Everything you said to my comment is undermined by one thing that you said.

No. Evidence is required for anyone to end up in jail.

This was my point for the whole post. I am deeply sympathetic for people who have been sexually assaulted. It is her and her lawyers job to prove that she was assaulted in this way. They have no evidence whatsoever.

Your whole post is based on misunderstandings and obvious falsities, so it's unsurprising you come to a conclusion like this.

My whole post and what I believe when it comes to this case is simple and fact driven. Your only argument is that I lack "Sympathy" for someone who has never proven that they were a victim of sexual assault." Essentially you saw someone who disagreed with you, but you have nothing to base your disagreement on so you decided to try and shame me into silence. Then when you were done with that you just said that my post was based on misunderstandings without providing a single misunderstanding.

Why does that surprise you? Sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes. Are you unaware of that? Does the idea that a sexually abused fifteen-your-old was too scared or ashamed to go to the authorities seem strange to you?

First, yes I do know that. Going back to what you said earlier, "Evidence is required for anyone to end up in jail." No evidence means no jail and it also means that he can be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Also you said that she was a "sexually abused 15 year old." After reading what she described as happening you will find that she does not even claim he sexually assaulted her. She was in a room with Kavanaugh and one other person. They fell on a bed together and she thought he was going to do something so she left the room. That is her version of the story. She said that she thought he was going to do something. Therefor she was never sexually abused. Nothing happened.

He's already been demonstrated to be likely dishonest in his Senate testimony and his positions as a judge are highly objectionable to many.

I have been actively keeping up with the Kavanaugh investigation and such. He has not been proven to likely be dishonest yet and he was chosen as a candidate because he has essentially no objectionable positions as a judge. He has proven to follow what he believes the Constitution was written to mean, which is the job description of a Supreme Court Justice.

After reading what she described as happening you will find that she does not even claim he sexually assaulted her. They fell on a bed together and she thought he was going to do something so she left the room. That is her version of the story. She said that she thought he was going to do something. Therefor she was never sexually abused. Nothing happened. — Questionall

You are making a fool of yourself now. The details of her allegations are all over the internet. For a concise summary see Wikipedia (or any number of other sources):

"On September 16, 2018, she publicly alleged that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, in what she described as an attempted rape.

Kavanaugh, intoxicated, held her down on a bed with his body, grinding against and groping her, covering her mouth when she tried to scream and trying to pull her clothes off. She recounted escaping when the second boy jumped on them both and they all fell."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford

That's her version and if true, that's sexual assault and a crime. Note that she not only accuses him of sexual assault but also of attempted rape.

I have been actively keeping up with the Kavanaugh investigation and such. — Questionall

Given your complete ignorance of the allegations, no, you obviously haven't. If you don't even know the basics, please stop fouling the place up with silliness like this.

All we factuality have is the memories of 3 people of an act from 35 years ago. That is it. Every thing else is speculation.

"All we factuality have is the memories of 3 people of an act from 35 years ago. That is it. Every thing else is speculation."
A couple days ago, I might have agreed. But now we have Trump and McConnell's statements. McConnell said Kavanaugh will be approved, implying that Ford's testimony is irrelevant, and no other evidence need be (or will be) considered. Trump essentially called Ford a liar. These comments have tainted the process, and are sufficient reason to reject Kavanaugh. I could give Kavanaugh a chance only if he were to rebuke McConnell's and Trump's statements. A competent judge should advocate for open-minded evaluation of the full set of available facts.

If he had come out and admitted it and apologized in an appropriate manner, I might agree that it might not be disqualifying. But what he is doing now by, if it is true, is lying about it and putting his victim through further punishment, which absolutely is disqualifying. — Baden

At this point the case is one person's version versus another persons version, delayed by 35 years time. There is no way to prove very much about this case. You believe women. Baden scores 10 points from #metoo.

It would not surprise me if the boys behaved badly toward the girl. People (males, females) often behave badly.

Kavanaugh could have offered a strategic apology, but he said he didn't do it and is sticking with his story.

