I again have no idea what medical records Ellison's accuser is referring to. I read multiple articles talking about them, yet I couldn't for the life of me understand whether they were referring to signs of physical assault (which I would assume would cause him to be arrested) or if she is talking about emotional trauma related to psychological abuse. Again, much like with the videotape, if those medical records show he flat-out physically assaulted her, it would be mighty helpful to see that evidence. I'm not the one bringing them up, she is.
Edit: I just found an article (in the HYPER conservative Washington Times, but I'll go with it for now) in which she has a 2017 medical record that says she was being treated for anemia due to the stress of living with Ellison. I don't know what exactly I'm supposed to do with that information. I am actively going out of my way to find evidence of his physical abuse anywhere I can, I'm just not coming across it. I am seeing signs of someone emotionally scarred from the relationship, for whatever that is worth.
Edit 2: Here is the Newsweek article published less than an hour ago. It has the medical report. It states her claims of emotional stress and physical abuse, but also states that she had never been treated for physical injuries in the past at that clinic.
I can also say as a native Minnesotan that Park Nicollet has a MASSIVE health care presence in the Twin Cities and suburbs. If she had been treated for a physical assault, it is highly likely it would have been at one of their facilities. I'm just presenting information here. I don't fully understand why she would release this medical report and not the alleged videotape, but that is her prerogative. The only thing I'm saying is that she could end his career in public life if it was made public. If it isn't made public after we have been told it exists, I'm not sure where we are supposed to go from there. I am more inclined to believe her than not, but again, you can't say a video of the incident exists and then not produce it and expect anything to happen.
I also think implying that the medical report proves the physical abuse is stretching it. On the one hand, it DOES provide a contemporaneous allegation made in a physician's office (which is no different than what Professor Ford did 6 years ago, incidentally). But it also seems to go out of it's way to mention that she had never been treated for any such physical assault in the past at any one of their facilities, and that part doesn't strike me as being thrown in by accident. Regardless, I'm presenting the most detailed info I can find. It just seems to me (and I've read it 3 or 4 times) that the medical report is fairly neutral on the allegation we are talking about here. She is clearly stressed, does make the claims as to why she is stressed, but also flat-out states that she never sought medical treatment for any injuries. That does NOT mean they didn't happen. It does not mean she didn't go somewhere else to treat them (though I would assume we would be seeing that medical report as well if that was the case). It doesn't mean I don't believe her. But she is also at the same time claiming to have concrete, irrefutable evidence that she won't produce in the videotape. If it wasn't for that wrinkle, I'd be 100% convinced. The whole "we have a video but we won't show it" angle is actually hurting her credibility, not helping it.
My take is that Ellison almost certainly was emotionally abusive, and in all likelihood probably did attempt to drag her off the bed in a fit of rage. Given the story from the woman in 2006 about him shoving her, it lends more credibility to that claim. So what I would gather from both of them is that Ellison can (and likely has) been brought to the point where he was willing to drag a woman off a bed or shove her. Which is not good and could certainly technically be considered simple assault. It also strikes me as the kind of thing that happens in alot of arguments between couples, and I DON'T see any evidence of actual beatings (namely, punching, kicking, slapping, etc). So people can make up their own minds about this one. I just don't know how much more in-depth I can get on this thing. This is what we have as far as the information, I can't find anymore.
See, that's the kind of honesty I respect. It is abundantly obvious the underlying motive for this being pushed isn't concern for sexual assault victims or for punishing abusers, it's political power. The pretense otherwise was painfully false.
Depends on who is doing the pushing I guess. I have no political allegiance, but that doesn't mean I don't have views about what type of person is appropriate for important office.
When else to bring up that the guy tried to rape than now? Wait until after he's confirmed to a lifetime position on the SC by Republicans who are pushing his nomination through without any real investigation into his character?
She's told others before. Someone said they heard this 30 yrs ago, she also told her therapist in 2012.
He doesn't deserve to be seated on the Supreme Court. That's not Ford's fault it's HIS.
@smeagolheart Yes. Trump is saying they should have brought this up a month ago when they first got the information. Except Dr. Ford didn't want to testify at the time. When her name came out (thanks to Newsweek), she was not really given a choice and decided to come forward and step up to testify.
Even the third person in the room doesn't say it didn't happen. He says he doesn't remember it happening, but given that he wrote a book on being a "Gen X Alcoholic", it's possible, it did happen, but he was too boozed up to remember it.
I think the one thing that should be beyond dispute is that we should be able to find a Supreme Court justice candidate who has no such history. Kavanaugh isn't the only possible option. There are others.
I don't really have much else to say about this shameful theater, so i'll leave it at this.
As a society we set up our laws on the basis of the idea that we are innocent until proven guilty.
Democrat politicians want to base public life on trial by media blitz where you are guilty if they can gain power from your fall, and if you are on their side nobody will ever hear of it.
It is evil, and innocent people, sooner or later, are bound to be branded as the worst sort of human being because of it.
By selfishly politicizing the issue, you knowingly cast doubt on the sincerity of the charges by way of a combination of obvious ulterior motives and lack of conclusive evidence, lowering the chances that she will be believed. It doesn't help the victim, it hurts them, it uses them as a puppet, weakening her case in the process, for their own ends.
Meanwhile how many abusers that we could actually identify with certainty are protected by the very same people.
Increasing your political power is not a greater good where ends justify means and where peoples lives are to by toyed with.
I don't really have much else to say about this shameful theater, so i'll leave it at this.
As a society we set up our laws on the basis of the idea that we are innocent until proven guilty.
Democrat politicians want to base public life on trial by media blitz where you are guilty if they can gain power from your fall, and if you are on their side nobody will ever hear of it.
It is evil, and innocent people, sooner or later, are bound to be branded as the worst sort of human being because of it.
