused by priests wait 30 years to tell anyone?

The first question is her judgement at the time - why was she in a house with three young men who were drinking. Generations of young people put them selves in questionable positions on a regular basis. No comment on her behavior leading up to what ever incident took place. It is like the stories you see on soap operas and teen age movies coming of age. Given her eventual list of credentials it does not appear that she has suffered as result of her youthful indiscretions. The fact that she is a psychology major says it all = brains all over the place.

"why was she in a house with three young men "

Holy victim-blaming, Batman!

So any boy can attempt to rape a girl under specific circumstances?

Please, continue. Not often that thegiec

Not often boys get complete carte blanche anymore. I'm sure they'll appreciate your latitude.

The facts available indicate to me that this ugly situation did happen, that is was traumatic for Ford, and that there was nothing she could do about it short of escaping the situation at the time.

It is absurd to think that someone would make this up and plunge their life into the public spotlight in such a controversial way, not to mention other corroborating factors such as the notes of her psychologist.

I graduated from Paly before this time, but there were certain groups of boys that did this kind of thing. One of my closer friends at the time who is now a minor Silicon Valley big-shot confided in me about two situations where at a party a girl who had to much to drink was taken to a back room. The implication was that she was aware and even willing. Another women I know just plain said that she was raped by him. Do I think there is any chance that he can or would be prosecuted at this point ... most likely not ... but that is not someone I would want to see on the Supreme Court for life. I believe Ford and I am very glad that she had the courage and patriotism to speak out. That is far more heroic than anything I have noted about this pathetic President's administration.

Kavanaugh doesn't remember because this did not stand out for him ... implying that it was nothing out of the ordinary and may be something that his "young boys" club did more than once. In a way this somewhat renews my faith in the system, much as it seems to have gone off the rails since Trump, and even before, on the Republican side, that there are still people listening and thinking with a sense of moral outrage.

Reading Craig Unger's "House of Trump, House of Putin" this President has surrounding himself with some of the most criminal, and second degree contacts, and thugs. This is well documented with Trump. There are photos that exist of him with people he says he doesn't know or would not recognize if they were in the room. These kinds of claims are common with Republicans going back to George W. Bush talking about how he said he never met Ken Lay of ENRON, when there were pictures and even gifts documenting a friendship.

When talking about the Supreme Court it seems we must take the most extreme and careful "conservative" approach, but even doing that the court is stacked with right-wingers who do not support voting rights and are using laws meant to protect Americans to further the interests and personhood of corporations. The good guys seem not to be winning here, and the bad guys seem to have found their voice, and even a megaphone to make it seem louder than it really is.

> This is such a blatant desperate attempt by liberal Dems to do anything to postpone a great nomination pick.

Only the Liberal Dens you say?

Not as desperate or out of order as refusing to bring a SCOTUS nominee up for a vote on pure partisan grounds?

The Rape-The-Public-an party has turned into the anti-American, anti-minority, anti-working people, anti-Constitution party, pro-oligarchy party and it only seems to be getting worse since they reached a certain critical mass and discovered how to use overwhelming money, social networking and media technology against the American people. Do we really want Don Corleone and the Mafia leading our country?

The pathetic excuse that "attempted rape" is not the same as "rape" is just another claim that is hollow and invalid. When Homeland Security find a plot to blow up people or buildings is it any worse if they are caught before they can complete the crime? Besides the issue is suitability for the US Supreme Court, not guilt of innocence of a specific crime. It used to be that just the hint of scandal used to take people down. Back in the 70's major corporations let people go who things are simple as DUIs or accusations. With the advent of the only money and power matters our country under the influence of corruption is barely limping along while it sucks the life out of people and lands.

Nayeli's self praise, and pose of seeking truth and justice, rings hollow when she refers to the incident as "supposedly groping a classmate".

1. she was not a classmate. She went to another school. It was a drunken party.
2. "groping"? a violent choking assault is not groping. She says she could not breathe.
3. Asking for a witness would make sense if the other drunken boy could be found, and he would be willing to testify that he helped in the assault.

[Post removed.]

Somewhere, I read the only name mentioned was "Kavanaugh". Makes me wonder if this is a simple matter of confusion over a correct person. "Kavanaugh" is not that rare a name in any American community. It could have been someone else.

