You're wasting everyone's time here if you don't even know for sure what age he was when this happened or the circumstances surrounding how the accusations were released and the background to that. — Baden

Those questions were rhetorical. The one that wasn't was about statistics involving controversial political positions.

This question doesn't make sense to me as being rhetorical:

Why is it that accusations come out right before someone controversial is about to be elected or appointed? — Marchesk

There's a factual answer to it. What is your point? If your rhetorical point is the conspiracy theory angle, that's been dealt with several times already in this thread.

We're all ignorant of the facts. We only know what the respective parties said.

If your rhetorical point is the conspiracy theory angle, that's been dealt with several times already in this thread. — Baden

Calling it a conspiracy theory makes it sound like politics doesn't involve attempts to smear people or dig up skeletons to prevent them from taking office.

And how it's been dealt in this thread doesn't change my sense that the accusation is being used politically. How do you think the Senate vote will go? Democrats against, Republicans for?

^ Those two questions are rhetorical.

Then why are you arguing on the basis of things that weren't said? You expect us to respond to your false version of Blasey Ford's claims? If you are trying to discredit her claims, you need to be accurate about what she is actually claiming, obviously.

No, that's not the way it works. Eye-witness testimony is evidence. — Baden

It is, but I question whether humans are reliable enough to count it as evidence. There have been cases of picking the wrong person out of a lineup, or remembering the wrong face where a person gets convicted, and is later exonerated by DNA.

The Steven Avery rape case is one famous one. Another involved a man driving home with his fiancee who looked like the perp and was picked out of a lineup. The accuser became convinced it was him, and he was convicted. Years later, an investigator tracked down the actual culprit and got a confession out of him. The case got overturned.

There was also the whole false memory thing with the recovered memory therapy that was big in the wild 80s and 90s Satanic Ritual Abuse cases.

Calling it a conspiracy theory makes it sound like politics doesn't involve attempts to smear people or dig up skeletons to prevent them from taking office. — Marchesk

Of course, it does. But the circumstances surrounding the information's release mitigate against Ford being involved in a conspiracy to "take down" Kavanaugh.

And how it's been dealt in this thread doesn't change my sense that the accusation is being used politically. How do you think the Senate vote will go? Democrats against, Republicans for? — Marchesk

I agree it's being used politically. But that's not necessarily the victim's fault. And that's where we need to disentangle things and be careful how we approach the issue. Anyway, I think in the end one or two Republicans will vote no.

But that's not necessarily the victim's fault. And that's where we need to disentangle things and be careful how we approach the issue. — Baden

Agreed. That's up to each senator.

We only know what the respective parties said. — Hanover

But you demonstrably don't...

Yes, eye-witness testimony is problematic. But again, look at the details of the case. This was someone she knew and went to the same school with. She identified a close friend of his as being in the room, and that person is Kavanaugh's close friend, and a pattern of behaviour with regard to both of them has been identified that supports the plausibility of the "drunken party" situation. With regard to confabulations, that's why I suggested earlier a full investigation including a psychological assessment of Ford should be done. The way to get to the facts is to look for them. The Republicans don't want to do that. Therein lies the problem.

The way to get to the facts is to look for them. The Republicans don't want to do that. Therein lies the problem. — Baden

Fair enough.

We're all ignorant of the facts — Hanover

Do you support a proper investigation then to get at the facts?

The simplest and most straightforward explanation to all this is that Kavanaugh was a bad kid and is lying about it now to save his chance to get his dream job.

The most complicated and convoluted explanation to this is that it's a big conspiracy theory with Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez (and other as yet unnamed accusers) collaborating with Dems to take down a conservative nominee (even though his replacement is likely to be just another conservative nominee).

And there are plenty of other possibilities in between.

How to distinguish? Investigate. Why don't the Republicans want to investigate? Because they know, like all of us, that the simplest and most straightforward explanation usually turns out to be the true one.

It's a pity that you still haven't even researched what happened and are making your comments, like other supporters of Kavanaugh here, on the basis of an ignorance of the facts. — Baden

This is such nonsense. Yes, I overstated the number of people who were supposedly in the vicinity of the alleged event, and so you may now modify my statement to comport with the Ford's rendition, which changes nothing. An alleged attempted rape occurred in the close proximity of a handful of people, yet despite what I would assume to be a violent event (assuming, as I've never been witness to such an atrocity) there were no witnesses to it occurring or of the aftermath.

Trump just tweeted: "The Democrats are working hard to destroy a wonderful man, and a man who has the potential to be one of our greatest Supreme Court Justices ever, with an array of False Acquisitions the likes of which have never been seen before!"