By selfishly politicizing the issue, you knowingly cast doubt on the sincerity of the charges by way of a combination of obvious ulterior motives and lack of conclusive evidence, lowering the chances that she will be believed. It doesn't help the victim, it hurts them, it uses them as a puppet, weakening her case in the process, for their own ends.
Meanwhile how many abusers that we could actually identify with certainty are protected by the very same people.
Increasing your political power is not a greater good where ends justify means and where peoples lives are to by toyed with.
I literally typed out thousands of words about Keith Ellison the moment it was brought up. I spent a good chunk of my afternoon on it today. Granted, I have nothing to do til Monday, but I could have spent it doing literally ANYTHING else.
Yes, we set up our laws based on presumption of innocence, but I don't think there is a single person here who thinks Kavanaugh is going to jail over this. This isn't a court of law. This is a about a Supreme Court nomination. In just the last two years, we have had a nominee rejected based on nothing more than the fact that he was nominated by a Democratic President. The idea that one shouldn't be rejected (or at least have his nomination called into question) over an attempted rape allegation is absurd.
There would be doubt cast on the charges whether it was political or not. Look at the Washington Post article I shared this afternoon. She was destroyed not because she accused a Supreme Court nominee, but because her alleged rapists were athletes in a small town. Law enforcement doesn't take accusations like this seriously, school administrators don't take them seriously, often PARENTS don't take them seriously. I wouldn't expect an accusation made on the national stage to reflect anything but a massive simulacrum of that line of thinking. Which it conveniently has, to the point of the accuser going into hiding with her teenage children because of (highly predictable) death threats.
So what are we supposed to do here, ignore it?? And yes, it's political. And I'll tell you why. Wikipedia's first sentence about politics is:
Politics is the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group. It refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance—organized control over a human community, particularly a state.
Now, the reason this particular thread is so contentious, and so wide-ranging in it's scope of issues being discussed (even if one man in recent years has been at the center of all of it) is because of this definition. Because nearly EVERYTHING is politics. People want to escape it, they say they hate it, but sooner or later you realize, it's everywhere, it's everything.
Yeah - this whole situation is a complete charade. It's pretty much all the GOP's fault, too.
Kavanaugh may (or may not) have attempted to rape a woman. She (and he) deserve to be heard and for this process to be approached earnestly. It is entirely disqualifying if he did attempt to rape her. If he did not, then he deserves the chance to be placed on the supreme court.
The problem is - the Republicans are in a major hurry to seat him as soon as possible. Why? Because they know that if the Midterms put the Democrats in control of the senate, then they'll stonewall any nomination and keep the Supreme Court at 8 members. Of course - that is *only* because the GOP violated that sacred institutional norm themselves in 2016.
In all likelihood, we're going to end up with a supreme court nominee that has not been properly vetted due to the GOP's haste to avoid suffering the consequences of their own de-legitimization of institutional norms.
Either they'll both testify and her life will be utterly ruined (as much as it might have already been ruined), or she wont testify and he'll be placed onto the supreme court without an investigation into an alleged attempted rape.
The "correct" outcome here should be an indepth investigation that either corroborates or fails to corroborates her account. If it fails to offer any corroborating evidenced, then he should be seated. He should even be seated if the Democrats win the senate (Or, at worst - he should be pushed back and someone else is seated with fewer warts, but who is still conservative). Of course, neither of these things will happen. The GOP's already burned that institutional norm to the ground, and the Democrats would be foolish to ever assume the GOP wouldnt do it again. The GOP will never get to live down the theft of a SCOTUS seat.
And what about the woman in this? Dr. Ford? She's had to go into hiding with her kids because of, you know, actual death threats. That's not right. either. Kavanaugh can be "Rehabilitated", but she will never get over this. Hell, Anita Hill is still blamed for what she did and said about Clarence Thomas nearly 30 years ago!
Why does the male get to be forgiven and get on with his life, and the woman never does?
Yeah - this whole situation is a complete charade. It's pretty much all the GOP's fault, too.
Kavanaugh may (or may not) have attempted to rape a woman. She (and he) deserve to be heard and for this process to be approached earnestly. It is entirely disqualifying if he did attempt to rape her. If he did not, then he deserves the chance to be placed on the supreme court.
The problem is - the Republicans are in a major hurry to seat him as soon as possible. Why? Because they know that if the Midterms put the Democrats in control of the senate, then they'll stonewall any nomination and keep the Supreme Court at 8 members. Of course - that is *only* because the GOP violated that sacred institutional norm themselves in 2016.
In all likelihood, we're going to end up with a supreme court nominee that has not been properly vetted due to the GOP's haste to avoid suffering the consequences of their own de-legitimization of institutional norms.
Either they'll both testify and her life will be utterly ruined (as much as it might have already been ruined), or she wont testify and he'll be placed onto the supreme court without an investigation into an alleged attempted rape.
The "correct" outcome here should be an indepth investigation that either corroborates or fails to corroborates her account. If it fails to offer any corroborating evidenced, then he should be seated. He should even be seated if the Democrats win the senate (Or, at worst - he should be pushed back and someone else is seated with fewer warts, but who is still conservative). Of course, neither of these things will happen. The GOP's already burned that institutional norm to the ground, and the Democrats would be foolish to ever assume the GOP wouldnt do it again. The GOP will never get to live down the theft of a SCOTUS seat.
I "liked" rather than "agreed" with this because even though most of what you said is absolutely spot-on, I can't ever again support the sitting of any Justice appointed by a Republican President until what happened in 2016 takes place in the exact opposite direction to even the score (meaning a Democratic Senate stops a Republican nomination, holds it open until a Democrat takes the White House, and fills that seat). And that may sound petty and vindictive, but anything else is simply unilaterally surrendering to what was basically a theft of democracy itself. Hell, they could have held a hearing for Garland and voted him down and at least had plausible deniability to this charge, but they didn't even do that because they were just THAT brazen about it. The only answer any Democrat ever has to provide to any pushback about how they treat the Supreme Court nomination process is two words, "Merrick Garland", and the argument is over.