If Ms. Ford was inebriated, even slightly, it may be possible that people are incorrectly identified. If she never mentioned this to anyone - not to her parents or to any peer back then, who's to say she has not been blaming the wrong person?

While I do not doubt something traumatic happened to Ms. Ford as a teen, because few people bring this kind of attention to themselves, over a fabrication, I doubt the SCOTUS nominee was involved, based on everything documented about him, even by those that wrote of knowing him in his youth. There will need to be reasonable and detailed answers to numerous questions, before I regard this as a credible accusation.

Perhaps he was fingered, due to other reasons, the most obvious being a grudge over her parent's foreclosure at the hand of Mr. Kavanaugh's mother's ruling.

Also, notoriety could still be a reason. In this area, Ms. Ford would be heralded as a heroine, just for being a stumbling block to anyone nominated by President Trump, a la, Diana's first sentence. Same thing for Anna Eshoo and Senator DiFi.
Their base would applaud them, and they are playing to that.

Not knowing anymore than the rest of the country, Diana tells us she has a new heroine. No matter how unsubstantiated the claim, Ms. Ford is seen as credible and a heroine to be supported.

Thankfully, that's not the case not for most Americans in other parts of the country that ask questions, wanting answers before drawing conclusions that big.

That appears to be why DiFi sat on the news for so long, even though she had her own chance to question Kavanaugh herself. If she was acting in good faith, she would have taken that opportunity then. But in this area, an 11th hour road block, thrown at people with whom there is disagreement, is seen as a fine tactic.

For those of us that are impartial, those looking for the good of the country, and want to see a SCOTUS that will interpret the Constitution, not create legislation from the bench, we need to see how this all plays out.

Will Ms. Ford testify on Monday? Will she remember all the details she forgot? There are too many to mention. Most clergy abuse survivors remember everything, to the last detail, and most women remember everything. Everything.

[Post removed.]

Posted by Detail Oriented, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood

>> Somewhere, I read the only name mentioned was "Kavanaugh". Makes me wonder if this is a simple matter of confusion over a correct person.

They grew in the same general community in Maryland.

>> I doubt the SCOTUS nominee was involved, based on everything documented about him, even by those that wrote of knowing him in his youth.

Actually, apparently he was quite the party guy. Web Link

Call all witnesses to testify, including the friend.

What's to hide?

Several commenters here have mentioned the fact (and it turns out to be true) that Kavanaugh's mother was a judge who happened to rule on case involving Ford's mother. Small world, eh? Before you get so excited about it, how about reading about the facts of the case? His Mother ruled in FAVOR of Ford's parents.

I'm trying to figure out how much of a conspiracy theorist you've got to be in order to think that somebody ruling in favor of a case would then make the child 36 years later falsify a story like this...and by the way, nobody but nobody seems able to explain how it could be that in contemporaneous notes to her therapist many years ago she explains details of the assault. Do you think she went back in time to to do that? Reminds me of people who claim that President Obama's parents must have put a fake birth notice in the newspapers in Hawaii so he could become President decades later.

Lastly, to those people who say it was so long ago or he was only 17, you must not have children, or if you do, I feel very sorry for them. I don't tell my kids it is OK to hold down another child and attempt to sexually assault them. Commenter "Whiple" also made an excellent point -- so many of those kids abused by priests all over this country took decades to come forward. Heck, some of them only are coming forward in the last year or two, despite there being many many stories about others being abused. Does that mean they were all liars? No. It means they were traumatized and, accurately, by the reactions of many of the posters here, believe that they would be attacked for speaking the truth.

There is so much in all this that makes me wonder about where society is going.

A 17 year old who was drunk, a 15 year old who may or may not have been drunk who may or may have incorrectly remembered details of her possible first sexual encounter including the fantasizing of the memory over the years without even the slightest doubt that this was the same individual. There was a time when wild oats being sown by both male and female teens were the expected norm. As many females as males were aggressively exploring their sexuality with fabrication, boasting, innuendo and peer pressure. Youthful indiscretions probably happened by both teenage boys and teenage girls with encouragement from friends and society in general.