Is an "Acquisition" somewhat of a cross between an inquisition and an accusation?

On edit: He now has deleted the tweet and reposted a corrected version.

"The Democrats are working hard to destroy a wonderful man, and a man who has the potential to be one of our greatest Supreme Court Justices ever, with an array of False Acquisitions the likes of which have never been seen before!" — Pierre-Normand

What a freaking drama queen. Everything is either the best or worst ever for Trump. He gets to appoint another judge if Kavanaugh is "destroyed".

The simplest and most straightforward explanation to all this is that Kavanaugh was a bad kid and is lying about it now to save his chance to get his dream job.

The most complicated and convoluted explanation to this is that it's a big conspiracy theory with Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez (and other as yet unnamed accusers) collaborating with Dems to take down a conservative nominee (even though his replacement is likely to be just another conservative nominee).

And there are plenty of other possibilities in between.

How to distinguish? Investigate. Why don't the Republicans want to investigate? Because they know, like all of us, that the simplest and most straightforward explanation usually turns out to be the true one. — Baden

Senate minority leader Schumer said back in January he would "use everything he's got" to stop the confirmation. Wouldn't the simplest explanation be that the Democrats are doing what they said they would and are prepared to throw everything they can at stopping the confirmation?

And why do you trust the single person who has said Kavanaugh was a bad kid when hundreds of women have signed a letter affirming his good character?

Do you support a proper investigation then to get at the facts? — Baden

I suppose, but I don't know what it would entail other than what we already know. He said he didn't. She said he did. Unless there's a super surprise witness who's going to spring into action and tell us he saw the whole thing, I don't know what else there is. Are we going to look closely into each of their eyes and decide who looks most believable?

The reason they rope off crime scenes is to preserve evidence, but they're like 35 years too late here, and I fear some things might have gotten moved and contaminated. So tell me what sort of "investigation" you envision taking place.

In fairness, "acquisition" is a word, and it's likely he misspelled "accusation" and spell check guessed wrong.

This is such nonsense. — Hanover

Really? So now you're claiming you're not ignorant of the facts? Then why did you say this:

So, could there have been a woman silently almost raped in the midst of a party filled with people, with the only witnesses being extremely loyal to the rapist and refusing to turn him in? — Hanover

When Ford's claim is this:

"Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help."

Yes, I overstated the number of people who were supposedly in the vicinity of the alleged event, — Hanover

And why did you overstate it? Why did you say this:

Am I to believe that a there was a party filled with sociopaths, some of whom were aware of the goings on at the party, but none of whom were at all alarmed by the behavior? — Hanover

When this is what Blasey Ford said:

"The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others."

So apart from Kavanaugh and Judge who were in the room, your crowd filling the party was two people.

"At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home."

https://obrag.org/2018/09/transcript-of-letter-prof-christine-blasey-ford-sent-to-senator-feinstein-accusing-judge-kavanaugh-of-attempted-rape/

So where did the party filled with "sociopaths" idea come from? Where did your idea that there is anything implausible at all about her leaving the party without the other two people (who were probably drunk and were talking with Kavanaugh and Judge when she left) seeing her or noticing something wrong?

An alleged attempted rape occurred in the close proximity of a handful of people, yet despite what I would assume to be a violent event (assuming, as I've never been witness to such an atrocity) there were no witnesses to it occurring or of the aftermath. — Hanover

The claim is that an alleged rape attempt occurred in a locked bedroom upstairs where music was being deliberately played to drown out any sounds. And there were only two other people in the house, who were downstairs.

If you had actually bothered to read the transcript, I guessed you never would have written that post. So, I charitably presumed you were just ignorant of the facts rather than trying to unfairly discredit the story.

but I don't know what it would entail other than what we already know — Hanover

The fact that you can't comprehend how the FBI or local investigators could possibly uncover any more facts in this case is irrelevant. If you're interested in the facts of any alleged crime or in justice for either party then you do an investigation. You don't throw your hands up and say because you have no idea how professional investigators uncover facts that maybe they shouldn't bother trying. There just is no other option in terms of getting closer to the truth.

Senate minority leader Schumer said back in January he would "use everything he's got" to stop the confirmation. Wouldn't the simplest explanation be that the Democrats are doing what they said they would and are prepared to throw everything they can at stopping the confirmation? — Hanover

No, because that isn't what he meant. For example, if I say, "I'll do everything I can to stop you beating me in our game of tennis next week" and then you get mysteriously murdered, it doesn't mean I killed you to prevent you winning. It's just a figure of speech. Getting involved in a conspiracy like that would destroy his career and the likely outcome would be just another conservative nominee. More to lose than gain.