But everything you said about institutional norms is correct. They relied on people who had SOME sense of good faith to implement them. And they have, in rapid succession in all branches of the government, started to completely disintegrate. Our institutions and norms will not save us. Only we can save ourselves.
He doesn't deserve to be seated regardless of the rape accusations.
He's lied under oath numerous times about things like saying he didn't do things and then Booker released emails showing he was deeply involved. He probably had a part on leaking hacked democratic emails he received in 2003 containing documents stolen from Democratic senators and staff. A staffer wrote to him with the subject line “spying”. Trump has hidden his records from the Bush administration years when this happened.
And on top of that he's completely a corporate sellout* and wrong on all the issues so no if he is so good as to not attempt to rape someone that does not make him Supreme Court material.
Bottom line: He doesn't belong on the Supreme Court regardless of if he is totally innocent of clearing the low bar of not attempting to rape someone. But based on his best friend's book and Kavanaugh saying things like "What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep". He has admitted binge drinking with his blackout alcoholic best friend.
On top of all that he's handpicked by a President who is an unindicted co-conspirator in at least two felonies. The same President who is actively interfering in an investigation into his campaign. So you have to wonder about the guy. Not raping is not "well ok let's put him on the supreme court then".
Why are Republicans so afraid and rushing him through? You've got to wonder, are they rushing him through to cover Trump's ass when Mueller tries to subpoena him and the case winds up at the Supreme Court?
@smeagolheart exactly. When it came to Merrick Garland, they had no problem not appointing someone for 8+ months, but now that Trump might get impeached, they have to have another conservative justice on the court to save his butt in case he *does* get impeached. That's why the hurry. Trump needs someone to CYA (so to speak, it's more like CHA H=his) so the rush to push Kavanaugh through in order to make sure Trump doesn't get kicked out on his fanny.
As much as they like to talk about "activist liberal justices", the ULTIMATE goal of the conservative movement in America has been to get this lock on the court for a generation or more, and they are inches away from achieving that goal. Which is why nothing will stop them. Certainly not something like an attempted rape allegation. This is decade-long project about to be fulfilled. The combo of Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh (and I wouldn't put it past Thomas to retire before 2020 to give Trump ANOTHER pick) is a recipe for nothing less than oligarchy. The right to an abortion is almost certainly gone. After that, they will come after the right to birth control. You can bet that discrimination laws against gay and transgender Americans will be upheld. Perhaps the ONLY thing stopping them from overturning the gay marriage decision would be the fact that they would have to invalidate the currently legal marriages of millions of people, and it would likely also spark massive social disobedience across the country.
Conservative legal groups will have cases lined up and ready to be filed the moment Kavanaugh gets on the bench. And of course, they will also likely affirm Trump's claim of total executive power and make him immune from the law. This has always been the goal, and no matter what any individual Republican Senator who is trying to sound reasonable like Jeff Flake or Susan Collins SAYS, they will not get on board to stop this. This IS the movement. This is the end-game. They stole a Supreme Court seat to get here. Don't let yourself be fooled into thinking any of them are actually considering torpedoing 30 years of conservative activism. They don't give a shit. None of them do. As I've said before, the Republican Party understands how to exercise raw power, and the Democrats, like Charlie Brown when Lucy holds out the football, keep acting like they are dealing with people operating in good faith. They aren't. They haven't been since at least the mid-90s. I've been watching the Republican Party devolve into what it is today for 18 years, and not a single thing that is happening surprises me anymore. There is nothing they won't defend or excuse. There is no bottom to the barrel, it's just an endless black pit that goes on forever. The Overton Window has already been moved so far to right that it's impossible to even see where it used to be situated. Please do not bet on moderate Republicans to miraculously come to your aid. You are chasing a unicorn.
How might one investigate these allegations? It's not like there is going to be physical evidence and any testimony is very unreliable after so much time has passed.
How might one investigate these allegations? It's not like there is going to be physical evidence and any testimony is very unreliable after so much time has passed.
I would imagine it would involve interviewing both the accuser, Kavanaugh, and this Mark Judge character (who is turning out to be an absolute monster in his personal beliefs according to those who have known him). I would also imagine they'd contact people from the school who may have been at the party or heard about it afterwards. I have already read at least two Facebook posts from people who went to either Kavanaugh or the accuser's school who say this story was absolutely floating around at the time. Whether they are real accounts are not, who knows. But one thing is certain: Professor Ford wants to talk to the FBI. Kavanaugh and Judge don't seem interested. Lying to the FBI is a crime. Make of that what you will.
How might one investigate these allegations? It's not like there is going to be physical evidence and any testimony is very unreliable after so much time has passed.
... But one thing is certain: Professor Ford wants to talk to the FBI. Kavanaugh and Judge don't seem interested. Lying to the FBI is a crime. Make of that what you will.
It's a false equivalence...When making out an impression about people and their truthfulness based on their willingness to talk to police/investigators, you can't look at them independently from their role: if they're the accused or the accuser. I haven't read that Kavanaugh would not talk to FBI about the allegation if they incorporated it into their vetting investigation. It's possible, but it's something that needs to be well understood by the public.
He already said he didn't do it. If I was him and had a real choice of whether to talk to the FBI i would not talk. Investigators can learn things that you have forgotten or come to conclusions based on their findings that are contrary to what you believe is true. They can also lie to you and manipulate the picture of the events in your head, which may cause you to state something differently, which instantly makes you a "liar". He certainly knows that it's very important to stick firmly to what you've already said, and if you are given an opportunity to repeat it, NOT to repeat but say, "I've already answered that" (even if it's just one sentence such as "i didn't do it"). I can't hold this against anyone, including a supreme court nominee (including one that's really terrible...).
