Brett Kavanaugh Accused Of Sexual Assault/Attempted Rape

Filed in National by on September 14, 2018 45 Comments

Is “Attempted Rape” even a crime in Trumpistan? I mean boys will be boys, right? Plus…attempted.. pfft.

The allegation dates back to the early nineteen-eighties, when Kavanaugh was a high-school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school. In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her. She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her, and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result.

Just look at the guy. You know it happened.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (45)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. địa chỉ chung cư Dynamic Tower quận bình chánh | September 17, 2018
  2. commercial lift station cost | September 18, 2018
  1. puck says:

    Dems bringing guns to a gunfight – who’d ever have thunk it?

  2. Alby says:

    What would Jesus do? Stop at second base.

  3. Tom Kline says:

    So this is what desperation looks like… LOL

  4. gary myers says:

    As an aside, if this happened in the early 1980s, Kavanaugh’s mother was then an assistant State’s Attorney for Montgomery County at the time of the incident.

  5. Here’s one of my #MeToo’s: I was maybe 14 (1971) when I snuck out one night with neighborhood girlfriends my age to an older girl’s house party up the street. The high school teens had older guys there and alcohol. For whatever reason I joined my two friends with some of the older guys as we drove to a strange apartment where I ended up in a bedroom with one of them. I was flattered by the attention but didn’t want to do more than neck a little. The guy had a problem with that and punched my face in. My glasses survived. My eye was blackened. We were driven back home after my friends came running in to see what the screaming was about. I was grateful that my mom didn’t notice anything for a week, then just looked at me without comment when I said I bumped into a door knob.

    Shit happens like that.

    I didn’t tell my parents ANYTHING I did. They didn’t ask much either.

  6. Phil says:

    Quick question, without taking away from the seriousness of the allegation, what about the whole innocent until proven guilty? I mean, isn’t our entire judicial system based on that entire assumption? Until there is any evidence it is just an unsubstantiated allegation.

    Are these situations exempt? This is a serious question because anyone could make any allegation.

  7. RE Vanella says:

    Kavanaugh isn’t on trial. The nomination process and the Senate Hearing aren’t a trial.

    So yes this situation is exempt as are all situations when the state isn’t trying to incarcerate or find you guilty of anything.

    I can stop being friends with someone or not hire someone based on any allegation I find credible or even just material. My call not the constitution’s.

    See it now.

  8. RE Vanella says:

    Also, over the weekend much more was made public about this. It’s substantiated as far as I’m concerned.

    The accuser discussed with friends and also discussed with a therapist in 2012. Therapist’s contemporaneous notes match up with the story as well.

    Kavanaugh’s buddy Mr Judge (the other guy in the room during the assault) wrote a memoir many years ago about how him and his crew at the elitist prep school were black-out drunks and partiers and carousers…

    Whether that makes any difference, I haven’t the slightest idea.

    • Phil says:

      So even if an accusation is unknowable to be true or false, that’s enough? I say this because the only collaboration is from herself, not another party. I’m just trying to gain a litmus on this.

      This has no bearing on the present, but does this change your mind on Clinton and Paula Jones, etc? That is, If the allegations came out with a similar mindset as today. Again, not putting out a straw man, just trying to guage how situations should be treated going forward.

      • RE Vanella says:

        She told a friend and a therapist over 5 years ago. And the therapist has contemporaneous notes that corroborate.

        This isn’t a criminal justice issue. This isn’t a court of law. This is a political process.

        I think Bill Clinton’s is probably a rapist.

      • Alby says:

        “does this change your mind on Clinton and Paula Jones, etc? ”

        “not putting out a straw man, just trying to guage how situations should be treated going forward.”

        These two statements are contradictory. The first assumes that whomever you are addressing thought Jones’ experience did not disqualify Clinton from continuing in the office, something you don’t know but are assuming anyway. Given this, I think it likely that you are a conservative and are asking a leading question.

        The second claims to be asking about this “to guage (sic) how situations should be treated going forward.” Given the somewhat obvious motive of the first question, I do not believe your motivation for posing the second but I’ll answer it anyway.

        First, though, I realize that most online discourse, particularly of conservatives visiting liberal sites, is a game of “gotcha!”, the pretense being that greater logical consistency lets you “win” the argument. It’s a dumb game, because it has nothing to do with actual politics, which does not operate by those rules. Only debating societies do, and this site isn’t one.

        The real issue here is raw power. The Republicans are trying to use their significant power to ram through an ideologue and partisan hit man as part of their 40-year court-packing scheme. Nobody denies this about Kavanaugh, Republicans just use more flattering terms to describe those qualities.

        The Democrats are trying to use what little power they have to stop the GOP, or at least stall the hearings until after the midterms. A significant part of their small amount of power lies in stirring up the public, a tactic that should be familiar from its constant use by the GOP when it’s out of power.