The truth may be far from what is remembered on either side. Since both have now moved on and appear to have achieved much success in life, can we not accept that the past in this case has not made significant downsides to either party, if in fact Kavanaugh was the actual individual in this particular memory?

I for one am getting the feeling that there is a movement of scandal digging in any and every public individual's past. This is not progress but in fact a form of blackmail at worst and attention seeking for possible financial gain at the very least. I have no respect for anyone who tries to malign the character of anyone else after so much time for no reason other than to destroy the reputation of that other person for their own five minutes of fame. I doubt very much the publicized motivation of the revelation or indeed the actual accuracy of the memory itself.

Society should not accept these types of scandal revelations every time they rear their ugly heads. It is akin to cyber bullying of the worst kind.

I must agree with Resident. I don't know where society is going either. When holding a 15 year old girl down and putting your hand over her mouth is excused as a "youthful indiscretion", we have a serious problem.

Resident makes several pronouncements in the last posting about how memory on either side cannot be trusted, and then goes on to ask: "can we not accept that the past in this case has not made significant downsides to either party, if in fact Kavanaugh was the actual individual in this particular memory? ".

I have an answer. NO. We cannot.

I will never tell my daughter that if another kid holds her down while his friend looks on that it is OK, and she should forget it. Nor would I tell her that if enough years pass by that the original act was OK, and that anybody who did that but fails to admit it remains suitable to sit on the highest court or any other position of high public trust.

Your comment that "I have no respect for anyone who tries to malign the character of anyone else after so much time for no reason other than to destroy the reputation of that other person for their own five minutes of fame. I doubt very much the publicized motivation of the revelation or indeed the actual accuracy of the memory itself." is frankly indefensible.

There is zero evidence that Dr Ford has any such motivations, and plenty of evidence that she had every reason to believe that she would be attacked. And indeed, many comments reflect exactly that attack.

I am weary of excuses such as referring to holding down a 15 year old girl with your hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming while trying to pull her clothes off as "youthful indiscretion". It is not. And it is not "bad behavior".

By the way, I am a man, and while I am not proud of everything I did as teenager, I understood even at that age that behavior of that kind was far past a line of morality and acceptability. I hope women hold all the Senators who excuse this behavior responsible at the ballot box.

You indicate that, assuming this incident did happen, then time alone and the fact that both parties are now "successful" should mean we just move on and do nothing. Why??? If it did happen, then while Mr Kavanaugh may have since "moved on" and is no longer a threat to do such things again, the fact remains that he has made no effort at amends, no attempt to apologize, and is willing to destroy the reputation of Dr Ford in order to satisfy his need for power. That is what it would mean "if it is true that it happened", and that fact alone makes him a totally inappropriate choice for a justice of the supreme court.

Lastly, I find it very revealing that Dr Ford's recollection includes Kavanaugh's friend in the room. You see, if somebody were going to make something up, then why would they include a witness who would then deny involvement? It would make far more sense to fabricate a story without a witness so it is your word against the alleged perpetrator. And again, none of you can explain how it is she somehow went back in time and discussed this with her therapist years ago.

However, given all of these rationalizations for Kavanaugh's alleged behavior, I don't think most of the people arguing about it being so long ago or it being youthful indiscretion truly believe he didn't do it. I think many of them know that he did, but are seeking reasons to explain why it is excusable. It is not.

One other thing for those of you so quick to attack Dr Ford and wonder why she came out with this information so "late", just look at what has happened to her, and try to explain why this constitutes personal gain:
Web Link

This quotation from the above article captures her dilemma very well, and explains why I have nothing but admiration for the bravery of this woman...
------
In the interview with The Post, Ford said she hesitated to speak publicly because she anticipated that her life would be upended and that Kavanaugh could be confirmed regardless.

“Why suffer through the annihilation if it's not going to matter?" she said.

Our senate is not equipped to investigate this possible malfeasance of Kavanoodles, nor does the GOP led Justice want the FBI to investigate - it should be turned over to a local, non-partisan judge to investigate, one who has been confirmed many times.

The Chief United States Circuit Judge of the United States for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Merrick Brian Garland.

Seems fair.