Again, I think the more disqualifying factor is Kavanaugh's previous perjury and the Trump administration's sudden and unexplained classification of 100,000 pages of documentation on Kavanaugh's service during the Bush years. Perjury should disqualify a Supreme Court justice (or honestly, any position as a federal judge) and the confirmation process should not end until the Senate and the public have full access to Kavanaugh's record.
The FBI's check of Anita Hill's allegations before her testimony took 3 days. 3 days. If Trump had allowed it, it would have likely been finished by tomorrow. They are clearly afraid to do it, but more importantly, they won't because they don't want the optics of Professor Ford being questioned by 60-80 year-old Republican men on the Judiciary, and her request to have it looked into first was a pre-requisite for her showing up. From John McCain's campaign manager in 2008:
Edit: Good lord, now the working theory on right-wing Twitter is that a Kavanaugh doppelganger is the one who actually committed the rape, and the leader of the Ethics and Policy Center (and writer for the National Review) has gone so far as to accuse this person BY NAME of being the person who actually committed the assault. Not only does this by default assume that the incident took place, but they are actually flat-out willing to accuse someone who the accuser never mentioned of committing a crime to cover up for Kavanaugh. For the record, the man (and I will not subject his name to further smearing) does NOT look like Kavanaugh's identical twin. An account from an accuser is one thing. What this guy is doing is flat-out libel.
The Times has a pretty thorough story of the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. Most of the information is well-known background stuff, but an interesting tidbit is a Russian operation that could have resulted in actual violence in the United States: three separate protests organized simultaneous by Russian trolls on the same day, on the same location, between three groups hand-picked for their hatred and mistrust of one another. It started with Heart of Texas, a fake Facebook page created by Russian agents, calling on people to "Stop Islamization of Texas" by converging at an Islamic center in Houston, the Islamic Da’wah Center, on May 21, 2016. "Heart of Texas" further encouraged people to arrive at the scene carrying firearms, which they did. Houston police managed to keep them away from counterprotestors, some of whom were also acting on a Russian call to action. On top of that, Russian agents posing as another group, the United Muslims of America, asked even more people to rally at the center to “Save Islamic Knowledge.” If the Houston police hadn't separated the groups, there could have easily been a lethal shootout.
It's a direct example of Russian agents not just meddling in our democratic elections, but actively attempting to get American citizens killed.
The Times has a pretty thorough story of the Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. Most of the information is well-known background stuff, but an interesting tidbit is a Russian operation that could have resulted in actual violence in the United States: three separate protests organized simultaneous by Russian trolls on the same day, on the same location, between three groups hand-picked for their hatred and mistrust of one another. It started with Heart of Texas, a fake Facebook page created by Russian agents, calling on people to "Stop Islamization of Texas" by converging at an Islamic center in Houston, the Islamic Da’wah Center, on May 21, 2016. "Heart of Texas" further encouraged people to arrive at the scene carrying firearms, which they did. Houston police managed to keep them away from counterprotestors, some of whom were also acting on a Russian call to action. On top of that, Russian agents posing as another group, the United Muslims of America, asked even more people to rally at the center to “Save Islamic Knowledge.” If the Houston police hadn't separated the groups, there could have easily been a lethal shootout.
It's a direct example of Russian agents not just meddling in our democratic elections, but actively attempting to get American citizens killed.
It's almost as if the main Russian plan was to specifically play on American paranoia, xenophobia and bigotry. Wonder where they got the idea that that would work............
My guess is that a comprehensive study of their work on social media would reveal 3 objectives in this regard: Keep up the rampant Islamaphobia and paranoia that is still a residual effect of 9/11, do everything they could to turn middle-American white voters against the Black Lives Matter movement, and turn Latin American immigration into an apocalyptic problem. None of these would be hard things to do in this country. The ground was already paved.
There's also an extremely dense timeline with dates and details for all sorts of things relating to Russian interference. They even color-coded each event by type: contact between Trump officials and Russian officials, social media fraud, Russian hacking, Trump administration denials of wrongdoing, and the Russia probe. The details involve all kinds of events, large and small. It's a very detailed timeline.
This attempt by a well-connected and known conservative legal figure in Washington named Ed Whelen to push this doppelganger theory and pin this assault on another man has taken over Twitter tonight. And frankly, it's becoming pretty clear this has been a coordinated effort. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Orrin Hatch has deleted a tweet in which he advised people to watch for Whelen's story. The line of attack is now clear. They aren't going to say the assault didn't happen. They are going to say she's a "confused woman", and attempt to pin the act on someone who they think looks vaguely like Kavanaugh (he doesn't, but that's beside the point). This is going to be a story in the coming days. And Kavanaugh needs to be asked under oath if he has participated in this effort. Frankly, every Democrat on the Judiciary committee should simply cede all their time to Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, two former prosecutors who can eat him for lunch if given the chance in this scenario.
There has been alot of talk here the last few days about how it is basically unfair that Kavanaugh has to answer to this charge. I disagree, but I'd like to know what those people think about the fact that the GOP is now (through shadowy but well-connected surrogates) literally trying to pin an attempted rape on some random guy who has a vaguely similar haircut to Kavanaugh in a yearbook. For the record, Professor Ford has said she knows them both, and is NOT confused. But she is woman, so obviously she is very emotional, and her judgement cannot be trusted. I mean, we all know how that goes:
This kind of fantastical nonsense is no surprise to anyone who remembers the politics of the '90s, when the fever-swamp took over, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of everything from running a cocaine smuggling ring to having people killed and their bodies left on train tracks in Arkansas. Kavanaugh HIMSELF even reopened the case into the suicide of Vince Foster, because the prevailing theory on in right-wing media in those days was that Hillary Clinton had had him murdered.