        As to your question, situations going forward should be treated according to their individual merits and demerits, just like always. As you indicate, prevailing attitudes play a part, but so do circumstances.

        In Kavanaugh’s case, these events took place when he was a teen-ager. So the debate should center on whether a middle-aged man should be held accountable now for something he did as a teen-ager that was ignored until today. This debate is worth having whether Kavanaugh actually assaulted the girl or not.

        • Phil says:

          Sure those two statements can go together. Not once did I use those statements as a gotcha or you’re being hypocritical.

          Not once did I try to “win” an argument. Was trying to understand the mindset behind these views. And also how these views have changed with time as society has changed.

          It wasn’t a debate as much as honest questions. You finished your thought with the same sentiment I have. Should decades old allegations, missteps, comments, or any other damaging event be not necessarily ignored, but understood that people change, grow, or in some instances become completely different people over time. And how should we handle that now that a lot of events can be digitally saved and recalled with perfect clarity.

          My while point is that they are no longer, at least right now, not being handled by their merits or demerits. Just look at the guardians of the galaxy, or things athletes said when they were dumb teenagers sometimes a decade or more ago.

          You also jump to conclusions and make assumptions. I’m conservative because I don’t follow your expect worldview or ask legitimate questions? I’m a left leaning centrist, an independent, the position that is growing out of discontent of both parties. I believe very strongly on unions and labor rights, freedom of abortion rights, and civil union rights (I feel government should get out of the marriage business entirely). But i also strongly believe in the 2nd amendment, personal freedom and responsibility.

          I never party line vote, but take each candidate on their merits. Your inability to see the merits of the other side(same goes for right) is what fuels the divide we have right now.

          • Alby says:

            “You also jump to conclusions and make assumptions.”

            And clearly spelled out why. I didn’t just bake them in unexamined.

            “I’m conservative because I don’t follow your expect worldview or ask legitimate questions?”

            No, I concluded that because you phrased those questions in a way conservatives have tended to in my thousands of interactions with them. I never said they weren’t legitimate. I said the way you phrased them indicated to me where they came from.

            “My whole point is that they are no longer, at least right now, not being handled by their merits or demerits. Just look at the guardians of the galaxy, or things athletes said when they were dumb teenagers sometimes a decade or more ago.”

            In what sense are these things not being handled on their merits or demerits? In the first case, a corporation panicked, but any private entity can do what it chooses. In cases like the Moonves case, some corporations stonewall and get a PR burn. Others act too rashly, and get a PR burn. This is entirely predictable in an atmosphere where old crimes are being unearthed.

            In the second case, athletes were called to account for ugly things they said as teens. Where’s the problem? They didn’t lose their jobs or income, but they were forced to explain themselves and apologize. Do you think that’s a bad thing? If so, why?

            “But i also strongly believe in the 2nd amendment, personal freedom and responsibility.”

            Then your self-assessment of being “center-left” is off by many degrees. You sound much more like a libertarian, and that’s not left of the center.

            • Jason330 says:

              “Should decades old allegations, missteps, comments, or any other damaging event be not necessarily ignored, but understood that people change, grow, or in some instances become completely different people over time.”

              Did Brett Kavanaugh change or grow after the attempted rape? Based on his denials, I think we can all agree that he has not.

              • RE Vanella says:

                It’s funny that anyone even makes this argument. It only works if he admitted he did it. Apologized and said he was very young, not fully developed emotionally and socially, had a schoolboy drinking problem, etc., etc…

                But he says he didn’t do it. Full Denial! So all this “change, grow” stuff is 100% irrelevant. See the difference?

          • Alby says:

            Also: “Was trying to understand the mindset behind these views. And also how these views have changed with time as society has changed.”

            I call bullshit. There are thousands of articles (and comments sections) you could read to determine this. You clearly wanted a debate here.

            And what exactly are the “merits of the other side” that are germane in this discussion? Further evidence that you seek confrontation, not understanding.

            You also assume I’m against “the divide we have right now,” when I actually welcome it. It’s time to separate the sheep from the goats.

  9. El Somnambulo says:

    The national Rethug Party has been a wholly-owned criminal conspiracy for some time now. So, it probably won’t make any difference.

    Unless…D’s on the fence decide that this is a bridge too far, I’m looking at YOU, Heitkamp and Manchin…AND there is at least an R or two with a conscience. Collins, Murkowski, Flake or Sasse. Graham has always been a phony, so he’s not a possibility.

  10. RE Vanella says:

    The fact that the process of trying/convicting someone of sexaul assault and deciding whether ir not to confirm said person as an associate justice of the Supreme Court are entirely different exercises seems to be lost on a lot of folks.