Trump just tweeted: "The Democrats are working hard to destroy a wonderful man, and a man who has the potential to be one of our greatest Supreme Court Justices ever, with an array of False Acquisitions the likes of which have never been seen before!"

Is an "Acquisition" somewhat of a cross between an inquisition and an accusation? — Pierre-Normand

I do do that sort of thing myself sometimes. It's a lot funnier when he does it though. :D

Wouldn't the simplest explanation be that the Democrats are doing what they said they would and are prepared to throw everything they can at stopping the confirmation? — Hanover

Ford's description makes sense. What she describes is pretty common. The simplest explanation is that Kavanaugh has a history of sexual misconduct.

"According to the few details we had as of the weekend, the GOP has agreed to speak only to the man and woman concerned, thus confirming that there can only ever be a “he said” and a “she said”—a situation they claim to deplore even as they deliberately engineer it. (Despite repeated requests by Ford, they have so far refused to subpoena any potential witnesses, of which there are several—even though they might theoretically help Kavanaugh’s case, since they’ve said they have no memory of the party Ford describes.) But no: Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans insist that there’s no need for witnesses, or an FBI investigation.

...This is not a serious approach to Ford’s allegations, and senior Republicans have as much as admitted they have no intention of letting Ford’s account factor into their votes. “What am I supposed to do, go ahead and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation?” Sen. Lindsey Graham hyperbolized on Fox News Sunday—an unintentionally clear invocation of the fact that for powerful white men, not getting a promotion is what counts as life-ruining. Still, he said, “she should come forward. She should have her say. She will be respectfully treated.” This is contradictory rot.

It’s worth watching, then, how the GOP implodes through the internal pressure of their own oxymoronic mixed messaging: loudly announcing their indifference to a nominee’s alleged attempted rape while just as loudly promising to investigate it. ... On the other side of all this is Ford, whose account has not changed, and who has—after suffering an inundation of threats—had to go into hiding while trying to negotiate with an intimidating and hostile body the conditions under which she will testify. On Friday, the day Grassley demanded she answer him in one of several ultimatums, she was meeting with the FBI over death threats she’d received."

It's hard not to be deeply saddened by the cynicism and misanthropy on display.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanuagh-christine-blasey-ford-mistaken-identity.html

And why do you trust the single person who has said Kavanaugh was a bad kid when hundreds of women have signed a letter affirming his good character? — Hanover

There's at least three women accusing him of sexual assault. Avanetti has stated that he knows of multiple witnesses. His old roommate has also said that "based on my time with Debbie, I believe her to be unsually honest and straightforward and I cannot imagine her making this up. Based on my time with Brett, I believe that he and his social circle were capable of the actions that Debbie described."

And are you referring to the letter Grassley released? It was 65 women, not hundreds. Incidentally, one of them seems to have changed her mind after learning about a rude reference to her in his year book.

You seem to be (intentionally or not) understating the attacks and overstating his defence.

Senate minority leader Schumer said back in January he would "use everything he's got" to stop the confirmation. Wouldn't the simplest explanation be that the Democrats are doing what they said they would and are prepared to throw everything they can at stopping the confirmation? — Hanover

And Senate majority leader McConnell said back on Friday that "we're going to plow through" the accusations to put him on the Supreme Court, so the simplest explanation is that the Republicans are doing what they said they would do and are prepared to throw everything they can at getting the confirmation.

Although like your claim, I don't understand the relevance of this to the veracity of the allegations. Are you perhaps accusing the accusers of being Democrat stooges who are lying to sabotage the confirmation? I suppose I could just as well accuse Kavanaugh's defenders of being Republican stooges who are lying to save the confirmation.

So what's our recourse? How about an investigation and requesting (or subpoenaing) the sworn testimony of all relevant parties?

I'm hoping Blasey Ford remembers a salient detail about Kavanaugh's anatomy and he's forced to drop his pants.

Why is it that accusations come out right before someone controversial is about to be elected or appointed? — Marchesk

I think this might answer your question, if it is a genuine question rather than a rhetorical expression of wilful incredulity.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/24/christine-blasey-ford-brave-woman-brett-kavanaugh?CMP=fb_gu

Why is it that accusations come out right before someone controversial is about to be elected or appointed? Isn't this accusation from decades ago when he was 17? — Marchesk

It's no accident that sexual assaults are under-reported. There are plenty of reasons for why victims don't come forward. But finding out that your assailant has been nominated to the Supreme Court is clearly sufficient motivation to speak out.

But finding out that your assailant has been nominated to the Supreme Court is [clearly sufficient motivation to speak out. — Michael

Could also be that he might be instrumental in overturning Roe v Wade if he's nominated. But there are other accusations, so ...