This attempt by a well-connected and known conservative legal figure in Washington named Ed Whelen to push this doppelganger theory and pin this assault on another man has taken over Twitter tonight. And frankly, it's becoming pretty clear this has been a coordinated effort. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Orrin Hatch has deleted a tweet in which he advised people to watch for Whelen's story. The line of attack is now clear. They aren't going to say the assault didn't happen. They are going to say she's a "confused woman", and attempt to pin the act on someone who they think looks vaguely like Kavanaugh (he doesn't, but that's beside the point). This is going to be a story in the coming days. And Kavanaugh needs to be asked under oath if he has participated in this effort. Frankly, every Democrat on the Judiciary committee should simply cede all their time to Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, two former prosecutors who can eat him for lunch if given the chance in this scenario.
There has been alot of talk here the last few days about how it is basically unfair that Kavanaugh has to answer to this charge. I disagree, but I'd like to know what those people think about the fact that the GOP is now (through shadowy but well-connected surrogates) literally trying to pin an attempted rape on some random guy who has a vaguely similar haircut to Kavanaugh in a yearbook. For the record, Professor Ford has said she knows them both, and is NOT confused. But she is woman, so obviously she is very emotional, and her judgement cannot be trusted. I mean, we all know how that goes:
This kind of fantastical nonsense is no surprise to anyone who remembers the politics of the '90s, when the fever-swamp took over, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of everything from running a cocaine smuggling ring to having people killed and their bodies left on train tracks in Arkansas. Kavanaugh HIMSELF even reopened the case into the suicide of Vince Foster, because the prevailing theory on in right-wing media in those days was that Hillary Clinton had had him murdered.
Here is something for you to chew on:
What if "Kavanaugh's twin" is in on it and admits publicly that it was him who committed the act all those years ago and apologizes for the hurt and suffering he has caused Ford all these years. To top it off, the other guy that was involved in the attempted rape also claims that it was the twin there and not Kavanaugh. You now have 3 people saying it wasn't Kavanaugh and only one saying it was.
Then, with no crime being committed (no one was saying Kavanaugh would go to jail/face punishment for this), he goes back to obscurity with some little payout, Kavanaugh goes to the Supreme Court, Republicans can cancel the hearing where they don't have to find out the truth because someone already confessed to it - saving face, and Ford goes back to California and probably therapy cheated.
They already found all those girls to sign the letter vetting for Kavanaugh, who's to say they also didn't find this guy as plan B at the same time?
This attempt by a well-connected and known conservative legal figure in Washington named Ed Whelen to push this doppelganger theory and pin this assault on another man has taken over Twitter tonight. And frankly, it's becoming pretty clear this has been a coordinated effort. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Orrin Hatch has deleted a tweet in which he advised people to watch for Whelen's story. The line of attack is now clear. They aren't going to say the assault didn't happen. They are going to say she's a "confused woman", and attempt to pin the act on someone who they think looks vaguely like Kavanaugh (he doesn't, but that's beside the point). This is going to be a story in the coming days. And Kavanaugh needs to be asked under oath if he has participated in this effort. Frankly, every Democrat on the Judiciary committee should simply cede all their time to Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, two former prosecutors who can eat him for lunch if given the chance in this scenario.
There has been alot of talk here the last few days about how it is basically unfair that Kavanaugh has to answer to this charge. I disagree, but I'd like to know what those people think about the fact that the GOP is now (through shadowy but well-connected surrogates) literally trying to pin an attempted rape on some random guy who has a vaguely similar haircut to Kavanaugh in a yearbook. For the record, Professor Ford has said she knows them both, and is NOT confused. But she is woman, so obviously she is very emotional, and her judgement cannot be trusted. I mean, we all know how that goes:
This kind of fantastical nonsense is no surprise to anyone who remembers the politics of the '90s, when the fever-swamp took over, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of everything from running a cocaine smuggling ring to having people killed and their bodies left on train tracks in Arkansas. Kavanaugh HIMSELF even reopened the case into the suicide of Vince Foster, because the prevailing theory on in right-wing media in those days was that Hillary Clinton had had him murdered.
Here is something for you to chew on:
What if "Kavanaugh's twin" is in on it and admits publicly that it was him who committed the act all those years ago and apologizes for the hurt and suffering he has caused Ford all these years. To top it off, the other guy that was involved in the attempted rape also claims that it was the twin there and not Kavanaugh. You now have 3 people saying it wasn't Kavanaugh and only one saying it was.
Then, with no crime being committed (no one was saying Kavanaugh would go to jail/face punishment for this), he goes back to obscurity with some little payout, Kavanaugh goes to the Supreme Court, Republicans can cancel the hearing where they don't have to find out the truth because someone already confessed to it - saving face, and Ford goes back to California and probably therapy cheated.
They already found all those girls to sign the letter vetting for Kavanaugh, who's to say they also didn't find this guy as plan B at the same time?
The guy whose name is being thrown out as a possible attacker actually IS a person who has signed a letter in support of Kavanaugh. Again, I'm at this point not going to repeat his name, but he is one of the signatories of a letter from Georgetown Prep alum to the judiciary vouching for his character. So this whole patsy theory you have come up with is......not out of the question. I have the document saved in case this story takes another turn, but I don't feel right publishing it because it literally lists his name, occupation, and town. I honestly only considered what you are suggesting in the last hour or so, but it is starting to seem more and more plausible. But I have a hard time coming to grips with the idea this guy would sacrifice his career for something like this.
This attempt by a well-connected and known conservative legal figure in Washington named Ed Whelen to push this doppelganger theory and pin this assault on another man has taken over Twitter tonight. And frankly, it's becoming pretty clear this has been a coordinated effort. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Orrin Hatch has deleted a tweet in which he advised people to watch for Whelen's story. The line of attack is now clear. They aren't going to say the assault didn't happen. They are going to say she's a "confused woman", and attempt to pin the act on someone who they think looks vaguely like Kavanaugh (he doesn't, but that's beside the point). This is going to be a story in the coming days. And Kavanaugh needs to be asked under oath if he has participated in this effort. Frankly, every Democrat on the Judiciary committee should simply cede all their time to Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar, two former prosecutors who can eat him for lunch if given the chance in this scenario.