For all of you wondering why she didn't come forward earlier, look what's been happening to her since. (From today's New York Times)

Web Link

In the letter to the Judiciary Committee, Dr. Blasey's lawyers said that she has been the target of “vicious harassment and even death threats" since her name was made public on Sunday in an interview published in The Washington Post. Her email has been hacked, she has been impersonated online and she and her family have been forced to relocate out of their home, according to the lawyers, Ms. Banks and her partner, Debra S. Katz.

[Post removed.]

Disagree.

Mrs. Blasey's account is too old and unverifiable to warrant this outpouring of interest and calls for action against Judge Kavanaugh.

Perhaps something happened, or she recalled it wrong, or maybe she's politically motivated and fabricated?

Who knows.

But we have a nation of laws that operates to protect all of us from ancient allegations and he said/she said convictions.

And what is her account of? A fairly brief incident of some kind of aggressive skirmish that is open to interpretation.

Some people have gone so far afield as to characterize it as 'rape' which is incredibly offensive to actual victims of rape. This cannot be overstated.

Time to move on. I wish Ms Blasey the best and hope that she's not really out to mete an effect on a SC nomination for political reasons. It's not a stretch to say that there are many in this heightened politically charged atmosphere who may feel compelled to go so far as to make a fake claim. We can all see that possibility.

A few of my friends and acquaintances are rabidly defensive of Roe and have expressed over-the-top concerns about Judge Kavanaugh and their desire that he be derailed.

Could it also be that Senator Feinstein overstepped her permissions and released Ms. Blasey's information and letter without her personal ok? Sandbagging is a real possibility and would be a terrible shame.

Posted by resident, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,

>> More on the good doctor - she has connection to George Soros - major universal trouble maker. She has directed the traffic to the Senate and now wants to direct the traffic with the FBI. this does not constitute a poor helpless person - she has gone on to become a PHD. She has handlers. And even worse her handlers are exercising authority over the Senate and the FBI.

And not only that, she lives in Palo Alto, a sure sign that she is one of those dreaded liberals. Gasp!

Seriously-- she has given credible evidence that she was sexually assaulted-- by today's standard-- at age 15 by the 17-year-old Kavanaugh. There is credible evidence that he was an intoxicated participant at parties where such incidents could easily occur.

Yes, it was a long time ago and acceptable behavior has changed (thank goodness)-- legally, charging Kavanaugh with a crime for what happened then is not possible. On the other hand, if he lied to the FBI or other background investigators, then, it would, at least, subject him to possible impeachment, disbarment, or even a criminal conviction.

And, it sure doesn't mean that somehow he is -entitled- to become a Supreme Court Justice. Merrick Garland never even got a hearing, for the simple reason that Obama nominated him.

@Ed, Your reasoned reply to my comment is fair game. I do however, feel that I need to take you up on some of your points.

I don't doubt that some type of incident occurred, I just don't necessarily agree with the severity of it as remembered by a 15 year old naive girl. At the age of about 12 I personally had a near drowning incident in which I was afraid for my life, thought at the time and remember it as such that I was seconds away from drowning. The reality is that I was in a swimming pool with a lifeguard and various other people helping me and the whole incident lasted seconds rather than the minutes of time I recollected. Whether I could have drowned is something I strongly doubt, but my memory tells me that I was near death. I was unable to breathe, felt pressure on my lungs and "saw my life in pictures flash through my mind". As a result I see that to a 15 year old, a hand over the mouth could have been no more than a fleeting hush action but remembered as a stifling attempted to stop breathing, and a moving hand attempting to remove clothing and groping, as nothing more than the arduous attempt by a hormone driven youth attempting to be amorous in a clumsy fashion while being driven on by his friend who possibly was paying little attention. If the two males were indeed drunk at the time, the memory of the witness is probably as unreliable as that of the two young people and their ineptitude of sexual conduct. I don't doubt that "petting" took place between two people, but I can definitely see that both sides can remember the event entirely differently due to their age and inexperience. The fact that this was inappropriate behavior by the male and the girl should have more of it at the time is not in question in my mind. Of course we seem to educate our young people about this type of situation a lot better today than was done back then. No meaning no, was a not a phrase I remember being grounded in when I was given my sex education talks from parents or teachers. Perhaps we should also say times have changed a little now because that type of instruction is given today as the norm when it was much more of a gray area in the past.