I've never been enthusiastic about people's sexual activities being weighed up for political and professional judgement. That's a very old-fashioned attitude now. Franken should not have resigned, should not have been excoriated by the Democratic Party. John F. Kennedy's presidency shouldn't be judged on how many women were procured for him. All this goes for a quite a few other politicians. There are better grounds to reject Kavanaugh (and probably everybody else Trump appoints) than teenage misbehavior. If we were going to hang Donald Trump, he should be convicted on grounds of endangering the nation -- not on being sexually crude and licentious.

How far back should we go to hold people accountable? There was underage drinking going on in that house. There are adults who were responsible for obtaining, making available, or not protecting the teenagers from alcohol. Are you in favor of leveling charges against them 35 years later? If not, why not?

Baden scores 10 points from #metoo. — Bitter Crank

I don't fully believe anyone, but in my judgment her telling the truth is the most likely scenario, and I gave reasons why. Reasons that nobody has questioned so far, incidentally. So, let's not get up on a cranky horse about the #metoo movement. That's not the issue here. If you want to ask me about my position on that, start a thread on it.

I've never been enthusiastic about people's sexual activities being weighed up for political and professional judgment. That's a very old-fashioned attitude now. — Bitter Crank

The issue is about criminal sexual activities, not all sexual activities. Sexual assault and attempted rape are criminal offenses. That's what he's being accused of. If he likes to wank off his pet dog in his spare time, that's fine by me. Couldn't care less.

How far back should we go to hold people accountable? There was underage drinking going on in that house. There are adults who were responsible for obtaining, making available, or not protecting the teenagers from alcohol. Are you in favor of leveling charges against them 35 years later? If not, why not? — Bitter Crank

No, because I don't care. Why would I? And you asking that question makes me wonder if you've been drinking, frankly. I mean do you think holding down a 15-year-old girl, groping her, and trying to rip her clothes off while holding your hand over her mouth is as insignificant as buying a drink for someone who is underage? What are you trying to say? And please put down your drink while you type your reply in case you spill it all over the keyboard.

These comments have tainted the process, and are sufficient reason to reject Kavanaugh. I could give Kavanaugh a chance only if he were to rebuke McConnell's and Trump's statements. A competent judge should advocate for open-minded evaluation of the full set of available facts. — Relativist

:up:

"How far back should we go to hold people accountable?"
How about 1 week? Hold Kavanaugh accountable for lying about his teenage misbehavior.

So, if anyone wants a lesson in how sexual violence against women is minimized and dismissed, just read through this discussion.

On the milder end, we have @Hanover characterizing the victim as suffering from a "misdemeanour" (while leaving out the important detail of the attempt to remove her clothes) in opposition to the accused who is apparently being "lynched". The misdemeanour claim btw:

At best, he's guilty of sexual assault, a misdemeanor. — Hanover

Being dubious: e.g.

"Sexual assault, which is defined as an individual touching another person for sexual gratification without that person’s consent, can be charged as a misdemeanor or felony depending on the circumstances of your case."

https://www.wksexcrimes.com/when-attempted-rape-is-not-a-violent-crime/

On the extreme end then we have @Bitter Crank and @Questionall who seem to think the sexual assault wasn't even an assault at all, but mere "misbehaviour".

Let me ask you this: If any of you had a 15-year-old daughter or a close relative who told you that an older boy had held her down, hand over mouth to the point where she feared she would suffocate, groped her and grinded his body against her, and then tried to pull her clothes off, and that she thought he was trying to rape her, would you just tell her to laugh it off and then do nothing about it? Would you be more worried about the reputation of the accused? And how would you feel about those more interested in protecting him than her?

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/43249/1/MPRA_paper_43249.pdf

"Sexual assault and rape are among the least reported crimes in the United States. This
paper hypothesizes that this reflects the psycho-social costs of reporting a rape or sexual assault,
which, in turn, reflect the stigma suffered by rape and sexual assault victims."

"Of the 1247 cases analyzed in this study, only 39.17% of them were reported to the police. "

"The degree to which rape and sexual assault exist within our society is masked by substantial under-reporting. In order to address this under-reporting, it is essential to understand the unique costs of reporting that the rape victim faces. As the analyses in this study confirm, rape and sexual assault victims consider the stigma that they are likely to suffer upon reporting. When these victims choose not to report, perpetrators go unscathed. Furthermore, the public remains uneducated on the prevalence and nature of the crime. Rather than merely encouraging victims of rape and sexual assault to report their victimization, policies and programs need to be instituted to debunk common misperceptions on the subject. "

"Furthermore, educating the public on the phenomenon of victim-blaming may stimulate individuals’
recognition of their own victim blaming tendencies."

none of that changes the fact, that all we really have, at least so far, are the 35 year old memories of 3 people to make some judgement on what in fact happened. That is it.

I was addressing the specific issue raised by Bitter Crank ("How far back should we go to hold people accountable?"). So while one might argue that a 35 year-old incident should be overlooked, a recent lie should NOT be overlooked. This completely negates his point, but it doesn't settle the entire matter.

"Sexual assault and rape are among the least reported crimes in the United States."
I'll bet the President is carefully studying that report as we write this.

....
hahahahahahahahahahaha!

You fail continually to see the reality of the matter. You seek to label me as an uncaring person because you have no evidence or facts to argue with. All you have is many many emotions towards a crime that may or may not have occurred 36 years ago. You ask what we would think if someone we love told us that they had been sexually assaulted or raped. The opposite of this scenario is this. How would you feel if you were falsely accused of a crime. This crime was said to have happened 36 years ago and has no evidence what so ever to support it. Now your career and whole life in general is being destroyed of baseless claims.

The only evidence brought forward by Christine Blasey Ford has been witnesses who were at the party. They have all so far said that they not only don't remember this happening, they don't even remember Brett Kavanaugh going to any of these types of parties. The most recent witness even said this: “Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women,”
This article can be found here. https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/kavanaughs-prep-school-pal-fords-wrong-i-was-never-at-party/

You fail continually to see the reality of the matter. — Questionall

Um no, you said something that showed you were completely clueless over the whole matter, and you got called out for it. Trying to pretend you didn't and it was I who got something wrong is just digging yourself deeper into a hole.

You said this:

she does not even claim he sexually assaulted her. — Questionall

Now, do you understand yet how completely and utterly wrong this is and how thinking it may have led you to all sorts of false conclusions? Let's try to clear that up first.

They have all so far said that they not only don't remember this happening, — Questionall

They don't remember it happening because they weren't in the room. There were no witnesses to the alleged crime except Mark Judge who was an accessory, and a very close friend of Kavanaugh, so obviously he has reason to deny it. And in fact, he refuses to testify under oath. Do you wonder why?

“Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women,” — Questionall

So what? Of course, his friends are going to say this. Even murderers can drag up character witnesses from amongst their circle of friends.

I think we can agree that mere accusations ought not to be sufficient grounds for assuming the guilt of the accused. On the other hand, the testimony of high school friends doesn't amount to much. The alleged party only had a few people present, and their observations of his behavior while sober has little bearing on how he might behave when drunk - ESPECIALLY if he did not drink very often. Not that this should be fully discounted, but it cries out for a thorough investigation - don't you think?

you have no evidence or facts to argue with — Questionall

With regard to this, I gave you, for example, the evidence of her testimony to show you were wrong about what she was alleging (it's right there above). So, I ask you to please try to concentrate on what is happening here otherwise the conversation is likely to be unfruitful.

It calls for as much investigation is possible. The FBI are not able to investigate it of course, but the police can. The issue is that there isn't much to investigate that they haven't already investigated. Short of a time machine, I fail to see what the investigation would find. They have already questioned all known and available witnesses as well.

You are once again dodging around the fact that you have no evidence. Her testimony is evidence of nothing except for the fact that she has said that Kavanaugh did something. That is as factual of me accusing you of something right now.

No, that's not the way it works. Eye-witness testimony is evidence. It's amazing to me that you don't know that. Actually, no, I'm not all that amazed. Anyway, are you ready to get your facts straight on whether or not she is accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault? Is she or is she not?

Yes she is accusing him of sexual assault, but not rape. It is amazing what you don't know. Eye-witness testimony is evidence, but usually from others than the person who is accusing someone of a crime. If that is really good enough evidence to consider firing someone, then I could get you or anyone else fired for anything at any time.