There has been alot of talk here the last few days about how it is basically unfair that Kavanaugh has to answer to this charge. I disagree, but I'd like to know what those people think about the fact that the GOP is now (through shadowy but well-connected surrogates) literally trying to pin an attempted rape on some random guy who has a vaguely similar haircut to Kavanaugh in a yearbook. For the record, Professor Ford has said she knows them both, and is NOT confused. But she is woman, so obviously she is very emotional, and her judgement cannot be trusted. I mean, we all know how that goes:
This kind of fantastical nonsense is no surprise to anyone who remembers the politics of the '90s, when the fever-swamp took over, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of everything from running a cocaine smuggling ring to having people killed and their bodies left on train tracks in Arkansas. Kavanaugh HIMSELF even reopened the case into the suicide of Vince Foster, because the prevailing theory on in right-wing media in those days was that Hillary Clinton had had him murdered.
Here is something for you to chew on:
What if "Kavanaugh's twin" is in on it and admits publicly that it was him who committed the act all those years ago and apologizes for the hurt and suffering he has caused Ford all these years. To top it off, the other guy that was involved in the attempted rape also claims that it was the twin there and not Kavanaugh. You now have 3 people saying it wasn't Kavanaugh and only one saying it was.
Then, with no crime being committed (no one was saying Kavanaugh would go to jail/face punishment for this), he goes back to obscurity with some little payout, Kavanaugh goes to the Supreme Court, Republicans can cancel the hearing where they don't have to find out the truth because someone already confessed to it - saving face, and Ford goes back to California and probably therapy cheated.
They already found all those girls to sign the letter vetting for Kavanaugh, who's to say they also didn't find this guy as plan B at the same time?
Lol don't give them anymore ideas. They are already great at lying and obscuring the truth.
So at this point a few things are clear. Kavanaugh is upfront about the whole thing, he is willing to testify and risk perjury if he is lying. Ford, on the other hand, is playing political games, demanding no questions from Kavanaugh's defense, reversing the entire process and demanding Kavanaugh testify *first*, demanding an FBI investigation that will never happen before testifying, and so on. This is ever more looking like someone who isn't interested in sharing the truth. These are not serious demands, not even close. Nor do they help to bring the truth to light, quite the opposite. I wouldn't be surprised at this point if these demands were designed to be rejected, so they could cry about how the mean republican nazis won't let them have their show trial.
Usually investigation takes places by the authorities in charge of investigating the matter, and for 30 yr old state crimes, that is literally not the FBI's job. Which is why they aren't going to do it. Her lawyers know this, i'm sure.
I imagine her lawyers are looking at the only precedent available in relation to a Supreme Court nomination - when the FBI did indeed investigate a historic sexual abuse claim. If they were asked to investigate I'm sure they would, though I agree it seems extremely unlikely that they will be asked to do so. I think she has recognized that's not going to happen as the investigation is not on her current list of requests (which are still being negotiated). Those are reported as: - Prof Ford will not testify if Judge Kavanaugh is in the room - Judge Kavanaugh must testify first - There can be no appearance before next Thursday - Questions to be posed preferably by senators and not outside counsel - Mark Judge, who is reported to have been a witness to the alleged assault, should be subpoenaed to appear - Agrees to a public hearing but wants limits on the media coverage
I don't think her demands are aimed at preventing her from testifying.
Comments
Edit: I just found an article (in the HYPER conservative Washington Times, but I'll go with it for now) in which she has a 2017 medical record that says she was being treated for anemia due to the stress of living with Ellison. I don't know what exactly I'm supposed to do with that information. I am actively going out of my way to find evidence of his physical abuse anywhere I can, I'm just not coming across it. I am seeing signs of someone emotionally scarred from the relationship, for whatever that is worth.
Edit 2: Here is the Newsweek article published less than an hour ago. It has the medical report. It states her claims of emotional stress and physical abuse, but also states that she had never been treated for physical injuries in the past at that clinic.
https://www.newsweek.com/accuser-reiterates-abuse-claims-against-keith-ellison-1129202
I can also say as a native Minnesotan that Park Nicollet has a MASSIVE health care presence in the Twin Cities and suburbs. If she had been treated for a physical assault, it is highly likely it would have been at one of their facilities. I'm just presenting information here. I don't fully understand why she would release this medical report and not the alleged videotape, but that is her prerogative. The only thing I'm saying is that she could end his career in public life if it was made public. If it isn't made public after we have been told it exists, I'm not sure where we are supposed to go from there. I am more inclined to believe her than not, but again, you can't say a video of the incident exists and then not produce it and expect anything to happen.
I also think implying that the medical report proves the physical abuse is stretching it. On the one hand, it DOES provide a contemporaneous allegation made in a physician's office (which is no different than what Professor Ford did 6 years ago, incidentally). But it also seems to go out of it's way to mention that she had never been treated for any such physical assault in the past at any one of their facilities, and that part doesn't strike me as being thrown in by accident. Regardless, I'm presenting the most detailed info I can find. It just seems to me (and I've read it 3 or 4 times) that the medical report is fairly neutral on the allegation we are talking about here. She is clearly stressed, does make the claims as to why she is stressed, but also flat-out states that she never sought medical treatment for any injuries. That does NOT mean they didn't happen. It does not mean she didn't go somewhere else to treat them (though I would assume we would be seeing that medical report as well if that was the case). It doesn't mean I don't believe her. But she is also at the same time claiming to have concrete, irrefutable evidence that she won't produce in the videotape. If it wasn't for that wrinkle, I'd be 100% convinced. The whole "we have a video but we won't show it" angle is actually hurting her credibility, not helping it.