The second point I think should be made is that there is nothing to suggest that these two people knew each other except as attendees at the same party. They were attending different high schools and even though they both attended the same social event, i.e. the same party, the fact that they were in the same social group is not clear. As a result I can't see how the names of two people who were so drunk in a setting where so many people attended the party, that the 15 year could be so clearly sure that she had the right name of the persons she was in the bedroom with. It is so easy to muddle names when introduced to so many new people in one setting, if in fact they were introduced at all or even heard anything other than first names which could have been from second hand observations rather than formal introductions.

As a result of these two points, I myself see that taking credible accounts of an event over 30 years ago remembered by very young people on their first or early social encounters in a more adult setting, as being hardly accurate to what actually happened. I don't doubt at all that something happened between a 15 year old girl and a 17 year old male, but whether this was the male and whether it happened the way she remembers is entirely a fair question to be asked.

Going back to my personal near drowning, I remember the incident very well, the emotional feelings I had, the way the incident occurred, my reactions and the events immediately afterwards, but I have no idea which of my friends I was with at the time, whether the life guard who helped me was male or female, whether it happened morning or afternoon, or any other specific details. I find it equally difficult to imagine that Ford can be as accurate in her account as she states.

"she has connection to George Soros"

Oh my, can't even post a link to the Washington EXAMINER fever swamp hallucination where they dreamed up this tripe? Too feeble a reach?

At what point do you feel embarrassed to post this crap?


This is even worse: "Mrs. Blasey's account is too old and unverifiable to warrant..." investigation into the LIFELONG appointment to our highest court?

So attempted rape just 'expires' with time? Shall we just empty our jails? Free all the priests for what they did 30 years ago?

I would like to hear from those that believe in truth, law and order, please. Please call the third witness, Mark Judge. Under oath.

How embarrassing. Common sense, folks.

Posted by Eila Hughes , a resident of University South, 17 minutes ago

>> But we have a nation of laws that operates to protect all of us from ancient allegations and he said/she said convictions.

Since this keeps being raised-- sure, no way to -convict- Kavanaugh. But, from a security/background check standpoint, it does not matter-- if the incident is proven, then, it can affect his suitability for a new post. And if he lied about it to investigators, that could indeed be criminal, and, affect his existing post.

>> And what is her account of? A fairly brief incident of some kind of aggressive skirmish that is open to interpretation.

>> Some people have gone so far afield as to characterize it as 'rape' which is incredibly offensive to actual victims of rape. This cannot be overstated.

State laws with regard to these matters vary, and, have varied greatly over time. I have no idea what Maryland law said at the time, but, knowing how loose things were at the time, chances are the police would have told the girl she was "lucky". But, just so folks aren't confused, the alleged behavior -is- a serious crime in California today. Here you go:

Web Link

>> Time to move on.

Exactly. Time to move on. Let's give Merrick Garland a hearing and see what skeletons we may (or, may not) find in his closet.

As for the analogies to Catholic Priests, there is a huge difference. The priests were adults put in a position of authority over children who they were supposedly protecting or teaching. This is not the same situation as an unsupervised party attended by naive adolescents.

Nice.

Attempted rape, holding his hand over her mouth while attacking her, is now just "an unsupervised party attended by naive adolescents."

Does ya mama know ya talk like that?

You must really consider how you are embarrassing yourself, let alone that you fail to comprehend the connection that it referenced your absurd "shucks, it was 30 years ago" attempt to stifle investigation.

I see much less outpouring of concern for Keith Ellison's ex despite the strong evidence in the form of 911 calls and her son's testimony,,

And @Resident I agree with you regarding the priest crimes against young children. That case of systemic abuse is apples and oranges to Ms. Blasey's account of something that occurred once when she was 15. No comparison.

"I see much less outpouring of concern for..."

So you've run out of noise, falling back on what-aboutism. Please feel free to open up a thread on another topic. Perhaps in that one, facts will finally be on your side.

Suggestion: in that new thread, don't be victim blaming. Look how it has turned out here...


and this? "of something that occurred once when she was 15."

You just made the point - 30 years ago, rape is rape, violence is violence. Priest or judge. Thank you.