Yes she is accusing him of sexual assault, but not rape — Questionall

Nobody said she was accusing him of rape. It's attempted rape as I said. And the fact that it took you this long to figure out she is accusing him of sexual assault suggests you are too ignorant of the facts to be worthy of anything but bemused pity here.

you have no evidence. — Questionall

Eye-witness testimony is evidence. — Baden

Eye-witness testimony is evidence, — Questionall

You've just conceded the point. The rest is irrelevant.

Here's an interesting poll:

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe accusers: 93% of Democrats say they believe the women alleging sexual harassment, compared to 78% of Republicans. Republicans are also twice as likely as Democrats to think that accused men are being unfairly treated by the media (52% of Republicans think the media coverage of the sexual allegations is unfair, compared to 20% of Democrats).

...

The differences between the parties are even more dramatic when the question turns directly to politics. Most voters in both parties agree that a Democratic congressman accused of sexual harassment should resign from office (71% of Republicans and 74% of Democrats). But when the accused congressman is a member of the GOP, just 54% of Republicans demand a resignation, compared to 82% of Democrats.

I wonder what explains this.

If that is really good enough evidence to consider firing someone, then I could get you or anyone else fired for anything at any time. — Questionall

An accusation on its own without any context isn't conclusive. No one has claimed it is. Each accusation has to be examined on its own merits, weighted thus, and preferably followed up with a proper examination. And Kavanaugh is not being threatened with firing, but simply not getting a promotion.

That's clear anecdotally from what I've witnessed comparing the Al Franken case to this and the Roy Moore situation. Again, conservatives and Republicans are more OK with ignoring sexual assault accusations (and by extension with sexual assault) when it's their side doing it than Democrats are. But there is clearly some partisanship on both sides. And there shouldn't be any at all.

The issue is about criminal sexual activities, not all sexual activities. — Baden

Yes, in this case. But charges were not pressed and the statute of limitation on this event has expired; the alleged perpetrator was drunk, and underage himself. You weren't interested in the alcohol connection to the crime:

No, because I don't care. — Baden

Drunken adults can behave worse than usual; this is even more so for adolescents who generally have less experience with alcohol and poorer impulse control on a good day. But even if they drink a lot, someone is aiding them in obtaining alcohol, which contributed to bad behavior. Alcohol was probably a contributing factor.

Had charges been pressed, had the case been tried and had Kavanaugh been found guilty, he might well have not been able to pursue education. Adolescents should be cut more slack than adults. But even in the case of adults, a relative minor sexual offense can crash a life, never mind a career. A prison record a public sexual offender list can make one untouchable.

If what is alleged to have happened did happen as described, I would still maintain that an adolescent should not be penalized for life.

At the present time, in Minnesota, what happened in Maryland would be 5th degree sexual assault

Fifth Degree – Engaging in nonconsensual sexual contact (not including touching a clothed butt, but including attempts to remove clothing covering victim’s intimate parts if done with sexual or aggressive intent) or knowingly masturbating or exposing one’s genitals in the presence of a child under 16.

Punishment: Fifth Degree – Typically a gross misdemeanor, it’s penalty is up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine up to $3,000.

Predatory Offender Registry - Most of these offenses will get you on the Minnesota sex offender registry. This severely impacts your life, including where you can work and live.

Even adults convicted of low level criminal sexual crimes should not be subjected to life-crashing events, where some public services are rendered unavailable; where suitable work will be difficult or impossible to obtain; where housing may be very difficult to rent, where credit is ruined, and so on and so forth.

What about the victim? People who have been sexually assaulted in a high or low level offense should receive appropriate counseling. Men who are assaulted (violently and sexually) are kind of expected to get on with their lives. I think women should have similar expectations. What is alleged to have happened to Ms. Ford should not have resulted in so much trauma that Mr. Kavanaugh should have forfeited an effective life. And of course, shouldn't forfeit an effective life either.

Violent first degree rape with prolonged trauma and significant physical injury is NOT what we are talking about here, and first degree rape has serious penalties attached, which is appropriate.