My take is that Ellison almost certainly was emotionally abusive, and in all likelihood probably did attempt to drag her off the bed in a fit of rage. Given the story from the woman in 2006 about him shoving her, it lends more credibility to that claim. So what I would gather from both of them is that Ellison can (and likely has) been brought to the point where he was willing to drag a woman off a bed or shove her. Which is not good and could certainly technically be considered simple assault. It also strikes me as the kind of thing that happens in alot of arguments between couples, and I DON'T see any evidence of actual beatings (namely, punching, kicking, slapping, etc). So people can make up their own minds about this one. I just don't know how much more in-depth I can get on this thing. This is what we have as far as the information, I can't find anymore.
She's told others before. Someone said they heard this 30 yrs ago, she also told her therapist in 2012.
He doesn't deserve to be seated on the Supreme Court. That's not Ford's fault it's HIS.
Even the third person in the room doesn't say it didn't happen. He says he doesn't remember it happening, but given that he wrote a book on being a "Gen X Alcoholic", it's possible, it did happen, but he was too boozed up to remember it.
As a society we set up our laws on the basis of the idea that we are innocent until proven guilty.
Democrat politicians want to base public life on trial by media blitz where you are guilty if they can gain power from your fall, and if you are on their side nobody will ever hear of it.
It is evil, and innocent people, sooner or later, are bound to be branded as the worst sort of human being because of it.
By selfishly politicizing the issue, you knowingly cast doubt on the sincerity of the charges by way of a combination of obvious ulterior motives and lack of conclusive evidence, lowering the chances that she will be believed. It doesn't help the victim, it hurts them, it uses them as a puppet, weakening her case in the process, for their own ends.
Meanwhile how many abusers that we could actually identify with certainty are protected by the very same people.
Increasing your political power is not a greater good where ends justify means and where peoples lives are to by toyed with.
Yes, we set up our laws based on presumption of innocence, but I don't think there is a single person here who thinks Kavanaugh is going to jail over this. This isn't a court of law. This is a about a Supreme Court nomination. In just the last two years, we have had a nominee rejected based on nothing more than the fact that he was nominated by a Democratic President. The idea that one shouldn't be rejected (or at least have his nomination called into question) over an attempted rape allegation is absurd.
There would be doubt cast on the charges whether it was political or not. Look at the Washington Post article I shared this afternoon. She was destroyed not because she accused a Supreme Court nominee, but because her alleged rapists were athletes in a small town. Law enforcement doesn't take accusations like this seriously, school administrators don't take them seriously, often PARENTS don't take them seriously. I wouldn't expect an accusation made on the national stage to reflect anything but a massive simulacrum of that line of thinking. Which it conveniently has, to the point of the accuser going into hiding with her teenage children because of (highly predictable) death threats.
So what are we supposed to do here, ignore it?? And yes, it's political. And I'll tell you why. Wikipedia's first sentence about politics is:
Politics is the process of making decisions that apply to members of a group. It refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance—organized control over a human community, particularly a state.
Now, the reason this particular thread is so contentious, and so wide-ranging in it's scope of issues being discussed (even if one man in recent years has been at the center of all of it) is because of this definition. Because nearly EVERYTHING is politics. People want to escape it, they say they hate it, but sooner or later you realize, it's everywhere, it's everything.
Kavanaugh may (or may not) have attempted to rape a woman. She (and he) deserve to be heard and for this process to be approached earnestly. It is entirely disqualifying if he did attempt to rape her. If he did not, then he deserves the chance to be placed on the supreme court.
The problem is - the Republicans are in a major hurry to seat him as soon as possible. Why? Because they know that if the Midterms put the Democrats in control of the senate, then they'll stonewall any nomination and keep the Supreme Court at 8 members. Of course - that is *only* because the GOP violated that sacred institutional norm themselves in 2016.
In all likelihood, we're going to end up with a supreme court nominee that has not been properly vetted due to the GOP's haste to avoid suffering the consequences of their own de-legitimization of institutional norms.
Either they'll both testify and her life will be utterly ruined (as much as it might have already been ruined), or she wont testify and he'll be placed onto the supreme court without an investigation into an alleged attempted rape.
The "correct" outcome here should be an indepth investigation that either corroborates or fails to corroborates her account. If it fails to offer any corroborating evidenced, then he should be seated. He should even be seated if the Democrats win the senate (Or, at worst - he should be pushed back and someone else is seated with fewer warts, but who is still conservative). Of course, neither of these things will happen. The GOP's already burned that institutional norm to the ground, and the Democrats would be foolish to ever assume the GOP wouldnt do it again. The GOP will never get to live down the theft of a SCOTUS seat.
Why does the male get to be forgiven and get on with his life, and the woman never does?
But everything you said about institutional norms is correct. They relied on people who had SOME sense of good faith to implement them. And they have, in rapid succession in all branches of the government, started to completely disintegrate. Our institutions and norms will not save us. Only we can save ourselves.
He's lied under oath numerous times about things like saying he didn't do things and then Booker released emails showing he was deeply involved. He probably had a part on leaking hacked democratic emails he received in 2003 containing documents stolen from Democratic senators and staff. A staffer wrote to him with the subject line “spying”. Trump has hidden his records from the Bush administration years when this happened.
And on top of that he's completely a corporate sellout* and wrong on all the issues so no if he is so good as to not attempt to rape someone that does not make him Supreme Court material.
* He voted against net neutrality and authored a dissenting opinion saying that net neutrality attacked ISPs free speech. In other words, your freedom to not use throttled internet was a hindrance to the poor ISPs.
* Brett Kavanaugh has spent his career protecting polluters, scammers, corporations, and gun sellers.
*Brett Kavanaugh has a looong record of routinely ruling against workers and their families and regularly siding with employers against employees seeking justice in the workplace
Bottom line: He doesn't belong on the Supreme Court regardless of if he is totally innocent of clearing the low bar of not attempting to rape someone. But based on his best friend's book and Kavanaugh saying things like "What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep". He has admitted binge drinking with his blackout alcoholic best friend.