Call Mark Judge to the stand. under oath.

What are you hiding?

So a 15 year old teen ager attends a party in which she is the only female and the other attendees are drunk athletes from a different school. What possessed her to be involved in such a situation? Her own teen age awaking's and curiosity? I do not have to go any further than the SU or UC campus to see a bunch of females with almost no clothes on which is now being approved down to high school level where all of these young ladies want to "express themselves". So nothing has really changed here from when I went to high school in a major city - Hollywood. She left on her own accord and was not sexually violated. She was simply groped.
ABC's soap General Hospital is currently featuring many stories on young people's transgressions. Maybe we need a soap on Congress's transgression - Keith Ellison?
And her PHD required a "publish or perish" requirement so maybe the pressure is on in her work place in which her tenure is questionable. This story has a lot of angles which will be fully explored and people will be sorry when it is because all of the current people running for office will be scrutinized for any current activity while in office and held responsible.

"Her own teen age awaking's and curiosity? I do not have to go any further than the SU or UC campus to see a bunch of females with almost no clothes on"

Wow... go ahead and just say it - you think a 15 year old was "asking for it", so she deserved to be assaulted.

To paraphrases the comment in the other thread:
Today's Right Wing Party of Trump: "she was asking for it (so I grabbed her *****")

No shame. No morals. Common Sense asks that you please, go away. Very, very far away.

Ms. Blasey is allowed to testify via a phone.

Certainly she has access to a phone. She's the one with the allegation so she's the one who should testify.

Judge Kavanaugh otoh is eager to clear his name and answer any questions of the committee.

@Not so Common Sense - Because of the very real possibility that this is a politically motivated allegation it is fair to include the treatment of Keith Ellison's ex in any discussion.

The lack of interest in her claims of physical assault are glaring and reveal that possibly the interest in Blasey's claims are politically motivated.

OR is it that Blasey's claims are older and more, what? ...tabloidesque? More lurid?

As a ph.d in fields of psychology Blasey knows well or should know well that her claim is so unsubstantiated and old that our societal norm is to dismiss it as nothing more than old teen lore. Otherwise we are all subject to this kind of attack.

Posted by Eila Hughes , a resident of University South,, 42 minutes ago

>> I see much less outpouring of concern for Keith Ellison's ex despite the strong evidence in the form of 911 calls and her son's testimony,,

You will be pleased to know, then, that the -liberal- Vox website has been trying to raise the issue:

Web Link

But, also, as I'm sure you realize, the Supreme Court has enormous power and responsibility. Far more than Keith Ellison has now or will have as Minnesota AG.

Elia: can't help yourself, you have to shift off-topic. SAD!

Your last post had more words on some other subject. Guess that's what happens when you are called on victim-blaming and belittling of violent assault charges.

"nothing more than old teen lore" yet you just talked about the validity of thirty year old priest charges... you really have to make up your mind.

Common Sense - walk around a campus and look at what I going on. Walk around Gunn and PAHS and look at what is going on. Sorry - trying to control the narrative here but FB and TV has run with a lot of "Facts" and are filling out the picture. The picture is bigger than the controlled narrative in the Weekly.

@Common Sense


So Keith Ellison, AG of Minnesota, has not the power of a SC justice so therefore his alleged assault felonies, these actual current day, evidence backed felonies, need not be called out by Democrats?

Blasey has a decades old story without corroborating evidence. Ellison's Ex has actual evidence, the kind that would be damning in an American court of law.

But we are supposed to give more weight to the tabloid court of law? The social media gossip mill court of law? Because Kavanaugh will wield power? ...so it's not about the allegation, but about the position.

As to power, as Minnesota AG, Ellison is well poised for political promotion. His influence and actions are meaningful and wide reaching.

The hypocrisy shown in the disparity in treatment reveal what looks to be politically motivated sympathy.

Eila: sorry to hear about your reading comprehension issues. This thread is about SCOTUS. Please start a MN AG thread. And take your what-aboutism to it.

resident: I suggest, with your comments, you reconsider locations.

"Her own teen age awaking's and curiosity? I do not have to go any further than the SU or UC campus to see a bunch of females with almost no clothes on"

@Common Sense

Again, the priest assaults were systemic.

It wasn't one adult coming forward after 30 years to tell his story of assault. If it had been only one, we would never ever have heard about it.

No, it wasn't one accuser of priest molestation and rape...it was hundreds of adults who came forward. That's when the police knew they were dealing with a systemic and real abuse.

The Catholic Church has a problem in that numerous pedophiles joined their ranks in order to have a position of authority and trust over young boys and girls.

Only after numerous men and women came forward did the church come under fire.

Dr. Ford: “Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980's. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED....They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state."

Kavanaugh's response. “This is a completely false allegation.....never done anything like what the accuser describes."

Mark Judge (a.k.a. “REDACTED) and author of “Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk"): "It's just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.... Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes,"
Georgetown Preparatory School was “swimming in alcohol."

Kavanaugh (aside on Georgetown Preparatory School at during speech at the Catholic University's Columbus School of Law in Washington):

"What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep...That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

Posted by Eila Hughes , a resident of University South, 50 minutes ago

>> So Keith Ellison, AG of Minnesota, has not the power of a SC justice so therefore his alleged assault felonies, these actual current day, evidence backed felonies, need not be called out by Democrats? [...] Because Kavanaugh will wield power? ...so it's not about the allegation, but about the position.

Yes, it is about power. Otherwise, the following story from -today- would be just as significant: Web Link

But, it isn't. Part of this discussion is, in fact, just about how important Supreme Court justices are. Not everyone realizes what enormous power they have. See this Vox article about Citizens United. And before that First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti. And before that Buckley v. Valeo.

Web Link

Violence 30 years ago is still violence. Look at the ways the koolaid drinkers bring up 25 year old myths,all the time.

Hypocrite.

All witnesses should be be ordered to appear. Testify under oath, tell the truth, then we can put this to bed.

And Kavanaugh can bring his records from the Bush years also; they were publicly funded when he worked there.

whiple - Merrit Garland never went through the vetting and approval process. What ever his back ground it is still not known to the general public. Kavanagh has gone through the complete process on TV - if you cared to watch. And now that he is up for the vote someone attacks him and does not want their name used. Who thinks this type of stuff up? That is now being hashed out on TV. But since you brought it up the next person put up for a vote by the D's will be grilled thoroughly. No more nice guy free tickets.

Posted by resident, a resident of Adobe-Meadow,

>> Merrit Garland never went through the vetting and approval process. What ever his back ground it is still not known to the general public.

You, of course, know that the Merrick Garland nomination was -denied- a hearing by Mitch McConnell, so of course his background investigation is still private.

Web Link

>> Who thinks this type of stuff up? That is now being hashed out on TV. But since you brought it up the next person put up for a vote by the D's will be grilled thoroughly. No more nice guy free tickets.

LOL. Read or re-read the David Axelrod piece about McConnell above. "No more nice guy." Ha, ha.

She never reported this incident to the police but now Dr. Ford want the FBI TO investigate-Who does she think she is? She is trying to stop this nomination because people think he is too conservative for roe v wade. This liberal women is probably more concerned about that than the alleged incident. She does not even have proof she has ever met Kavanaugh or that he was in the same room with her since she pretends she remembers NOTHING. She is being used by the Democrats and maybe even paid. Such a shame to be in "bed" with Democrats . This to me is all a democratic scam.

A-Question-For-The-Professor, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood,
>> How has this woman's life been “derailed", or as some would have you believe??"destroyed?

What a nasty insensitive insulting post.

I supposed someone has to prove it to you that their life had been derailed,
or they should be a complete homeless wreck, in which case you would
ignore them for that.

Maybe Ms. Ford worked hard and fought to get her life back, as her record
of working through therapy would indicate.

How easy political discussion is for the Republicans ... all they have to
do is cast aspersions, insult, recognize each other and agree undconditionally
with anything said by a fellow Rape-The-Public-an and spout cruel and in
general nauseating comments until the other side finally give up or stop trying
... and that is their idea of how the American system of democracy is supposed to work.

That is why today's Rape-The-Public-ans make me want to puke and why
I called them Rape-The-Public-ans ... because that is the ultimate source of
their power and the meme that they so cowardly defend and rally behind, again
and again we see it in the news.