Just want to reemphasize that of the four scenarios I outlined, I only proposed, with reasons, the one that she is telling the truth and he is lying as the most likely. Any fair observer should recognize the possibility of the others, and analyze them in context. What should be dismissed out of hand though are absurdities like Ford didn't accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault; or that what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done does not qualify as a sexual assault; or that what he did no matter how it's considered legally was really nothing serious, that is was just misbehavior and so on.

But there is clearly some partisanship on both sides. And there shouldn't be any at all. — Baden

I wonder why this is. Maybe I'm oblivious to it, but there doesn't seem to be such partisanship here in the UK. When an MP is accused of wrongdoing I don't think about their party at all (and most of the time I don't even know it, or care to know).

Yes, in this case. But charges were not pressed and the statute of limitation on this event has expired; the alleged perpetrator was drunk, and underage himself. — Bitter Crank

You've conceded the point that it is an alleged crime we're talking about. Whether the statute of limitations has passed now or not is irrelevant to that fact. As for charges, they were not pressed because like most sexual assaults (see statistics above) the victim was too afraid and/or ashamed and/or traumatized to report. Plus, being drunk is not a defence against sexual assault. Plus, being under 18 (he was 17) is not a defence against sexual assault.

If what is alleged to have happened did happen as described, I would still maintain that an adolescent should not be penalized for life. — Bitter Crank

Even adults convicted of low level criminal sexual crimes should not be subjected to life-crashing events, where some public services are rendered unavailable; where suitable work will be difficult or impossible to obtain; where housing may be very difficult to rent, where credit is ruined, and so on and so forth. — Bitter Crank

I'm sure that's emotionally upsetting for them but so is being held down with a hand over your mouth while someone strips your clothes off. In some cases, you might be right that the punishment is too harsh, but you seem inordinately concerned with the abusers and markedly unconcerned about the victims. Why?

What is alleged to have happened to Ms. Ford should not have resulted in so much trauma that Mr. Kavanaugh should have forfeited an effective life. — Bitter Crank

Why? Try putting yourself in the mind of a fifteen-year-old girl who thinks she's being suffocated and raped. Is it so hard for you to imagine how that could result in serious continuing trauma? Really? And is it so hard for you to imagine that that outweighs the interests of the abuser who would suffer missing out on some opportunities. If it did happen, he chose to do it to her and to say she should have just shrugged it off is just to demonstrate either an inability to understand how the mind of adolescent females and vulnerable groups in general work, or just a lack of empathy for them, which is odd to me considering how much you seem to care for those who commit sexual crimes.

Just to add, if Kavanugh had fessed up, explained he was drunk, and has changed since then, and apologized to Ford in the right manner, I've said already maybe that should be the end of it. But he hasn't. So either he didn't do it at all, or he did do it and is lying and about to commit perjury which is a felony and punishable with jail time, and therefore is obviously disqualified. There's no middle ground now.

This was my point for the whole post. I am deeply sympathetic for people who have been sexually assaulted. It is her and her lawyers job to prove that she was assaulted in this way. They have no evidence whatsoever. — Questionall

This comment seems misguided in two respects. First, there is the issue of the standard of evidence. That the accused must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt is a standard that applies to criminal proceedings. It doesn't apply to Senate investigations, which are not criminal proceedings. The President as well as most GOP Senators are opposed to there being a criminal investigation, although I hear that there isn't a statute of limitations for this sort of crime in the relevant jurisdiction, so that it would still be possible for Mrs Ford to file a complaint with local authorities.

Secondly, even in the case where there is a criminal prosecution, the burden of proof doesn't belong to the victim of the alleged crime, or to her lawyers. In fact, most victims of crimes such as rape, robbery or murder don't have any need to hire a lawyer at all. They simply file a complaint (unless they've been murdered, of course). It is rather the law enforcement authorities who are tasked with investigating and, if they find sufficient ground, recommend the case to the prosecutor. If the prosecutor takes up the case, and files charges, they then have the burden of proving that the accused is guilty as charged. The victim may be called as a witness but doesn't personally have any kind of a burden of proof. Victims of crimes don't generally have the means, let alone the duty, to conduct a proper investigation.