On top of all that he's handpicked by a President who is an unindicted co-conspirator in at least two felonies. The same President who is actively interfering in an investigation into his campaign. So you have to wonder about the guy. Not raping is not "well ok let's put him on the supreme court then".
Why are Republicans so afraid and rushing him through? You've got to wonder, are they rushing him through to cover Trump's ass when Mueller tries to subpoena him and the case winds up at the Supreme Court?
Conservative legal groups will have cases lined up and ready to be filed the moment Kavanaugh gets on the bench. And of course, they will also likely affirm Trump's claim of total executive power and make him immune from the law. This has always been the goal, and no matter what any individual Republican Senator who is trying to sound reasonable like Jeff Flake or Susan Collins SAYS, they will not get on board to stop this. This IS the movement. This is the end-game. They stole a Supreme Court seat to get here. Don't let yourself be fooled into thinking any of them are actually considering torpedoing 30 years of conservative activism. They don't give a shit. None of them do. As I've said before, the Republican Party understands how to exercise raw power, and the Democrats, like Charlie Brown when Lucy holds out the football, keep acting like they are dealing with people operating in good faith. They aren't. They haven't been since at least the mid-90s. I've been watching the Republican Party devolve into what it is today for 18 years, and not a single thing that is happening surprises me anymore. There is nothing they won't defend or excuse. There is no bottom to the barrel, it's just an endless black pit that goes on forever. The Overton Window has already been moved so far to right that it's impossible to even see where it used to be situated. Please do not bet on moderate Republicans to miraculously come to your aid. You are chasing a unicorn.
He already said he didn't do it. If I was him and had a real choice of whether to talk to the FBI i would not talk. Investigators can learn things that you have forgotten or come to conclusions based on their findings that are contrary to what you believe is true. They can also lie to you and manipulate the picture of the events in your head, which may cause you to state something differently, which instantly makes you a "liar". He certainly knows that it's very important to stick firmly to what you've already said, and if you are given an opportunity to repeat it, NOT to repeat but say, "I've already answered that" (even if it's just one sentence such as "i didn't do it"). I can't hold this against anyone, including a supreme court nominee (including one that's really terrible...).
Edit: Good lord, now the working theory on right-wing Twitter is that a Kavanaugh doppelganger is the one who actually committed the rape, and the leader of the Ethics and Policy Center (and writer for the National Review) has gone so far as to accuse this person BY NAME of being the person who actually committed the assault. Not only does this by default assume that the incident took place, but they are actually flat-out willing to accuse someone who the accuser never mentioned of committing a crime to cover up for Kavanaugh. For the record, the man (and I will not subject his name to further smearing) does NOT look like Kavanaugh's identical twin. An account from an accuser is one thing. What this guy is doing is flat-out libel.
It started with Heart of Texas, a fake Facebook page created by Russian agents, calling on people to "Stop Islamization of Texas" by converging at an Islamic center in Houston, the Islamic Da’wah Center, on May 21, 2016. "Heart of Texas" further encouraged people to arrive at the scene carrying firearms, which they did. Houston police managed to keep them away from counterprotestors, some of whom were also acting on a Russian call to action. On top of that, Russian agents posing as another group, the United Muslims of America, asked even more people to rally at the center to “Save Islamic Knowledge.” If the Houston police hadn't separated the groups, there could have easily been a lethal shootout.
It's a direct example of Russian agents not just meddling in our democratic elections, but actively attempting to get American citizens killed.
My guess is that a comprehensive study of their work on social media would reveal 3 objectives in this regard: Keep up the rampant Islamaphobia and paranoia that is still a residual effect of 9/11, do everything they could to turn middle-American white voters against the Black Lives Matter movement, and turn Latin American immigration into an apocalyptic problem. None of these would be hard things to do in this country. The ground was already paved.
There has been alot of talk here the last few days about how it is basically unfair that Kavanaugh has to answer to this charge. I disagree, but I'd like to know what those people think about the fact that the GOP is now (through shadowy but well-connected surrogates) literally trying to pin an attempted rape on some random guy who has a vaguely similar haircut to Kavanaugh in a yearbook. For the record, Professor Ford has said she knows them both, and is NOT confused. But she is woman, so obviously she is very emotional, and her judgement cannot be trusted. I mean, we all know how that goes:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kavanaugh-ally-suggests-accuser-confused-him-with-classmate-doxes-classmate?ref=home
This kind of fantastical nonsense is no surprise to anyone who remembers the politics of the '90s, when the fever-swamp took over, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of everything from running a cocaine smuggling ring to having people killed and their bodies left on train tracks in Arkansas. Kavanaugh HIMSELF even reopened the case into the suicide of Vince Foster, because the prevailing theory on in right-wing media in those days was that Hillary Clinton had had him murdered.
What if "Kavanaugh's twin" is in on it and admits publicly that it was him who committed the act all those years ago and apologizes for the hurt and suffering he has caused Ford all these years. To top it off, the other guy that was involved in the attempted rape also claims that it was the twin there and not Kavanaugh. You now have 3 people saying it wasn't Kavanaugh and only one saying it was.
Then, with no crime being committed (no one was saying Kavanaugh would go to jail/face punishment for this), he goes back to obscurity with some little payout, Kavanaugh goes to the Supreme Court, Republicans can cancel the hearing where they don't have to find out the truth because someone already confessed to it - saving face, and Ford goes back to California and probably therapy cheated.
They already found all those girls to sign the letter vetting for Kavanaugh, who's to say they also didn't find this guy as plan B at the same time?
- Prof Ford will not testify if Judge Kavanaugh is in the room
- Judge Kavanaugh must testify first
- There can be no appearance before next Thursday
- Questions to be posed preferably by senators and not outside counsel
- Mark Judge, who is reported to have been a witness to the alleged assault, should be subpoenaed to appear
- Agrees to a public hearing but wants limits on the media coverage
I don't think her demands are aimed at preventing her from testifying.