    Everyone wants some clear blanket checklist. Doesn’t exist. Will never. Somehow we’ll soldier on through the complexity.

  11. Alby says:

    Also, too, if the woman is lying, which I doubt, and it kept Kavanaugh off the court, it would be ironic, because his own lying is the only reason he’s still being considered for the post.

  12. Alby says:

    To me, the non-political issue is rather interesting. We often seek to ameliorate punishment for youthful offenders on the scientific ground that the brain is not fully formed until the mid-20s. Does the same standard apply to Kavanaugh and other cases like his — Brock Turner, for example?

  13. RE Vanella says:

    No, because not allowing the nominee approval as a n associate justice to the Supreme Court isn’t punishment.

  14. Phil says:

    @alby (the replies are getting really skinny on my phone).

    Eh, sure I believe in some libertarian things, but not all. Example, I believe that all utilities, especially natural monopolies should be held in public trust. Not necessarily nationalized, but co-op at least. Taxes need to be paid, just not necessarily incone taxes. I feel a property tax would be a fair way to tax for opportunity.

    We can go back and forth on assumptions and whatnot. One of the downfalls of a medium such as this.

    I only think it’s bad when people call for blood even after genuine apologies or explanations. I feel that we are headed in that direction.

    • Alby says:

      Oh, I’ve got nothing against you. Not being familiar with you as a commenter, I thought the comment bore the hallmarks of a right-wing hit-and-run job.

      Discussion with someone who disagrees but is willing to engage is always welcome. So, welcome.

  15. RE Vanella says:

    Not calling for blood. Calling for Kavanaugh nomination to be scuttled.

    I’ll decide how to respond to the genuine apology and explanation when Kavanaugh offers those. I will not hold my breath.

    Little advice, if you have any libertarian proclivities at all it’s probably best not to mention them. Because every one I’ve ever come across is immature and ridiculous.

    Like your ideas regarding the commons though.

    • Phil says:

      My libertarian bent is basically just the freedom to live as long as it doesn’t impact someone’s right to do the same. Gay marriage and the like fall into that. I think a lot of libertarians actually fall into anarchists without realizing it.

      • Alby says:

        I agree with many libertarian positions on issues, and on the same basis. The right to die, for example, should be absolute. Vices should be regulated if necessary, not criminalized. And so forth.

        I strongly disagree that corporate entities should be allowed to be treated as artificial humans, or that they should be allowed to overrule sovereign governments.

        I support public/governmental ownership of systems that provide for the common good, just as we do with roads: utilities (most importantly water, but also energy so we can accelerate carbon neutrality), health insurance (single payer on the Medicare model, the government contracting with insurance companies), etc.

        I am firmly of the belief that high-achieving people will aim for the stars even if they can only get rich enough to own one $50 million yacht instead of 10 of them, and that an economy grows faster if you pump in money at the bottom instead of at the top, because the whole capitalistic system works to pump money from the bottom to the top. You don’t want the pump to run dry for lack of water.

        I don’t know of any political philosophy that comfortably encompasses all my beliefs, so I don’t ascribe to one. I only know bullshit when I see it, smell it or step in it, and modern conservatism is covered in it, and the biggest line of bullshit in both libertarianism and free-market conservatism is the Panglossian insistence that if we leave things alone everything works out for the best.

        • Anon says:

          You don’t believe it because life never worked out for you, like most others on this blog and in the party. Instead of looking inward, you blame others for your shortcomings. Envy is a hell of a thing.

          • RE Vanella says:

            HAHAHA! Could you please check your extensive research and describe one of my shortcomings? I think everyone would like a good story. Pick a really illustrative one…

            Also, who do we envy and why? This thesis is so rich. We want to know. Go ahead…

          • RE Vanella says:

            I guess you’re still looking for a good example. Make sure to juxtapose it against one of you great accomplishments so the root of the envy is very clear to everyone.

            I wouldn’t want you to embarrass yourself.

          • Alby says:

            Life has worked out very well for me. Just because we unbanned a lot of people doesn’t mean we won’t ban them again if they engage in nothing beyond personal insults.

            Grow up or go away.

          • RE Vanella says:

            I guess we’re not going to get the example of an accomplishment were all envious of…

            Who would have thought an anonymous troll would have been talking out of his arse hole. Shocking.

  16. RE Vanella says:

    Libertarians want the right to live in a civilized, advanced society without any of the responsibilities of doing so.

    This is masked in the idea that as long as it doesn’t “impact” anyone’s else’s “right”.

    If you think about what this means in practice it’s immoral nonsense.

    Sorry, dude. You seem nice. Just gotta keep it real.

    • Phil says:

      No, I agree which is why I said a lot of libertarians fall into anarchists. You can believe in that idea but understand you need rules. It’s not immoral with that caveat. It’s basically the “golden rule”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *